For those of you that haven’t seen it, the film is about a group of black kids from an “at-risk” area in Baltimore being selected for education at a school in rural Kenya.  I honestly expected more from the film and the school.  I thought I would be able to use it as a model for the development of a global citizenship, but that subject wasn’t really touched on.  The way the school was run also didn’t sit right with me, and it wasn’t only because the teachers at the Baraka School were white, it had to do with the way that dynamic played out.  Although a discussion on race in this film would be good to have, that’s not what I want to talk about.  I will say I was pleasantly surprised with the theme on the boys’ interaction with nature, and how that was more transformative than global citizenship and their interaction with Kenyans combined.  It “allowed them to be kids” and gave them a respite from the concrete jungle that most get accustomed to in the United States.  My interaction with nature was definitely central to my upbringing and personal development in Guatemala.

That’s my review on the film, but I wanted to use the film to propose a revolutionary idea.  The most interesting statement that arises from this film is that the parents feel as if their children are safer in rural Kenya than in urban Baltimore.  That’s certainly not what the media will tell you considering the tales of death and destruction that come from the Underprivileged South.  What most people will say after seeing this film as that more Baraka schools is not the solution, fixing Baltimore is the solution.  But, what if we were to flip that?  What if schools abroad were used to fix a place like urban Baltimore?  What if the governments of the North were to systemically educate kids in the South?

I sincerely believe that this should be done.  I believe a global experience could be used as a catalyst for change at the low end of the socioeconomic ladder.  Sure there would be problems, especially in the communities these kids would be going to, but I believe the problems could be minimized and would pale in comparison with the benefits.  The cost of education materials (like textbooks) would be the same or greater of course, but the cost would go down for everything else, including what you would have to pay teachers since the cost of living is dramatically lower in the Underprivileged South.  There would be an infusion of capital into areas that need it.  I also believe that two years outside of a toxic environment could really help kids overcome the countless obstacles they face.  I haven’t described the idea as eloquently as I would have liked or gone into much detail on it, but I won’t go on much longer since I’m not sure how much discussion this will generate.

I make it a habit to consider how we can begin to eat away at the farthest reaching, broadest, starkest, explicitly legally enforced inequality in the world—the inequality that exists just because you are born in one nation instead of another—and I think this could be one step in the right direction.  Furthermore I think this really could be used as an tool for the empowerment of marginalized ethnicities—educating “at-risk” U.S. latinos in Nicaragua, or blacks in Kenya.  Just thought I’d plant the idea in people's minds.

Just to clarify again, I will be travelling to the United States of America as the illegal migrants from Guatemala do.  I am taking this action to more viscerally understand what it means to have have to make decisions like these, decisions that the underprivileged have to live with while the overprivileged (people like me) make decisions about them.
I also take this action to advocate for a global citizen's approach to migration, one that attempts to advocate not for the interests of one nation, but for the interests of humanity.  Below I have summarized a long piece regarding my decision to leave and my views on migration policy from the attempted perspective of a global citizen.

Summary

Introduction:

States of Emigration (SOEs), those in which a significant export is people, have failed to meet the needs of the constituents they represent resulting in a great moral crisis.   The inability to provide justice and security in places like Central America, has led some to take matters into their own hands, the final straw on a long list of failures.   The most potent remedy for this moral crisis is the development of a global citizenry.

Up to this point in time the entire debate on migration policy has taken place entirely independent, or at least without attempting to solve, the very reasons people migrate in the first place.   It is important that every nation consider the interests of others in a global problem such as this.   Every wall that is built, every security figure that is employed in States of Immigration (SOIs), is a structure that is not built and a person that is not employed in SOEs. This is the reality of the global economy, and it is the truth of a global citizenry.

Policy Proposal:

Prevention is always more efficient than fixing a problem further down the line and it is with the aim of initial prevention that this proposal is shaped.

