A sexual revolution -- women moving up in Iran

To continue the focus on women from the reading, I found this article posted on a non-profit news-source called Iran Focus**'s website.  The article itself is from the NY Times, but it details some basic developments from where the article left off.  Basically, the author presents an argument that a sexual revolution is imminent, because of the allowance for basic and advanced education for women.  The more that Iranian women are learning about and seeing in global culture the alternative to their situation, the more they are demanding equal legal rights.  In this article the debate doesn't seem to be centered on clothing, but rather on legal rights such as divorce.

Another article highlighted a case in which 8 women have been sentenced to death by stoning.  A lot of international attention has been focused on outlawing the practice of stoning to death those convicted of such crimes as adultery.  Amnesty International is a major player in this effort, where many Western nations have denounced this Iranian (Islamic) practice.

What is the role of the international community in such cases?  Is it another form of colonialism to enforce Western beliefs on an Islamic nation?  Although in this case it is considered a violation of human rights by most and thus widely denounced, how much can the international community interfere with/demand change in another country's practices?  Is wearing a veil violation of human rights?  Where do we draw the line on what we accept as tolerable practice of another culture?

**About Iran Focus

Iran Focus is a non-profit news service provider that focuses on events in Iran, Iraq and the Middle East. With a network of specialists and analysts of the region and correspondents and reporters in several countries, Iran Focus is able to provide fast and reliable news and analysis on the political, social and economic situation in the region.

Iranian Jews Refuse To Immigrate

Iran's Jews reject cash offer to move to Israel:

This guardian article explains that Israel's monetary incentive was not accepted by Iranian Jews as they refused the offer to be paid to move to Israel.

I found this incredibly interesting that Israel was offering money (up to 30,000 pounds for families) to try to get Persian Jews to move to Israel. This is an example of the extreme moves that are pulled by governments to make political statements by forcing migrations.

My immediate interpretation was that Israel's motives would be to get Iranian Jews to leave Iran as a testament against Iran's extremely anti-Israeli government. But, I am now wondering if the refusal of this offer from the Persian Jewish community reflects that this anti-Israeli (or not anti, but not pro) sentiment is taken in by the Persian jews, or if they are just refusing to give up their land and national identity. Any thoughts?

Runaway Girls

To tie our theme of movement/immigration to this week's reading, which traced the history women's rights from the late 19th century to today, I found some interesting news pieces about the incidence of runaway girls in Iran. Most of the articles I found were written in 2000/2001, but it is not unreasonable to think that this issue persists today. This BBC article cites that authorities find and take in 30 runaway girls every day, a figure that may only represent a small fraction of all runaway cases. For many of these girls, the only option once they've fled home is prostitution.

The BBC article mentions the Reyhaneh House, a women's shelter that houses girls who have run away from difficult family situations. It turns out that a documentary called Runaway was made in 2001 profiling the Reyhaneh center.

Obviously runaway children are not a phenomenon limited to Iran alone. However, I did think that the BBC article and the film synopsis framed the runaway problem in the context of Iran's traditional roles/rights for women. The reading for this week talked about Iranian women "fighting back" against regressive policies that have eroded their social and political rights -- is running away a way of fighting back, a last resort indicative of a deep-rooted repression of women, or something else?

Afghan Refugees in Iran

I thought this story was an interesting parallel to last week’s post as it discusses Iran’s reaction to Afghan refugees within its borders. It’s called Times get tougher for Afghan immigrants in Iran and it comes from Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders). I chose this perspective because the most I could find about Iranians actually migrating was centered around the Islamic Revolution in the late 70s. Last week we discussed the dire situations refugees were living in once they returned, forcibly or not, to Afghanistan. This article describes another difficult situation as Iran is beginning to forcibly return more and more Afghanis. The issue arises in that as the national migration laws have become stricter i.e. legal migrants need to renew documentation; Afghans fall into illegality and then can be forced back to Afghanistan.
Besides the difficulty of the situation in Iran, balancing national sovereign issues and a destitute population, the article also speaks once again to the overall lack of international aid. I was shocked by this: “While Iranian authorities claim to spend 6 US$ a day for every Afghan refugee, United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) spends the same amount in one year.”
I think this article is an important link between the refugees we see and realizing the lengths that they have gone to escape Afghanistan, only to overwhelm Iran, and eventually get sent back. It’s an even more complicated issue than one of lack of international funding because the massive number of immigrants has begun to affect Iran.
Here’s another more recent article about the forced removal of Afghan immigrants (Iran Expels Afghan Refugees). If these migrants are truly refugees, as in they applied and received status under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees/1967 Protocol, how can they be removed? I was under the impression that refugee status meant permanency and that there was a legitimate life-threatening concern in one’s home country that required international protection. If these Afghan immigrants are refugees (in the legal sense) is Iran acting illegally? If so, can anything be done? Or, is this just an example of a nation exercising its sovereign rights and demonstrating the weaknesses of international accords?

