Red Giants as Probes of the Structure and Evolution of the Milky Way

Executive summary In 2022, the European Commission (EC) issued a proposal for the revision of the 2011 Anti-Trafficking Directive. At the heart of the revision is a desire to strengthen “end-demand” solutions to trafficking, which are gaining increased traction at the EU level. Notions of demand fuel specific constructions of culpability, which in turn are bolstered by and feed on representations of vulnerability/victimhood. This paper draws on the anti-policy framework to make sense of these developments in the EU human trafficking and smuggling policy fields. Relying on a qualitative methodology combining a deductive/inductive approach, it develops a comparative analysis of dominant constructions of culprits and (potential) victims linked to demand and vulnerability, present in trafficking and smuggling, two fields which are strongly interlinked in EU policy. The article demonstrates that whether accentuated as in trafficking, or minimized like in smuggling, in both policy fields, prevailing representations of culpability and vulnerability/victimhood provide the fodder for policy solutions rooted in “anti” logics. This leads to policy outcomes centered on stronger criminal justice systems, law enforcement and judicial cooperation, at the expense of more protection and rights-focused options. Whilst we are by no means contending that “vulnerability” or “demand” should be altogether dismissed as analytical concepts, we are exhorting policy-makers to engage in critical reflection on their use, which at present are employed erratically and inconsistently. Based on the findings, the paper develops concrete policy recommendations.

Executive Summary This paper examines the right to peace and the right to stay in the context of Colombia. Colombia’s status as a nation that experienced extraordinary levels of violence, human rights violations, internal and external displacement, and conflict between state, guerilla, paramilitary, and cartels over at least five decades, makes it a critical site for understanding and responding to migration and forced displacement. The article describes the 2016 peace agreement and outlines the work of its Truth Commission in moving toward an adoption of the right to peace and the connection between these rights and the right to remain in one’s home country. The Truth Commission was devoted to: • Examining, explaining, and identifying collective responsibilities for the armed conflict, atrocities, and marginalization; • Offering redress to millions of victims; • Restoring human rights, promoting peaceful coexistence, and contributing to the non-recurrence of the armed conflict. The paper highlights the strategies and core findings of Colombia’s Truth Commission at a time when Colombia does not constitute a success story, but is in the process of trying to build an inclusive, rights-respecting, peaceful, and cohesive society, which is the fundamental work of the “right to stay” and not to have to emigrate. The article also documents the transition of Colombia from a relatively modest migrant host country through much of its history, to a country which since 2016 has become home to three million immigrants, most of them from Venezuela. It explores the paradox of Colombia’s embrace of immigration from Venezuela while the administration slowed implementation of the 2016 Peace Agreement. This agreement itself has strong connections to migrants and persons in exile, as is clear from the work of the Colombian Truth Commission (CTC). The paper argues for addressing the root causes of armed conflict and embracing the CTC’s finding that the right to stay is linked to the right to peace.

Executive Summary This study foregrounds fear as a group emotion shared by members of the Ecuadorian immigrant community in Queens, New York. The study is based on 30 in-depth interviews collected through ethnographic fieldwork in an Ecuadorian enclave in 2022–2023. It illuminates how fear, as a group emotion, instilled by “illegality,” is experienced by first-generation, 1.5-generation, and second-generation immigrants. Group fear experienced by members of the mixed-status immigrant community stems from collective and cumulative fear. This study defines collective fear as an emotion prevailing in mixed-status immigrant communities because of vulnerability from their undocumented status and marginalization passed on to members through socialization. Collective fear affects group dynamics and intergroup interactions, with debilitating effects on its members; however, it has positive functions, cementing social bonds between immigrants and solidifying the community. Another aspect of group fear is cumulative fear, defined in this study as the totality of fears experienced by first-generation, 1.5-generation, and second-generation Ecuadorian immigrants. First-generation immigrants express fear of border crossing, fear of detention and deportation, and fear of uncertainty during the legalization process. Meanwhile, 1.5-generation immigrants convey retrospective fear of crossing the border, fear of detention and deportation, fear of uncertainty during the legalization process, fear of liminal status restrictions, and fear of termination of the temporary protective status granted to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients. Second-generation immigrants, as jus-soli citizens of the United States, report fear of family separation and sympathy toward undocumented community members. Collective fear disseminated through numerous in-group (among community members) and inter-group interactions (community members and interior immigration enforcement) and learned through socialization provides empirical evidence of the “top–down” influence of group members’ experiences on emotions. Conversely, cumulative fear is based on individuals’ immigrant experiences cohering through the “bottom–up” influence of shared emotion on group formation. The only way to eradicate this group fear is to adjust one’s undocumented status, leading former undocumented immigrants to feel guilty about their acquired freedom, as their family members may still live in the shadow of “illegality.” This study demonstrates that U.S. President Joe Biden’s executive order aimed at keeping American families together cannot eliminate the overall paralyzing fear in immigrant communities. Given that the policy will affect an insignificant number of people, drastic measures are needed. The following policy recommendations are offered: • Allow non-citizen spouses and children to adjust their unresolved immigrant status unconditionally (removing the requirement of residence in the U.S. for 10 years or more). • Grant all recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program legal permanent resident status as a pathway to U.S. citizenship. • Allow all liminally legal 1.5-generation immigrants to pursue education and careers through legalization. • Forbid deportation of U.S. citizens’ parents, forgive most undocumented immigrants’ unauthorized entry into the country, and allow them to adjust their status.

