No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
A community psychology for migrant justice: Critically examining border violence and resistance during the COVID-19 syndemic
Abstract
This article explores the magnifying lenses of the COVID-19 syndemic to highlight how people racialized as migrants and refugees have been-and continue to be-disproportionally harmed. We use empirical evidence collected in our scholarly/activist work in Europe, Africa, South Asia, and the United States to examine migrant injustice as being produced by a combination of power structures and relations working to maintain colonial global orders and inequalities. This is what has been defined as "border imperialism." Our data, complemented by evidence from transnational solidarity groups, show that border imperialism has further intersected with the hygienic-sanitary logics of social control at play during the COVID-19 period. This intersection has resulted in increasingly coercive methods of restraining people on the move, as well as in increased-and new-forms of degradation of their lives, that is, an overall multiplication of border violences. At the same time, however, COVID-19 has provided a unique opportunity for grassroot solidarity initiatives and resistance led by people on the move to be amplified and extended. We conclude by emphasizing the need for community psychologists to take a more vigorous stance against oppressive border imperialist regimes and the related forms of violence they re/enact.
... In a recent article we co-authored with fellow scholar-activists (see Esposito et al., 2024) we argued that understanding borders and border-making processes entails recognising them as integral components of a broader and enduring system of racial capitalism (Robinson, 1983). 2 Borders "enforce people's relationships with nationstates and national economies, purposefully rendering those who are racialised as migrants and refugees more vulnerable to exploitative, abusive and dehumanising conditions (Gahman & Hjalmarson, 2019)" (Esposito et al., 2024, p. 29). From this standpoint, borders are not just "fixed or static lines" but rather "productive regimes concurrently generated by and producing social relations of dominance" (Walia, 2021, p. 6). ...
... From this standpoint, borders are not just "fixed or static lines" but rather "productive regimes concurrently generated by and producing social relations of dominance" (Walia, 2021, p. 6). Borders determine who is deemed worthy of belonging to our-both material and imagined-communities, thereby dictating the unequal allocation of life chances among different groups and their differential vulnerability to premature death (Esposito et al., 2024). This critical understanding has at its core the notion of border imperialism (Walia, 2013(Walia, , 2021, which illuminates the complex linkages between colonial histories and their persistent reverberations and neocolonial iterations, as expressed in contemporary state-sanctioned practices of exploitation, subordination, criminalisation, and abandonment of people governed as migrants. ...
... The term syndemic reflects the multi-intersectionality between biologic-health conditions and pre-existing and persisting structural-societal inequalities and harms(Singer, 1994). More recently this notion has been applied to COVID-19 by scholars who called for a more nuanced and systemic approach centred in social justice (see also,Esposito et al., 2024). ...
The last two decades have seen an unprecedented expansion of brutal border regimes around the world. People racialised as migrants are systematically disenfranchised, dispossessed and often exposed to forms of organised violence such as immigration detention and deportation. Despite the widespread political and scholarly debate on migration, the relationship between contemporary border regimes and the history of colonialism has largely been overlooked. This gap is particularly evident in psychology, a discipline traditionally dominated by an emphasis on individuals and lacking acknowledgment of social, political, and structural processes. In this chapter, we examine border violence as being produced by a combination and intersection of power structures and relations that maintain the colonial global orders. Furthermore, we critically analyse how psychology in general, and community psychology in particular, have approached these issues. In doing so, we rely on our observations and lived experiences as community organisers, practitioners, and researchers engaged with “border thinking.” Ultimately, we hope that the reflections shared in this chapter can contribute to an ongoing conversation on how community psychologists, inspired by the decolonial turn, can actively engage in solidarities-in-action with individuals and communities on the frontline of border struggles in local and global contexts.
... Besides, many people migrate due to gradual and long-term environmental change (Koubi et al., 2018) and do not fit the legal requirement to be considered refugees. In line with critical scholarship in the field of migration (e.g., Esposito et al., 2023;Jones, 2017;Sharma, 2020;Stierl, 2019;Walia, 2013), we critique the legally-produced distinction between migrants and refugees as they tend to be arbitrary and divisive. Thus, we use climate migrants or climate-related migrants to refer to those who decide to leave their homes and communities (at least partially) due to climate change and include both internal (e.g., rural to urban) and international (from one country to another) migrants. ...
... The results from the two studies addressing public attitudes towards climate migrants (Arias & Blair, 2022;Stanley et al., 2022) suggest a lack of a comprehensive view from the public of the reasons why people may or may not migrate, which we argue may lead to a lack of acceptance and support of migrants' communities. Considering the multiple forms of violence and oppression faced by people on the move at the European borders (Esposito et al., 2023;Esposito & Kellezi, 2020) and the increasing visibility of anti-immigration discourses in European countries (Fernandes-Jesus et al., 2022;Garcia-Jaramillo et al., 2023), there is a pressing need to examine discourses and representations of climate-related migration from the perspective of the general population. Policy discourses about climate-related migration in European countries could be useful to understand how this specific issue is being treated (or not) at the policy level. ...
There have been multiple calls to examine the links between climate change and migration across different fields. This article reviews climate-related migration from a socio-psychological perspective. It examines the topics covered in existing literature, the geographical distribution of studies, and the theoretical and methodological frameworks adopted. A systematic search in peer-reviewed databases was conducted, following PRISMA guidelines and covering studies published until 2 June 2023. Peer-reviewed articles focusing on human climate-related migration, reporting empirical data, and addressing socio-psychological dimensions and/or approaches were included. In total, 25 studies were analysed. Results suggested an increasing interest in the topic in the last decade and that most studies focused on internal migrants. From a methodological perspective, we found a lack of studies using critical and participatory methodologies. Additionally, our narrative synthesis suggested that: socio-political and climate vulnerabilities are intertwined; dimensions of place attachment and sense of community are key in explaining how people deal with climate change and decide to remain or to migrate; communities affected by climate change and climate-related migration face health and well-being challenges. Finally, a few studies suggested the importance of looking at public attitudes towards climate migrants and recognising climate justice dimensions in climate migration. We critically discuss these and other results and possible avenues for future research in the fields of social and community psychology.
