This blog has also been posted in FPA’s Latin America Blog.

Mexico in 2009 has become the recipient of at least half of the most famous biblical plagues starting in 2008. This past week brought yet another earthquake to Mexico, the second this month that received some media coverage outside the country. In addition to a full scale drug war, H1N1 flu, an economic crisis, political jockeying, immigration issues, drug related and everyday corruption and a persistent high level of poverty, Mexico and its leaders could claim to have more on their plate than Barack Obama has to deal with in the US today and for the rest of his Presidency.

Debates of where the blame for much of Mexico’s ills comes from has brought in voices from opposition within and outside of Mexico, its NAFTA partners, the WHO, IMF, World Banks and the UN itself. However in a general perspective has Mexico’s leaders performed worse than most other leaders in similar positions? Felipe Calderon’s government while blamed for igniting much of the drug conflict has tried to do more to fight narcotrafficking than any other Mexican leader in the past. Support for his anti-drug initiative has come from the US and Canada and South America, and while drug markets and demand has been claimed as the root cause of Mexico’s conflict by many in Mexico and by even Obama himself, NAFTA has become collectively aligned fighting against cartels that are well entrenched from Cancun to Vancouver. While NAFTA has always been exclusively a trade agreement, heavy cooperation in fighting drugs that come through many commercial and immigration sources also is the route of much of North America’s trade wealth boom since 1994. Markets which create demand for narcotics also demand other products from Mexico, Canada and the US which are not drug related, but may open for easier access to narcotrafficking across borders. The end result is that cooperation and addressing the drug issues are the only option in reducing the drug trade in North America by maintaining strong ties between the three NAFTA neighbors. I request that if other policy alternatives are a better option that readers voice their opinion.

H1N1, or Swine Flu as it was called before the WHO’s public relations people set out to change the definition did start in Mexico despite some claims otherwise in the country of its origins, and it is still in debate who is to blame. Blame has been knocked around quite a bit in this latest crisis, starting with slow action by Calderon and Mexico’s government to voice the issue abroad, leading to the WHO’s slow action in issuing alerts, leading to practices by Mexico’s agricultural industry and large multinationals, to claims of a poor health system in Mexico that is often a stereotype of many in developed countries abroad. The political fallout will determine the end result of the Swine Flu, but what should be noted is the effective actions taken by Calderon, Mexican public health officials, industry and citizens who completely shut down the most populated city in human history numbering almost 30 million and the other 70-80 million Mexicans who quietly kept indoors and patient over more than a week in order to end the spread of Swine Flu in Mexico and abroad. This enormous feat of public health control should be awarded to Mexico who despite having so many current problems, lack of funds, and large populations to deal with was still able to better handle H1N1 than many developed countries handled SARS. While it was not able to contain H1N1 entirely, and a small outbreak in Chile and Japan has occurred recently, it will certainly be studied for generations to come in how to deal with national and international health crisis.

Some issues that have received little attention this past month have been the persistent drug war and some earthquakes in Mexico in the last few weeks. As always, immigration issues while always a constant on the borders only were addressed when Mexican immigrants got the Swine Flu or the influence of drug cartels or were linked to Mexico’s drug war in the US. These mainstay issues will likely reemerge very soon, which often ignore successes by Mexican officials and highlight possible threats to the US which vary in urgency. With deaths in Mexico easily competing with those in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mexico will likely keep its place on the front page and tv screens of many of its NAFTA neighbours…for better or for worse.

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

Europe and the United States had often inherited many benefits from economic growth in the pre-2008 era. One of those consequences, especially for those countries on the border or across the sea from developing nations is legal and illegal migration into their economies. Due to the recent economic troubles a lack of work has prevailed and often manual labour jobs have dwindled, leaving legal and illegal migrants with few options for employment. Signs of “reverse migration” back towards their countries of origin took hold with many illegal migrants living in the United States eight to nine months ago. Now with unemployment rates pushing 20 percent in many European countries, many immigrants in European countries are making their way back to their hometowns.

