Migration

Among the hype of Super Tuesday, I thought a frank and brief opinion on the Republican and Democratic Candidates would be a nice relief from the overkill of information and issues coming out of mainstream media about who might be the next President. I hope my perspective, not being a US citizen and from the point of view of the Latino community and other diverse minorities may give some clarity to the issues currently being discussed.

Republicans:

Mike Huckabee: An eloquent speaker and intelligent good hearted man, he is limited to one specific community in the United States, that of the Christian right. While there are diverse opinions in that religious community as well, much of Bush’s support came from the same political groups and this has lead to very bad policies by Bush, and perhaps blurring the line between the Separation of Church and State and Freedom of Religious expression. In reality, while many good spirited people are from Huckabee’s supporters, the rest of the American people do not belong to those supporters or religious affiliations. A lot of the views also are seen by some as being the catalyst for the Iraq war. America is and always will be a diverse community, and no candidate can go forward with one community in a larger America, especially if conflict has been the result in the past. Historically, this support grew after the personal actions of Bill Clinton and his mistreatment of women collegues for decades. A new moral America under Bush after Clinton has lead to the Iraq war, so the result of each administration has its pros and cons, but changing from either one might be better than a return to Clintonism, Bush I and Bush II or Reaganism.

Mitt Romney: Clearly a good businessman, he is the biggest threat to John McCain in the Super Tuesday vote. I always see Romney as somewhat of a Swiss Army Knife. Romney is talented in many ways but nothing specific stands out about him. Romney is really the in between if you dislike the left Republican McCain, or can’t stand the right leaning Huckabee. Unfortunately for Romney, people often will just not vote as opposed to vote for the least worst candidate. He will need a lot of luck.

John McCain: No one wants to say this, but McCain, Clinton and Obama are only slightly different in their political outlook. McCain is in the midst of trying to get the Republican Right to support his campaign but with policies which are seen as soft on immigration balanced against his support for staying in Iraq, he is trying to become everyman’s Republican. He can only do this by using his past as a patriotic American and his time under Reagan to reach out to those past supporters of Bush in order to solidify his support. The thing about remembering people in the past is that they look a lot better than they actually were. Reagan was the Republican who was very soft on immigration with an Amnesty for illegal immigrants at the time. McCain, who is trying to create a reasonable and realistic compromise on immigration would do better trying to be the balanced President between the Democrats and Republicans than attempt to become the next Reagan who was by no means perfect. It is true that McCain is a real conservative, but he may not be Republican enough to capture the Right as Bush did and Huckabee is trying to do. In reality after eight years of Bush someone like McCain is the only one who can produce a long term change for the Republican party. As well, its not like any Right leaning Republicans will vote for Clinton in any case.

Democrats:

Barak Obama: Critics of Obama say that people do not know enough about him, and that he is inexperienced, but in reality he is in his late 40’s, and adult and has a young face which is no crime. No one knows how he will do as President, but if he can conquer the racial divide without having the political fate of Colin Powell or Connie Rice then he has earned a lot of respect already. Unlike Romney, Obama is offering something, a change in the opinions Americans have in the next election. When a country that is based on the Separation of Church and State and the elected official not being kings or from one ruling class or family has a religiously based Bush I and Bush II, and then Clinton I and possibly Clinton II, pulling change can only be done by someone who is not a Clinton or a Bush. Compared with McCain, the Iraq issue outstanding, Obama and McCain would do well learning from each other. Both of them can be the candidate who can bring change to their respective parties and allow for the United States to pass through the damage incurred by Bush and Clinton. In the end, the country would do better if the two ran together..not such an unnatural fit but a likely impossibility. Obama must be vigilant, as while he has much of the youth vote, who knows if they will bother voting at all. Remember, Bush won the last election and he was as unpopular with youth as ever.

