The power of collective action: people stand up, Trump caves in

Your moment
In just a few days people from all over the world and all walks of life came together against President Trump's inhumane policy separating families at the US border. We succeeded, separation is no more; but there is still a long way to go.

The past week has been eye-opening for the public, especially residents of the United States, in terms of understanding the complex effects of immigration on children and families. The media has been saturated with stories and images of children and families forced to separate at the US border because of the government’s cold-blooded migration policies. In just six weeks, over 2000 children and babies have been separated from their families. In many cases, parents and children have gone weeks without speaking to or seeing each other.

The public's reaction to children being separated from their families grew exponentially almost over the span of a few hours. Thousands of people from all over the world, including President Trump's fellow Republicans, strongly condemned the government's actions. And on Wednesday, June 20th, President Trump caved to public pressure and signed an executive order to end the practice of separating families at the border. 

The US Government announced the “zero-tolerance” policy in May, aiming to significantly decrease the flow of immigrants from Central American countries. In short, the policy coming into effect means that everyone who enters the United States illegally will be prosecuted. Previously, people caught entering the country illegally were deported but didn't face criminal charges, and they definitely weren’t separated from their children.

With the "zero tolerance" policy pre-executive order, children and parents who were arrested entering the country illegally became separate legal cases that go down different bureaucratic rabbit holes. Legal experts claimed that reuniting families could take months and in some cases, where the parent has been deported without their child, it could become nearly impossible.

In their effort to discourage people from immigrating to the country and to keep them away from the borders, the US Government outright tried to use children as collateral. After visiting a Texas shelter for migrant children under 12, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics Dr Coleen Kraft argued that the treatment of these children is “government sanctioned child abuse.”

However, the world refused to turn a blind eye to this violation of children's and human rights. The public outcry caused enormous political pressure and the White House caved.

This is an important win for the families, yet, it's only the tip of the iceberg. The executive order, first of all, does nothing to reunite the 2300 children who are already separated from their families. These children are left by themselves, waiting, in the unpredictable system. Secondly, the order doesn't change anything about the harsh conditions of the "zero-tolerance" policy. People, children, are still prosecuted upon entering the US; they are still put in cages, only this time with their families.

If anything, the incredibly fast pace of this whole situation is a testimony to the power of individual and collective action against injustice. Every person who tweeted, who called their senators, who donated to charities working for immigrants has a role in President Trump signing the executive order. Yet, we still have a lot more to do. If you want to know what you can do, here are four organizations that are working hard to protect children and immigrants' rights:

  • KIND, Kids In Need of Defense, provides legal aid to unaccompanied children in North and Central America
  • ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union, has been fighting for individual rights and liberties — including immigrants’ rights — in the US for almost 100 years
  • Women’s Refugee Commission protects the rights of displaced women, children and youth
  • The Young Center specifically works with immigrant children, ensuring they are supported and safe

© Header image: Associated Press/Evan Vucci

More Stories

  • Opiophobia is leading millions to die in pain - Uganda has a clever solution


    In the United States, opioid addiction is an epidemic. We are all to familiar with stories of an over-prescription of pain killers leading to addiction but our fear of opioids is also causing millions to suffer in pain.

    Michael Plant, a PhD candidate at the University of Oxford, addresses the under-prescription of opioids in middle- and low-income countries:

    “Pain is not really a problem we encounter in our own societies and that's because if you are dying from something horrendous then you can get morphine to alleviate your pain. This is true in the developed world but not really in the developing world.”

    The World Health Organisation estimates that 40 million people are in need of palliative care every year and of those who need it, only 14 percent receive the care.

    Access to essential pain relief is distorted. A Lancet 2017 study reported that the United States has access to 31 times as much pain relief needed by patients while Haiti receives less than one percent of what is needed. According to the study, 25 million people die in pain every year without access to pain relief.

    More shocking is that the issue here isn’t money. It’s policy. Restrictive regulations fueled by a fear of unintended opioid use and lack of awareness are building barriers for people who desperately need pain relief to receive it. Countries have a tough balancing act of insuring necessary access to pain relief while avoiding an abuse crisis.

    Uganda answers this balancing act by distributing bottles of morphine diluted in water to help prevent addiction. A person would have to drink gallons to get high. As reported in the New York Times, these bottles are given to those in need by a private charity, Treat the Pain and the government absorbs the cost so it is free for patients.

    This isn’t a new solution, Treat the Pain partnered with Hospice Africa, started distributing oral morphine solutions in 2011. Uganda has ranked 35th out of 80 countries and second in Africa in the 2015 Quality of Death Index from the Economist Intelligence Unit. So why aren’t other countries following suit? Uganda is inspiring laws and policies for several countries but the low-cost solution is not popular largely because of lack of awareness and infrastructure and frustratingly because of the fear of the word 'opioid'.