Executive Summary Pope Francis dedicated his Message for the 109th World Day of Migrants and Refugees to the freedom that should characterize one’s choice whether to migrate or remain. With his message, developed by constantly listening to the local Churches, the Holy Father wanted to promote a new debate on a right not yet codified at an international level: the right not to have to migrate, or more precisely, the right to remain in one’s homeland. The forced nature of many current migration flows requires a careful consideration of the causes of current migrations. The right to remain is pre-eminent, deeper, and broader than the right to migrate. It involves the possibility of participating in the common good, the right to live with dignity and have access to sustainable development. All of these rights should be effectively safeguarded in the countries of origin with the responsible involvement of the international community.

Executive Summary In an era of global uncertainty and multiple humanitarian crises, migration is a matter of life and death for many. In the Mediterranean, the migration drive from Africa and the Middle East has been restricted by European containment policies that have forced asylum seekers and refugees to depend on smugglers and illegal sea-crossing, resulting in numerous tragedies in which many have died. The lack of a secure path to access international protection and safe and legal entry to Europe and the increase in vulnerable people seeking international protection have motivated some stakeholders to outline and test new approaches to support refugees’ resettlement. Humanitarian corridors are a civil society response to support refugees and asylum seekers to reach Europe legally and safely. Although not without its drawbacks, the approach has proved highly effective. This article explores the humanitarian corridors from Lebanon to Italy, delving into the experiences of Syrian refugees who have participated in the program and those who have been involved in its implementation. It examines the weaknesses and strengths of the humanitarian corridors program based on feedback from program beneficiaries, field staff in Lebanon, and those in charge of the reception in Italy. Results reveal that, overall, this approach has proven to be highly effective as the humanitarian corridors are a civil society response to support refugees and asylum seekers to reach Europe legally and safely. Moreover, findings show that expanding humanitarian corridors on a larger scale is possible. The growth of humanitarian corridors depends on the political commitment of member states, the European Union policies and financial allocation, and civil society actors. Collaboration between governments and civil society could boost the potential for expansion, ensuring safe and legal entry for more individuals in need.

Executive Summary The right to stay emerged as a fundamental principle in modern Catholic social teaching (CST) in the twentieth century, even preceding the right to migrate. This right is rooted in the condemnation of forced migration and three theological principles: 1 — salvation of souls, 2 — universal destination of goods, 3 — dignity of the human person. This paper traces the development of the right to stay within CST, identifying three distinct stages. The first stage, spanning from the late nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century, is characterized by an implicit recognition of the right to stay, embedded in the critique of the treatment of forced migration. During this period, CST primarily addressed the concerns of Catholic migrants, offering pastoral care and emphasizing the salvation of souls as theological foundations for protection. The second stage, from the mid-twemtieth century to the 1960s, sees a growing emphasis on the universal destination of goods as a key theological principle. While the right to stay remains implicit, CST begins to advocate for the protection of all migrants, regardless of their faith. The third stage, commencing in the 1960s, is marked by the explicit articulation of the right to stay, notably by Pope John XXIII. Its theological foundation expands to include the dignity of the human person, firmly establishing the right to stay as a central tenet of Catholic migration ethics. The study concludes that the right to stay has evolved from an implicit concept to a clearly articulated principle in CST. This evolution is underpinned by a growing theological foundation, shifting from a focus on pastoral care of Catholic migrants, to a broader emphasis on the universal destination of goods and the inherent dignity of every human person.