Hillary Clinton: Change is not in her vocabulary, unless it will get her the votes. For someone who’s husband cheated on her which gave ammunition to the moral debate in America which did more for the Bush campaign than George Bush himself, Clinton is surprisingly popular. Much of this comes from the backtracking in the campaign to patch up any issues or errors they have made, as well as Bill and Chelsea Clinton pushing for her nomination. Obama was right to question her on whether he is running against her or Bill, but it is evident that the momentum from team Clinton is strong as Clinton in the end is not Bush. In comparison to McCain, her past support for the Iraq war will be an issue in the election but will make no difference in the end if Congress is not willing to act, but may lose her some votes in the end from Democrats. Her support for a public health system is a good policy, but despite problems in the American private system, there has not been a real debate about the pros and cons of a publicly funded system. There are bad points in both, but McCain’s push to reform and fix the current system as opposed to replacing it will always win as most Americans do have good health care. The Clintons unfortunately have been known to play dirty politics, but defaming the minority candidate will not help anyone, and has already caused damage to their campaign. Regarding Latinos, Clinton has a lot of support as they like Bill, but whether Hillary decides to be the next President or the next Clinton, the diverse communities of the United States can and will be swayed to vote for others, namely Obama and McCain who with Clinton want to be the pioneer of the Middle Way in American politics.

We encourage fair and sensible debate on our Blog…please feel free to agree and disagree and submit your comments.

Some of the Republican party’s most celebrated candidates have come from lives which mirror the stereotype of a true American hero. Presidents like George Bush the First gained early notoriety as an Aircraft Carrier bomber pilot in the Second World War, being shot down in an attack on the Japanese navy. Reagan, a model for many Republican candidates at least acted as a hero on the silver screen and gained notoriety as the man who threatened the Soviets by words and by assaulting countries such as Grenada and Libya with air strikes and small invasion forces. He also gave birth to a trend which created such films as Red Dawn and Iron Eagle, the latter referring to Reagan as “Ray-Gun”, promoting his no nonsense style of dealing with threats from foreign nations and possibly extra-terrestrial attacks.

In 2008, the candidate to beat is one that was not only on a Carrier when it exploded accidentally, but was also shot down in his A-4 Skyhawk over Vietnam, and in a Ramboesque fashion imprisoned in Vietnam for a good part of his 20’s. In the upcoming Michigan Primary, John McCain is the man to beat for the next Republican nomination, but this stereotypical true American hero has one issue which is taking its share from his campaign, he is able to be tortured and beaten for almost a decade in a Vietnamese prison, but he is seen as being “soft” on immigration. With Giulani far down in the polls and Mitt Romney looking at getting his 2nd place campaign replaced, Huckabee and McCain seek to polarize Republican support between the religious right for former Pastor Huckabee, and everyone else for McCain. Republican voters however in Michigan may be an advantage in this primary, as with only Republicans in Michigan in this vote many who would be independent may vote for this Republican primary. With more centrist interested not being taken by a Democratic campaign in Michigan, immigration may not hinder McCain, but give him a small advantage.

Some Republicans like Arnie in California have taken non-traditional approaches to immigration in the Republican Party. With the fight brewing over the African-American vote amongst the Democrats, McCain may be a winner in this race because he is willing to realize that even if many foreign nationals are not legally residing in the US, many others are legal American citizens and Latinos are becoming the largest minority and more economically diverse. Like in California, the next President must address an America that is not only Black or White, but a lot of shades of American heros.

Numerous stories are crossing the wires today about the erosion of the fish population off the European and African coasts. The pace at which industrial trawlers, mostly from EU member states, where fishing - like agricultural activity - is subsidized, has put the survival of entire species at peril. In September, the European Union ordered fishers haul in their nets on bluefin tuna, citing the exaustion of quotas. Fisheries had long been one of the most contested areas of the Common Agricultural Policy, so much so, that upon enlargement a separate Directorate General was created to deal only in matters of access rights to territorial waters, fishing quotas and sustainibility levels.