1. The most important goal to achieve is the documentation of all illegal migrants for the purposes of any policy.
2. The key to successful migration policy is the inclusion of development, for it is lack of opportunity that migrants flee.   There are a great many things that need to be reviewed in the area of development, but these are a few bullets to consider.
3. 1. Policies have to be targeted at the underprivileged majority instead of the overprivileged minority
   2. Policies such as privatization, and free market liberalization have exacerbated an already appalling inequality, suggesting different economic approaches be taken.
   3. The trend away from massive government aid agencies to smaller NGOs is a good one, but it is now very important that NGO inefficiency and abuse be evaluated.
4. If, as is most likely, migration curbing policy will be finalized without providing additional resources for development, there are a great many ways that existing trends can be manipulated without any additional funds.
5. 1. Currently, SOEs receive a large influx of money from migrants residing in SOIs.   Because there is no opportunity to invest that money in States of Emigration, most of it goes to fund migration.   Through the documentation described above (1) policies can be enacted to use this influx of funds to contribute to the economies of local nations, instead of to the additional export of people.
   2. The implementation of a guest worker program is the victim of massive misperceptions.   Contrary to the beliefs of many, migrants would very likely return to their homes to see their families as the work is seasonal, and a dollar in a SOE is worth much more than a dollar in a SOI.   Enacting this policy in itself would allow for returning migrants to invest in their countries, but if systems were put in place the benefit could be even greater
6. If global citizenry has not yet been sufficiently developed, and migration curbing policy must be implemented without including development, then one last policy approach could work.   A public awareness program should be funded and targeted at the areas from which migrants leave to dispel utopian misperceptions of SOIs.   This again would be made easier with the information provide by the proposal above (1)

Arguments

Thinking solely of the prosperity of one nation might be beneficial in the short term, but long-term stability requires the prosperity of all nations.   Mass migration is hurtful for everyone and the Western Hemisphere exemplifies that better than any other region.   SOIs bear the stresses of incoming migrants, while SOEs lose their most talented workers and are sent back criminals, resulting in the massive gang problems present in many countries.   I would even argue that SOEs bear the brunt of the negativity because of the boosts to the economies of SOIs, that migrants provide.

It is possible to keep all migrants out of SOIs, but to do so humanely would require an astronomical amount of resources, not even considering the millions of illegal migrants that would have to be removed.   The expenditure of these resources would be a waste, and it would be better to funnel them to areas that most need them.

I imagine that staunch national security advocates, however, will disagree with that assertion, so if the isolationist road is to be chosen, it is important that policies are equalized.   For example, in the United States of America it is hypocritical to advocate for additional security along the southern border, while the northern border is far less protected and in close proximity to more major population centers.   In addition, if all migrants fleeing oppression and lack of opportunity are to be kept out, then it is important that the U.S.do the same for Cubans, who arguably flee no worse circumstances than the other Latin American and Caribbean migrants.   It would be disastrous to take that policy towards the Cubans, but the same is true for the rest of the region.

Again this is just a summary of the long piece I wrote which I encourage those that are interested to read as it more fully expresses my views.

States of Emigration Have Failed Their People

In his masterpiece on the afterlife, one of the greatest poets of all time, Dante Alighieri wrote, “the hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality”. This quote fuels many of my actions on a variety of issues, but there is no doubt in my mind that this region is entering or in the midst of a great moral crisis. In Guatemala alone, a nation of only 13 million, as many as 364 people could be dead just this year, because some have decided to take justice into their own hands (that’s not even overall homicides). The Latin American and Caribbean States of Emigration are failing their people in almost every way.

States of Emigration are those in which one of the most significant exports is people, and in describing them I will refer mainly to Guatemala because of my knowledge of the country, and also because it is indicative of what many others are going through. It is hard to blame these States of Emigration for their failures as they face virtually insurmountable obstacles. They have paid significant prices as the pawns of superpowers, through coups, economic subjugation, and just general policies that rarely have these states’ interests at heart. The frontlines in the war on drugs are forced upon these states, in attempts to stem a demand and a willingness to pay that is not even their own. These states are forced to fight a drug trade that involves more money than each of their respective GDP’s. Last, but most certainly not least, States of Emigration are possessed by powerful aristocracies that will not willingly give up their thrones or privileges.

Guatemala and other countries in Central America have reached a significant turning point in the degradation of the public’s quality of life. Extreme social inequity, a history of discrimination, and the inability to provide even the most basic of needs for people, all put the region on edge, but the final straw has been the incapacity of states to protect their people from violence and extortion. The current trend of vigilantes taking justice into their own hands has the potential to spiral out of control, making a remedy for the suffering of this region even further from attainment than it already is. Even if my cataclysmic predictions turn out to be untrue, I would argue that the alternatives are much worse. If the present state of affairs is to remain stable, violence will continue to affect the immense lower and middle classes of these countries, forced to remain a reality instead of an exception. This deadly trend has to end.

