Last week President Barack Obama granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to Haitians for a period of 18 months. This applies those already living in the US, but without legal papers. It prevents their detainment or deportation, and enables them to work legally. The purpose of this status is to protect persons who cannot return to their country of origin due to unsafe conditions. After the devastation wrought by the 7.0 earthquake a week ago Tuesday, Haiti clearly qualifies.

A total of approximately 100,000 Haitians in the US are covered, including 30,000 who are in the process of deportation. TPS, however, does not protect criminals or persons who would otherwise be forbidden from seeking asylum.

Countries given Temporary Protected Status over the past two decades include El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Burundi, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Sudan, for reasons of internal war or natural disaster. Eligibility is usually given in 12 to 18 month time periods, and is often extended – Nicaraguans and Honduras have been covered since 1999 (Hurricane Mitch struck in 1998), and Salvadorans since 2001 (after a series of earthquakes).

To be protected by TPS, a person typically must register on a yearly basis. This may raise the question of what happens once the status is revoked. Will they then be deported? This has not happened to date. As a result, critics of TPS say that it serves as amnesty, and that those protected now are not later deported; they argue that protection cannot be called “temporary” if it ends up becoming permanent.

Proponents of TPS for Haitians explain that those it shields will be able to work in the US and send funds back to family and friends in Haiti. As a previous posting explained, the remittances sent by this diaspora will serve a key factor in rebuilding the country.

More information on TPS can be found at the website of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, through this link.

The movie Avatar is a blockbuster, and now the third-highest grossing movie of all time. It is also a story about migration. In short, it depicts humans in the year 2154, seeking to extract a valuable mineral from a far-off planet called Pandora, and willing to do so at any cost, including the extermination of the local alien population.

The film’s 3-D technology is impressive, but as far as the plot is concerned, there are really no major surprises. It is a struggle between good and bad - those who wish to understand and explore the new culture, and those who view it as backward and worthless in comparison to the planet’s mineral wealth. Ultimately, with teamwork and fortitude, the forces of good prevail, and Pandora is saved.

While the movie may cause some viewers to imagine future possibilities (i.e. the concept of lifelike avatars controlled by the human mind), it leads one to consider the past more deeply. The plotline is like that which already occurred with European exploration of the Western Hemisphere, except for one major difference – in reality the outsiders prevailed and destroyed most of the local cultures.

As we well, know, from the first voyages of Columbus to the “New World” until the 1880s, millions of indigenous died as the result of disease and war. Often, it was an attitude of superiority mixed with greed that led to the callous approach of the European visitors-turned-conquerors.

Migration can lead to new opportunities. It also has its darker side, including genocide, enslavement and colonization.

For a sobering perspective on these issues, check out the following books. Admittedly they are written with a particular bias – to reveal the voices of the oppressed, as opposed to the victor who typically records history – but they are worth the read/review:

A People’s History of the United States, by Howard Zinn (first published in 1980)

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, by Dee Brown (first published in 1970)

Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent, by Eduardo Galeano (first published in 1973)

As with the international aid community, Haitians living overseas are seeking ways to help from a distance after a devastating earthquake struck Port-au-Prince on Tuesday evening. Many migrants already send significant proportions of their earnings each week or month in the form of remittances. Rather than foreign assistance from governments, they may provide the most important and steady rebuilding effort over the coming years.

The Haitian diaspora now numbers around 1.5 to 2 million, meaning that as many as one in six persons live outside the country. Most reside in the Dominican Republic, the United States, Canada, and France. US cities with the greatest population of Haitian immigrants are New York, Miami and Boston.

For political or economic reasons, these migrants moved overseas to seek a better life. Their thoughts, however, often remain with family and friends who remain in Haiti. Despite the fact that many work in low-paying jobs in more developed countries, they make sure to send funds that support loved ones back home. The sending of remittances to Haiti occurred long before the massive earthquake focused international attention on the country’s plight, and enables many recipients to survive day-to-day.

A 2006 survey sponsored by the Inter-American Development Bank found that nearly one-third of adults in Haiti regularly receive funds sent from overseas, and nearly half of them spend all of this money on daily living expenses. Total remittances sent to Haiti during 2006 were an estimated $1.65 billion.

In comparison, Haiti received more than $5 billion in international aid between 1990 and 2009. This was not enough to prevent the desperate living conditions of most of the 9-10 million Haitian citizens. Before the earthquake, an estimated 80% of them already lived below the poverty line of $2/day. Now it appears that even this intolerable statistic could worsen.

The U.S. government pledged $100 million in aid to support Haiti in its recovery, with more to follow. This is a start. History and statistics show, however, that most of the funds used to rebuild the country will come from the country’s very own people – via remittances sent by migrants of the diaspora.

It can be tough to be a migrant – but even worse should one be persecuted by the local population.

By moving to a new place economic migrants – and displaced persons – leave behind well-known surroundings, and often other family members too. They may not speak the language at their new location, might have to accept a job that does not fit their educational level or skill set, and can be without legal documents, making them vulnerable to exploitation. Generally they look past these negative factors, seeking a better life and seeing a more positive future. With time, difficulties can be overcome.

South Africa has traditionally served as a receptor country for migrants and those displaced from neighboring countries. This includes thousands of Zimbabweans, who fled deteriorating conditions in their country, which suffered under an absurdly high hyperinflation rate (printing a 100 trillion dollar note as prices doubled every day), and the dictatorship of Robert Mugabe (who grudgingly accepted a power-sharing agreement with Morgan Tsvangirai, that began in February 2009, and remains unsteady).

In May 2008, however, widespread xenophobia and violence led to the deaths of more than 62 people in South Africa. Immigrants faced blame, whether based on claims that they took jobs away from locals, or presented a threat to public safety.

A New York Times article describes more recent attacks on Zimbabwean immigrants after the death of a local man. Like with many events, there are two sides to the story. Zimbabweans in South Africa do not deserve the blame for all negative economic conditions. Likewise, not all South Africans are intolerant of outsiders – the article recounts how a local teenager guided a Zimbabwean friend to her home, where he received shelter and protection.