Migration

This week’s news roundup covers EU initiatives to create a Common European Asylum System as well as France’s possible new focus on immigration policy as well as highlighting opinion tools for Americans on their attitudes towards immigration after the failure of the Immigration Bill to be passed through the US Senate. Also stories on Aid workers killed in Lebanon and links towards the refugee tragedy in the Mediterranean are highlighted:

• French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said last Friday in his tour of Africa that France will not tolerate waves of African migrants coming to France. Since the election of France’s new President Nicolas Sarkozy, many migrants have been worried about the possible changes to France’s immigration policy. While Kouchner did show a tough stance on France’s new approach to immigration, he did clarify that France’s immigrants should be treated fairly and that much of the concern came from the high risk illegal immigrants. He may have been influenced by events last week where 110 bodies where discovered in the Mediterranean Sea between Malta and Libya, thought to be illegal immigrants who became victim to their “uncertain vessels” and a fortuneless journey.
• On June 6th 2007 the European Comission published a Green Paper to create the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) as well as an evaluation of the Dublin System and a Directive on long-term residence for the beneficiaries of International Protection. It is hoped that the focus on irregular migrations, which has dominated European Immigration Policy in the past, will be refocused towards the rights and obligations of all EU Member states on the rights of Asylum seekers in the EU. After the tragedy mentioned above, a mechanism to ensure the rights of Asylum seekers needs to be established equally in all EU states.
• With the failed progression on the Immigration Reform Bill, MSNBC has created a website to gain American’s opinions on the immigration issue and the reform bill from American citizens. While the Bill has been set aside indefinitely, the issue of immigration in the US still holds strong among many people. See the links here for opinions.
• In a June 11th article for the Guardian Newspaper, two Red Cross workers were killed and one seriously wounded today in Lebanon. The shell that hit their vehicle came from Fatah Islam militants held up inside the Northern edge of the Nahr al-Bared camp. For more information see the Lebanon post below.

The focus of President Bush’s weekly radio address often takes to speaking about how support for the war in Iraq is necessary and how his immigration policy must be supported. While unfortunately there is no end to the War in Iraq in sight, the President’s Immigration Reform might have had met it’s final end this past weekend when the Immigration Bill was set aside indefinitely.

Bush’s attempts at reforming the US Immigration system are unique in his eight year Presidency. While Democrats often shy away from supporting any policy of the Bush Administration, with regards to immigration varied opinions from both Democrats and Republicans placed members of both parties at different ends of the chess board. Ironically many Democrats supported much of the Bill’s reforms, while many Republicans felt the Bill offered too much of an Amnesty and not enough security against illegal immigrants and possible terrorist threats. Not all Democrats supported the Bill however, seeing the Bill not going far enough in forming a realistic immigration policy. In the end, the lack of support from both parties allowed the Bill to be set aside last Thursday in the US Senate.

Bush and supporters of the legislation still are seeking to push the Bill forward despite the major setback in the US Senate. While Bush attempted to placate some Republican’s concerns over the Bill by saying in his Radio Address that the Bill is far from being an “Amnesty” for illegal immigrants, he also is fully aware that the Bill is not perfect. Supporters of the Bill, both Democrats and Republicans feel that the Bill was extinguished much too soon, and that “stall tactics” and “fear mongering” (see video in above link) on both sides arising from past tensions has really not given a chance to immigration reform that was really lost too soon for legislation that is too crucial to be forgotten.

Bush’s legacy will not be one of the Compromising President, but with regards to immigration reform the work and efforts and necessity of the new Bill should be considered more important than the quick dismissal it has received in the US Senate last week. While immigration reform is most likely a dead deal right now in the US, its importance has not diminished despite bi-partisan conflict and lack of support for Presidential initiatives on all fronts. The next President, whoever they will be, will likely face similar bi-partisan challenges on all policy decisions in the future…and it is likely that the lack of support for this Bill and the millions of legal and illegal immigrants in the US will be one of the next major campaign issues for the future President….Second as always to Iraq of course!

In a report by the CBC.ca, a discussion of the wage gap between Canadian Immigrants since the 1960s and American Immigrants since the same period shows that there is a significant difference between the two groups of immigrants. The report states that in Canada there seems to be less of a wage gap, as 4 in 10 immigrants to Canada have an undergraduate university degree or greater, while in the US it is 2 in 10. This has to do with the Canadian policy of taking in mostly skilled labour in the immigration process, as opposed to the US policy of taking mostly immigrants connected by family into the United States. While both countries also take in family related immigrants and skilled immigrants alike, the main engine might be where the immigrants come from and the need for certain skills in the American and Canadian society respectively.