Consumer economics is driving the demand for fish. As many start opting for the “chicken of the sea” and its scaly counterparts for health reasons, global turnover rises. It now amounts to more than 100 million tons each year. Europe has suddenly become the world’s largest market for fish, each year worth more than €14 billion. And as appetites grow, native fish populations are declining. Europe alone is now importing half of the fish consumed on its shores, including from countries in the developing world. Still, supply cannot meet demand: Enter the flourishing black market in seafood.

What, do you ask, does any of this have to do with migration? Well, let’s see: Those best equipped to compete in a shrinking market, in which the commodity at stake is a limited natural resource are leaders in their field, i.e. industrial trawling companies, not the simple dingies available to the average Mauritanian fisherman. As the industry moves South to follow the flock, African countries have been able to squeeze a tidy sum out of the European Union in negotiations on fishing deals, often disregarding the needs of their own populations. Foreign fleets now far outnumber African counterparts in coastal waters off of Senegal and Mauritania. This, in turn, has forced many African fisherman and their wares onto the thriving black market - or pushed them out of the business completely. As the International Herald Tribune’s Sharon LaFraniere reports, many of these are literally abandoning ship in an attempt to carve out a better life for themselves in Europe. Indirectly, the EU is responsible for their loss of livelihood and now they are trying to recapture a life lost by attempting to cross treacherous open waters, often in hope of returning to the only profession they know:

“I could be a fisherman there,” he said. “Life is better there. There are no fish in the sea here anymore,” the article quotes Ale Nodye, a third generation fisherman and returned illegal immigrant from Senegal.

These stories vividly prove how the erosion of sovereignty, or renegotiation of maritime boundaries can spell economic gain for a select few and hardship for those left behind. It’s a story from the globalization picture book. The European Union cannot continue to preach a commitment to combatting the “root causes” of migration in the home countries, while supporting existing policies that make economic migration the only plausible solution for many of those left without means to subsist. If the EU fails to tackle these issues simultaneously, it will again be embroiled in a viscious cycle of useless policies at an extremly high price tag.

How does one become President in a country with more than 20 million illegal immigrants? Well, the issue is not so simple as it isn’t something that people tend to be bothered by too much. In a VOA article on the Democratic Candidates and Swing States in the US they note that only 20-25% of people would not vote for a candidate if they disagreed with them on immigration. Voters, according to the article “..by and large don’t dislike illegal immigrants..” which Senator Clinton, Giulani and Obama have taken to a new level, pushing immigrant issue into the spotlight to earn the votes of the American Hispanic community, while not offending many other Americans in the process.

This soft strategy has not been absorbed into the Republican ranks so far. Rep. Tancredo did not attend a televised Spanish Language debate to make a “mute” point, while Senator John McCain has become the immigration darling of the Republican party supporting much of the immigration reforms discussed in the policy debates this past summer. These two pariahs in the Republican Party on immigration may hinder the Republicans as a whole by alienating the Hispanic vote, with little support for immigration reform from most of the candidates, not helped by Tancredo’s silly boycott. Alternatively, McCain may give some Hispanics a reason to have faith in his party, but may alienate more hardline Republicans on the immigration issue. He is often mistaken as a Democratic-Republican, with the exception for his support on Iraq he could be an ideal running mate with a Clinton if the proposal was a realistic one.

In the middle of the debate is Romney and Huckabee, using the immigration issue to take each other to task as the polls heat up in Iowa. Immigration issues in Iowa may become a microcosm for the GOP and the Presidential election in the near future as the interest in Iraq is becoming slowly displaced with the immigration debate. Despite problems in Iraq, no candidate wants to dwell on the issue in order to distance themselves from Bush and dive into another unsolvable debate. Immigration is something candidates can use as ammunition it seems without having anything blow up in their face…a luxury which the soldiers in Iraq do not currently possess.

Like Canada and Australia, Britain has sought the adoption of an immigration points system in order to limit the number of unskilled workers entering the UK and promote highly skilled workers coming in to support the British Economy. While this idea is a logical one, it often leads to dozens of smaller issues which while limits the number of low-income immigrants, also makes life fairly intolerable in the process.

