With the fourth highest population of transient people in the nation, roughly 9,000 people within the San Diego area are unable to acquire and maintain safe or adequate housing. Despite an overall decline in homelessness in California in 2018, San Diego has experienced a 4.8 percent increase in its homeless population over the last two years. The issue is exasperated by the inaction of San Diego’s government and local institutions, effectively placing the burden upon the residents. Left without a choice, these residents have attempted to remedy the situation with makeshift food drives and community outreach. However, the few grassroots movements that have sprung up are largely underfunded and unable to make a lasting impact. As the issue continues to grow in the heart of Southern California, health, safety and ethical concerns become more pressing and crucial to combat.

A Question of Health

The homeless epidemic has created a perpetual healthcare nightmare in the seemingly ideal vacation destination of San Diego. Living unsheltered in close proximity, the homeless both create and suffer from an unsanitary environment that facilitates the spread of serious and deadly diseases. In 2017, an outbreak of Hepatitis A among the homeless and drug users resulted in over 600 cases and 20 deaths in San Diego County. The government of San Diego responded by deploying mobile foot teams to the streets to administer mass vaccinations, targeting those perceived as high risk. However, its efforts were underwhelming, with the government taking more than six months to devise a plan to administer the vaccination. With its strikingly slow response, the government undoubtedly contributed to the rapid spread of the virus and drew criticism from external bodies such as the California State Audit. Furthermore, even after this catastrophe, officials failed to institute programs to prevent similar outbreaks in the future, nor were any steps taken to remove the poor living conditions that contributed to the virus’ inception. Inability to access proper healthcare, hygiene facilities, and mental health professionals perpetuate an ongoing cycle that prevents these individuals from getting off the streets for good.

Threatening Safety

While health concerns threaten the lives of all of San Diego’s residents, the transient population continues to pose a safety threat to the community. In 2017, the city’s rate of violent crime increased 3 percent with the homeless population often involved either as the victims or perpetrators. While local news rarely cover such incidents, attacks against and by homeless individuals are frequent and often incredibly violent. In 2018, a homeless man was beaten to death with a skateboard in North Park.  Hundreds of victims in San Diego County that year were subject to violence due to their transient status. In 2017 alone, two different serial killers solely targeted homeless individuals, murdering them by setting them on fire and impaling them with railroad spikes.

Although some local residents have committed or  continue to commit violent crimes against the homeless population, the homeless themselves are also perpetrators of criminal behavior, a fact tied to the high rates of mental illness within the homeless community. In 2017, a mentally ill homeless man attempted to assault more than five different people before police were able to arrive on the scene and subdue him. A few weeks later, another homeless man terrorized a couple sitting in their car. Unfortunately, incidents such as this occur dozens of times per year within San Diego County, and the threat of violence hangs over all individuals in San Diego.  

An Ethical Dilemma

In addition, the lack of access to basic human necessities such as food, clean water, hygiene products and adequate shelter is a pressing ethical concern. This standard of living, typically associated with third world countries, is experienced by roughly 9,000 people living in one of the most affluent communities in the world. As previously addressed, the lack of funding dedicated towards mental health programs is seriously concerning. From a moral standpoint, the city of San Diego must address whether access to mental healthcare and facilities will be a priority for the growing homeless population.

Criticized by many for its limited response and inaction, the government of San Diego has failed to address the homeless epidemic within the county. While city council members refuse to comment, and other local government officials seem to look the other way, the ever-growing population of San Diego residents without homes and its associated health and safety concerns continue to suffer.

Although the solution will be complicated, the choice to help is simple. Given these pressing issues, it is the duty of local and state actors to intervene on behalf of those who are unable to help themselves. The San Diego government must step up and take responsibility for its residents, including those without homes. This may include more frequent screenings for serious and life-threatening diseases, the establishment of hygiene facilities in areas with high vagrancy populations and more funding directed towards rehabilitation programs, healthcare and mental health programs. In order to make real progress, the community of San Diego must come together to acknowledge and combat this epidemic before it worsens even further.