Iranian relations

I found this article, http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/22/alieza_iran_un/, by a foreign anylast discussing what the implications of further mismanagment of Iran could lead to. The anylast felt the Bush administration had done a horrible job with Relations of Iran and that it was up to Obama's administration to take a different route for relations. Clinton in this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2sL_zITWJc, states that this change of policy is also needed, and that the administration is willing to speak with Iran about detering nuclear weapons and sanctions.
The journalist feels that some of the solution to the problem of nuclearization with Iran has to do with working with the people rather then just the leaders. He states there has been thousands of protests within Iran against the Islamic republic, and their is evidence of how upset the people are. It's also evident that the people of IRan are capable of making their concerns known and doing something about it, hence the revolution of 79, but it is difficult to see how the United States could aid this change. How can the oppresion of people by Religious Law be changed? How can the people of Iran bring about change in their country? If the United States changes its diplomacy efforts with Iran, in what ways could this bring about change for not just Iranian U.S. Relations but also regional relations, relations to the Islamic revivalist movenments among people in other countries, and also Israeli relations? Sorry this is a little off topic....

Overall Refugee Picture

In reading all these articles I found many interesting, but also feel like we've jumped all over the place and so I found myself searching for an overview perspective on the refugee situation. So I searched on the human rights pages and found that Amnesty International is not present in Afghanistan and Human Rights watch is reporting on the huge blunder to women's rights that Brennan posted on.

On the UNHCR (UN Human Rights Council) website I found this article: UNHCR and Pakistan government sign Letter of Mutual Intent. A letter was signed last March indicating future cooperation between Pakistan and UNHCR with regards to the massive amounts of Afghan refugees whos situations have changed since the Taliban has fallen. Pakistan agreed to continue to support the dwelling of Afghan refugees as UNHCR funds

There are as many as 1.7 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan now and over 4.4 million have returned to their home country since the support program began in 2002. It seems to me the the UNHCR's presence in this situation is huge. This is hopeful since most of what I have found of the international communities influence on the refugee situations has not been as influential.

Form of Rape Legalised in Afghanistan

President Karzai recently made the rape of Shi'ite women by their husbands legal. Here is a news source-http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/04/20/legalized_rape_in_afghanistan/

I know we are supposed to talk about movement of people - how is our cultural influence by American presence be also an influence on this issue? As occupiers, how do we deal with issues like this where we strongly oppose the politics? To me this issue highlights the clash of cultures especially when one is a dominant force and presence. USA has been fighting for Afghani women's rights especially for the schooling of women. What should be done in this situation? Is it fair that we are imposing our cultural norms on Afghanis when our reasoning isn't the same as the explanation for our presence?? 

Elections increase Troop size

This article---->http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/264956,afghanistan-to-have-15000-extra-police-minister-says--summary.html discusses the increase in troop and police size in Afghanistan this year due to upcoming elections. The United States also issued 17000 more troops to Afghanistan in order to put down taliban attacks. This movenment and recruitment of troops, shows that there the Unites States has decided to focus strongly on security in a short elapsed time yet they do not concentrate on it or work on it in the long run. The de escalation of troops and increase in Iraq early in the Bush years shows that the agenda on terrorism is misguided and misevaluated.

Challenges of Urban Migration in Afghanistan

This article talks about a radio drama targeting young Afghans who have migrated to urban areas. It is one of several radio programs that addresses issues that migrants and "returnees" are facing, especially with few opportunities for employment and poor urban infrastructure.

While the article focuses on the radio program itself, the issue of urbanization in Afghanistan seems as though it would be compounded by the complex political strife in the area. As Marisa pointed out, U.S. and Afghani leadership have not succeeded in curbing issues like opium production within the country, and urban issues will likely persist until the political and economic structure of the country can be stabilized. To continue the idea of reconstruction, what steps do you think should be taken in order to stabilize the country, especially urban areas? Reducing or eliminating the opium trade would destabilize the financial foundation for the Taliban, but it would also necessitate a significant restructuring of the Afghani economy. I feel that with international assistance, this kind of restructuring would alleviate many of the problems urban migrants are facing, but the question may be drumming up support for this kind of reconstruction.