Executive Summary Recognizing that migration and displacement are longstanding elements of human history, the paper emphasizes the critical role of respecting the inherent dignity of migrating persons as an important part of the right-to-stay dialogue. Although international frameworks, such as the Sphere Handbook, the Paris Declaration, and UNHCR’s Durable Solutions, have provided a critical foundation for addressing many of the basic needs of migrating populations, they largely focus on material aspects of well-being, overshadowing the equally essential need for other aspects of one’s dignity — a recognition of the inherent equal value that each human being possesses — to be respected and upheld. This approach positions dignity as a luxury to be addressed only after other basic needs are met. However, evidence shows that ensuring physical safety, food, and shelter alone does not fulfill the complex needs of migrating individuals, who often experience emotional distress and social marginalization when their dignity is ignored. By framing dignity as an intrinsic human right that is not contingent on external conditions or something that can be distributed out of the back of a truck, the paper argues that organizations can foster deeper engagement with migrant communities. Two case studies — Georgia and Afghanistan — highlight the consequences of placing primacy on biophysical needs over respect for dignity. In Georgia, despite robust efforts to provide for material well-being, displaced persons reported significant emotional distress due to a sense of being marginalized and ignored. In Afghanistan, a disconnect between international aid organizations and local communities fostered resentment, exacerbating insecurity and undermining trust in humanitarian efforts. Both these cases underscore that fulfilling physical needs alone does not equate to a life with dignity. To improve our ability to uphold human dignity in the right-to-stay debate and in supporting migrating communities, three recommendations are proposed: (1) adopt a dignity-centered approach that values the immaterial aspects of human existence, (2) integrate dignity into accountability measures, and (3) tailor dignity-affirming practices to local needs. Only by elevating dignity to a core operational principle can humanitarian efforts more holistically address the complex challenges faced by displaced populations. In conclusion, this paper underscores the need for a transformative approach to humanitarian response that centers human dignity as a fundamental principle. As humanitarian organizations increasingly recognize the importance of dignity in displacement contexts, there is an opportunity to deepen engagement with affected communities, ensuring that their voices and values inform interventions. By embedding dignity within humanitarian frameworks, we can create responses that truly support displaced populations’ well-being, facilitating resilience and restoring agency in the face of displacement.

Executive Summary Lack of livelihood opportunities, violence, and other pressures lead many youth from across El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to migrate without documentation, with significant numbers attempting to reach the United States. Yet other youth, facing similar obstacles, find or create opportunities closer to home. This article complements the emerging research on what motivates individuals in high-migration areas to remain in their country of origin by reviewing how community-led organizations across these countries have contributed to creating opportunities for youth locally. After briefly reviewing the evidence on factors associated with rootedness (the combination of economic, social, civic, and cultural ties to one’s homeland), we describe the experience of 17 community-led organizations, all grantees of the Inter-American Foundation (IAF), and identify how the organizations have contributed to income generation, education, and civic engagement, factors often associated with greater likelihood of remaining in one’s locality or country. Much of the effectiveness of these organizations derives from their locally-led efforts to provide increasingly comprehensive approaches to youth development that boosts how young people perceive themselves and their potential in the world, while strengthening their connection to their communities. This comprehensive approach, more than any single intervention, makes the difference in allowing youth to remain in their home countries.

Executive Summary In 2021, the United States unveiled the Strategy for Addressing the Root Causes of Migration in Central America (“Root Causes Strategy” or “the Strategy”) to improve living conditions in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala as a means to prevent future migration to the US-Mexico border. Through a combination of foreign policy tools and public-private investment, the US administration focused on enhancing economic, security, and governance conditions in the region. Although the Root Causes Strategy has received scrutiny in light of broader research on policies to address the root causes of migration, more attention is needed from the perspective of communities that these strategies target. Therefore, this article assesses the Root Causes Strategy’s alignment with Northern Central American communities’ plans to ensure their right to stay and thrive. It explores three areas of inquiry: the Strategy’s provision of formal engagement and participation mechanisms for local communities; the Strategy’s alignment with local communities’ priorities to ensure their right to stay; and the Strategy’s respect for local communities’ right to migrate in relation to their right to stay according to local projects of thriving. Through critical policy analysis, relying on primary governmental sources and secondary sources on the lived experience of communities in the region, the article argues that the Root Causes Strategy co-opted communities’ right to stay for three reasons. First, Northern Central American communities’ notions of their right to stay were sidelined. Communities did not have a formal role in the design and implementation of the Strategy, which lacked transparency and accountability mechanisms. Second, the Root Causes Strategy did not align its tools with communities’ notions of thriving. Private investments lacked sufficient labor, environmental and human rights protection, and oversight mechanisms to ensure they would not result in more displacement. Funding structures and processes failed to significantly expand access by local communities in support of grass-roots community projects. The US targeted sanctions for human rights violations and corruption followed communities’ cues in some countries and occasions while neglecting them in others. Third, the United States used its root causes policy to justify a restricted notion of the right to migrate. The US administration utilized its root causes policy and the widening of some insufficient legal migration pathways to justify and advance US border externalization policies and limit access to asylum at the US-Mexico border. The paper concludes with policy recommendations for the US administration, the US Congress, and civil society in Central America, Mexico, and the United States. It recommends delinking root causes of migration strategies from the goal of reducing migration to the donor country and foregrounding communities’ participation and perspectives before, during, and after the implementation of root causes policies.