The post Ignored: The Growing San Diego Homeless Epidemic appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

It’s debate season in the United States, which also means it’s the season for exasperated threats of moving to Denmark if this or the other candidate wins. Left-wing sweetheart Bernie Sanders is particularly enamored with the Scandinavian country. Sanders has praised Denmark in the past for its progressive policies on free education and healthcare, as well as subsidized childcare. The country is also known for having paid leave for mothers and an on-average happier populace.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with comparing countries. In fact, it is important that we examine social and economic progress elsewhere to monitor policies at home. However, progress and growth in other countries cannot be examined via an “us vs. them” rationale, especially in the context of policy.

Critics of Sanders and his agenda attack his love for Denmark with statistics about taxation rates, GDP and demographics, essentially re-iterating Hilary Clinton’s eloquent “we are not Denmark” response to Bernie’s Europhilia—which is in many respects a valid point. However, just as the United States is more than its GDP, we must examine Denmark as more than a few statistics. For example, take the Danish higher education system.

Denmark’s higher education programs are all, in fact, free. Granted, free is a relative term given high tax rates and cost of living, but if you are an EU or EEA citizen, there is no tuition. This applies even to art and trade schools.

So much scholarship and grant money is offered to cover living expenses that some Danish students are essentially paid to go to college. The State Educational Grant and Loan Scheme (SU), for instance, offers at least some financial support for all Danes, regardless of socioeconomic standing. All Danish college students not independent from their parents are eligible to receive about $900 per month under the SU. Students can receive the funding for up to six years while they are in school, and students who are particularly successful can apply for more funding.

This model particularly appeals to parents, students and adults still paying off debts from ridiculously priced American universities. Even public universities aren’t free in the US, and the average American graduating college in 2015 will have $35,000 of student debt.

A study¹ on higher education in welfare states by the University of Amsterdam neatly summarizes the differences between education in the US and Denmark with the “Decommodification Index.” Decommodification refers to a utility’s independence from the market; the more decommodified, the more it is viewed as an entitlement. For education, the study measured public expenditure on higher education, the share of public expenditure on higher education, enrollment, average tuition fees and the student loan/grant system. The study found that Denmark and the US are the most polarized of the countries studied: Denmark has a Decommodification Index of .97 and the United States has a -1.01 (the Index is a measure of z-scores with a mean of 0, determined by all the above factors of decommodification; all countries received between a -1 to 1 score except the US).

Practically what this means is that Danish students view higher education not as something to work hard for, but something to which they are entitled. While many in the United States work several jobs to get through college, for many Danes college is their job.

There are some that worry that this entitlement is actually hurting Denmark’s economy. The Danish government pays for all kinds of education, and as such, many students are opting for arts and humanities programs over more technical careers. The number of students in Denmark contemplating a career in engineering is only one-third of the OCED average despite booming opportunities for engineers. A few technical companies such as Novozumes, Lego and Coloplast have felt the need to launch advertising campaigns just to win students to the field.

The idea of free education sounds ideal: no more student loans, the ability to focus on studies instead of jobs to make ends meet and no reliance on family or friends. But Americans who want to start marching down the free education path must look at the larger picture: the US is not Denmark.

Electing a president who believes in free education is great in theory, but let’s take Clinton’s statement and consider the logistics. Denmark gets its money for higher education from extraordinarily high taxes. In order to make college free in its current state, the US government would have to hike taxes by an unprecedented amount. (The US would need an additional $160 billion per year to cover the total revenue brought in by state schools in 2012 from non-state sources.) And unlike Denmark, a centralized constitutional monarchy with a fairly homogenous population fifty-seven times smaller than the size of the United States, the US must pass every idea by three branches of government and fifty states. A presidential executive order wouldn’t work here.

Besides the practical difficulties, there is an ideological question of whether the Danish model is compatible with what many Americans perceive to be the core of American values: independent hard work. If a welfare program is what the US wants, it must be willing to sacrifice some of that mentality.

The solution then is to stop using hyperbolic rhetoric. Copying Denmark entirely isn’t feasible. That being said, copying little bits is. The United States could be well served by taking a look at some of Denmark’s student grant and loans programs. It would also be well served by looking at some of Denmark’s other successful programs, such as healthcare and drug policy. True, the US is not Denmark. But that doesn’t mean the two countries can’t learn from each other.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

1. Willemse, N., and P. De Beer. “Three Worlds of Educational Welfare States? A Comparative Study of Higher Education Systems across Welfare States.” Journal of European Social Policy, 2012, 105-17.