In a New York Times article this week an analysis of why and how European migrants are returning home was published. The focus of the article was on migrants in Spain, often coming from Eastern Europe and South America to work in an economy that was the source of the EU economic boom since 2000. Spain and Ireland were known as the two EU countries in the last few years that have benefitted from innovative and continuous economic growth after the year 2000. The rate of inter-EU and immigration from abroad expanded their economies, population and cultures in return. Now many immigrants to Spain have become the first to leave the country with an unemployment rate of 17.4 percent. Responses to these issues have come from many sources. The Czech Government, in an attempt to ease the pressures on Czech émigrés has offered 500 Euros to help their citizens return to the Czech Republic. In Spain, the Spanish Government has offered legal immigrants from South America their unemployment payment in one lump sum if they agree to leave Spain and not return for three years. Many others have simply left back to their home countries without any assistance as one migrant to Ireland said: “it is much easier to be at home with family and with friends and not to have a job,” she said, “than to be here and not to have a job.”

Problems in places like Europe and the US might be difficult, but problems from the Economic Crisis in Eastern Europe and South America have not been much better. This week the World Bank and IMF have been working out methods and strategies to help economies in the developing world and now even developed countries in dealing with financial problems worldwide. While unemployment rises and the debate carries on within global financial institutions, problems in developing nations continue to rise and develop into massive crises as the result of increased poverty. One notable example is the conditions in Mexico. With a full scale drug war competing with deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq combined, losses from the financial crisis and the current Swine Flu taking hold in Mexico, reverse immigration may have unknown consequences as a result of millions of people not being able to cope within their home country or their new country. While unemployment rates in the US and Canada are no where near 17 percent like in some European countries, the difference in the economic structure of the systems in North America may not provide decent paying jobs which help families to survive an economic crunch for more than 8 months or so. In the end, policies to help stabilise developed and developing economies might help some people, like those returning to South America from Spain in providing some living expenses for a few months or a few years.

As expected by migrant advocates, the rightist government of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has wasted little time in cracking down on illegal migrants in the country's South and throughout industrial centers. In this video, Financial Times correspondent Guy Dinmore takes a look at growing tensions in Milan.

This Blog has also been posted in FPA's Latin America Blog.

There are a few realities that have hit the world this past year and this past month, to which most of the world has been affected by to some degree. Luckily enough, the issues which affect most Americans have made the greatest impact in the last few weeks of the election campaign, and the decisions people will make when casting their vote will be based on how they wish to change the past, and how they wish to see themselves in the future. Both candidates have accomplished something remarkable. The last two election campaigns offered many a lack of choice in a candidate who they felt would really push the country in a proper direction. Eight years of George Bush, Iraq and Afghanistan, the Economic Meltdown, 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, have left only candidates who can do the job available to be elected. Both Obama and McCain are good people, and either one is capable of placing their efforts into repairing a slightly damaged, well used and still well running America with a lot of work. Americans can do little wrong in choosing either candidate, but with the election close by and Obama likely to win, the following is a letter to Mr. Obama, and with some luck, Mr. McCain from the rest of the world who does not have a vote, but will be affected by their decisions as much as any American.

To start, the neighbours of the United States should be acknowledged for their constant support and connection to the United States. Canada and Mexico, despite issues of trade and immigration have done much in the last few years to accommodate not just Mr. Bush, but Americans as a whole. Currently Canada is one of the only developed nations who did not face complete economic collapse and places over 90% of their trade with the US. It should be acknowledged that trade and manufacturing in Canada has been hit as hard as in the US, and while NAFTA is blamed on Canada and Mexico, Canada is losing the same jobs, the same companies and the same households to tough foreign competition as much as the US. Canada is one of the world's largest oil producers and has always worked to move US energy out of the Middle East and grow stronger ties with Canada's energy and Canada's economy. Jobs being lost in the US, means jobs are lost in Canada as well. When the loss of jobs is blamed on NAFTA, it focuses energy and time on those who were never to blame for the economic problems in the US. To fight Canada and Mexico is to create scapegoats and lose four more years in improving the economy for all of North America.