    Read more
  • Fashion’s obsession with python leather can be cured in a lab


    One of the most desired leathers at the moment is python. Pythons have extremely durable skins adapted through evolution for survival. Why we humans need python skin is, well, a luxury thing, a status indicator, not a necessity. Nevertheless, the demand for python skin accessories like handbags and shoes is on the rise. Import prices have grown from 350,000 skins valued at €100 million in 2005 to $1 billion today.

    Increasing demand for python leather has taken a toll on this species; about half a million pythons get skinned every year. In Southeast Asian countries, pythons suffer from being kept in captivity and experiencing very short lives.

    Those working in the tanning industry, a process in which skins and hides of animals are treated to produce leather, are exposed to dangerous working conditions and chemicals. Leather tanners have higher rates of cancer, gastrointestinal diseases, and other life-threatening health issues due to long-term exposure to tanning chemicals.

    In Southeast Asian countries where tanning takes place, the technology to recycle waste from tanning is very poor. As a result, nearby waterways are polluted with chemicals and acids, affecting communities at large.

    Even though the python industry is booming, it is not very profitable for people working in the lower end of the supply chains. While a villager in Indonesia sells one python skin for $30, a fashion boutique will be selling the python-skin product for a much higher price. For example, Fendi’s Multicolored Python Patchwork Collarless Jacket was priced at $11,500. 

    Kering, the company behind major luxury brands like Gucci, Alexander McQueen, and Yves Saint Laurent, has built its own python farm as a result of the incredible demand for their skins.

    The chief sustainability officer for Kering, Marie-Claire Daveu, said: “This is a long-term commitment to developing sustainable and responsible sourcing of Kering’s python skins.” While pythons in the Kering farm may have a better quality of life than those kept in captivity in Southeast Asia, in this day and age there is an even more “sustainable” and “responsible” way to source leather skins — growing them in a lab!

    One initiative successfully growing leather from cells is called Modern Meadow. They use living cells to grow leather materials via a process entirely free of animal slaughter. Their technology grows collagen, a protein found in animal skin from which bioleather material can be created. The most intriguing part of the technology is that virtually any skin could be grown, even of exotic extinct animals. While this may seem futuristic, it’s already a reality.

    Paul Shapiro in his book Clean Meat argues that popularity in lab-grown leather can make lab-grown meat more palatable, solving two incredibly environmentally-exhausting issues; demand for meat and leather, at once. 

    For some people the ick-factor of lab-grown meat is hard to overcome. Lab-grown leather, on the other hand, is not instinctively gross. Who actually loves leather because they feel they are wearing or carrying real animal skin? People like it for quality and the feel of it and if it can be made exactly the same minus animal cruelty, why not make the switch? 

    Read more
  • Why soybean producers don’t want consumers to eat... soy


    With a harvest of 116.48 million tons estimated for 2018 alone, the United States is the world’s second largest producer of soybeans. That’s a lot of tofu burgers and cordon bleus.

    However, a staggering amount of this copious production doesn’t go to the soy product industry like one would expect. In fact, America’s biggest buyer of soybeans is the livestock industry, buying the beans for animal feed. That’s where the majority of soy ends up.

    Worldwide, around 70 percent of the world’s soy is fed directly to livestock while just a paltry six percent of “shu” (the ancient Chinese name for soybeans) is turned into human food. The rest becomes mainly soybean oil.

    This leads to a paradoxical situation since for soybean producers it is much more lucrative to sell their crop to the animal farming industry than to producers of soy-based food for human consumption. As The Humane Society’s Paul Shapiro writes in his 2018 book Clean Meat, “Ironically, the last thing soy producers want is for Americans to shift from meat to soy products like tofu and edamame, since the latter requires so much less soy.”

    Shapiro also mentions a 2013 report commissioned by the United Soybean Board that noted: “actions to maintain and expand animal agriculture in the United States — by supporting its long-term competitiveness — are of critical importance to the soybean sector.”

    As reported by the National Geographic, for every 100 calories of grain we feed animals, we get only about 40 new calories of milk, 22 calories of eggs, 12 of chicken, 10 of pork, or 3 of beef. The inefficiency of this system is evident and the data makes clear why soybean producers are big supporters of the meat industry and don’t want consumers to eat soy.

    With an estimated collection of 117 million tons for its crop year, Brazil is the new global leader in soybean production and export. Significantly, deforestation related to soy production has been responsible for around 29 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions between 1990 and 2010.

    It’s then clear that, if we want to stop deforestation in the area, we –— as consumers — need to change our diets. But that doesn’t mean that we need to give up our beloved (?) tofu sausages. Quite the opposite, we need to slow down our consumption of their animal counterparts.

    If you want to know more about how we can reduce the global consumption of animals by 50 percent by the year 2040, check out (and maybe donate to) Proveg, a leading international organization that is active in the field of food awareness. 

    Read more