Much of the US immigration comes from Mexico and Central America. As well, the US is a beneficiary of the Brain Drain from other countries, where highly educated people from one country flood to another for better opportunities and payment. Canada itself loses a great number of its educated citizens to the US which might explain while 2 in 10 are skilled immigrants to the US, it still is a large number of individuals from all over the world working and promoting the US economy.

Regarding Canada, in last week’s post on What Exactly is “Canadian Experience”?, we see that while Canada may take in many more skilled immigrants, there is strong evidence that the arbitrary barriers to employment for these skilled immigrants may dissolve any benefit to bringing in 4 in 10 skilled immigrants. In reality, many end up taking jobs in very low income sectors despite having a university education or higher. The situation in Canada has become so bad for many skilled immigrants that stories of foreign surgeons driving taxis or similar horror stories abound and a consensus among many skilled immigrants that Canada has become more of a trap for skilled immigrants than a benefit. Many skilled immigrants come to Canada to find that they will have an almost impossible task in requalifiying as well as living with lower real income than in their state of origin.

While Canada may bring in more skilled people, it is evident that the US benefits more from the skilled labour it does accept. There are of course many other factors in this comparison that require a full analysis, but in the meantime more attention needs to be brought on the issues of employment and economic rights in the debate on legal immigration in the US and Canada.

In her column on May 25th, Eleanor Clift of Newsweek discusses the benefits President Bush is gaining in the debate on new immigration policy. Her overview of the complex political views of Democrats who will most likely support Bush’s initiative under the guidance of Ted Kennedy is an interesting dynamic since most Democrats have tried to distance themselves as much as possible from the Bush Administration on almost all issues posed to them. Ironically, Bush will likely have more opposition from Republicans who think the immigration bill does not do enough to curb illegal immigration.

In reality, among all the issues surrounding Iraq and the War on Terror, the Bush Administration pre-9-11 was very focused on immigration policy and building stronger ties with Mexico and a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. His efforts did not go unrewarded, gaining 41% of the Hispanic vote from 21% during his years in office.

Despite small successes in his Immigration Policy, Bush also has had much criticism of his years in office regarding Border Security. In a report issued by the organization The Third Way, it was found that apprehensions on the Southwest border have declined by 350,000 per year, almost 30 percent from the Clinton years. In addition, the number of deportable aliens found at the northern border and border locations other than the Southwest has dropped by almost 40 percent.

Despite the study and opposition from his own party, any progressive movement on the immigration front is positive in comparison to criticisms about Iraq and everlasting current scandals to hit the White House. Clift suggests that the biggest problem in a Republican position against the proposed Bill is that it is likely to take more votes away from the Republicans in states where the Hispanic vote may make the difference between it becoming a Blue or Red state. In any case, Bush might have some luck in pushing the Bill through, although not from traditional allies of the President.

In a continuation of last week’s weekly update on the deal reached in the US Senate on Immigration Reform, approval and criticism of the bill has been voiced by both sides of the political right and political left. While perspectives on the right of the debate will likely claim the bill to be somewhat of an “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, the opposing end of the political spectrum might claim the bill to be “not humanitarian enough” according to Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

While the bill is aimed at allowing illegal immigrants to right their status, it will also focus on border security and even adopt laws for fines against employers who are using undocumented labour in the conduct of their business. While many of these goals are accepted in a general sense, the technical issues and how policy is affected are fueling much debate over the Immigration Reform Bill.

One of the contentious issues surrounding the bill is the proposal of an altered Guest Worker Program. Many see the new bill as focusing more on job skills and education, and less on family connections. This merit based system is seen by many Democrats as unrealistic and likely the most disturbing part of the new bill as most illegal immigrants in the US would not achieve possible merit based qualifications proposed in the new bill. Beyond the qualifications issue, a proposal to cut the number of guest workers to 200,000 and capping the number of workers is also adding flames to the fire on the debate over the immigration bill.

“The point system does not reflect how much Americans value the family ties that bind people to their brothers and sisters or to their parents,” he said. “How many of our forefathers would have measured up under this point system? How many would have been turned back at Ellis Island?”-Barak Obama

Many Republicans also are concerned with the new bill, as Border Security is thought to take a second seat to immigration and newly proposed programs. This criticism is not new, as critics of the new bill point to past failures in immigration reform to secure the border and the current situation where illegal immigration has become almost unmanageable.