The Development of a Global Citizenry

For people to understand why it is that I will embark on a journey with a coyote on Sunday, they have to understand where I’m coming from. My dual citizenship, my background, and my thoughts have all made it nearly impossible for me to identify with a single country a single people. It was long ago that I decided it was best to try and identify with all countries and all people.

The first step in doing so involves humility, requiring the recognition of one’s own ignorance. Any endeavor to identify with all countries and all people, with humanity, forces the realization that it is impossible to empathize with the myriad shades of the diverse human condition, and probably a lifetime to develop an unpretentious sympathy for even one aspect of the human condition. The second step in doing so requires gratitude, for the decision to attempt identifying with humanity, to develop oneself as a global citizen, is a privilege that very few have. The final step in the development of a global citizen is hard work, juggling the precarious balance between gratitude and humility all the while.

It wasn’t long after I made the decision to “pledge allegiance to the world / nothing more and nothing less” that I realized dual citizenship wasn’t a prerequisite. The privileged of my generation, and many more before it, all have the ability, and in many cases the desire, to develop global citizenship as well, and that class of people grows everyday. Cornel West himself emphasizes this in his chapter on youth in Democracy Matters referring to it as “the democratic globalization movement”. In fact, it is under the terms of democracy that the necessity of a global citizenry becomes clear. The citizens of a country vote not only for themselves, but also for the nations with which they interact. The only people that can hold governments accountable for their interactions abroad, especially if those interactions are hurtful, are people that make the conscious decision to identify with humanity.

Cynics might consider this an impossible goal. In fact, the economic system that prevails throughout the globe runs exactly contrary to the idea of looking out for the interests of others. In free-market capitalism the most self-interested and the most competitive contributes the most to the economy. At first glance it might seem futile to run contrary to self-interest with this ideal of a global citizen, but in the long-term, a global citizenry is actually in the interests of every country. We no longer live in a world where nations can economically or socially isolate themselves, and the failure of one state to meet the needs of their people is detrimental for every state. In the long-term it is in our interests to look out for humanity as if each individual were a member of our own country. There is nothing that illustrates this more than the trends associated with human migration. All over the world, there is a mass exodus of people from troubled regions to the more stable, a process that is hurtful to everyone. States of Immigration have to deal with the stresses immigrants bring, and States of Emigration lose a great many of their hardest workers and brightest minds.

The western hemisphere is a classic example of what happens when every nation focuses exclusively on its own prosperity. It prevents nations that have a common bond, as in Central America, from working together, and it also results in the massive inequality between the Overprivileged North, and the Underprivileged South, that we see today. One of the most important connections between these divisions is migration. Mass migration has to be looked upon as a symptom of instability, inequality, and the inability of states to provide for their people. Up to this point in time, however, migration has been treated as the disease when it is actually a symptom. Treating the cough might provide temporary relief, but it doesn’t mean much unless we find the cure for whatever is causing it. Unfortunately, this is not the way that mass migration has been treated in the public arena.

The Narrow Debate on Migration

There are generally two sides to the mainstream debate on illegal migration. One side is represented by States of Emigration, and the other side is represented by States of Immigration, but both are narrow nationalistic views attempting to treat the symptoms as opposed to the disease.

The viewpoint of States of Emigration is relatively simple. The mobility of people in States of Emigration is extremely limited. So many people want to leave that the defense of other nations is to apply obstacles or restrictions to the citizens of States of Emigration. For example, acquiring a visa for Guatemalan citizen is extremely difficult and requires proof of an exceptional amount of economic prosperity. The ability to migrate, move, or visit, people in other countries can be considered a form of freedom, and in that area the people in States of Emigration have very little freedom. States of Emigration lobby primarily for the right to move freely. In the case of the Western Hemisphere, States of Emigration also have a variety of economic reasons to lobby for continued migration. The money pumped into States of Emigration, along with the drug trade, accounts for much of the economic stability of these nations. In Guatemala, for example, the Quetzal has remained stable for a great deal of time now, even gaining a little bit on the U.S. dollar.

