Pastoral Maya and the Maya Project: Building Maya Civil Society in the U.S.

2012 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Lopez ◽  
Alan LeBaron

Guatemalan Maya living in the United States as refugees, migrants, or immigrants without official documents do not entirely escape the troubles they previously faced in Guatemala, such as political and social disadvantages, language barriers, and maintaining identity; moreover additional problems result from the complexities of coping with the US immigration system and the likelihood of incarceration and deportation. This situation becomes more ambiguous with the mixed reception they receive from the United States, where some segments of law and society constantly strive to make survival improbable, and other segments such as churches, employers, and human rights organizations strive to protect. Among the multitude of organizations created within this contentious field of "pro" and "anti" is Pastoral Maya, best described as a "self-help" organization for Maya immigrants; and the Maya Heritage Community Project (the Maya Project) at Kennesaw State University. These two organizations have distinct but overlapping goals and methods designed to defend Maya fundamental human rights to life, security, and well-being. Of course, achieving such lofty goals has been problematic, and with anti-immigration laws and high unemployment of recent years many people have had hopes for the future dashed. But positive signs for the Maya exist, for an increasingly sophisticated Maya leadership has emerged with experience and with the security of having obtained documents of residence. These leaders hope to take advantage of their relatively safe space in the United States to promote a force for change that will lift up the Maya in the United States and in Guatemala. The Pastoral Maya organization has developed a particularly strong leadership that strives for these goals.

2021 ◽  
pp. e1-e7
Author(s):  
Alison Ly ◽  
Aleta Sprague ◽  
Brianna Pierce ◽  
Corina Post ◽  
Jody Heymann

Under international law, the United States is obligated to uphold noncitizens’ fundamental rights, including their rights to health. However, current US immigration laws—and their enforcement—not only fail to fulfill migrants’ health rights but actively undermine their realization and worsen the pandemic’s spread. Specifically, the US immigration system’s reliance on detention, which precludes effective social distancing, increases risks of exposure and infection for detainees, staff, and their broader communities. International agreements clearly state that the prolonged, mandatory, or automatic detention of people solely because of their migration status is a human rights violation on its own. But in the context of COVID-19, the consequences for migrants’ right to health are particularly acute. Effective alternatives exist: other countries demonstrate the feasibility of adopting and implementing immigration laws that establish far less restrictive, social services–based approaches to enforcement that respect human rights. To protect public health and realize its global commitments, the United States must shift away from detaining migrants as standard practice and adopt effective, humane alternatives—both amid COVID-19 and permanently. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print April 15, 2021: e1–e7. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306253 )


2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 130-134

This section, updated regularly on the blog Palestine Square, covers popular conversations related to the Palestinians and the Arab-Israeli conflict during the quarter 16 November 2017 to 15 February 2018: #JerusalemIstheCapitalofPalestine went viral after U.S. president Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announced his intention to move the U.S. embassy there from Tel Aviv. The arrest of Palestinian teenager Ahed Tamimi for slapping an Israeli soldier also prompted a viral campaign under the hashtag #FreeAhed. A smaller campaign protested the exclusion of Palestinian human rights from the agenda of the annual Creating Change conference organized by the US-based National LGBTQ Task Force in Washington. And, UNRWA publicized its emergency funding appeal, following the decision of the United States to slash funding to the organization, with the hashtag #DignityIsPriceless.


Author(s):  
Christoph Bezemek

This chapter assesses public insult, looking at the closely related question of ‘fighting words’ and the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. While Chaplinsky’s ‘fighting words’ exception has withered in the United States, it had found a home in Europe where insult laws are widely accepted both by the European Court of Human Rights and in domestic jurisdictions. However, the approach of the European Court is structurally different, turning not on a narrowly defined categorical exception but upon case-by-case proportionality analysis of a kind that the US Supreme Court would eschew. Considering the question of insult to public officials, the chapter focuses again on structural differences in doctrine. Expanding the focus to include the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR), it shows that each proceeds on a rather different conception of ‘public figure’.


2012 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Lykes ◽  
Erin McDonald ◽  
Cesar Boc

As the number of immigrants in the United States has increased dramatically in recent decades, so has the number of human rights violations against immigrants in the form of arrests without warrants, detention and deportation of parents without consideration of the well-being of their children, and incarceration without bail or the right to a public attorney. The Post-Deportation Human Rights Project (PDHRP) at Boston College was developed to investigate and respond to the legal and psychological effects of deportation policies on migrants living in or deported from the United States. This unique multidisciplinary project involves lawyers, social science faculty, and graduate students—all of whom are bilingual, one of whom is trilingual, and many of whom are bicultural—working together in partnership with local immigrant organizations to address the psychosocial impact of deportation on Latino and Maya families and communities. Our work includes psycho-educational and rights education workshops with immigrant parents and their children in southern New England as well as a cross-national project based in the U.S. and Guatemala supporting transnational families through participatory research, educational workshops, and legal resources.