Beyond Democrats and Republicans, the concern of many immigrants in the US is also divided with regards to the new bill. While many illegal aliens, approximately 12 million may be able to gain legal citizenship, the new system changes connections via family ties in place since 1965 towards a system which values skilled labour and education. While people will likely adapt to the new system, it may be a challenge to both legal and illegal immigrants as much as it runs the debate on Capitol Hill. With much of the voting population taking clear sides on immigration as well, the issue may clarify the next election with Iraq as the two issues of most concern to all Americans, new and old.

The first test to the fragile Senate compromise on immigration reform came in a  vote on Tuesday. Scrapping the guest worker provision would have rocked the boat too far and could have brought the fragile compromise to a collapse. Tuesday’s vote, however, doesn’t rule out the possibility to curtail the guest worker program to 200,000 a year, as proposed by Democratic Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico. The New York Times has the full story on the vote and predicts more controversy once Senators return from their Memorial Day recess.

At the end of last week, senators announced their bipartisan compromise on immigration reform that combines border enforcement, a guest worker program, a path to legalization for illegal immigrants, tougher employer sanctions, and an education/skills-based point system for future immigrants. Rich Basas will comment on their proposal in the coming days.

<>Already, the policy proposal is having a divisive effect on Republican presidential hopefuls, as the UK’s Guardian reports. While John McCain has come out in support of the Senate proposal - as he was heavily involved in shaping the compromise - the article quotes potential rivals Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney criticizing the bill as “inadequate hodgepodge” and an “amnesty for illegals.” The division among presidential candidates is symbolic for the deep split the proposal cuts through the entir Republican party. Nevertheless, the Republicans are already hard at work to toughen the compromise further.

<>Meanwhile, Democratic candidates have been vocal in their criticism: Sen. Barak Obama has denounced the points system for evaluating future immigrants as giving “too little weight to family ties,” ABC news reports.

<>The New York Times’ Julia Preston and Randal Archibold sat down with illegal migrants to get their perspective on the bill’s provisions. Many said that living in US was worth overcoming the difficult legal hurdles. Advocacy groups, however, are quick to point out that the family reunification provisions represent a radical departure from US traditions: “This is an unprecedented shift from family unity being the cornerstone of our immigration policy,” said Isabel Garcia, a lawyer and a chairwoman of Derechos Humanos, an advocacy group here. Ms. Garcia also objected to what she called “insurmountable” obstacles in the bill.

Other commentators have plenty to say:

Navarrette: Immigration anxiety is cultural

Dobbs: New immigration plans ignores history’s

Washington Post Editorial: The storm over immigration

See also: Mexico Blog by Rohini Gupta - Bush strikes deal over immigration bill

The Washington Post is reporting that remittance payments from US resident immigrants to Latin American countries has slowed down over the past two months. While remittances are subject to cyclical economics, much like any other payments, analysts are speculating whether this could signal a more profound shift:

“Many remittance-rich nations would fall into a recession if immigrants began sending home significantly less money, which could encourage more poor Latin Americans to find work in the United States, according to the study and Donald Terry, manager of the Multilateral Investment Fund at the Inter-American Development Bank.”

The article highlights the important role that remittances play in Central American economies, such as Honduras and El Salvador, where they constitute 18 percent of the national income and surpass foreign aid and investment, according to a study by the think tank, Inter-American Dialogue.

The Inter-American Development Bank is studying possible reasons for sluggish payments, noting that anecdotal evidence suggests that raids on migrant communities by U.S. law enforcement officers and fear of deportation has prompted some to curb spending. Other reasons may be saving money to pay U.S. citizenship fees, wagering that a congressional debate over immigration law would result in allowing them to pay a penalty and legalize their immigration status. A downturn in the U.S. housing industry could also be trickling down to immigrants, who fill the majority of U.S. construction jobs.”

For further reading on the role of remittances in aiding developing countries, please take a look at these documents:

• “The role of remittances in the World’s Economy”, Immigration Policy Brief, The American Immigration Law Foundation, 2003.
• The Migration Information Source of the Migration Policy Institute has a full overview of the topic, including special coverage of the ‘Year of Migration and Development’ 2006.
• “Migration and Remittances”, an overview compiled by the World Bank.
• “Close to home - The Development Impact of Remittances in Latin America,” World Bank Report, 2006 (pdf).
• “Card-based Remittances: A closer look at supply and demand,” Inter-American Dialogue, 2007 (pdf).
• “International Flows of Remittances: Cost, Competition and Financial Access in Latin America and the Caribbean–Toward an Industry Scorecard,”  Inter-American Development Bank, 2006 (please scroll down the list of documents to download the PDF from the IADB’s website).
• “Migrants’ Remittances,” Ch. 2 of a World Bank report on Migration Trends in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, 2006. To access the report in full, take a look at the World Bank’s website on the topic.  