With soldiers dying in Iraq, and allied soldiers giving their lives in support of freedom and lives in their own countries as well as the US, Afghanistan and Iraq need to be taken as a whole and the support should be given by the US to help fix problems abroad. According to Southern Pulse in their Oct 28th newsletter, over 4,000 people have died in Mexico's drug war, with 1,000 being killed in the last 50 days. Canadian, French, British and other allied troops have been taking heavy casualties in Afghanistan, making the region into a stalemate over the last 6 years. The worst problems have yet to be approached, with Darfur and Africa having yet to receive tangible attention towards genocides in the region which mirrors Rwanda in magnitude and action from the international community. Security in the United States cannot be achieved when those who support the US are under constant pressure and attack. Mexico has had as many deaths in the last year in battling the drug lords as soldiers have died in Iraq since 2003. A serious attempt in Afghanistan and a creative approach to Iraq must be achieved soon so other regions do not fall into chaos.

Immigration, while being solidified as a failed policy must start to acknowledge the existence of many from Latin America and Asia as players in the social framework, even if the legality of many residents are non-existent, they still are a part of every community in the United States. While illegal immigration needs a cathartic debate in America, those who have suffered from action, namely 2 million Iraqi refugees need to be addressed as well and accepted as people who are running from an Iraq which the US has not been able to claim victory and peace over. No greater respect to US soldiers and Iraqi citizens would come from a realistic approach that helps Americans, soldiers and their families, but also those so many fought hard to save; the Iraqis themselves. The use of the word "Change" and "Pull Out" will not stop violence and death in Iraq, only proper leadership will help end the conflict.

With a world depending on the US economy to operate, those nations in Latin America and Europe need a strong United States that will work and support their nations as those nations wish to work and support the US itself. While there is much criticism coming out of socialist governments in Latin America, the majority of nations who have spent the last few years in cooperation with the US and achieving great stability and peace within their own borders should be supported by the US and credit given to their development. Bad policy has created a situation where Chavez can attack Bush, as failure in leadership creates a large scapegoat, but good leadership with focus the attention on those local leaders like Chavez and allow for those democracies to eject problems in their societies. While not to the same degree, America's European partners have actually moved to re-engage with the US in a discussion to not only repair the current economic troubles, but also to re-invigorate the relationship of values and equality that should have always existed between Europe and the US. Elected leaders in the EU, Canada and Mexico have moved towards policies which have been considered traditionally American, and America will move towards a position where it adopts some trends from its partners, as well as hopefully cultivating respect with Europe and Latin America in the process. The future of the US will come with the future of Europe and the Americas. Leadership will only allow for a successful relationship in the future.

Emerging economies must be addressed to end this letter. China, India and Russia, as well as other nations have achieved a great deal of development, and with recent funds have been able to address national problems of poverty and development, many thought were impossible to tackle only 5 years ago. These countries have a right to compete and gain wealth, but if companies from the US and EU seek to find fortune in those countries and work with local companies which may produce harmful products or take away American jobs, than those American and European companies should be challenged and blame should not be placed on Canada or Mexico, who have lost much as well, and irrational barriers should not be placed on developing economies because companies from the US and EU take advantage of their consumers. To create scapegoats in this debate, is to create a situation where no one can foresee economic troubles, and regulation is left to create blameless policymakers in its wake. The crisis of the last 20 years was always not one of tangible losses, but in confidence, that companies and the government might and have lied to you, and that anarchy is unavoidable when problems ignite. Trade, finance and economics needs to work in society, as a parallel to democracy, in order to allow a leader to create any "Change" that is needed. The world needs a US presence, one with clear foresight and the ability to stop alienating its friends and address real threats to everyone's security. Only an understanding of the world who cannot vote will allow for any positive change to take place. A failure is no longer an option for America and their friends.