2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 417-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoya Gubernskaya ◽  
Joanna Dreby

As the Trump administration contemplates immigration reform, it is important to better understand what works and what does not in the current system. This paper reviews and critically evaluates the principle of family unity, a hallmark of US immigration policy over the past 50 years and the most important mechanism for immigration to the United States. Since 1965, the United States has been admitting a relatively high proportion of family-based migrants and allowing for the immigration of a broader range of family members. However, restrictive annual quotas have resulted in a long line of prospective immigrants waiting outside of the United States or within the United States, but without status. Further policy changes have led to an increasing number of undocumented migrants and mixed-status families in the United States. Several policies and practices contribute to prolonged periods of family separation by restricting travel and effectively locking in a large number of people either inside or outside of the United States. On top of that, increasingly aggressive enforcement practices undermine family unity of a large number of undocumented and mixed-status families. Deportations — and even a fear of deportation —cause severe psychological distress and often leave US-born children of undocumented parents without economic and social support. A recent comprehensive report concluded that immigration has overall positive impact on the US economy, suggesting that a predominantly family-based migration system carries net economic benefits. Immigrants rely on family networks for employment, housing, transportation, informal financial services, schooling, childcare, and old age care. In the US context where there is nearly no federal support for immigrants' integration and limited welfare policies, family unity is critical for promoting immigrant integration, social and economic well-being, and intergenerational mobility. Given the benefits of family unity in the US immigrant context and the significant negative consequences of family separation, the United States would do well to make a number of changes to current policy and practice that reaffirm its commitment to family unity. Reducing wait times for family reunification with spouses and children of lawful permanent residents, allowing prospective family-based migrants to visit their relatives in the United States while their applications are being processed, and providing relief from deportation and a path to legalization to parents and spouses of US citizens should be prioritized. The cost to implement these measures would likely be minor compared to current and projected spending on immigration enforcement and it would be more than offset by the improved health and well-being of American families.


Author(s):  
Olena Skrypnyk

In this article to analyzes the policy of the European Union’s «Eastern Partnership». Determined US relation to the initiative of the EU. Characterized four summits the EU «Eastern Partnership» and followed the US response to these summits. The attention to Ukraine’s participation in the summit of the EU and the US position on this issue. Determined that the United States strongly supports the EU initiative «Eastern Partnership», especially in order to spread in the countries of the «Eastern Partnership» democracy, ensure human rights and freedoms, and to improve the socio-economic situation of these countries.


Significance The US-led diplomatic boycott of the Winter Olympics in February will increase the pressure on US companies to decide whether China or the United States is their more valuable market. Some of that pressure to decide is coming from employees and customers in both countries. Impacts More frequent and sharper confrontations between US companies and China could accelerate the decoupling of the two economies. Renewed emphasis on human rights concerns will encourage the further shifting of some supply chain elements out of China. Consumer brands are particularly vulnerable to human rights concerns, as are their suppliers.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Richard P. Hiskes

The world does not really believe that human rights pertain to children. This is so in spite of the fact that the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has been ratified by all nations worldwide except for one, the United States. This book explores the reasons behind the US refusal in ...


Author(s):  
John W. Young ◽  
John Kent

This chapter focuses on the Iraq war of 2003–11 and the troubles in the Middle East. George W. Bush’s advisers, led by Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, had been considering an attack on Iraq well before 9/11. At the same time, many experts within the government pointed to the lack of any evidence for Iraqi-sponsored terrorism directed against the United States. The threats to US national security were outlined to Bush in a briefing just prior to his inauguration; these threats came primarily from al-Qaeda’s terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The chapter first considers the US decision to invade Iraq, before discussing the war, taking into account the US’s Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war’s costs to the US and to Iraq. It also examines the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and concludes with an assessment of the ‘Arab Spring’.


2013 ◽  
Vol 103 (3) ◽  
pp. 591-597 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angus Deaton ◽  
Arthur A Stone

We consider two happiness puzzles. First, many studies show that only relative income matters for well-being. Yet the Gallup data for the United States and from the rest of the world show no such result, at least for life evaluation. There may be relative income effects in hedonic well-being though other interpretations are available. Second, more religious people typically report higher experiential well-being but more religious places have worse well-being on average, both across US states and across countries. More religious states and counties in the US also have worse murder rates, deaths from cardiovascular disease and from cancer.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document