While not on a points system, the City of New York has set out to conquer an issue which is also prominent in cities like Toronto, Canada. New York has always had an issue with illegal immigrants being victims of unreported crimes because upon contacting legal officials, often the immigrant would be simultaneously placed into the removal process since they did not reside legally in New York and the US. In Toronto, while three years ago and prior to that police did not have powers to enforce immigration orders, since then they can now check someone’s legal status in Canada and detain them when responding to criminal investigations. The problem in immigrant cities like Toronto, is that due to the points system, people who used to come in as middle income workers often now come as illegal migrants. In Toronto as well as New York, immigrants not able to be personally secure because it will surely result in the end of their lives in their resident country.

Growing in great numbers due to its booming economy, the city of Calgary in Canada shows an example of how the lack of law enforcement for many illegals can lead to some undesirable situations. In the North-East part of the city, dozens of illegal Asian migrants were found working in an illegal brothel which takes advantage of many people in similar situations entering Canada without a proper legal status. Many similar organizations exist across the country, and due to the new police powers to enforce immigration rules, many more underground operations have the roots to keep them beyond the law.

The UK is likely to have many of these issues plaque their cities in the near future. While trying to crack down on immigration, there is a real threat that society as a whole will lose in the long run.

*This article has been posted both on FPA’s Migration Blog as well as the Mexico Blog this week.

Illegal immigration may be one of the hot button issues for the next Presidential election, and will favour neither party in the process. In the Democratic party debates televised widely among American networks this past weekend two things were made clear. Firstly, that immigration will likely be a key issue in the next election, and Secondly that no one has a clear idea on how to handle the situation as there is no clear solution to the problem. This has lead to many candidates being seen as slightly differing on the issue in insignificant amounts with the exception of Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo who’s recent campaign commercials make reference “that Islamic terrorists roam free in the United States because of an unsecured border”. This has made me wonder in a personal context, do Mexican’s and Islamic terrorists look similar to each other? I’ll leave it as an open question for the reader to decide. In the end the answer is as clear as the debate on the issue as neither has anything to do with securing the border in any realistic way or giving necessary rights to individuals regardless of their legal status. Of course, It will not make a difference for Rep.Tancredo as he is quite far from winning the Republican nomination and has nothing to lose making a decisive choice on an issue no one can resolve.

What did result from the debates this past weekend is that Senator Clinton is starting to assert herself against rival Edwards and Obama after losing some support in the last few weeks in her campaign. Migration issues can place candidates in a position of losing much of the Hispanic vote, or alternatively losing the vote of many Americans who desire an answer to the Immigration question. This was made evident on challenges made by the candidates of each other on specifics of the issue, knowing full well that a slight change in answer or attitude may set their campaign into a downward spiral. With Bush’s attempt to deal with illegal migration last summer to turn his legacy away from the focus on problems in Iraq, an explosive question was laid for the next election that could affect the outcome of the election at the end of the day. With such evenly matched candidates in Obama, Clinton, Romney and Edwards poised to challenge other strong candidates in Giulani, America’s 9/11 hero and John McCain Vietnam war hero and torture victim the outcome is that one of these American heros will win, but small opinions such as on Immigration may absorb thousands of votes in the process even if the issue will not be resolved itself. The only assurance in the debate on migration and the upcoming election is that people are going to be fatigued with the election well before it begins as much as they are already fatigued discussing the Immigration issue which no one can solve for the next while. It seems that next year’s big blockbuster issues are ones that we have seen for months already and will be dealing with for the next months to come.

In this week’s roundup - a look at Finland, as it tries to become a destination country for immigrants. Two personal stories that are causing politicians to critically reexamine Austria’s immigration legislation and a new report from UCSD that argues in favor of continued Mexican migration to the US to stem the adverse effects of a decline in the working population.