In this paper, we examine immigration detention in Portugal, a system whose daily operations and inherent violence are overlooked in both public and academic discourses. Even within community psychology, discussions on immigration detention have largely remained on the fringes of scholarly debates. Guided by a justice‐centered ecological lens, we map the contours of daily life in detention by centering the intersectional struggles of detained cisgender and transgender women. These struggles illuminate the politics of power and resistance at play in these sites, contributing to interrelated ecologies of knowledge and advancing a critical understanding of the systems of power and oppression articulated around borders, citizenship, and the “making of migration.” Our findings reveal Portuguese detention centers as uncaring environments where women feel constantly threatened, unsafe and disregarded, with their well‐being severely compromised. Ignorance reigns in these sites, wielded as a form of power. Yet, despite this, detained women create counterspaces and cultivate ecologies of knowledge and resistance from the ground up. We conclude by reflecting on how community‐engaged scholars and activists can contribute to transformative and liberatory efforts against carceral border systems, working toward futures of freedom, dignity, and justice for all.
Harmful child detention and deportation policies, along with dehumanizing migrant narratives, are part of a global pattern of systemic oppression targeting people on the move. This paper reviews the psychological harms experienced by migrant children caused by detention, separation, and deportation, critiquing the limitations of trauma‐focused, individual therapeutic approaches often adopted by service‐oriented fields. Community psychology principles are presented as an alternative framework, emphasizing ecological and systemic approaches to design more just and humane immigration policies at societal, organizational, and community levels. The paper explores evidence of harm, the strengths and limitations of therapeutic approaches, and harmful policies such as Trump's zero‐tolerance policy and emerging US deportation plans. It also highlights positive frameworks, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, such as organizational policies and legal standards centered on the child's best interests. Using a social‐ecological lens, the paper examines harmful policies that escalate risks, stressors, and barriers and highlights humane and protective factors. The authors examine how community psychology challenges oppressive systems, promotes community‐based alternatives, and amplifies the voices of migrant children and families. These efforts underscore the transformative potential of community psychology in addressing immigration injustices through collective action and systemic change.
This article examines the strategies of resistance enacted by an informal network of solidarity comprised of Afghan youths on the move in Europe and their Swedish allies. In 2015, thousands of Afghan children fleeing from the Taliban regime arrived in Europe as unaccompanied minors. Many have been hosted in Sweden and lived there for several years, until coming of age. Reaching 18 years prompted a series of consecutive losses, as the Swedish state limited their opportunities to remain in the country or even illegalized them. Subjected to threats of detention, deportation, and ill treatment, many Afghan youths re-escaped into other European countries, crafting networks of informal solidarity to help them resist border violence. This article is based on an ethnographic study that delves into the lived experiences of four Afghan youths who lived in Lisbon between February 2019 and February 2020, particularly focusing on the journey of Ahmed, a young man of Hazara ethnicity. The empirical data shed light on the solidarity enactments that enhanced the youths’ resistance in hostile environments, inviting reflection on the impacts of the European border regime and the importance of agency, care, and political contestation.
In this special issue, we invited contributions that critically examined issues of imperialism, colonialism, power, justice, etc. to expand the canon of anticolonial scholarship and critical scholarship in community psychology. Our two objectives were: (1) to build on the canon of anticolonial and critical race scholarship to cultivate an empirical and theoretical body of work and conceptual frameworks about racism and colonialism within the field of community psychology and (2) to unpack the different manifestations of racism in society from the lens of community psychology and reflect on the implications of these varied forms of injustice in the contemporary moment. Rooted in African epistemology and methodology (Martin, 2021), we find the concept of the algorithm to serve as a potent metaphor for the ways in which these oppressive structures operate given the prevalence of algorithms in our daily lives and the algorithm is symbolic of the information age and predictive powers that seem to govern society beyond conscious control. In this sense, imperial algorithms are these structures, patterns, processes, and procedures that perpetuate imperialism. These imperial algorithms manifest as neo‐colonialism, surveillance, social engineering, carcerality, reality warping of contemporary racism, health disparities exacerbated by COVID‐19, and environmental grids of oppression.
The institutional violence we are now experiencing, coupled with historical and ongoing waves of oppression, is a result and continuation of the legacy of colonialism. The outward eruptions that we are seeing over the last years are a result of American and Canadian settler nation-states that have taken hold in North America but are now in decline. Yet, the perpetuation of imperialism and white supremacist ideologies via the academe and other noneducational entities reproduced through curricula, pedagogy, and institutional policies and practices must still be addressed. The discipline of community psychology (CP) is no exception. As a part of the imperialist empire, CP, a mainstream academic discipline born at the heart of the empire of the colonial ruling class, continuously asks: What can we do? We, the authors of this paper, are troubled by this question and respond with a question of our own: Can community psychology really be part of the solution if it does not acknowledge that it is part of the problem? Through the lens of five Indigenous, Black, and racialized scholar-activists, educators, and practitioners, we identify three community psychology principles and argue that in practice within Black and Indigenous communities, they are not sufficient. Further, we illustrate that, related to these principles, community psychology is situated within what is termed the industrial complex, and we elucidate the implications of this situating. Lastly, we offer a proposal for how we, as part of the academe and practice, can decolonize community psychology and move it forward to align with current liberation movements and Indigenous sovereignty.