Bodies of 45 suffocated Afghans repatriated

Searching for recent developments dealing with the movement of Afghan people, I found a disturbing article about people smuggling out of Afghanistan. 45 Corpses were found in a container on Saturday along with 65 survivors near Quetta, Pakistan. The Afghan migrants were driven across the Afghan-Pakistan border in a truck after bad weather prevented them from being flown. This incident needs to be understood by the international community and should not be brushed under a rug with the lives of victims of terrorism and war. These people were attempting to escape a country with the belief that there was hope at the end in Iran, according to the article. However reprehensible needless acts of violence really are, acts of negligence such as this where 45 men women and children have lost their lives should be seen as catastrophes. There is obviously something terribly wrong with where these people are fleeing and something needs to be done about it. I know that this is a very big "something" but what has been tested obviously is not working.

Moving Forward in Afghanistan

In this article from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (see description of the center below)  in late July 08, a couple of interesting points are brought up.  First, it speaks of poppy eradication efforts failing to curb Afghanistan's provision of 92% of the world's opium supply (used to make heroin and fund the Taliban), where there are no programs offering alternative income opportunities for opium farmers, providing ample space for the Taliban to step in and gain support as well as money.  Secondly, it speaks to the uneven focus of the US's efforts on Iraq, with less than 1/3 the amount of troops stationed in Afghanistan than in Iraq, while more American casualties and increasing instability are occurring in Afghanistan.  

But i think the most important point this article touched on was responsibilities of reconstruction-- an interesting point brought up in Laurie's post as well.  It mentioned that the US entered Afghanistan (unlike Iraq), with the support of the international community.  This begs the question of how much responsibility the international community has to the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and more pressing, the care of the thousands of internally displaced persons.  Obviously, the Al-Jazeera video posted by Laurie tells of a largely underfunded and insufficient aid system for refugees.  I am of the line of thought that if the Afghan government cannot or will not support these people, it is up to the international community, and especially the US to take on this role.  

What have you guys heard about this?  Is the international community less willing to assist the US in Afghanistan because of our actions in Iraq?  How do you see this shaping up?  Do you foresee improvements in the 'reconstruction' process?

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars:

"The Center is the living, national memorial to President Wilson established by Congress in 1968 and headquartered in Washington, D.C. It is a nonpartisan institution, supported by public and private funds, engaged in the study of national and world affairs. The Center establishes and maintains a lively, neutral forum for free and informed dialogue. 

The mission of the Center is to commemorate the ideals and concerns of Woodrow Wilson by: providing a link between the world of ideas and the world of policy; and fostering research, study, discussion, and collaboration among a full spectrum of individuals concerned with policy and scholarship in national and world affairs."

Afghan Refugees

This video I found is from Al-Jazeera and is a look into the tragic conditions of Afghanis who have been internally displaced from their villages and have set up refugee camps in the capital Kabul. This clip includes shocking statistics such as: “for every 1,000 Afghan children born, 165 die within a year - and a quarter of all Afghan children die before their fifth birthday.” The reporter admits that despite international aid, these people live in destitute situations, but more upsetting this is not a unique camp. These people are just an example of the larger influx of refugees; they are invisible to the government and overshadowed by the construction and desire to rebuild the city. Afghanistan’s recovering economy cannot help these displaced people and international aid is not enough.


Watch CBS Videos Online

The second video is a different perspective on Afghan refugees who have returned home through the eyes of Khaled Hosseini, the author of The Kite Runner. The clip provides a bit more background on these returning Afghans, who led relatively safe lives as refugees in other countries and are returning to much worse conditions. It offers a more hopeful message of the work of the international community and citing its importance in a country that is not ready to receive returning refuges.

Pilgramge

I found this article just looking around online. http://baghdadbureau.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/a-millers-tale-a-widows-tale-a-beggars-tale/#more-549

It talks about the pilgramge made each year by Shiite muslims to Karbala in commemoration of Muhammeds grandsons death 1300 years ago. I found this interesting a number of different levels It says that millions of Muslims make this journey every year and this was wirtten in 2009. I have to think prior to the war in Iraq that the numbers were even larger. I think that this story is important because obviously pilgramges like this one and the one in Saudi Arabia are attended by Muslims from all over the world. This obviously has a dramatic effect on the economies of these countries due to the influx of people. It would be interesting to dig deeper into how important religious history and hisrtory in general plays a part of countries economy.

