Migration

*This post has also been cross-posted in the FPA’s Latin America Blog.

Two countries have stood out in their respective regions as economically progressive policy successes in the last ten years. In Europe, Spain along with Ireland have seen much of the positive development and economic growth when the rest of the EU has been wrestling with high unemployment rates and drastic changes in governments. In Latin America, Brazil under Lula and under the former Cardoso Administration have grown at a steady positive rate, breaking the traditional Latin American plague of economic collapses and large booms that seem to be commonplace in almost all South American economies to date. With success, the importance of Spain and Brazil have taken on a new form in their regions and abroad. Traditionally the place of the United States, these emerging regional powers now seem to be inheriting some of America’s traditional problems.

Brazil has always been a country of immigration. The population of Brazil, while taking in only some immigrants from Asia, Africa and Europe in the last few years, was one of the countries that absorbed much of the world’s immigration since the 1880s. This open policy remained, and while economic problems and changes from populist, to military, to democratic governments took shape since the 1930s, immigration remained strong as long as there were jobs to be done in one of the world’s largest countries. With traditional economic instability and some recent success, many Brazilians have chosen to go abroad to either find more work or utilize their assets to enjoy life abroad. In Spain, this emigration from Brazil has taken a foothold with both emigrants coming and living illegally for work or working in legal low paying jobs, as well as those upper middle class Brazilians coming to make a life and career in Spain as professionals and entrepreneurs.

While the general impression of Brazilians in Spain is a positive one, there have been some problems against immigrants at the main Spanish airports and in society as a whole. Many immigrants, including many Brazilians often enter Spain and stay illegally. This has been a problem one many fronts, as many Latin Americans, Africans and other Europeans do not go through the normal procedures to live and work in Spain but come as temporary workers or as refugees or simply pass through the border and disappear. With Spain having some economic expansion and the closing off of the US to many immigrants, the Spanish immigration system has become overwhelmed. Since 2006, the number of Brazilians coming into Spain has nearly “tripled or quadrupled”, while at the same time in Spain eight Brazilians a day are deported.

The solution to the Brazil-Spain situation needs to be addressed by both countries. Brazil needs to reform its immigration to fit with its position as an emerging power in the world. With 3-4 millions Brazilians living abroad, Lula will have the responsibility to create and international Brazil without losing all of the most talented to other countries and still maintain funds coming from those emigrants abroad. Spain will also have to accept Brazilians and the diversity of the Brazilian social strata now living throughout the Iberian Peninsula. It will take a long time to adapt the infrastructure to treat foreigners in a respectful fashion, but attempts need to begin immediately. Brazilians and others will be challenged living in Spain in becoming Spanish. While it might be easier from some, it is doubtful that those migrants to Spain who are not seen in a positive light will be so easily welcomed in the near future.

*This post has also been cross-posted in the FPA’s Latin America Blog.

I was happy to read a clever article called: Linking NAFTA and Immigration by Ted Lewis of the San Diego Tribune as he discusses the campaign issues and how they are being spun to effect the campaign and America’s neighbours in a negative fashion. Lewis suggests that reform in NAFTA and effects on the poorest in the three member states needs to be addressed in a logical fashion, and not via the lens of the complete benefit of free trade or lowbrow electioneering. Addressing poverty and its root causes of increased unemployment in Mexico needs to be addressed in any future NAFTA negotiation. Lewis states that much of the illegal immigration comes from a lack of economic progress in Mexico since the agreement began and has lead to massive amounts of immigration to the US. Lewis also mentions that the electioneering between Obama and Clinton creates arguments against free trade, and in my impression creates intentional dissent in the US against Canada and Mexico. While Obama was blamed for not being serious in changing NAFTA, Clinton has used this small scandal to re-ignite her campaign. Ironically, the alienation of friendly foreign governments was always something linked with Bush, but support for the next Clinton Presidency may rest on the backs of Canadians and Mexicans alike if it continues to hurt Obama.

With much of the support for the Clinton campaign coming from the blue collar democrats in the northern states and America’s traditional industrial heartland, it makes sense that Clinton would use Canada and Mexico to blame for poor US policy in the past, much of which came under her husband’s term in office. In reality, the Mexican economy has purged its traditional weaknesses since 1994 and has maintained a solidly valued Peso, growth in the long run and even produced a more equitable government with the PRI dominated Presidency toppling a few years after NAFTA came into effect. The reality is that Mexico is a developing nation in many ways and has problems which 10 years of trade policy could never resolve in its best performance. To end poverty and develop a country, a generation is needed to end generations of poverty and inequality. Targeted anti-poverty policy is needed to help remove the 30% of Mexicans who live in poverty and have always lived in poverty. Economic progress in Mexico has created such negative results because the flow of money often reaches the poorest last. This is the trend in almost every country where poverty dominates the political agenda. No one has addressed this in the Obama camp, and with the Clinton campaign it seems that immigration and NAFTA come second to embarrassing Obama as much as possible.