This study explored how a process of community transformation emerged in post-hurricane Puerto Rico. Most post-disaster research focuses on community and personal losses while little is known about strengths and positive outcomes. In the aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and María in 2017, vast structural injustices in Puerto Rico were made visible. Government aid for recovery was insufficient. Further, small, socioeconomically challenged communities received aid months after the main metropolitan area. In the midst of this collective trauma, accounts arose of transformative initiatives promoting climate justice and participatory democracy emerging across Puerto Rico. In this grounded theory study, residents from different communities in Puerto Rico (N=69) shared their post-disaster experiences. Results revealed a phase-based theoretical model of post-disaster community transformation. After experiencing collective trauma(s)-including both natural disasters and unjust delivery of recovery aid-community residents unanimously reported helping one another. In communities where leaders' vision extended beyond reconstruction to pre-disaster levels, a process of transformation began. A series of psychological mechanisms facilitated or inhibited this process. Facilitators included a sense of community, posttraumatic growth, and critical consciousness. Barriers included leader burnout and interpersonal tensions. Community psychologists who are committed to climate justice issues can play a key role in strengthening post-disaster community transformation efforts through research, policy, and programming.
The paper documents environmental health conditions and healthcare access challenges faced by internally displaced people (IDPs) from Borno State living in informal settlements in Lagos, Nigeria, in 2020, during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. This qualitative study with 32 IDPs suggests a high vulnerability to COVID-19. Their accommodation often lacked basic sanitation including water and toilet facilities; overcrowding and high population density restricted ability to adhere to social distancing; and IDPs experienced serious consequences from lockdown, as the majority depended on daily wages, and did not receive food packages or other support from the State. Finally, there were obstacles to accessing healthcare. We highlight the importance of an integrated approach, consolidating the efforts of communities, non-governmental organisations, environmental and public health, and international organisations to address the health and well-being issues of IDPs in urban informal settlements.
Between the middle of March 2020 and the end of February 2021, approximately 4,000 hate incidents and crimes against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) were reported to Stop AAPI Hate (Jeung et al., 2021). Stop AAPI Hate is a coalition launched by the AAPI Equity Alliance, Chinese for Affirmative Action, and the Asian American Studies Department of San Francisco State University. It was formed to document and respond to reported hate incidents and crimes against AAPI. Asian Americans and Asians have encountered long-standing racism, for instance, the Yellow Peril stereotypes, since the late 19th century. These stereotypes portray people of Asian (especially East Asian) ethnicity as aliens, lacking in individuality, and having distorted sexuality (Chen et al., 2020; Kawai, 2005). When the COVID-19 pandemic impacted populations worldwide, there was a focus on China and origin theories for the disease that led to a growth in media and political messages that perpetuated Yellow Peril stereotypes. As a consequence, we are observing heightened discrimination, hate, and violence against members of the Asian American community (Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, 2021).
Background:
Emerging evidence suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic is widening pre-pandemic health, social, and economic inequalities between refugees, migrants, and asylum seekers and the general population. This global scoping review examined the impact of the pandemic on community-based asylum seekers and undocumented migrants in high- and upper-middle-income countries.
Methods:
We conducted a systematic search of peer-reviewed articles in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest Central. We applied Katikireddi's framework of understanding and addressing inequalities to examine the differential impact of the pandemic across exposure, vulnerability to infection, disease consequences, social consequences, effectiveness of control measures, and adverse consequences of control measures.
Results:
We included 32 articles in the review. The analysis showed that asylum seekers and undocumented migrants experienced greater exposure to the COVID-19 virus and higher infection rates. They also experienced differential social consequences in the form of job loss and lost and/or reduced work hours. The effectiveness of pandemic response measures on asylum seekers and undocumented migrants was also affected by pre-pandemic social and economic marginalisation, exclusion from pandemic-induced policy measures, lack of appropriate pandemic communication, and variable trust in governments and authority. Pandemic control measures had greater adverse consequences on asylum seekers and undocumented migrants than the general population, with the majority of studies included in this review reporting worsened mental health and social isolation conditions and reduced access to health care.
Conclusions:
Asylum seekers and undocumented migrants experienced a disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across the six thematic areas of comparison. Policies that reduce exposure and vulnerability to the infection, grant equitable access to health and social care, and build capacities and resilience, are critical to enable asylum seekers and undocumented migrants to cope with and recover from pre-pandemic and pandemic-induced inequalities.
The COVID-19 pandemic affects different people unequally, and migrants are frequently among the groups considered particularly vulnerable. However, conceptualizations of ‘vulnerability’ are often ambiguous and poorly defined. Using critical discourse analysis methods, this article analyses the academic use of the term ‘vulnerable’ applied to migrants in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic across public health and social science disciplines.
Our findings indicate that the concept of vulnerability is frequently applied to migrants in the COVID-19 context as a descriptor with seemingly taken-for-granted applicability. Migrants are considered vulnerable for a wide variety of reasons, most commonly relating to exposure to and risk of contracting COVID-19; poverty or low socio-economic status; precarity; access to healthcare; discrimination; and language barriers. Drivers of migrants' vulnerability were frequently construed as immutable societal characteristics. Additionally, our analysis revealed widespread generalization in the use of the notion of vulnerability, with limited consideration of the heterogeneity among and between diverse groups of migrants. Conceptualizations of migrants' vulnerability in the COVID-19 pandemic were sometimes used to advance seemingly contradictory policy implications or conclusions, and migrants’ own views and lived experiences were often marginalized or excluded within these discourses.