The post American Apologetics and Danish Red Herrings appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

America is a land of immigrants; however, opposition to immigration predates the country’s founding. Benjamin Franklin, for instance, was a nativist who opposed even German immigration. In the final phases of America’s westward expansion, President Chester Arthur passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. In the 1920s a new immigrant quota system favored Northern European immigrants. Under President Franklin Roosevelt a wartime emergency “Bracero” system admitted Mexican seasonal agricultural workers starting in 1942. In 1965 a federal bill opened the border to immigrants worldwide but ended the Bracero system. Unauthorized immigration of Mexicans surged, despite a strengthened Border Patrol.

Today the US has 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants, roughly half of whom are Mexican. This population is mostly younger than 35; as they age, they will feel the lack of a social safety net since they are ineligible for healthcare or welfare benefits per the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Unable to voice their interests, alienated from institutions that can address their needs, and invisible to policy makers, their marginalization plumbs new depths in social stratification.

In 2012 the Senate passed an immigration-overhaul bill allowing a path to citizenship for the unauthorized. Supporters included 14 of 46 Republicans. A group of eight crafted the bill, among them Republican Senators John McCain and Marco Rubio, the latter a Tea Party leader. Nevertheless, House Speaker John Boehner chose to ignore the Senate bill. According to the Hastert Rule – to be introduced, a bill needs the support of the majority of the majority party –Republican opposition in the House ensured Boehner shelved the bill.

Republicans opposed the bill for several reasons. First, dating back to Tammany Hall in New York, which (corruptly) supported the political careers of Irish-Americans, immigrants have trended Democratic. During the Civil Rights Movement immigration reform became one piece of the Democratic platform. Party stalwarts including Senator Edward Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson pushed the 1965 bill. Due to these historical reasons, as well as current policy, unauthorized immigrants, if enfranchised, would likely vote Democratic.

Another factor is the demographics of electoral districts. Most Republican House districts are, as the figure below portrays, majority non-Hispanic White, partly from gerrymandering in states like Texas. More than 75% of Republican representatives have constituencies that are less than 17% Hispanic. Representatives in many swing districts with a heavy Hispanic population, such as Jeff Denham of California and Peter King of New York, supported a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants. (Note: the next round of redistricting is only after the census of 2020).

Voting patterns also influence the Republican electoral calculus. For instance, older non-Hispanic Whites register to vote and vote in larger proportions than same-age Hispanics. The gap between these two groups hovered around 15% from 1972 to 2008, though the voting rates of others, including African-Americans, increased. The reasons why are hotly debated. For Republicans these data prove that Mexican immigrants self-identify with Mexico; for Democrats they indicate a need to spread civic awareness among immigrant communities.

A possible backlash from non-Hispanic Whites adds to the Republican anxiety about supporting the enfranchisement of Hispanic unauthorized immigrants. Non-Hispanic Whites living next to large Hispanic populations tend to become more Republican, perceiving Hispanics as a threat. Nearly 70% of non-Hispanic Whites view Hispanics as likely to depend on welfare, and a majority view them as violence prone. These attitudes cause non-Hispanic Whites to vote Republican in both the short and long term.

Republicans also believe their stance comes at little cost. The US electorate considers immigration, unauthorized or legal, a low-priority issue. Table 1 shows few – of any ethnicity – consider it the most important domestic issue, consistently so for a decade.

The status quo of a group with no access to governmental healthcare, welfare, social security and, in 40 states, a driver’s license, is troubling. Unauthorized farmworkers often work in unsafe conditions, not daring to complain. Female laborers face harassment, terrified of notifying the police. Children of such immigrants pay out-of-state tuition at public universities in most states; lack of access to affordable education will likely hamper the future socio-economic status of unauthorized immigrants’ children. Yet, Republicans, per their agenda and the articulated demands of their base, will likely continue to oppose enfranchisement of unauthorized immigrants, and voters will probably not react, ignoring a “low-priority” cause.

Ajoy Thamattoor is a second-degree student at Foothill College in Los Altos Hills, CA, majoring in sociology. Ajoy has a BTech in Computer Science from Calicut University, India, and an MS in Computer Science from Stanford University.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors. 

The post Unauthorized Immigration: The Status Quo appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.