The Future of 4.7 Million+ Iraqi Refugees

In searching what different global authorities are doing about the Iraqi Refugee crisis I find mixed messages as always. Laurie's article inspired me to compare different reactions from non-governmental organizations. Her article was from Human Rights Watch which, in principle, is a similar organization to Amnesty International (AI). When browsing their site, I found a straight forward article about their approach to the problem. It was published in June 2008. AI is calling upon the international community for financial assistance, an end in deportations and the creation of/permission to seek legal employment. This seems to be a standard response to a refugee crisis, but as indicated in a more recent article published by Human Rights Watch in November 2008, Greece is systematically gathering Iraqi refugees and sending them to Turkey and denying almost all asylum claims. I have a hard time trusting that non-governmental non-profits have enough clout to make a change in a problem this vast.

So, on to the United State's role in the situation. Obama claimed in campagin, as indicated on his website, that he would allocate 2 billion dollars "to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find sanctuary." This was a claim he made in his campaign, but now, realizing the shrinking budget and growing problems, I believe that humanitarian efforts in Iraq may be the first sort of efforts to be cut from the budget allocations. Proof for this claim is found in this facinating Pro-Publica (journalism in the public interest) article that is a story on the tracking of the White House website's changes in official agendas.

Basically, the US government's Iraq agenda is changing, and I think that all evidence points to a lack of support for Iraqi refugees in the future. In my opinion, it is the United States' responsibility to support (at least in some ways, if not comprehensively) Iraqi refugees. It is time for the US government to take some responsibility for the mistakes that have been commited.

The question I am left with is how do we support the refugees? Perhaps creating re-settlement programs here in our country seeing as many refugees are not able to return because their communities are broken. I am not sure that pouring funds into supporting refugees in surrounding countries is such a good idea, but may me more plausable than creating yet another re-settlement plan. The next obvious step seems to make Iraq safe for civilians to live there, stop violence but assit the new government in maintaing non-violence and post-war reconsruction efforts. I am not sure that I have cleared anything up, but more presented a question of how to actually support the "official" 4.7 million that have been displaced by the war. (I say "official" because I assume there are millions more that have been displaced within Iraq and are not registered "refugees")

Iraqi Refugees in the United States

In the reading for this week, Gregory referred to the responsibilities that are conferred upon an occupying nation according to the Geneva Convention of 1949. The basic responsibilities include protecting the people and their property, and Gregory stresses the point that the U.S. has failed to do so since the initial incursion. I was interested in looking at asylum and immigration to the United States and whether or not it constitutes one of the obligations we have to the Iraqi people.

I found a few articles that report Iraqi refugees are being admitted in much higher numbers recently (2007,2008) than they were at the beginning of the war, with this LA Times article reporting that the target for 2008 was 17,000 refugees.

One article from the Chicago Tribune discusses the influx of Iraqi refugees to the Chicago area. I found it interesting that the article compared the trend in Iraqi immigration to the flow of Vietnamese refugees into Chicago 30-40 years ago. The article predicts that the Iraqi population in Chicago could increase to 30,000 or more. I felt like this statistic highlighted the fact that the current immigration policy is not a symbolic gesture or concession to Iraqis, but a significant step towards resettlement.

Gregory makes the reader aware (if they weren't already) that the U.S. has not typically heeded international advice or statue in this conflict, but I feel that the idea of responsibilities that accompany occupation are still relevant. Do you think that accepting refugees is one of the obligations of an occupying power? Is it another way of ensuring the protection of the Iraqi people, or is it simply an attempt to "make up" for the protection we failed to give in the first place?

Would You Return?

With our migration theme now focusing on Iraq, I have found several articles from throughout the last year or so discussing displaced Iraqis and the prospect of returning to their homes. This article from Reuters, written by Refugees International entitled "Would You Return?" discussed the question; Can they return home? And if not, what would it take for them to return to their cities, neighborhoods and houses? The answers to these questions reflect the still very high number of violent incidents in the country and that these displaced peoples don't necessarily want to return to the place where they saw members of their families murdered. It is difficult to understand people's emotions after their lives have been so drastically impacted, but it seems like the desire of displaced Iraqis to return to the lives they had prior to the U.S. invasion is not universal. Restoring the lives of these people is often not even a possibility, one Shia woman's home was demolished by a Sunni militia with the intent of making it clear that she and her family/old community are not welcome. I don't know where to begin in my attempt to understand such a terrible situation for so many people, does anyone have any thoughts about what the responsibility of the United States is in this dilemma? Has the military already messed up enough, or should they continue to help people return to their old lives?