Our analysis highlights that although some definable groups of people are certainly more likely to suffer harm in crisis situations like the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of ‘vulnerable’ as a fixed descriptor has potentially negative implications. As an alternative, we suggest thinking about vulnerability as the dynamic outcome of a process of ‘vulnerabilisation’ shaped by social order and power relations.
This Update reports from a webinar on the impacts on the right to housing and linked political struggles of the lockdown measures put in place globally amid the Covid-19 pandemic. Three main threads emerged through the conversation: the impacts of the pandemic are deepening pre-existing housing inequalities, while governments’ responses are largely insufficient; activists and contentious actors worldwide are changing their framings and repertoires to adapt to lockdown measures and attempt to radicalise their action; possibilities, albeit limited, are opening for the construction of global networks of struggle.
COVID-19 disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minority groups as well as people in jails and immigration detention centers in the United States. Between April and August of 2020, the mean monthly COVID-19 case ratio for ICE detainees was 13.4 times that of the general U.S. population.This study aims to understand the experiences of detained asylum seekers during the pandemic and to provide insight into COVID-19's impact on this population's health. This qualitative study employed first-person, in-depth narratives obtained from 12 asylum seekers, all of whom were detained in immigration detention centers or prisons during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic and were subsequently released. Detained asylum seekers reported inadequate medical care, obstacles to receiving care, an inability to social distance, poor hygiene, restricted movement, and a lack of infection control-- all which increased their risk of contracting and spreading COVID-19 and exacerbated health inequalities brought to the forefront by the pandemic. Advocating for improved disease prevention and screening, prompt access to health care and treatment, cohorting of infectious cases, and community alternatives to detention to decrease the detained immigrant population sizes are crucial to halt communicability of the virus and its subsequent morbidity and mortality in this vulnerable population.
In this article we seek to expand on the developing interest in Slow Violence and how it relates to immigration and asylum, by exploring how such violence is resisted. Following Foucault’s insight that in order to better understand power, it helps to study resistance to it, we draw on original research into acts of protest by refugees and asylum seekers in Scotland, and connect this to existing research on experiences of and resistance to the UK asylum system. In so doing we offer ‘Slow Resistance’ as a potentially useful concept with which to understand resistance not just to a particular configuration of power relations, but to a particular form of violence. The conceptual utility of Slow Resistance lies in its ability to illuminate: the particular operations of power/violence in the UK asylum system; the multiple forms of resistance to this violence/power; how these forms of resistance may be connected (thus discouraging the ‘silo-ing’ of analysing different forms of resistance); and how time is creatively engaged with by such forms of resistance. If, as has been argued, a particular challenge of slow violence is representational – how to devise arresting images and stories adequate to this form of violence – then resistance has the potential to focus our attention on it, and to gradually prepare the ground for meaningful change. While developed here in relation to the UK asylum system, slow resistance is a concept that we think can be useful in a wide range of contexts in which slow violence operates.
There were more than 800,000 confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) deaths in the United States (U.S) by the end of 2021. The health consequences of COVID-19, however, have not affected all residents equally. In this review, we synthesize recent evidence suggesting that high levels of poverty in the U.S. compared to other high-income countries, as well as historic and ongoing racial/ethnic discrimination, have exacerbated the health consequences of COVID-19, particularly for racial/ethnic minorities. We discuss four mechanisms through which poverty and discrimination affect COVID-19-related health consequences: greater pre-existing health challenges, reduced access to healthcare, lower-quality neighbourhood and housing conditions, and unequal exposure to high-risk occupations. Evidence suggests that economic and policy institutions that contributed to higher pre-pandemic poverty rates in the U.S., particularly among racial/ethnic minorities, have been central determinants of unequal health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.
A syndemic has been theorized as a cluster of epidemics driven by harmful social and structural conditions wherein the interactions between the constitutive epidemics drive excess morbidity and mortality. We conducted a mixed-methods study to investigate a syndemic in Soweto, South Africa, consisting of a population-based quantitative survey (N = 783) and in-depth, qualitative interviews (N = 88). We used ethnographic methods to design a locally relevant measure of stress. Here we show that multimorbidity and stress interacted with each other to reduce quality of life. The paired qualitative analysis further explored how the quality-of-life impacts of multimorbidity were conditioned by study participants’ illness experiences. Together, these findings underscore the importance of recognizing the social and structural drivers of stress and how they affect the experience of chronic illness and well-being.
This chapter starts by introducing the policy and political context of the Covid-19 crisis, surveying some of the changes it brought to immigration policies in different countries: border closures for non-citizens; disruption for temporary migrants; and special arrangements for essential (migrant) workers like doctors and nurses or farmworkers to ensure emergency wards are staffed and the food processing chain is not disrupted. The chapter critically reviews these changes and discusses the main analytical and policy questions which the book addresses. It investigates how the pandemic forces us to rethink notions like membership, citizenship, belonging, but also solidarity, community, essential services or ‘essential’ workers. Migrants expose tensions and contradictions within these concepts and values. Citizens (who may carry the virus) cannot be banned from return to the homeland as they travel internationally or domestically; by contrast, temporary migrants or asylum seekers may be locked in their dormitories because of an outbreak in their midst to prevent spread and protect the citizens. This chapter shows that the specific tensions of the global pandemic for migration are linked to the more long-term tensions of globalisation, migration, and the nation-state, suggesting that the pandemic is but a magnifying lens. The chapter concludes with an overview of the book’s contents.
This book is about who we are – when we are not held back by all the rules and stories we are told about ourselves. When we create our own narratives. It is a book of first-hand accounts of solidarity and mutual aid in the time of global pandemic. Contributors are from all over the world, and each share stories so similar that it almost makes one wonder how that is possible. Almost ...