This Blog has also been posted in FPA's Latin America Blog.

  Since the election of the PAN in Mexico and Vicente Fox, there has been a slow movement towards Free Trade economics, policies in cooperation with the US and a cooling of relations with Cuba. In the late 1970s and early 1980s it was quite the opposite, with new oil wealth in Mexico pushing the government at the time into a position of a regional leader in Central America. With the collapse of the oil prices in the early 80s, the ambitions of Mexico as a regional power were extinguished and relations via NAFTA and the free market took hold in order to pull Mexico out of the numerous pesos crashes that plagues the country in the 1980s and 1990s. With the election of Vicente Fox and the diminishing of the PRI party which ruled Mexico for over 75 years, the PAN and Fox set Mexico on a new path, trying to create a framework for trade, jobs and immigration with the Bush administration in 2000 and after.

While the War on Terror took attention away from immigration and Mexico until 2007, Mexico still has been on the path of solidifying external relations since the victory of Fox and within the administration of the current President Calderon. Part of the reintegration of Mexico into the world community and its transformation as a strong emerging market came with political changes as well. Traditionally, Mexico has been seen in the light of policies which saw the US as an aggressor, with much of the 20th century being framed in policies from Cardenas and nationalisations of foreign industry that took hold in the interwar period and into the 1960s. Mexican-US relations were minimal until the late 1960s, and with these policies also came the support, at least verbally, for anti-US movements in Latin America, especially passive support for Cuba via trade and cultural ties. With ties came immigration, and until this week Cubans who can gain asylum in the US have been coming through Mexico as well as the sea in order to make a new life in the United States.

While over 11,000 Cubans came into the US through Mexico last year, Mexico has finally taken actions to close many of the routes for Cubans coming into the US through Mexico, mainly for security reasons, but also satisfying many Cuban officials who saw their citizens leaving for the US via Mexico as politically damaging to Cuba itself. While Cuban-Mexican relations have become more tense since 2000, this action, while likely not for the benefit of the Cuban Government is seen as an olive branch between the two nations. In the end, the tightening of borders will only stop a fraction of migrants from passing into the US. While economic troubles and tighter security may deter some from coming, economic osmosis will still bring Cubans and Mexicans across the border to seek a living in the US and escape intense poverty in their own countries.

This blog has also been posted in the FPA Latin America Blog.

CNN made a great acquisition taking on policy expert Fareed Zakaria and giving him his own show, Fareed Zakaria GPS which allows for a diverse perspective and a balanced international approach to a network which is often known for its Washington point of view as opposed to the perspective of global politics and policy. The international perspective needs to be understood from the point of view of Paris, Singapore, Beijing and others. Originally the host of a PBS show and author of the book The Post-American World, Zakaria will likely become one of the most important authors on foreign policy in the next few years.

In a week of economic turmoil, Zakaria in his show F.Z. GPS decided to interview political experts from Singapore, India and China in order to get their point of view on current economic and political activities involving the US and other countries. While many perspectives were discussed, it was diverse in that countries like Singapore, India and China did not fare poorly during the last eight years of the Bush administration. While criticism did come about regarding Afghanistan and Iraq and perspectives regarding Russia's current move into Georgia, Bush's reputation is not wholly being shared by many in the Asia-Pacific, standing out in contrast to the distain for Bush in Europe, the US and even in Canada. The Canadian example is an interesting one. Currently there is a national election underway where in a recent election debate, issues concerning the country came down to 3 of 4 opposition leaders bringing the debate down to its lowest level and simply accusing the current Prime Minister, Steven Harper of being another George Bush. While Bush is not a Canadian leader and is extremely different to any existing Canadian politician, the real policy debate was wasted and the electorate was treated as people who only decide how their communities are formed based on whether George Bush's name is shouted out enough times on television. While Bush may not be popular in the Western world, the effect of using him for political gains outside the US can be just as harmful in forming illogical policy decisions based on someone who has no real effect or relation to a government outside the US at all. While the responses from many Asia-Pacific experts was logical and measured, often similar debates about the last 8 years in the Western world are foggy at best.