While poverty and success in Mexico’s economy can always be debated, the main issue of concern is that anti-immigrant and anti-NAFTA effects of running a negative campaign. It seems apparent that even though NAFTA is a mixed blessing, the current concerns with China seems to be targeted towards America’s neighbours. While China has a right to progress economically and diversify its society as it wishes, Americans need to debate how they want to proceed with their neighbours and China in a logical, fair and respectful manner and choose where they wish to take America in the future. No country can live in a vacuum, but every country has the ability to take measured and fair responses to grow its own economy and produce trade and development to assist its own people, create a net benefit in jobs and reduce poverty.

In a response to one of the FPA’s blogs, a candidate for Congress in the US claimed the wholly negative effects of NAFTA and America as losing its sovereignty over NAFTA. I responded in kind in order to dispel myths which seek to create straw man arguments of America’s friends and neighbours. I encourage readers to read the responses to the blog and address their concerns in kind. All fair points of view are respected and I encourage open debate. The response is noted in the FPA’s Latin America Blog: Paranoia on the Frontier: NAFTA and the US Election

**The Following Blogpost is a complement to the FPA’s Feature on Canadian Immigration and Economic Rights: Great Decisions Analysis: Economic Rights and Migration by Rich Basas.

In an FT.com article published this week called Jobs for workers of the world, writer Bernard Simon discusses how the Canadian immigration system and local Canadian businesses address the vast number of foreign workers trying to make a living in the city of Toronto, Canada’s largest and most ethnically diverse city. Mr. Simon makes a clear and direct point in discussing the changes made by the company Steam Whistle Brewery in its efforts in absorbing skilled foreign workers in an economy which treats all foreign experience as a burden rather than an asset.

While not known by most Canadians, Canada is well known in many immigrant communities as a place which offers dreams of skilled employment and promotes it via its embassies and cultural offices worldwide, but restricts the certification of foreigners and locals with foreign education so that many will never qualify for the skill which allowed them to come to Canada in the first place. Beyond these economic restrictions, Canadian Immigration policy has focused it efforts in bringing in skilled labour to offset the shortage of skilled workers being lost due to the retirement of Canada’s baby boomers. This is not a problem only in Canada, as developed countries worldwide are desperate to bring in new immigrants to contribute to skilled labour markets, research and development, and create a new productive tax base for supporting those retirees who built the country over the last decades. In reality it is more Canada that depends on those immigrants, not the immigrants who are lacking opportunities in other countries.

Many of those born in Canada often do not go into the trades as commented on in the FT.com article, but often work in larger companies and government positions which afford a good salary and benefits to their employees. While many of the newcomers to Canada often have skills greater or equal to those trained Canada, the bias against any foreign experience including that from Western Europe is common and often discriminatory in its nature, but not considered to be illegal by the government in Ontario even though many newcomers have the same legal rights to work in Canada and are protected under the Canadian Constitution. While there are programs in Ontario and other parts of Canada to help immigrants find equitable employment, there are few true successes and little research and attention paid to these new workers beyond promoting Canada as having multicultural values, but not employing some of the most intelligent people in the country while pushing them toward the economic margins of society.

One of the main issues is that there is no legislated standards in certifying newcomers to Canada, but only private or university run offices which translate scores and qualifications into Canadian grades, but are wholly unofficial in Canada and not given much weight in the hiring process. Another major problem is that many professional associations which have great restrictions on newcomers to Canada are not on par with other developed countries in allowing a fair and equitable method for the re-qualification of people coming into Canada. Until the shortage of skilled labour was made a priority in the latest budget from the Government of Canada, there was no more attention placed on the issue than unknown advisories to companies to give foreigners a try with no concrete push for enshrining their Economic Rights in any Canadian legislative house or jurisdiction. The limitations are so insensible that in one case many nurses who come from other countries to work as foreign nurses on contract are not able to obtain the same job once they enter the process to become a Canadian citizen, but can work with no problems as foreign nurses on contract with the Government of Ontario.