Mutual aid groups have been an indispensable part of the public response to the COVID-19 pandemic. They have provided many forms of support, in particular grocery shopping which has enabled people to self-isolate if required. While community solidarity during emergencies and disasters is common, previous studies have shown that such solidarity behaviors tend to decline over time, even when needs remain high. In this study, we address how mutual aid groups can be sustained over time in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted 32 interviews with organizers of COVID-19 mutual aid and community support groups in the United Kingdom between September 2020 and January 2021. Based on a reflexive thematic analysis, we identified several community and group level experiences and strategies that were related to sustained participation in COVID-19 mutual aid groups. Meeting community needs over time with localized action and resources and building trust and community-based alliances were foundational elements in the COVID-19 mutual aid groups. Group processes strategies, such as a culture of care and support and regular group meetings, were used to help to sustain involvement. Some experiences resulting from participation in COVID-19 mutual aid groups were also related to sustained participation, including positive emotions (e.g., joy, pride), well-being and sense of efficacy, and an increasing sense of local community belonging and cohesion. Based on these findings, we propose four practical recommendations for sustaining mutual aid groups to assist public engagement with protective behaviors in the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. We recommend providing practical and financial support to COVID-19 mutual aid groups; to mobilize the knowledge and the experiences acquired by COVID-19 mutual aid groups for developing programs and interventions for addressing the medium and long-term impacts of COVID-19; to prioritize community-level interventions; and to recognize the role of group processes as these have the potential to lead to long-term community responses. These approaches will be key for ensuring that communities effectively recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.
This article examines developments along the central Mediterranean border, following the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic in EUrope. In response to the pandemic, EU member states enacted emergency legislation, further curtailing movements across borders. Italy and Malta declared their harbours “unsafe” for migrant arrivals, withdrew rescue operations, and installed offshore detention facilities. Though ostensibly enacted in the name of “saving lives”, these measures had the opposite effect. The article assesses how border violence has become justified by reference to the pandemic, what we call the “Covid excuse”. We highlight how people on the move were subjected to both biopolitical and necropolitical modalities of control through pushbacks, offshore containment and abandonment. Instead of being exceptional, we argue, these measures must be situated in longer continuities of EUropean border violence. We also discuss how people on the move are not only shaped by racialized border violence but enact fugitive practices of resistance.
In certain contexts associated with counterterrorism, some governments and military forces have stigmatized civilians, not because of the acts they perform but rather from loose associations with groups perceived as “terrorists”, based on geographical proximity or common social, ethnic and religious backgrounds. Access to humanitarian assistance has been affected by this stigmatization, and in specific geographical areas it has been blocked, restricted, made conditional or undermined. This article draws on recent literature and examples to argue that certain counterterrorism frameworks and practices have inhibited the impartial delivery of aid to all affected populations.
Background
Community engagement and volunteering are essential for the public response to COVID-19. Since March 2020 a large number of people in the UK have been regularly doing unpaid activities to benefit others besides their close relatives. Although most mutual aid groups emerged from local neighbourhoods and communities, official public institutions also fostered community volunteering, namely through the community champions scheme. By considering a broad definition of COVID-19 volunteering, this article describes a systematic review of the literature focused on one broad question: What have we learned about COVID-19 volunteering both at the UK national level and the more local community level?
Methods
A rapid review of the literature in peer-reviewed databases and grey literature was applied in our search, following the PRISMA principles. The search was conducted from 10 to 16 of October 2020, and sources were included on the basis of having been published between January and October 2020, focusing on COVID-19 and addressing community groups, volunteering groups, volunteers, or community champions in the UK.
Results
After initial screening, a total of 40 relevant sources were identified. From these, 27 were considered eligible. Findings suggest that food shopping and emotional support were the most common activities, but there were diverse models of organisation and coordination in COVID-19 volunteering. Additionally, community support groups seem to be adjusting their activities and scope of action to current needs and challenges. Volunteers were mostly women, middle-class, highly educated, and working-age people. Social networks and connections, local knowledge, and social trust were key dimensions associated with community organising and volunteering. Furthermore, despite the efforts of a few official public institutions and councils, there has been limited community engagement and collaboration with volunteering groups and other community-based organisations.
Conclusions
We identified important factors for fostering community engagement and COVID-19 volunteering as well as gaps in the current literature. We suggest that future research should be directed towards deepening knowledge on sustaining community engagement, collaboration and community participation over time, during and beyond this pandemic.
Background
The inverse care law states that disadvantaged populations need more health care than advantaged populations but receive less. Gaps in COVID-19-related health care and infection control are not well understood. We aimed to examine inequalities in health in the care cascade from testing for SARS-CoV-2 to COVID-19-related hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death in Switzerland, a wealthy country strongly affected by the pandemic.
Methods
We analysed surveillance data reported to the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health from March 1, 2020, to April 16, 2021, and 2018 population data. We geocoded residential addresses of notifications to identify the Swiss neighbourhood index of socioeconomic position (Swiss-SEP). The index describes 1·27 million small neighbourhoods of approximately 50 households each on the basis of rent per m², education and occupation of household heads, and crowding. We used negative binomial regression models to calculate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) of the association between ten groups of the Swiss-SEP index defined by deciles (1=lowest, 10=highest) and outcomes. Models were adjusted for sex, age, canton, and wave of the epidemic (before or after June 8, 2020). We used three different denominators: the general population, the number of tests, and the number of positive tests.