Executive Summary This paper analyzes the right to stay and to migrate in light of state regimes that seek to exercise totalitarian control over their own populations, with a particular focus on the Nicaraguan regime of Daniel Ortega. Such regimes violate the rights to stay and to migrate — which are rooted in human dignity, rights, and agency —by using migration (both of their own citizens and third-country nationals) and repression to ensure their survival and to advance their own political, economic, and geopolitical ends. The author, a former Nicaraguan presidential candidate, finds that such regimes fail to create the conditions that would allow for robust, widely shared, socio-economic development. The Ortega regime instead encourages and seeks to facilitate the emigration of Nicaraguan nationals and depends on spending of remitted monies to keep Nicaragua’s economy afloat. It systematically persecutes, confiscates assets, and strips citizenship from its perceived opponents, including political dissidents, civil society organization, and religious institutions. Finally, it has sought to benefit financially by serving as a hub and way station for third-country nationals in transit to the United States, Costa Rica and other nations, which it (in turn) hopes to destabilize.

Executive Summary As the global refugee population continues to expand, resettlement opportunities remain scarce, accessible only to a select few. Scholarly literature has increasingly drawn attention to the opaque bureaucratic processes, often referred to as “black boxes,” that govern resettlement selection, revealing that the decision-making practices determining which refugees are chosen for resettlement are still not well understood. This study addresses a critical gap concerning the implementation of selection criteria within UNHCR’s operations in the Global South, with a specific focus on caseworkers in Rwanda. It examines how these criteria are applied in practice, providing new empirical insights into the concept of “promising victimhood” — the contradictory demands placed on refugees to simultaneously demonstrate both vulnerability and integration potential to qualify for asylum or resettlement. The study explores how caseworkers navigate their roles amidst the complex and often conflicting demands imposed on refugees during the selection process. The analysis is grounded in interviews with sixteen caseworkers involved in resettlement selection, employing street-level bureaucracy theory alongside the concepts of refugee deservingness and promising victimhood. As key actors in the selection process, caseworkers exercise bottom-up power as policy implementers, while simultaneously adhering to the top-down directives established by resettlement states. The findings reveal that caseworkers employ a range of discretionary practices to reconcile the demands of resettlement states’ admission criteria with their advocacy for refugees deemed most vulnerable by the UNHCR. This research enhances our understanding of UNHCR’s operations at the street level, shedding light on how the practices of caseworkers influence perceptions of refugee eligibility and ultimately influence who is granted resettlement.

Executive Summary The adoption of the Global Compacts on Migration and Refugees in 2019 by the UN General Assembly marked a significant achievement, providing two essential frameworks from which UN Member States could fashion their future immigration and refugee policies. Since their adoption, however, the number of forcibly displaced in the world has increased significantly, prompting receiving nations, such as the United States and the European countries, to rely more on deterrence-based enforcement initiatives to reduce the number of migrants arriving at their borders. At the same time, the number of migrant deaths, both on sea and land, have increased, as desperate migrants, asylum-seekers, and refugees have attempted to find new homes in industrialized nations. This paper analyzes the migration policies adopted by the United States and Europe in the nearly six years since the Global Compacts were adopted and provides an assessment about how these receiving nations have adapted to the rising number of forcibly displaced in the world, and whether, in doing so, their policies have been consistent with the provision of both Compacts. The paper finds that: • Both the US and Europe have instituted enforcement policies that violate the spirit, if not the intent, of the two Compacts, and, in some cases, undermine international human rights standards; • Both the US and Europe have attempted to balance their enforcement-related approaches with the creation of legal avenues and immigrant integration policies, consistent with the two Compacts, but their efforts, to date, have been insufficient to the need; • The US has made significant strides in introducing policies to protect refugee-like populations, but has failed to protect asylum-seekers in need of protection who arrive at the US-Mexico border; • Europe has relied on bilateral agreements and restrictive laws to deter migrants from reaching European shores, while at the same time supported sending and transit countries with development assistance; • Both the US and Europe have a mixed record with regard to preserving the principles of the right to remain and the right to migrate, a record which must be improved in the years ahead.

