Migration

In an IHT.com article published recently, the issue of visas being given to Iraqis by the US was discussed. US visas were finally being given by the US for Iraqis who worked with the US since 2003 in administering development after the beginning of the war. The argument by the writer was that due to all the assistance many of these individuals have given to the United States, it is finally justifiably reciprocated through the issuing of US visas for these US allies. While this is true, a large part of the story which is continually avoided was regarding the other two million Iraqis, many of Iraq’s best and brightest taking refuge in Syria and Jordan, overwhelming societies in both nations without any movement by the US or Europeans to taken in many of these Iraqi refugees.

In past posting in the FPA Migration Blog, Rich Basas and Cathryn Cluver have made several postings on the issues regarding Iraqi refugees and the response by the international community. While meeting in international bodies have done much to address the existence of the issue, the result was to place further onus on countries like Syria and Jordan, who have gone beyond their humanistic responsibility in trying to accommodate and adapt many Iraqi refugees into their societies. This failure of the international community comes with actions taken in Iraq since 2003, lacking in any response or much media coverage on the displaced 2 million. Only when Iraqi government initiatives have sought to create some sort of incentive for its citizens to return has media responded to the issue, still lacking in urgency through much of the narrative however.

It is not the first time media and the international community has failed displaced people in the region. Many reports on the Israeli response to Darfuri refugees had criticized Israel, like Jordan and Syria with Iraq’s refugees, for not allowing more African migrants to settle in Israel. While the Israeli government did settle many people and continued to take in Sudanese refugees and place them under protection, many of Sudan’s neighbors have killed Darfuri refugees with no response towards the shooting of dozens of Darfuri refugees at the Egyptian-Israel border by Egyptian border security by media or the EU and US. Placing the onus of large international refugee problems on smaller nations, while taking no effective response themselves lead many to believe that the international community will allow another Rwanda with little effective response. While this point of view is the source of much debate, the effect of not responding to Darfur, or having the US in Iraq is that many Western powers may not legally allow an Iraqi to claim refugee status as the US already is present in that nation, which is considered as protecting Iraqi people inside Iraq itself. Iraq cannot prosper and Darfur will become a symbol of poor international leadership unless effective policies are created in the region. While the ICC and Den Haag can ask for extraditions of Karazdic and Sudan’s leaders, law without enforcement becomes another failure in global justice.

 This blog is also posted in the FPA Latin America Blog.

The European Union and Latin America have always had amicable ties, via trade, culture and administrative and legal traditions. Immigration from Latin America to the EU has often been able to avoid the conflict and debate that are common in the United States, where millions of immigrants from Latin America are more of a campaign issue than a sociological blessing. The European Union may have angered some of their Latin American friends however, with the new EU Immigration Policy creating a collective grumble throughout immigrant communities in Europe and among Latin American leaders themselves.

It is not common to have so many Latin American leaders, often with varying political stripes, to have complete agreement on an issue or a set of issues. Ironically, the past two weeks have produced not only new relations between Hugo Chavez and Alvaro Uribe, but produced a collective grumble by all leaders during the Mercosur regional summit and other policy discussions against the new EU Immigration measures. It is not secret that Spain and the EU have become the new destination for many legal and some illegal immigration from Latin America. The new EU policy seeks to detain possible illegal immigrants for a period of up to 18 months before deporting them, leading many Latin American leaders to perceive the EU as placing issues of immigration on the immigrants themselves, allowing policymakers to avoid the responsibility in dealing with immigration in the EU on a proper legal and equitable level. This led Latin American leaders to sign a joint declaration against the new EU immigration policies during Mercosur summit. In addition, some leaders threatened restrictions of Venezuelan oil, and possible restrictions of grain and other agricultural products leaving the rich fields on Brazil, Argentina and other countries that have been hit by the recent food crisis. While Latin America is not the only region to be angered by the new EU policy, it is one of the regions that are considering a collective reaction against Europe on behalf of the hundreds of thousands living there illegally which originate from Latin America.

The question that remains is whether the new EU policies are a just approach in dealing with illegal immigration or whether they warrant a strong reaction from Latin America and other countries around the globe? While the 27 member EU nations did pass the new Immigration Policy to be implemented in 2010, many have varied time restrictions regarding detentions of illegal immigrants. In reality, the EU policy is not only addressing illegal immigration coming from Latin America, but is greatly focused on the 51,000 illegal boat people coming into Spain, Italy, Greece and Malta that arrived in 2007 alone. Many of these illegal migrants end up drowning on their voyage to Europe, presenting the EU with a diverse humanitarian problem in dealing with illegal immigration. The new policy awards voluntary deportations, but also penalizes migrants who attempt to frustrate officials in dealing with their deportations as well. Families and children also have some rights extended, but as a whole the new policies are a lot stricter than previous laws protecting the EU from illegal migration.