The viewpoint of States of Immigration is a little bit more complicated, but is still mainly set within the parameters of nationalism. Immigration is good for big business in States of Immigration, providing one of the only ways to compete with cheap labor in other countries. Politically, however, illegal immigrants do not represent any sort of constituency, paying few taxes and possessing no votes. Additionally, the lobby for illegal immigrants (though growing stronger) isn’t as strong as most. As politicians are not accountable directly to illegal immigrants, it is very rare that their interests are represented, and they provide a convenient way to redirect blame for any problems (unemployment, the inability to provide services, a faltering public education system, etc.). There is undoubtedly some truth in politicians’ claims, but because they are not accountable to illegal immigrants, these claims are often overemphasized. At the end of the day, it’s the politicians that have the power of illegal immigrants. There is also a complicated humanitarian lobby in States of Immigration, which I consider the result of a nascent global citizenry. It is limited in that the primary goal is to protect rights, and life, without providing the answers as to how to stop this hurtful trend.

Both of these are dramatically oversimplified, but even a thorough analysis of these viewpoints would reveal that they miss the target. States of Emigration are wrong to plead for leniency on migration laws, if they don’t acknowledge the failure of their states to meet the needs of their people. States of Immigration focus only on keeping illegal immigrants out, or providing for them and exploiting them if they’re let in. There are no provisions or policies on migration that work to remedy the disease instead of the symptom. It takes the viewpoint of a global citizenry to realize that the only way to stop the detrimental and uneven tide of mass migration is to attack the cause. The main cause, aside from the harrowing life that would be migrants are forced to lead, is the absence of opportunity in the places from which they depart. An increasing birthrate, and lack of “development” (by which I mean the creation of occupations in which people can lead a productive sustainable life) forces people to make the decision to leave. A successful migration policy is one that attacks the desperate decision to leave.

The Solution of a Global Citizen

Prevention is always the most efficient way at stopping something with unacceptable negative effects, and migration is no different. Resources that are spent on keeping immigrants out, are resources taken away from the development of States of Emigration, or preventing people from leaving in the first place. Every wall that is built, every security figure that is employed in States of Immigration, is a structure that is not built and a person that is not employed in States of Emigration. This is the reality of the global economy, and it is the truth of a global citizenry. Furthermore if States of Immigration were to achieve the unlikely goal of stopping every illegal immigrant, the resources used to detain them and return them would be astronomical. Just last year the United States of America sent back half a million immigrants, by bus, train, or plane. If every immigrant is detained, we’re talking about costs in the billions of dollars, a huge proportion of the GDP in most States of Emigration. All of those costs can be avoided, and everyone can be content if a good portion of those resources is dedicated to the development of States of Emigration, and targeted at the prevention of migrants leaving in the first place. The proposal is this…

The single most important thing to achieve, is the documentation of most every illegal migrant. Documentation does not have to amount to any sort of legitimacy (amnesty is the word most favor to frighten), though I believe it should. It is extremely important that every illegal immigrant be registered for countless reasons: national security, human rights, data, etc. It is impossible to regulate or be adequately informed about the subject unless there is some way to keep track of illegal migrants. The inexcusable inability of states to do so is the result of a detrimental stalemate on two sides of a limited debate. If the debate is widened however to the causes of mass migration it becomes clear that documenting illegal migrants is necessary for almost any solution, whichever action has to be taken. Even if you want to force people to stop migrating illegally, you still have to account for the ones that have already done so.

The second most important action to be taken is to inclusion of development, the wide development debate, into the debate on immigration. Any policy on migration that excludes the needs of people that take on this drastic action is again, treating a symptom and not the disease. If this suggestion is going to be taken seriously, the systems in place for assisting development have to be drastically modified. Concerns about the long-term welfare of the globe always take a backseat to the short-term issues of the day that satisfy constituents.

The modifications that need to take place for development assistance are many, but the most important paradigm to consider is an assistance that has that considers the interests of the lower-class majority over the interests of the upper-class minority. Developmental policies such as privatization, free-market liberalization, have exacerbated inequality as opposed to lessening it. This might be a stable model in privileged countries where even the lower class has relative prosperity and opportunity, but it is disastrous in nations that are already much too unequal. The transition from government assistance, to the government facilitation of non-governmental organization (NGO) assistance is the right way to go, and for the most part things have been going that way. However, there is still a great deal of room for NGO inefficiency and abuse, as they are accountable mostly to their countries of origin and those donors. Any regulation in NGO’s nation of origin is also likely to be ineffective because again it would not be accountable to the places that are being assisted. The best thing to encourage is a regulatory body that the NGOs would have to comply within the country being assisted it is responsibility that could be imparted upon these countries, which wouldn’t be vulnerable to corruption.