In their often desperate plea to find work in the U.S., more and more illegal immigrants are turning to counterfeit organizations to provide them with social security number or new identities. The scope of the problem became evident following a number of raids at meatpacking plants in the Midwest.  On April 25 federal authorities charged 22 people with being part of one of the nation’s largest operations to produce counterfeit identification documents, the New York Times reports. Catering to predominately Mexican immigrants, the crime ring with key operations in Chicago, sold false documents at a price between $200 and $300 a document. Officials estimate that this generated an approximate annual turnover of $2 - $3 million with as many as 100 customers a day.

 Economic necessity is what drives the business of counterfeiter organizations like this one. Analysts have reacted by suggesting that the introduction of biometric work permits might put an end to the trade in illegal documentation and make it more difficult for migrants without legal status to be gainfully employed. Even if lawmakers opt for the biometric card it won’t happen overnight, leaving criminal groups to prey on the need of illegal migrants in their quest to make a better life for themselves across the border.

Verifying the identity of illegal migrants and cracking down on companies that employ migrants without legal documentation is the subject of a number of articles and commentaries this week.

In their often desperate quest for work in the United States, illegal migrants have resorted to what the New York Times calls “a growing trade in bonafide documents.” The paper features the story of the two Violeta Blanco’s - one, a single mother on welfare in California, the other an illegal immigrant mother of  three  and former employee  of the Swift & Company meatpacking plant in Des Moines, Iowa. We commented on the wave of raids at a number of plants a few weeks ago. The second Ms. Blanco, Eloisa Nuñez Galeana, purchased Ms. Blanco’s social security card from a ‘door-to-door’ saleswoman back in 2003 and used it only for her application to Swift & Company.  In total, 148 illegal migrants were charged with identity theft following the Des Moines raid.

An Op-Ed in the same paper, by Doris Meissner, senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute and former INS commissioner under President Bill Clinton,  and James Ziglar,  the  commissioner under George W. Bush, now makes the case for biometric social security cards to prevent this new type of identity fraud. It also praises a joint, bi-partisan bill by Representatives Luis Gutierrez, Democrat of Illinois and his peer, Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, for its efforts on holding employers accountable for their hiring practices. The proposed bill, the authors argue, takes its cues directly from the crackdown on illegal migrants at the Swift Plant. Meissner and Ziglar (who admits he has a vested interest in biometric SSNs as CEO of a biometric technology company) believe that in order to effectively monitor employers and prevent them from employing illegal migrants against their better knowledge, tamper-proof identification for job seekers is of the essence. They criticize the existing Basic Pilot program, which requires only electronic verification of employment eligibility, making the case of the two Violeta Blanco’s an often-repeated scenario.

While the recent raids at various companies throughout the US and the quasi-immediate deportation of most of the illegal immigrant employees discovered through these operations, editors at the Economist still find the US government’s policy of punishment towards these type of companies unclear. They point out that in 2004 the total number of employers fined $5,000 or more for employing illegals was zero - the sarcastic undertone is all too clear when the author calls this “not much of a deterrent.” In October 2006, the Head of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, revealed that 716 employers had been arrested for hiring illegals in that year, but as the Economist points out, “it remains to be seen how severely they will be punished.”

As the debate on what constitutes comprehensive immigration reform soldiers on, a few things are becoming clear: both Republicans and Democrats seem to agree that effective enforcement is the key to any immigration reform, including stepped up border enforcement and an employee verification system that slows the influx of unauthorized foreigners. At the same time, the issue is deeply steeped in partisan politics: Democrats are weary of co-operating with the President on the matter, as they do not want him or his party to reap the benefits of having fixed the immigration system - certainly not so close to a major election. The Economist believes that the Democrats might well “stall until a Democrat is in the White House and then take it all.” This tactic could afford Democrats a “long-term lock on the swelling Hispanic vote,” the magazine quotes analysts’ speculations. This could prove a risky strategy, however, and many including Rep. Gutierrez have realized that a “hang back” attitude could also sway voters opinions. As we get closer to the primaries, immigration reform looks to play a larger role in the candidates’ debate - even ahead of their formal selection.

Additional resources:

• The Migration  News, a publication of  the University of California, Davis offers an overview of recent  proposals on US immigration reform.
• The Migration Policy Insitute will discuss the Gutierrez/Flake bill with experts at an upcoming event entitled “Immigration Reform: Prospects and Possibilities” (April 26).  Their Policy Beat also offers a comprehensive overview and analysis of the proposals made thus far (published/updated April 16).
• The New York Times tells the story of the two Blancos in a audio slide show