After the EU Policy is implemented in the long run, the true effectiveness of the EU Immigration Policy will show its true colours. Protests from Latin America will likely not lead into true economic sanctions however, unless there are massive abuses against their citizens in the EU. In the end, many still will enter the EU illegally, and this is unlikely to change. The effectiveness of the new policy will come when people are actually caught and deported, which is still the fate of the minority of illegal immigrants in most countries in the world. Morality and immigration policy is still to be debated in Latin America and the EU, but it is certain that a solution to these issues is far from an absolute success in immigration policy in any region of the world.

For Video on the Mercosur Summit and Latin American leaders and EU Immigration, click here.

French President and current EU figurehead, Nicolas Sarkozy claimed an early boost to his country’s presidency of the Union yesterday, with the conclusion of the much anticipated ‘European Pact on Immigration and Asylum.’ Of course, it was a watered down version of the document that French immigration minister, Brice Hortefeux, was peddling to Member State governments earlier in the year - and rightfully so. Spain threw a wrench in the French Presidency’s plans a few days ago, when it refused to agree to an addendum on integration and a Europe-wide ban on regularisations. 

According to those who have actually seen it, (it is not public information - at least not yet) it is built around five guiding principles:

So, at the end of the day, nothing in this pact is really new. 

For the most part, the Commission has already proposed legislation (EU Blue Card) and frameworks (Hague Programme) or, in fact, legislation has already been concluded as is the case for the Returns Directive.

However: Because Mr. Sarkozy has done what few others have done before him in recent EU politics (bar Angela Merkel on the environment) -  namely claim ownership and assume leadership - the media is keeping a close eye not only on him as EU President, but on the commitments made by all 27 Heads of State and Government as part of this pact. In the absence of a clear legal base for Justice and Home Affairs policy (which is linked to the adoption of the Lisbon Reform Treaty), and in light of demographic and economic need, the EU needs momentum in this crucial policy area. 

For ten years, since the initial EU Summit on immigration policy in Tampere, plans were made, legislation was written but major problems remained unadressed. Member states failed to realize the benefit of common approaches to a policy area, which by nature of the Union’s open borders, could no longer be controlled unitlaterally.

We have a new window of opportunity: Europe needs migrants economically, and Europeans are beginning to understand the benefit of controlled migration. Europeans, by and large, want the Union - not their individual national governments - to develop functional policy in this area. Now is the time to turn the end the closed-door decision-making that started in Tampere. The European Parliament, NGOs and migrant organizations have to use this new window of opportunity in their favor, to ensure that the European Union gives itself the robust, humantiarian, just, equal and functional immigration and asylum policy it needs for the 21st century and beyond. 

*This entry has been cross-posted to the EU at 50 blog

The European Commission will soon present a Green Paper (i.e. a non-legislative document) examining the changes to the European education landscape to accomodate migrant children, the institution’s press service is reporting.

Also, the recent Eurobarometer survey shows that European citizens want to see the Union - not national governments - take the lead on key issues in interior policy (dubbed Justice and Home Affairs in EU jargon), including on counter-terrorism and immigration measures. The Lisbon Treaty foresees a change of legal basis under which legislation can be proposed and approved for matters in this area, giving greater influence to the European Parliament, the only directly elected body of the European Union.

The French EU Presidency’s whistle-stop tour of European capitals in preparation for a restrictive immigration and integration policy has hit a major roadblock: Spain. As one of the EU Member States who has profited both from regular and illegal migration (the Spanish government has issued a number of amnesties for illegals over the years), Prime Minister Zapatero has rebuffed French plans for the creation of an integration contract obligation, which requires immigrants adjust to their recieving country’s “national identity.”

Experts now expect a watered down version of the original proposal to be presented by the French Presidency. In absence of the Lisbon Reform Treaty, whose ratification as is now looks unlikely following the Irish referendum, immigration policy falls under the remit of member state governments assembled in the European Council, rather than the European Parliament. As has been the case for previous immigration proposals and those pretaining to the free movement of so-called ‘third country nationals’ a ‘lowest common denominator’ solution with respect to immigration can be expected.