Because of the complications associated with reforming development assistance, and nationalistic reluctance to do so, a developmental approach can also be undertaken without any additional funds. There is already a huge influx of resources into States of Emigration because of migrants sending money back to their families. If illegal migrants are documented, and this money is regulated and quantified, then a plan for using this influx of money for development could be implemented. Right now money sent home to families goes to the poorest regions of States of Emigration, but there is nothing to invest it in, no opportunity to use it and make a better sustainable life. What’s worse most of that money goes to funding additional migration, meaning higher prices, more bribing, and a more lucrative business for the smugglers. This is the perfect example of why development has to enter into the discussion of migration. If the money returned home can be used for purposes other than additional smuggling, like making a better life, it will stem the tide of migration and help the countries from which people flee.

Another way to contribute to development using only the immense resources that migrants represent is the implementation of a guest worker program. Because of the prejudice associated with this proposition, it’s important to dispel a few myths. A guest worker program does not amount to amnesty in any way. In fact, the alternative of illegal migrant workers most likely results in more people receiving amnesty and citizenship. It is also important to dispel the egotistical perception that migrants don’t want to return where their families and home have been for so long. In purely economic terms, most migrants work seasonally, and a dollar in States of Emigration amounts to much more than a dollar in a State of Immigration, making it beneficial for guest workers to go home.

The most important thing about a guest worker program, however, is it’s possible contribution to the development of States of Emigration. If workers are allowed to return home, they bring information, they bring excess funds, and there is also less of an incentive for families to follow them, meaning funds are diverted for them to be smuggled. It is important, as with the previous suggestion, that there be a system in place for returning migrants to contribute to the betterment of their lives at home so that resources aren’t wasted on needless endeavors. If a system is not put in place, a guest worker program could actually prove to be harmful to States of Emigration. A guest worker program also encourages the transfer of information, beneficial for development, but also for dispelling the utopian myths about States of Immigration.

All of the proposals above have been constructive proposals, but because of what seems to be an aversion to this approach, there is one last recommendation that focuses yet again on prevention as opposed to trying to fix the problem further down the line. Too many migrants have far to rosy an impression of what life in States of Immigration is like. This again appeals back to the need to document illegal migrants, collect information on their lives, and be honest about the these people as opposed to sweeping abuses, against them as well as against the authority of the state, under the rug. If there were a concerted public relations campaign to make potential migrants aware of the risk and unhappiness that leaving their country illegally entails, it would prevent a great many from leaving in the first place. The focus has to be on prevention, the most efficient method for stemming the tide of migration.

Arguments Against a Global Outlook on Migration

There shouldn’t be much opposition to the proposal above from States of Emigration except regarding the need to come to terms with their failure to meet the needs of their people. Most of the opposition to this plan, and most of the power to decide, resides within States of Immigration, so it is to these States that most of the counter-arguments to this proposal will have to be directed.

Every wall that is built, every security figure that is employed in States of Immigration, is a structure that is not built and a person that is not employed in States of Emigration. That is the reality of a global economy, and the truth of a global citizen. It is okay to choose one over the other, as long as that explicit fact is acknowledged. It might be that people feel more strongly about a wall and security personnel in States of Immigration, but that is the explicit choice of a nation over the globe. Thinking solely of the prosperity of one nation might be beneficial in the short term, but putting off, and in some cases putting down, the prosperity of other nations will always be hurtful in the long run. Problems with mass migration illustrate this more than any other case. In the Western Hemisphere, for example, democracies have been overthrown, and a great many dictatorships supported in the interests of a select few, and the resulting social, economic, and political penury is hurting the entire region through global problems like mass migration, and the drug trade.

Mass migration is hurtful for everyone, and the Western Hemisphere illustrates that better than any other. Mass migration stresses States of Immigration, and drains States of Emigration. In the present situation, I would even argue that it is actually the States of Emigration that are bearing the brunt of the hurt, because not only are the best and brightest workers taken away, but undesirables are sent back without any sort of rehabilitation, resulting in the massive gang problems present today. Organized crime has become so bad, that people are beginning to take the law into their own hands possibly leading to a regional crisis.