While new economic giants such as China and India had their perspectives shown on F.Z. GPS, it is curious to see what the last eight years have brought to countries in the Americas, and why certain policies such as immigration has been largely ignored in the recent election campaign. The focus of the Bush administration in early 2001 was immigration and the relationship between the US and the rest of the Americas regarding free trade and the FTAA. Mostly in 2008, the issue of immigration has remained a regional one in the US, concentrating around states on the US-Mexico border which take immigration to heart, but has not become a major election issue. Trade, mostly an issue with China for the US has been brought up in many border states along the US-Canada border. Talks of renegotiating NAFTA to bring jobs back to Americans was rampant, despite the issue having a lot to do with the US relationship north and south as opposed to its ties eastwards. While Mexico has ever increasing numbers going to the US illegally and a severe drug war which has taken more lives in 2008 than US lives in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, the debate on immigration was mostly nullified last year when Bush tried to pass one of his final bills opening up an immigration policy that might rationalize the current status quo on the border. After 7 years of the War on Terror, the original policy issues from 2001 were addressed, but with such complex problems and the lack of support for anything Bush ties his name to, the issue of immigration in the US will not change at all for years to come. In reality, as pointed out in the FPA Immigration Blog, some illegal immigrants are even leaving the US due to the current economic crisis and many in the US are starting to see the effect of Bush policies as changing the perception of America into a country which as one CNN reporter said, is no longer a "beacon of freedom and hope".

The rest of the Americas in the last eight years have done better than many would expect in the Western world despite many issues impacting the US itself. Canada currently stands out as one of the only countries in the G8 that is not suffering economic collapse, due to very prudent financial policies, good leadership by many governments over the last 5 years and a long term economic boom and national surplus. While being attacked in the Clinton campaign over NAFTA, Canada has been able to not be seen as another China to the US on trade and was able through a great deal of legal debates to come up with a deal on softwood lumber and push Chapter 11 decisions on NAFTA towards a more equitable framework where states have regained much of their power over companies in the NAFTA rulings. Canada has separated its support from the US, ie. regarding not supporting with troops in Iraq, but many citizens support Canadians in Afghanistan and trade with the US. Canada has not fared poorly at all, even weathering the current global crisis with merely slow growth, and keeping a lot of funds in the country and allowing cash rich Canadian companies to buy out many American and European assets if they wish. Canada's oil industry had a lot to do with this, but in the long run 8 years in Canada has not had many ill economic effects.

Brazil is currently lead by prudent left wing leader Lula and has become a beacon for reform and investment in South America. Since financial collapses that characterized the country in the 1990s, Brazil has been able to maintain a balanced level of growth and social reforms that has brought confidence into Brazil and has made it the next likely emerging economy to become another China or India. While political issues still exist to a great degree, oil and slow progress seems to be paying off and Brazil will likely weather this economic storm with a few scratches and bruises, but keep afloat. Chile is in a similar situation. With left leaning leaders and prudent economic policies and progressive social policies, stability may become a mainstay of many countries in the Americas in the future.