Findings
Analyses were based on 4 129 636 tests, 609 782 positive tests, 26 143 hospitalisations, 2432 ICU admissions, 9383 deaths, and 8 221 406 residents. Comparing the highest with the lowest Swiss-SEP group and using the general population as the denominator, more tests were done among people living in neighbourhoods of highest SEP compared with lowest SEP (adjusted IRR 1·18 [95% CrI 1·02–1·36]). Among tested people, test positivity was lower (0·75 [0·69–0·81]) in neighbourhoods of highest SEP than of lowest SEP. Among people testing positive, the adjusted IRR was 0·68 (0·62–0·74) for hospitalisation, was 0·54 (0·43–0·70) for ICU admission, and 0·86 (0·76–0·99) for death. The associations between neighbourhood SEP and outcomes were stronger in younger age groups and we found heterogeneity between areas.
Interpretation
The inverse care law and socioeconomic inequalities were evident in Switzerland during the COVID-19 epidemic. People living in neighbourhoods of low SEP were less likely to be tested but more likely to test positive, be admitted to hospital, or die, compared with those in areas of high SEP. It is essential to continue to monitor testing for SARS-CoV-2, access and uptake of COVID-19 vaccination and outcomes of COVID-19. Governments and health-care systems should address this pandemic of inequality by taking measures to reduce health inequalities in response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
Funding
Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, Swiss National Science Foundation, EU Horizon 2020, Branco Weiss Foundation.
Background
This article presents a discussion about the representation of Syrian refugees in Turkish news media during the COVID-19 pandemic. Media play a critical role during pandemics by affecting values, opinions, public knowledge about stigmatized groups. When media ignore and stereotypically represent a social group, the social value of the group decreases, and their problems are trivialized.
Method
I analyzed data provided by Media Monitoring Center which is an independent media company in Turkey. Sample was selected to reveal news representation of Syrian refugees between March 11, 2020 (the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in Turkey) and August 20, 2020 (the time of this research). Mostly watched television evening (prime) news, the most widely circulated newspapers, and the most visited online news platforms were analyzed. By using content analysis method, the news stories about Syrian refugees were examined.
Results
It has been revealed that Turkish news media overwhelmingly acclaimed for Turkey’s polices on Syrian refugees and the criticized the European Union policies towards refugees in the news stories. Even though almost 4 million Syrian refugees live in Turkey, with the largest refugee population in the world, Turkish news media ignored the plight of Syrian refugees.
Conclusion
Results of the study demonstrate that Syrian refugees were symbolically annihilated by Turkish news media during the COVID-19 pandemic. The concealment of information and symbolic annihilation of disadvantaged groups could potentially cause health disparities and irreparable harm to public health. Moreover, inequities exacerbate when predicaments of stigmatized groups are ignored in the news media. Further studies are needed to reveal the impact of the media on health disparities among stigmatized groups during the pandemics.
In 2018, in response to increasingly oppressive and widespread federal immigration enforcement actions in the United States (U.S.) and around the globe – including family separation, immigration raids, detention, deportation of people who have lived in the country for much of their lives – the Society for Community Research & Action produced a statement on the effects of deportation and forced separation on immigrants, their families, and communities (SCRA, 2018). The statement focused exclusively on the impacts of deportation and forced family separation, documenting the damage done by oppressive U.S. policies and practices. We felt it was imperative to document this harm, and yet were uncomfortable producing a narrow paper that focused solely on harm. There are multiple ways immigrants and their allies resist deportation and other forms of oppression. This resistance is done individually, collectively, and in settings that vary in size and scope, including community‐based, faith‐based, direct care, and educational settings, as well as entire municipalities and transnational organizing settings. Settings facilitate resistance in many ways, focusing on those who are oppressed, their oppressors, and systems of oppression. In this statement, we describe the unique and overlapping ways in which settings facilitate resistance. We situate this review of the scientific and practice literature in the frameworks of change through social settings, empowering settings, healing justice, and decolonization. We also document recommendations for continued resistance.
Companion guides for stakeholders: https://www.communitypsychology.com/supporting-immigrants-resistance-to-injustice/
This article considers the impact of COVID-19 on international protection applicants in the Irish asylum system. It presents a critical reflection on the failings of direct provision and how the experience of COVID-19 has further heightened the issues at stake for asylum seekers and refugees living in Ireland. In Ireland, international protection applicants are detained in a system of institutionalized living called direct provision where they must remain until they receive status. Direct provision centres offer substandard accommodation and are often overcrowded. During the pandemic, many asylum seekers could not effectively socially isolate, so many centres experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. This article examines these experiences and joins a community of scholars calling for the urgent end to the system of direct provision.
In fighting the spread of COVID-19, the drastic measures undertaken by governments worldwide demonstrate a trade-off between public health and fundamental democratic principles. Yet this behaviour is not consistent across democracies, which motivates this paper to examine why some democracies were willing to constrain individual freedoms and concentrate power more than others during the pandemic’s first wave. Creating two indices to measure the degree to which COVID-19 policies interfere with these democratic principles in 34 European countries, the analyses show that the large variation cannot be solely explained by pandemic-related factors. It is argued that the strong protection of democratic principles already established in ‘normal’ times makes governments more reluctant to opt for restrictive policies. By highlighting how differences in policy responses are attributed to provisions guaranteeing individual liberties, this paper contributes to a better understanding of how democracies handle the democratic dilemma in times of crises.
Existing vulnerabilities have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The present case study from the city of Lisbon explores the existing disparities and structural problems within the asylum system based on analysis of multimedia data. The experience of the COVID-19 pandemic emphasizes findings suggesting the importance of different forms of solidarity and activism both newly found and existing, such as the meaningful and substantive participation of refugees and civil society, engaged in the front line to deal with the crisis. This study provides insights for transformative change of asylum policies, stressing a more holistic and systematic perspective and fostering the involvement of refugees and asylum seekers in government planning and policy processes to build back better policies.