"I felt like the country shifted away from me, and that I wasn’t shifting with it"

This post is a take on the movement of one American (emblematic of many) away from his country.  I read an article (1/29/09) from the Santa Barbara Independent, reporting after a film screening of an oil-company-employee-turned-documentary-filmmaker.  Mark Manning tells of how he became frustrated with our nation and its actions and set out to make a film (Road to Fallujah) about exactly what was happening-- an effort to try to humanize the "enemy."  I think this is a strongly felt sensation since of the US invasion and war on Iraq.

After the screening, the audience was connected via live video feed to Iraqi citizens.  This dialogue between the two people was an effort by Manning so that "[People could] get in touch with the suffering that war causes. For most Americans [in the audience on Tuesday], that was probably the first time they’ve actually met people who have been on the receiving end of our military action. It’s not a joyful kumbaya experience, but it’s real. I think that once you start that process of humanizing the other side you create a connection that is really hard to break.”

After reading Laura's piece about how the conclusion of this conflict will go, I thought about the US's role, and after reading this article, about how the American people will react.  How will our relations to Iraqis change?  What sort of ending to the conflict will we demand?  Will complacency prevail?  How might this affect our role as citizens in future military decision-making?  

Rot or Die

The article I found for this week, entitled Rot or Die: Iraqi refugees in Lebanon tells a tragic story of Iraqi immigrants that are considered illegal in Lebanon because the country does not adhere to international refugee laws and are thus imprisoned. This situation has layers of immigrant abuse, denial of international aid required for asylum seekers, unlawful imprisonment and general disrespect for these immigrants' rights as human beings. This precarious situation is summed up: "by first arresting and detaining Iraqi asylum seekers who do not have valid visas, and then giving those in detention a “choice” between returning to Iraq or indefinite detention, Lebanon in practice commits refoulement—and thereby violates international law."

The questions that arise in this situation, especially as the US is withdrawing from Iraq in the next few years is, who will take care of these people? Who is responsible for these immigrants and refugees? Is it neighboring countries, the international community, the US itself? These are questions that need to be addressed and quickly especially in light of these immigrants escaping one human rights abuse and falling victim to another.

Shia Arrests

Our topic was population dynamics and migration so I found some news claiming 35 Shia citizens were arrested. They were arrested after a protest in support of a man named Sheikh Namr Baqer An-Namr gave a sermon. The article claims that the Shia are only 10% of the 22 million and that the majority live in the oil-rich eastern part of the country. The man who is currently Minister of the Interior, Nayef, looks to be the next on the throne for Saudi which would probably mean a bigger crackdown on the Shias in the east as he already has a rough reputation in treating the Shia people of KSA. The Shia are marginalised by numbers but in terms of power, they hold access to the major oil fields and also the refineries and processing facilities. The Shia have reduced the movement in the commodity chain and are able to make a lot of profit taking the oil-making process from start to almost finished. Many non-Shia Saudis believe for some reason or another that the Shia in KSA are led and connected to Iran and that they follow an Iranian agenda.

The work force

In this artice http://migration.ucdavis.edu/MN/more.php?id=3172_0_5_0 it further discusses the situation of the workforce in Saudi Arabia. It says that 70 percent of the work force are foreign workers and I think this is important. In the article we read it said that a lot of the citizens in Saudi Arabia turn to militant action due to the inablitiy to find work. Perhaps if Saudi Arabia is serious about stopping "terrorist" organizations they would not allow as many migrant workers and let their own citizens work for them.

Saudi former detainees on the move

Starting a different strain on "the movement of people" than we have talked about, in this New York Times article from February 3rd, the author describes the influence of terrorist movement between countries, especially Saudi Arabia's own.  

SA's government released a list of wanted terrorists, which included a number of Saudi nationals that were recently released from Guantanamo Bay detention.  Upon release, they were sent through a Saudi "rehab" program which was thought to be highly successful, until the release of this list, which included many Saudis who had been treated.  After treatment, they apparently fled to re-join terrorist organizations in neighboring nations.

Although this is not our typical idea of 'movement' of people as in immigration, I thought that it was an interesting take on the theme.  It is especially interesting to consider the ramifications of this new development (of freed Guantanamo inmates re-joining terrorist activity) to the Obama administration, or even to the ability of people to move freely.

Could developments like this spawn a call for stricter border controls and limitations on the movement of people in places like SA, which has previously been a relatively low priority on the list of security risks?  How about for the rights of former Guantanamo prisoners? 