Executive Summary Unlike refugees, most asylum-seekers receive scant attention from US government and non-profit agencies. A loose network of individuals and organizations aims to bridge this gap in policy and services through the practice of asylum accompaniment. This article, by two scholar-activists with a combined 10 years of experience accompanying asylum-seekers, aims to: • Explore the praxis of asylum accompaniment via critical autoethnography, using our accompaniment narratives to illuminate the dynamics of accompaniment relationships, including the profound mutual benefits of this type of engagement and the complexities of social and political power, privilege, and access • Propose policy solutions that emerge from critical reflection on our experiences, including increased support for accompaniment networks • Offer a practical tool, The ABCs of Asylum Accompaniment, as a resource for informed accompaniment of asylum-seekers

Executive Summary This study examines the experiences of international migrants and asylum-seeker families recently released from the custody of the United States Border Patrol (BP) to assess their ability to make phone calls while in BP detention. The focus on phone access is critical to determining whether respondents experience enforced disappearance under international law, given that BP custody is usually incommunicado. To determine whether some BP detainees experience enforced disappearance in custody, authors collected and analyzed data from 117 respondents using a novel questionnaire. Respondents were heads of families. These families consisted of at least one adult and at least one minor child who were released to a non-profit short-term shelter in the United States (U.S.). Findings show that 78 percent of the respondents who were in BP custody experienced an enforced disappearance because they were not able to make phone calls and there was no reliable publicly accessible locator system to otherwise locate them. While this study provides critical context to how one distinct group of individuals released from BP custody (i.e., families released into the U.S.) experienced enforced disappearance, we note the importance of future studies that assess the situation of additional groups, including single adults released from BP into the U.S. and groups and individuals forced back (typically) to Mexico upon release from BP custody. We discuss policy recommendations to mitigate and prevent continued enforced disappearances in BP custody and to prevent additional human rights violations that are facilitated by enforced disappearance, including the right to access counsel, the right to due process, the right to seek asylum, the right of non-refoulment, and that may constitute a grave threat to the right to life.

Executive Summary This piece will examine the complexities of the “right to stay” within the overlapping and multiple migratory contexts of Lebanon. I argue that standard right to stay frameworks fall short in addressing the complex interplay of Lebanon’s local context, the role of humanitarian response, and the importance of agency and control in the lives of those affected by forced displacement. Based on the work of the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) in Lebanon with Syrian refugees, local Lebanese residents, and diverse populations of migrant workers, I offer several lessons learned for humanitarian work on the right to stay in similar contexts. First, based on our engagement with Syrian refugees, I argue that, in practice, JRS understands the right to stay as a control right which is grounded in human dignity and the subjective importance of control of intimate space. I argue that understanding this right as continuous with the migratory vision of Pope Francis, which places free choice, control, and agency at the core of a person’s choice to migrate, offers humanitarian actors pathways for response, even in contexts of actual and ongoing displacement. Altogether, this framework enables JRS programming focused on fostering spaces of intimate control, mental health, and psychosocial support for those whose dignity has been violated, and facilitating agency within the limits of the Lebanese context. Second, based on JRS’s growing engagement with local Lebanese populations, I describe how this dignity framework requires broad inclusion in programming. At the same time, Lebanon’s overlapping migratory flows necessitate greater attention to the dynamics between ongoing displacements in Lebanon in order to navigate tensions around aid access. Finally, drawing from JRS and Jesuit work with migrant domestic workers in Lebanon, I describe how our work engages the complexity of migrants’ temporary displacements and their link with home countries, highlighting questions of agency and attention. Ultimately, I argue that humanitarian organizations need to pay closer attention to these spaces of multiple migrations, engaging the actuality of many migrants’ mobility, and grounding work for the right to stay in more expansive visions of human dignity through support for migrants’ control and agency. Governments, particularly the government of Lebanon, must reduce violations of this basic control by ceasing programs of involuntary return and long-term migrant detention.