El discurso antimigratorio en algunos países europeos y
en Estados Unidos había estado escalando en las últimas
décadas. La migración como problema ya era un
argumento recurrente en las directrices migratorias de
algunos Estados nacionales y una bandera de las
formaciones políticas de derecha. El objetivo de este
artículo es analizar la manera en que la contingencia
sanitaria derivada del COVID-19 ha influido sobre el
discurso migratorio de los representantes políticos. Con
base en la revisión hemerográfica de periódicos,
agencias de noticias y organismos internacionales, entre
marzo y septiembre de 2020, esta investigación muestra
que la pandemia ha reforzado el discurso político
antimigratorio, dado que ofrece un argumento maniqueo
que puede favorecer sentimientos y actitudes xenófobos
en las sociedades receptoras.
When Covid-19 was acknowledged to have arrived in Europe in February-March 2020, politicians and public health authorities scrabbled to find appropriate and effective responses to the challenges. The EU obligation contained in Article 9 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) requiring the EU (including the Member States to achieve a common protection on human health, however, seems to have been missing from the responses.) Instead, borders and their control became a site of substantial political debate across Europe as a possible venue for effective measures to limit the spread of the pandemic. While the most invasive Covid-19 measures have been within EU states, lockdown, closure of businesses etc., the cross-border aspects (limitations on cross border movement) have been important. In the European Union this had important consequences for EU law on border controls, in particular free movement of persons and the absence of controls among Schengen states. It also implicated border controls with third countries, including European Free Trade Area (EFTA and Switzerland) all states neighboring the EU, the UK (having left the EU on 1 January 2020) the Western Balkans and Turkey. While EU law distinguishes between Schengen borders where no control takes place on persons, non-Schengen EU borders, where controls take place but are limited to identity checks and border controls with third countries and external borders with third countries (non-EFTA or Swiss) the responses of many Member States and the EU institutions abandoned many aspects of these distinctions. Indeed, the difference between border controls between states (inside Schengen, the EU, EFTA, or outside) and internal restrictions on movement became increasingly blurred. Two approaches—public health and public policy—were applied simultaneously and not always in ways which were mutually coherent, or in any way consistent with the Article 9 TFEU commitment. While the public health approach to movement of persons is based on ensuring identification of those in need of treatment or possibly carrying the disease, providing treatment as quickly as possible or quarantine, the public policy approach is based on refusing entry to persons who are a risk irrespective of what that may mean in terms of propagating the pandemic in neighboring states or states of origin. I will examine here the ways in which the two approaches were applied in the EU from the perspective of EU law on border controls.
Behrouz Boochani published No Friend but the Mountains: Writing From Manus Prison in 2018 which went on to win the 2019 Victorian Prize for Literature while he was still incarcerated in Manus Prison. Since its publication the book has attracted a great deal of worldwide attention, particualrly from UK academics – it was released in the UK in 2019. Prior to winning Australia’s richest literary award his film Chauka, Please Tell Us the Time had its world premiere at the Sydney Film Festival and its international premiere at the BFI London Film Festival. The feature-length film has also been screened at numerous UK universities. In February 2020 Behrouz and translator Omid Tofighian engaged with academics and activists in the UK over a series of events; this article is an edited version of various conversations that emerged from these collaborations and critically discusses the global nature of border violence and the colonial ideology at the heart of immigration detention.
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) that has caused the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic represents the greatest international biopsychosocial emergency the world has faced for a century, and psychological science has an integral role to offer in helping societies recover. The aim of this paper is to set out the shorter‐ and longer‐term priorities for research in psychological science that will (a) frame the breadth and scope of potential contributions from across the discipline; (b) enable researchers to focus their resources on gaps in knowledge; and (c) help funders and policymakers make informed decisions about future research priorities in order to best meet the needs of societies as they emerge from the acute phase of the pandemic. The research priorities were informed by an expert panel convened by the British Psychological Society that reflects the breadth of the discipline; a wider advisory panel with international input; and a survey of 539 psychological scientists conducted early in May 2020. The most pressing need is to research the negative biopsychosocial impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic to facilitate immediate and longer‐term recovery, not only in relation to mental health, but also in relation to behaviour change and adherence, work, education, children and families, physical health and the brain, and social cohesion and connectedness. We call on psychological scientists to work collaboratively with other scientists and stakeholders, establish consortia, and develop innovative research methods while maintaining high‐quality, open, and rigorous research standards.
Background
Public health concern is increasing with recent rise in the number of COVID-19 cases in Nepal. To curb this pandemic, Nepal is facing some forms of lockdown, encouraging people to implement social distancing so as to reduce interactions between people which could eventually reduce the possibilities of new infection; however, it has affected the overall physical, mental, social and spiritual health of the people.
Methods
Published articles related to psychosocial effects due to COVID-19 and other outbreaks were searched and reviewed.
Conclusion
While many countries are supporting their citizens with sophisticated health safety-nets and various relief funds, some developing countries have unique challenges with vulnerable populations and limited resources to respond to the pandemic. This review presents the consequences of pandemic and lockdown on socioeconomic, mental health and other aspects in Nepalese society.
Focusing on Europe’s 2015 crisis in Italy and drawing on Balibar’s notion of “crisis racism,” this article discusses how the amplification of the refugee/economic migrant binary in “crisis” contexts carries asylum adjudication beyond courts, into the public sphere. Analyzing policy-related discourse and interviews with asylum seekers, I discuss how crisis racism feeds a culture of suspicion toward Black subjects, and how migrants understand their deservingness of protection in relation to social belonging. In crisis contexts, notions of deservingness have heightened significance for authorities, publics, and migrants, bolstering anti-Black racism, threatening asylum regimes, and putting migrants’ lives at risk.