Saudization and the economic crisis

The topic of migrant and foreign workers in Saudi Arabia reminded me of an article I read a while back about the migrant situation in Dubai. Essentially, foreign workers who have fallen into debt are fleeing Dubai at a stupendous rate in order to avoid debtor's prison. Others who have lost their jobs are being forced to leave by the government.

Since our country this week is Saudi Arabia, I found an article/interview from the Brookings think tank that discusses what may happen to Saudi Arabia's migrant workers as the economic crisis unfurls, especially compared to Dubai. About halfway through the article, the interviewer asks about the fate of non-national workers as the industries that employ them begin to decline. The interviewee, Hassan Hakimian, suggests that layoffs in those sectors may help Saudi Arabia's program of "Saudization". The government wants to reduce dependence on foreign workers, and may use this economic "opportunity" to replace migrant workers with Saudi nationals. It was interesting to compare the situation in Saudi Arabia to the one in Dubai, where the government also seems to deter foreign workers from staying in the country. The NYT article focused more on European and non-national Arab workers, so it would be interesting to see more specifically how Southeast Asian migrants are being affected and where they will go if they lose their jobs.

Migrant Workers: Returnig Home Causes Problems

Human migration in Saudi Arabia has recently become an interesting situation given the recent worldwide economic crisis and its impact on the price of oil. The article in Jacque's post by the Guardian described migrant workers in Saudi Arabia as household laborers, but in my research I have discovered that a large portion of the migrant workers are also employed in construction and oil companies. Workers in these industries from Asia have recently been sent back to their home countries because of the current economic crisis having reduced oil prices so drastically and devastated the real estate industry. Saudi companies have responded with lay-offs that send the migrant workers home, where, in the case of Bangladesh they are not always welcome. In this article, the fact that migrant workers are, in large numbers, leaving Saudi Arabia and the UAE is described as causing big problems in their home countries. Check out the article and tell me what you think about the idea that migrant workers in Saudi Arabia returning home is causing big problems.

Migrant Workers in Saudia Arabia: Human Rights Violations

The most compelling news I found when searching for information about migration in or out of Saudia Arabia was news on the horrific human rights violations that have been committed in Saudia Arabia against many of the 8-9 million migrant workers from mostly from the Indian Subcontinent and South-East Asia.

The immigration visas are tied to the employers, which gives the employer control over the employees. The word "slavery" or "slave like conditions" was used in multiple articles I found. Many accounts of rape are reported on, but seem not to be reported in Saudi Arabia. The migrant workers who do speak out seem to be countered by the more powerful (in that situation) Saudi Employers. These sort of violations seem to be a trend seeing as immigrants in other countries have little agency. My experience in the United States has mostly been with Mexican and other Latin American immigrants. I worked for an immigration lawyer and learned about the fear of authority that is instilled in immigrants. Human rights violations seem inevitable in these situations as these people are easily taken advantage of, but the Saudi situation seems extreme.

Here is a story from the Guardian that gives a good backgroud on the situation.

Reverse Urban Migration in Saudi Arabia

This article Suburbanization boom as families flee costs is about an increase in suburbanization in Saudi Arabia from Arab News, an English Language daily newspaper, published just a few days ago. It’s very interesting to look at urban to suburban migration and the reasons behind it, they mirror many of the same reasons why Americans are drawn to the suburbs. Factors such as escaping high rents in cities, quieter life, schools and health centers etc. are the main pull effects to the suburbs, which match very closely to motives behind the boom in suburbanization in the US. It’s a short article but I think it’s telling somewhat of urban development in the Middle East and factors that draw people away from the city, and an important reverse in traditional rural to urban migration.

Blogging a Theme

Let's get this new blogging experiment rolling! I'd just like to remind everyone what we are doing (and get it in writing). I would like you to each post something related to your theme and the country we will be discussing in the upcoming week. So for this week, what can you find about movement and people in/to Saudi Arabia? Then the following week your post would be related to Iraq, etc. With this structure you will get a deeper understanding of your theme, and how it relates to different countries, while still staying focused on a particular place so we can have conversations across the different groups. Be creative in how you interpret your theme, if you can make the connection to us in your post--go for it!

So the assignment itself is at least 1 primary post and 1 comment. You may use your text from the blog within your moodle 'reflection paper' without penalty (not double dipping), but your reflection paper should also reflect on the reading assigned to the whole class.

If you have any questions, put them in the comments! :>