There are two arguments against a global approach, the stresses on the public services in States of Immigration, and the calls for increased national security in the present international climate. To put the stresses on public services in perspective, it is important to consider the resources immigrants provide to the economy. Think of every dollar below the minimum wage that tens of millions of illegal immigrants are paid, and it’s fairly easy to see that stresses on public services pail in comparison. It could be argued that in some industries, illegal immigrants are the only reason that they are able to stay profitable, keeping the jobs that are offered to legal workers from being exported as well. It is also important to realize that the majority of illegal immigrants stay away from public services as often as possible, as they live in fear of deportation. Even playing on the local school soccer field, which is sometimes the only thing that brings the comfort of home, and a little bit of joy, can result in deportation.

Staunch national security advocates, which seem to dominate mainstream public debate, will be the hardest to convince of a global approach. It is in the interests of regional security that people in States of Emigration of emigration should be supported sustainably, which is secondarily extremely beneficial to any one nation’s security. Under the present circumstances, it is possible to prevent every illegal immigrant from crossing a border, but it would take an astronomical investment, even more so if it were to be done humanely. I see the astronomical investment as a waste, when a policy of development and opportunity can be just as effective, but I have a feeling that even that won’t convince the staunch national security advocates.

If States of Immigration are to take an isolationist approach of national security advocates, then they have to equalize their policies. The United States of America represents an excellent example of why that has to take place. To advocate for the complete closure of the southern border for national security purposes, is contradictory unless measures are taken in the northern border. The U.S. / Canadian border is much easier to cross and is closer to a great many more high-density population areas. It is hypocritical to push through legislation on the security of the southern border unless this is addressed as well. Furthermore, if the United States is going to take a hard approach on migrants, then it has to do so equally. The United States is very lenient in its migration policy towards Cubans, but to say that they flee on oppression or destitution greater than other immigrants in Latin America is completely mistaken. If the U.S. is going to cut off the migrants from the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean, then it must do so as well with Cubans. I personally think it would be disastrous to cut off Cubans from an avenue to escape economic and political oppression, and it is for this reason that I advocate for the same rights for the rest of the world.

Conclusion and the Reasons for My Trip North

I always find that the best way to understand the limits of perception is to carefully examine the language we use to express ourselves. Throughout this piece, I have been very conscious of my use of the words, immigration, emigration, and migration. The regional crisis that I have discussed in this piece is often portrayed as discussion of immigration policy. I hope it is clear that immigration refers to people coming into to a country, highlighting the fact that the largest voice in this debate originates in States of Immigration. Similarly, the citizens of States of Emigration could refer to this as an emigration problem. Both of these perceptions are limited, and it is important that the global citizenry advocate for a solution to the problems associated with migration, migration being the best word to describe this trend from a global perspective. A simple analysis of word usage leads to the conclusion that the perceptions of States of Emigration, as well the perceptions of a global citizenry, have been vastly underrepresented in this debate, and regardless of the outcome it is important that these views are taken into account.

By now it is known that the author of this piece has elected to take a trip north as the illegal immigrants do, with a smuggler leading the way. I have long wanted to do this to be closer to the underprivileged that have to make this drastic decision, as my interactions, just as with all of those reading this piece, have been primarily with the small proportion of overprivileged in this world. I see this as one of the best ways to better get the voices of the underprivileged out there, always recognizing that my voice does not represent theirs, but an interpretation of theirs, and hopefully paving the way for more of their independent and true voices to be heard. However, this was a decision made long before I decided to use this as a catalyst for a global citizenry campaign.

Illegal migration, more than any other trend, is an explicit protest to views of one nation over another, to national boundaries even. I am in no way an advocate for the immediate erasure of physical national boundaries, but I do see this as an excellent opportunity to break down mental national boundaries. The mental boundaries that I speak of are the greatest threat to policies that benefit the globe, instead of one nation over another. This is beneficial not only to the migration debate, where it benefits citizens of the world to attack the negative reasons for migrants’ departure as opposed to fixing the problem further down the road, but also the general debate in foreign policy.

I take this trip to develop myself as a global citizen, and hopefully to inspire others to do so as well.