In the past it was assumed that immigrants were on equal footing with Canadians in obtaining those jobs which account for much of the middle class in Canadian society. The issues in letting immigrants work when their initial experience was not in Canada was seen in the past as solely a difference of culture as opposed to that of skill or language. In reality, 45.7% of Toronto’s population was born outside Canada, and while the argument has been made presently that newcomers must adapt to Canadian culture, its often the case that people must adapt to several different cultures, but their skills are not diminished for the sake of lack of Canadian Experience in any way. The true barriers in the past were ethnic, but now even though many ethnicities work in the Toronto job market, “Canadian Experience” is being used as the term which is preventing good jobs from going to good skilled people. This is not uncommon as in the past those immigrants barred from employment in Canada’s large companies and government now account for the majority of Toronto’s Small and Medium Sized entrepreneurs and make up a good number of jobs and tax revenue going into the local economy. With approximately 30% of Canadians working for one branch of the government and large numbers working for Banks and larger institutions, in Canada’s largest cities the small business is dominated by immigrants who came in the last few decades. The unfortunate reality is that these resource rich people if immigrating today to Canada would not have the points to qualify for citizenship as only immigrants with a high levels of education are allowed to come here and work. As we see above, the reality is that they just don’t end up being considered to work in the areas Canadian’s are desperate to fill. A competitive Canadian economy will not be able to compete if it will prevent its most skilled people from jobs it needs to fill in order to grow as a country. It is a classic lose-lose situation, for New Canadians and Old Canadians alike.

Hugo Brady, analyst at the Centre for European Reform, one of the leading-EU think tanks, has compiled a compedium of migration issues (PDF) that affect the European Union. The ‘A-Z’ approach offers a useful look at the issues and areas that shape migration policy now, as Justice and Home Affairs policy is in constant flux. From Africa to ‘Zero-tolerance’, Brady offers a summary and additional reading, which helps in getting a handle on this complex policy area.

This week’s news roundup features the Bush administration’s last ditch attempts at addressing the immigration issue in absence of fundamental policy reform. We also look ahead to the immigration issues at stake in the Spanish elections on March 9. Germany breathed a sigh of relief, when the deadly blaze that killed nine Turks, including two children, was discovered to have originated from a construction problem in the basement rather than a xenophobic arson attack, as originally assumed.

• Despite the failure to push comprehensive immigration reform through the Senate late last year, the Bush government is stepping up its efforts to stem illegal immigration through the introduction of a “virtual fence”, enhanced border patrols and by making the use of E-Verify - the electronic system to check the status of employed immigrants - mandatory for employers.
• New demographic data by the Pew Research Center points to the fact that the United States will become ever more dependant on immigrants to float welfare programs, similar to the predictions made for Europe’s demographic development: “What such an outcome could portend, other analysts have said, is a nation riven politically between older, whiter, voting retirees who are increasingly supported by a younger, darker, working population that, as immigrants, may be disproportionately ineligible to vote.”
• Spain takes to the polls next Sunday. As a relative newcomer to the circle of immigrant receiving countries, the last two governments have struggled to define functional policies that allow the country to benefit from the influx of people, while maintaining balanced social and welfare systems. Most recently, the Socialist government has issued an amnesty for illegals living and working in the country. The conservative Partido Popular has now put up its own plans for immigration policy under its candidate Mariano Rajoy. He would like to see immigrants sign an ““integration contract”. This would oblige them to learn Spanish, to work hard to integrate—and to return home if they are unemployed for too long or commit a crime.” We will follow the immigration debate in Spain as election day draws nearer.
• The artery is clogged - that would be one way of describing the state of affairs at the Canadian-US border, which, according to the Economist, is having detrimental economic effects. Since September 11th the additional border control measures have meant that patients who need emergency medical care across the border are dying en route, red tape is tying up trade and hampering the exchange of services, as proven by the example of the volunteer firefighters held up at the border for so long, the building they were planning on saving had burnt to a crisp.
• Arson has been ruled out as the cause of the deadly housefire that killed nine Turks in Germany’s town of Ludwigshafen. Reminded of the fires that ripped through asylum seeker homes throughout the country in the early nineties the fire was not only seen as a human tragedy but had reopened existing debates over xenophobia and integration policies. In a bold political move, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had flown to Germany to both express his condolences to the victim’s families but to deliver two key speeches, which were contradictory in nature. While he called upon his countrymen and women to integrate into German society in one statement, he demanded they resist assimilation into the dominant society in a speech to thousands of Turkish citizens in one of Cologne’s largest arenas. More on the story can be read here.