Looks like Frontex isn’t the magic solution after all. German papers are reporting that hundreds of migrants were rescued from the waters off the Italian island of Lampedusa over the past few days. Almost 600 mostly African migrants had been taken aboard coast guard and rescue vessels within 24 hours between Wednesday and Thursday evening of last week - more than 300 on Wednesday alone. A previous dip in the numbers of migrants seeking access to European territories from the Atlantik and Canary Islands had been attributed to closer surveillance of by EU border patrols, but numbers have been rising again over the past few weeks, particularly in the Eastern Mediterranean sea.

• A new report from the University of California San Diego argues that instead of closing borders to Mexican immigrants, the US needs to bring in more migrants to stem a looming demographic downturn that will pull at the purse strings of retirement funds, once the baby boomers leave their jobs in droves in the coming years. And immigration might not be the only solution, as fertility numbers among Mexican immigrants are also dropping.
• US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are coming under fire following a wave of raids against illegal immigrants in suburban New York, the New York Times reports.
• The electoral campaign of one of Switzerland’s largest parties has come under scrutiny for its racist undertones. A poster illustrating the party’s hardline stance in immigration shows a group of white sheep standing on a Swiss flag symbolically kicking a black sheep out of the country. The campaign has polarized a country, which prides itself on consensus policy-making. Over the weekend, sparks flew as left-wing protestors took to the street to demonstrate against the SVP campaign in the country’s capital, Bern.
• Two recent cases of immigrant family deportations have raised new questions about the controversial 2006 Austrian immigration law, which changed the provisions for residency.
• Finland is looking to become a destination country for highly-skilled migrants, the FT report, but has yet to develop a compelling strategy to attract the best and brightest it is looking for. It is hoped that these migrants will continue to power the R&D heavy side of the country’s high-tech companies. But just as needed are the semi-skilled, the nurses and caretakers of the elderly, just as much as the plumbers and metal workers. The government is looking to recruit workers primarly from neighboring countries, including Russia, but has had to acknowledge that the extreme degree of red tape involved in applying for residency and the country’s high taxes do not make for attractive prospects for would-be migrants. An attitude shift toward migrants may also be needed, as prejudices toward particularly Soviet migrants are still rife among Finnish employers, the article suggests.

After the painful debate in the US about immigration this past year, none of the future Presidential candidates came out as a hero for the Hispanic voter in the intense conflict between individual Democrats and Republicans as well as within the parties themselves on how to change the US Immigration fiasco for the better. While not a hot issue beforehand, the Bush Presidency opened the issue to allow a debate beyond Iraq and allow Mr. Bush to end his second term with some positive changes to internal policies in the United States near the beginning of 2007.

While seen by many as self-serving, Bush did try to create positive change to US Immigration policy recently, which was in 2001 his main focus before 9/11. In the end, the support for giving more access and legalizing illegal workers in the United States started where it ended, absolutely nowhere. The only beneficiaries were American media outlets who were given something else to report on besides climate change and the occasional car chase in Springfield, Anywhere, USA. Since the end of the Bill this past summer, the only mention of immigration was on Lou Dobbs and the occasional report on the lack of progress of the fence to be built between the US, Mexico and even Canada.

With the increased furor of the US Presidential elections, a large pile of candidates has announced their intention to run. With such a large number of candidates comes large debate that is hard to follow in any neighborhood or community in the US. One debate this past week was done on a Spanish language channel in the US where the Democratic candidates gave their opinion on issues ranging from immigration to immigration as Jon Stewart cleverly pointed out. The interviewer also questioned issues concerning Cuba and how to address Chavez of Venezuela and his negative PR campaign of the US. While most of the responses were directed by each candidate slightly to the left or slightly to the right of their colleagues, the main focus was on how Republicans often-created negative impressions of immigration to quell any proper debate on the issue, while Democrats were seeking a concrete solution to the immigration issue. This image might have been quashed however, when Sen. Bill Richardson, who is of Hispanic descent, was prohibited from speaking in Spanish as not to give unfair advantage to him in the translated debates. In the end I believe that with the vast number of candidates and everyone waiting for the end of Bush, many do not give much attention to any debates at this point so far away from the voting date. The only assurance is that there will be a new President, but no one could predict who it could be at this point…so place your bets!