Syndemic theory considers how social inequalities drive disease interaction. A new study uses a mixed-methods approach to examine how stress interacts with multiple diseases to affect quality of life in Soweto, South Africa.
This article investigates how the security-humanitarian rationale that underpins migration governmentality has been restructured by and inflected in light of hygienic-sanitary borders which enforce racialised confinement in the name of both migrants' and citizens' safety from infection by Covid-19. Focusing on the politics of migration containment along EUrope's frontiers, examining in particular border reinforcements carried out by Italy, Malta and Greece, we interrogate how the pandemic has been exploited to enact deterrence through hygienic-sanitary border enforcements. These enforcements are underpinned by an ambivalent security-humanitarian narrative that crafts migrants as subjects who cannot be protected by EU member states from the pandemic if allowed inside, and, at once, as potential vehicles of contagion - ‘Corona spreaders’ - and thus as dangers on a bacterial-hygienic level. Our article demonstrates that these EUropean border measures are more than temporary responses to an unprecedented health crisis. Rather, the pandemic has been seized as an opportunity to strengthen existing deterrence measures and hamper migrants' access to asylum through biopolitical and spatial tactics that aim to restructure the border regime. While emphasising the historical trajectories and continuities underwriting these current developments, we contend that the pandemic functions as an accelerator of dynamics of migrant incarceration and containment.
The COVID-19 (coronavirus disease–2019) pandemic has exposed long-standing inequalities in U.S. health care. Historically, racial and ethnic minorities have been the most likely to suffer from inadequate health care access and insurance coverage. With the spread of COVID-19, these disparities have dramatically increased. Focusing on native and foreign-born racial/ethnic minorities, this article discusses how entrenched health inequities and structural discrimination have led to COVID-19 morbidities and mortalities. Considering that “essential” frontline workers are disproportionately native and foreign-born racial/ethnic minorities, this work evaluates the impact(s) of social exclusion and the lack of support systems for these workers. Using the framework of intersectionality, this work also examines how race and immigrant status affect COVID-19 spread in prisons and immigration detention centers—facilities that often lack effective health and sanitary conditions and where inmates are also likely to be racial/ethnic minorities.
The health and economic consequences of Covid-19 have not affected the different groups in society equally, particularly the weakest communities, chief among them asylum seekers who have been hit the hardest. This study focuses on the Israeli media’s role during this crisis, and whether they have advocated or hindered African asylum seekers capability ‘to be secure’. This capability is the most important in the capabilities approach, as it advocates not only quality of life but also life itself. The study reveals mixed results as the Israeli media both hinders and advocates for asylum seekers’ security during the Covid-19 pandemic. By mapping out the themes of the media coverage, this study serves as a roadmap for policymakers and media organizations for the improvement of asylum seekers’ security through mass media coverage. Furthermore, this study contributes to the debate regarding the role media should play in society, especially regarding asylum seekers in their time of need.
In 2015, Finland, like other European countries, received an unprecedented number of asylum seekers. Later, in the aftermath of what we prefer to call the ‘refugee reception crisis’, the deportation of those who had received negative asylum decisions began. The Finnish Immigration Service significantly tightened its policies after 2015. Increasingly strict asylum criteria have resulted in deportations at a level never seen before. Furthermore, protests against deportations have increased and become publicly salient. In this chapter we theorize deportation as a form of slow violence that hurts not only its main target but also people nearby. While a forced removal can be seen as a single, potentially violent act, deportability is a slow process. The violence ‘happens’ rather than ‘is done’, and therefore deportability may not be understood as violence. By analyzing thematic interviews with people who have contested deportations, we analyze how citizens who are proximate to deportable migrants ‘withness’ deportability—how they begin to see and feel the invisible, slow violence done to others and decide to act. The chapter concludes that making visible violence that would otherwise remain unrecognized is crucial in current anti-deportation activism.
The government recognizes that social factors cause racial inequalities in access to resources and opportunities that result in racial health disparities. However, this recognition fails to acknowledge the root cause of these racial inequalities: structural racism. As a result, racial health disparities persist.
This article examines ways in which social movements have been impacted and responded in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Between March and May 2020, lockdown measures put a halt to mass protests for democracy, and the virus spread became the only political focus and news headline. Far from disappearing, social movements have adapted to unexpected circumstances and been particularly active during this challenging period. The first section of the article provides an overview of grassroots movements initiatives to complete five roles. The second section focuses on the struggle over the meaning of the crisis. While progressive intellectuals and movements consider the COVID-19 pandemic opened opportunities to build a fairer world, they compete with reactionary, capitalist and state actors to shape the meaning of the crisis and the world that may come out of it. The intensity of social justice movements’ initiatives during the lockdown may show the outlines of a global wave of movements, embodied in countless decentralized reactions to a global event that affected has shaken billions of human lives.
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is believed to have emerged in Wuhan, China in late December 2019 and began rapidly spreading around the globe throughout the spring months of 2020. As COVID-19 proliferated across the United States, Asian Americans reported a surge in racially motivated hate crimes involving physical violence and harassment. Throughout history, pandemic-related health crises have been associated with the stigmatization and “othering” of people of Asian descent. Asian Americans have experienced verbal and physical violence motivated by individual-level racism and xenophobia from the time they arrived in America in the late 1700s up until the present day. At the institutional level, the state has often implicitly reinforced, encouraged, and perpetuated this violence through bigoted rhetoric and exclusionary policies. COVID-19 has enabled the spread of racism and created national insecurity, fear of foreigners, and general xenophobia, which may be related to the increase in anti-Asian hate crimes during the pandemic. We examine how these crimes – situated in historically entrenched and intersecting individual-level and institutional-level racism and xenophobia – have operated to “other” Asian Americans and reproduce inequality.