You can point at that map and see that the ebbs and flows are not just related to the desires or needs of people from other parts of the world emigrating to the United States. The shape of the map is driven by US policies, and whether they were welcoming or not welcoming to groups of immigrants.
In the United States, the descendants of immigrants are culturally obsessed with proving our Americanness. In Brazil, it’s completely different. People use immigrant designations over generations and generations.
The interception of migrants at sea illustrates how powerful states, such as the US, exercise their sovereignty in a geographically flexible fashion, pushing their own borders offshore while infringing on the territory of others.
When the Sanctuary and New Sanctuary Movements sought to protect immigrants fleeing human rights abuses or to prevent separation of families, they did not do so within the narrow confines of legality.
In the contemporary world, scientific evidence is often conflated with proof, producing a science that is closer to the aims of modern theology than experimental practice.
Such historical materials certainly dispel any notion that Strieber must be a kook, or that his honest descriptions and dramatic sufferings can somehow be brushed aside as lacking any meaningful content, as anecdotal or anomalous.
When and how did the myth of disenchantment emerge?
How can we create products of scholarly work that are not the very closed kinds of argumentation that we primarily see within academic publications? How can scholarly work become an opening, not a closure, to a process of collaborative investigation?