Venezuela also has stood out from many of its neighbours. While Brazil has benefited a lot from its oil reserves, Venezuela has had its oil reserves propel it into a forum for Chavez's influence in the Americas and remains Venezuela's only notable source of revenue. Venezuela often uses actions by Bush as the motivator of policy decisions, mostly in cases where the US has ignored Venezuela and Latin America in the last 8 years. In reality, the involvement the US has had beyond some trade policy in the last 8 years has been very minimal, only opening up further ties with economically stable countries who stabilized themselves, and not having any heavy response to populist claims by Chavez and others who often use Bush and supposed actions by the US to justify all types of local policy decisions by populist leaders. While the degree of US involvement in Venezuela is not known but likely is minimal, countries like Colombia have been able to use local and US assistance to independently address local issues. The Colombian Army's rescue of Ingrid Betancourt and American hostages from the FARC was seen as a Colombian initiative and praised by the US as solely Colombian. Ironically the FARC later was accused of having been supported by Chavez himself, mimicking accusations he had against Bush in interfering in local politics. Increasingly criticisms of Chavez come with the diminishing influence of Bush. Without Bush as a scapegoat, it will be hard to place Obama in a negative light and accuse the causation of problems in Venezuela on the President of the US. Recently a critical report on Venezuela lead to the coercive expulsion of human rights leaders from Venezuelaactions which will reflect poorly in Chavez in the future with no Bush to blame for the future.

Many other countries in the Americas have been set with their own local issues and have had some support and acknowledgement from the US in positive and negative manners. Mainly the US in the last 8 years have ignored Latin America due to The War on Terror, and minimal support and ties with the US has not had a negative effect for many in the region and their development. Ignoring the Americas, the backyard of the US and important future allies is not an option, as pointed out by Zakaria in his statements and book. A strong America's’ will do nothing but help the US reintegrate into the international community if respect and independent policies are supported by the next President of the US and progress of the Americas is valued and not hindered. Reactionist trade policy and calling the opposition George Bush when no coherent discussion is available to win votes in an election is not acceptable on any level. Policy cannot be formed by name calling, and any politician who uses this tactic does nothing but to embarrass themselves and their supporters in a democracy. The Bush era is over, and only working for new opportunities is an acceptable conclusion.

Today's Wall Street Journal is running an insightful piece on a relatively new development in US immigration policy: return migration. Faced with fewer economic opportunities, in part through tightening regulations and the overall economic slide, illegal immigrants are returning home. This, in turn, has a significant effect on the economies in their countries, who have long come to rely on remittances sent from relatives working the construction sites and factories in North America.

The article quotes a Pew Hispanic Center study, to be issued on October 2nd, according which “estimates that annual undocumented arrivals from Mexico are down about 25% this year from 2005, to about 350,000. Undocumented arrivals from Central America have been halved since then, to about 120,000.”

The long term impact on sending communities cannot yet be deduced. The World Bank, however, estimates that remittance flows are more than twice as large as total development aid and represent the largest source of foreign exchange for numerous countries. This means that the exodus to which the article alludes could seriously impact the prosperity and development of thousands of communities in developing countries in South America. This interactive graph shows the degree to which remittances are playing a role in supporting local communities.

 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.

<>The New York Times is reporting that Greek Islands are being overwhelmed by migrant arrivals - and most recently, a large part of these are unaccompanied minors. The tiny island of Leros is waiting for the declaration of a state of emergency, after 200 migrants were picked up by the coast guard over the last few days.

While a number of these launched political asylum claims and others were sent back under existing procedures, the new wave of child migrants is raising new questions for local officials: "The problem now is who takes care of the minors," said Chrysoula Sifouniou, deputy prefect of the Dodecanese, a group of islands dotting the Aegean's southeast flank near the Turkish coast. "We don't have the infrastructure to cope with them, not even a single reception center for them. There's no state plan or strategy in place to deal with these cases." 

"This is a new trend we've noticed in recent months," Ms. Sifouniou said. "It has left us baffled and confused, because we neither have the expertise nor the infrastructure to deal with this problem on a local level."

Concerned islanders and church officials have offered to aid the children, and some hotel owners have offered to house them.

<>The United Nations has already criticized Greece's policy of dealing with new arrivals and now state officials are calling for additional help from the European Union.  We will follow this story as it develops further.