Immigration was the hot-button topic across Europe for much of this week (see our separate article on the Blue Card proposal). Following EU Commissioner Franco Frattini’s announcement to introduce a Europe-wide measure to facilitate the immigration of highly-skilled workers to combat existing labor shortages, Member State governments fell all over themselves to criticize the measure, if only to appease a presumed electoral backlash. But there was more news across Europe and the world:

• Earlier in the week, the French parliament debated the President’s new immigration legislation, which includes a proposal to demand DNA samples from visa applicants looking to move to France to prove genetic family ties to those already living in the country. The amendment would require consular offices in the native countries to administer such tests. Human rights organizations were quick to point to the costs of these tests, which the proposal suggests should be voluntary. Tests would serve to weed out economically and perhaps genetically less desireable migrants, they say.
• Brice Hortefeux, France’s immigration minister is also stepping up the pressure elsewhere. In trying to make good on the promises in the Sarkozy electoral campaign (see my commentary on the French election and immigration), he met with local administrators during the week to address why they were failing to meet the ambitious deportation goals set by the President. Sarkozy wants to see 25,000 illegal immigrants deported from France this year. Needless to say, human rights and migrant organizations are heavily critical of the emphasis on achieving the ‘right’ numbers.
• Ahead of EU Commission’s ground-breaking announcement on legal migration, the members of the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee sat down to formulate their recommendations toward addressing the situation of illegal immigrants.  One key issue was that jail time for illegals be limited to a more humane period of time. Parliamentarians suggested that illegal immigrants be held no longer than 18-months ahead of deportation across all EU Member States.  The lawmakers decided illegal immigrants can be held in custody for three months from the moment they are apprehended by police, after which an extension of up to 15 months needs to be justified — for example, when background checks on the immigrant take longer or if the person has no valid papers and documents must be obtained from third countries. In addition, parliamentarians want to see a greater degree of protection for illegal immigrants with residence permits that have fallen seriously ill and want to curtail the deportation of unaccompanied migrant children.
• Randal Archibold of the New York Times is reporting that while overall numbers of migrants crossing the border to the US from Mexico in Arizona is down - in part due to reinforced policing measures - the number of migrants dying in transit toward the promise of a new life is heading toward a new record.  Migrants are unaccustomed and unprepared to weather the climate changes in the Arizona desert and as they are forced to charter new ground to evade border patrols, there is little word-of-mouth on how to prepare for harsh conditions.
• Nine months after the fact, Union representatives at the Swift & Company meatpacking plants (we featured the story here) are suing federal immigration agents over the way workers were treated during a raid, which led to the deportation of over 600 workers.
• The Associated Press is reporting that Saul Arellano, son of prominent immigration activist Elvira Arellano (we covered the story here) has rejoined his mother in Mexico. Earlier in the week, 150 people staged a protest in Congress against his deportation to Mexico, given his US citizenship status.
• This week’s big migration-related story is obviously the EU Blue Card proposal to bring in thousands of skilled-migrant workers to combat looming labor shortages. Other countries, such as Malaysia, are also learning that simply expelling migrants for the sake of popular politics, has a profound impact on the economy. The IHT is reporting that the country’s campaign to expel 600,000 illegal migrant workers is starting to backfire, as demand for workers is growing with increasing government investsments ($57 billion) in agriculture, construction and manufacturing to sustain economic growth through 2010. Some plantation owners and construction companies are already reporting labor shortages and things are expected to get worse.
• Speaking of Asian governments, Japan Focus has published an overview of how municipalities in the country are dealing with migrant needs and how that, in turn, influences their two-pronged integration policy, which closely and purposely mirrors the European approach (*side note: who would have thought that the patche Europea immigration and integration policy is a model worth exporting!). The full report can be read here. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the results of the survey show that there is a great variance of how social integration questions are addressed, with some communities choosing not to differentiate between local and migrant population in terms of services offered, and others focused particularly on the needs of migrant women.

This week’s news roundup features a closer look at Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s agenda on immigration, as well as a number of personal stories on asylum and Mexican-American relations:

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has decided it is time to talk tough on immigration to outflank the Tories, as they try to garner that political topic for themselves. Over recent weeks, David Cameron, the Conservative leader has made a number of relatively vague statements on how immigration is a burden to local councils and a problem that needs to be acted upon. Now Mr. Brown wants to be seen to be doing just that: The Prime Minister has announced new immigration rules for thousands of foreigners seeking work in the country. The scheme would extend the language testing requirement already in operation for highly-skilled (i.e. university qualified, doctors, lawyers, etc.) migrants to the second tier, the skilled migrant category. Skilled workers from outside the EU will have to prove their English language skills or risk being sent home. According to analysts, this new measure could shut out around 35,000 skilled workers a year - and this, in turn, is worrying to British employers. Reuters quotes David Frost, Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce: “In recent years migrant workers to the UK have ensured the continued growth of the economy, possessing a work ethic and skill level that many young British people just do not have. Of course language skills are important but I would be concerned if this meant that those who want to work and help our economy grow are kept out of the country and take their skills and talent elsewhere.” The Times paints the policy initiative in a far more nationalist perspective, as this announcement arrives in tandem with an incentive package for UK employers to hire British workers, with an emphasis on youth and long-term unemployed.

• In conservative politics elsewhere, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Guiliani has come out to say that illegal immigration is not a crime, kicking off a further dust-ruffling discussion with rival Mitt Romney, who accused Mr. Guiliani of not taking the issue seriously enough. In making his case, the former New York mayor is defending the City’s so-called sanctuary policy, which stopped city workers from reporting suspected illegal immigrants. The policy is intended to make illegal immigrants feel that they can report crimes, send their children to school or seek medical treatment without fear of being reported. It did require police to turn in illegal immigrants suspected of committing crimes. While NYC’s approach is an enlightened one and one that demonstrates true public policy making, Mr. Guiliani’s overall solution to the immigration problem is not: “My solution is: Close the border to illegal immigration.” Now that’s an innovative and helpful public policy proposal.
• We recently reported on how heads of local Iraqi provinces were denying settlement to internally displaced refugees. The latest report by the International Organization for Migration shows just how dire the situation has become: “In Basrah as in other governorates, the report finds that displaced women cannot access limited health facilities because of chronic insecurity and in Kirkuk, traditional customs continue to restrict the movement of displaced women. In Anbar, although governorate authorities have not officially imposed restrictions, the intensity of intertribal conflict requires IDPs to have tribal ties to an area in order to stay there safely.”
• Another prominent case of an illegal immigrant mother has been resolved. The story of Zhenxing Jiang made international headlines in 2002, when news broke that she had miscarried twins after allegedly being mistreated by US immigration official trying to deport her. The case has been under review for a number of years, but now Ms. Jiang has been granted political asylum and is thus allowed to remain in the US with her husband and American passport-carrying children. In her original asylum claim, Ms. Jiang had noted that under the Chinese one-child policy, she could have faced forced abortion or even sterilization, had she returned to the country with two American children.
• The San Francisco Chronicle features a profile of Lionel Sosa, the Mexican-American entrepreneur and political advisor on Latino Affairs who has now thrown his weight into finding practical ways of bridging the divide between Mexico and the United States with his new think tank MATT.org - Mexican & Americans Thinking Together.
• When three Muslim-fundamentalist terrorists were arrested in Germany earlier in the week, following the discovery of a plot to blow up a number of establishments frequented by Americans in September, Germans were shocked at the news that two of the suspects were countrymen who had converted to Islam and become radicalized through the mosque they visited in Ulm, but mostly through the terrorist training camps they attended in Pakistan. Hardly any public attention was lavished on the third suspect - a Muslim of Turkish origin. While all of Germany pondered the possible threat of the “new converts,” the New York Times examines what impact the involvement of a second-generation Turk in this plot might have on the image of the Turkish community in Germany.