Migration

This week’s news roundup covers the aftermath of the failed reforms US Immigration policy initiative as well as covering further developments on the tragedy of the missing migrants and the EU response to this new scandal. Also a story on possible inequalities in the UK immigration system for skilled migrants is included:

• The Financial Times discusses the perplexing political issues with both Democrats and Republicans over the lack of support for real reform of US Immigration Policy. FT states that in reality no one fully supported the new policy, or if they did support it, perhaps they did not think it would actually be successful. To see this interesting commentary see the link to the June 12th article here.
• The EU and the EU Commissioner for Migration, Franco Frattini are facing many questions regarding the death of 27 migrants who spent 3 days sitting in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea with no assistance from the EU (see last week’s Update). The responsibility and legal obligations of the EU and its member states to protect illegal migrants has become a very heated issue among member states, as some have more control over resources than others, while certain states like Spain and Malta absorb much of the burden in finding and protecting illegal migrants. For a further discussion see the Reuters article here.
• Immigration reforms in the UK since 2003 seek to qualify applicants for citizenship based on skills, age, education and previous earnings as opposed to family links. Recently there has been some controversy as retroactive rules which apply to skilled migrants who came before the programme are said to not comply with the UK’s race equality assessment measures which gave a failing grade to the new highly skilled migrants programme (HSMP) that has been in effect since 2003.  See the Guardian article here.

The UK’s immigration policy has always been viewed as one of the most open in Europe and possibly worldwide. Since 1997, the Labour government has adopted a relaxed immigration policy, swelling the immigrant population in the UK by 1.5 million people since the Labour government came into power in 97’.

While the UK was praised for such open policies, there has been a recent realization that being British, or becoming British is not as easy as sitting for a 4 O’clock Tea and humming along to God Save the Queen. According to the Daily Express, Britain’s open immigration policy has done much to fuel divisiveness among Britain’s ethnic populations and is fuelling chronic divisions that were “bubbling under the surface” of British society.

As discussed in the LSE Discussion Paper by Manning and Roy: Culture Clash or Culture Club: The Identity and Attitudes of Immigrants in Britain, with the new member states of the EU producing a flood of new immigrants from East and Central Europe towards Britain’s major cities and traditional immigration from former colonies and neighboring countries in the region, there has been a not only a flood of new residents to the UK, but a very culturally and economically diverse challenge in its wake.

Since the London bombing, British society was forced to reconsider its position on what it is to be British, as it was evident in the aftermath of the attacks that being born in Britain and being raised in Britain may not be enough to have someone “feel” British. The idea of “British Values” were reconsidered by many academics and journalists and in communities across the UK when the news was leaked that those who attacked London’s Tube system were born and raised in England itself.

British values have been challenged and moved back and forth since that time. Muslim clerics entering and residing in the UK were often made subjects of debate, as it was felt by some in British society that words against Britain were enough to expel certain clerics from entering the country. Ironically, while Free Speech was considered a right of many clerics to use freely, some others were expelled outright although it was never clear where those rights end or begin.

Recently in Britain, the University and College Union in the UK again challenged Freedom of Speech in the attempted boycott of Israel. While the UK government will likely legally challenge the boycott, there has been much debate surrounding the freedom of Israeli or pro-Israel academics to voice their research and point of view within the UK University system and in British society in general.

When PM Blair departs and British soldiers leave Iraq, the debate on who is British is not likely to subside. The UK still remains a hub for individuals from around the world to work, live and study. The question of culture however seems to be changing, for better or for worse, into a case of origin vs. citizenship. A possible future could become similar as seen in the next article on Canada. The idea of being a citizen as a motive for legal status as opposed to adopting a culture and society may be the post-modern result of a cultural debate which has no real conclusion. In the end, what it is to be British may depend on the legal papers and rights you possess as opposed to historical ties in the land in which you currently live.

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 Migration Policy Group, a Brussels-based NGO and independent advisor to the European Union, has published the second edition of its ‘Handbook on Integration for Policy Makers and Practitioners.’

The handbook is the result of in-depth workshops with the National Contact Points on integration, which are a key element in the European Union’s Hague Program. The handbook is a mixture of strategic and practical policy advice and “best practice” solutions. Different chapters address both integration infrastructure and practical issues, such as economic integration and housing matters.

The full report can be downloaded here, while the Commission’s press release summarizes the findings.

• <> The clock is ticking as Senators are meeting behind closed doors to put a cap on the much-awaited immigration reform package. An article in the Boston Globe outlines the remaining points of contention. We will have a full commentary on the likely compromise early this week.
• Think tanks are debating the ‘right’ solution to the issue Senators face. The North County Times highlights contradictory studies by the Heritage Foundation and the Immigration Policy Center on the impact immigrant workers have had on the US economy.
• With UK Prime Minister Tony Blair announcing this week that he will leave office on June 21st, analysts are busy at work reflecting on his political legacy. Over at the Migration Policy Institute, Will Somerville, does just that for immigration policy. He argues that Blair and his successive Labour governments have succeeded in building a robust immigration system, one that will shape the country’s approach to migration in the future.
• The MPI also has a brief on new French President Sarkozy’s immigration policies, which supports our commentary with a number of statistics. (This document is a PDF download and requires Adobe Acrobat).
• My friend, immigration journalist Daniela Gerson, addresses the issue of circular migration in her latest article for German news magazine, Der Spiegel. The article (in English) examines a new trend in labor migration: hiring mothers as seasonal workers to ensure they return home to their husbands and children in their country of origin. The European Union’s Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner, Franco Frattini, plans to address the issue of circular migration, which is an integral part of the EU migration strategy, in the coming days.
• Speaking of Frattini initiatives: integration and fundamental rights received a financial boost last month, when the Council gave the Commission proposal for a new budget toward the promotion of fundamental rights the go-ahead. Over 93 million Euro will be allocated to transnational projects between Member States and other NGO projects between 2007 and 2013.

On May Day, thousands of immigrants across the world took to the streets to demonstrate. While in Germany immigrant and Muslim rights groups were voices among many in the traditional May Day (Labor Day across Europe) marches, migrant organizations in the US seized the moment to remind Congress that the promised, comprehensive immigration policy reform is still outstanding.

Our fellow bloggers, Rohini Gupta (Mexico) and Cassandra Clifford (Children) have examined the impact of these protests and compiled a wide selection of press articles. While they examine the protests from different angles, they offer a comprehensive overview of some of the issues raised in the protests and we would encourage you to read their postings.

FPA Mexico Blog: US Media Coverage of Pro-Immigrant Rallies

FPA Children Blog: May Day…AKA Illegal Immigrant Rights Day

The elections in 2002 were remarkable for a number of reasons: first, immigration became a major issue of contention after it had been largely ignored for years, and second, the right-wing Front National was able to use it successfully to its advantage. In a vote that shocked the nation, former Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin was shut out of the second round of voting, when Jean-Marie Le Pen garnered 16.86% of the vote.

Following an outcry by civil society, particularly migrant NGOs and shocked international reactions, the only ‘moral’ decision for the electorate was to deal Le Pen a fatalistic blow at the ballot box during the second round. Unsurprisingly, despite his overall dwindling popularity, Jacques Chirac one this second round by a landslide, with 82%.

Naturally, the fact that Le Pen had won so much ground meant something: it meant that many in France were confused by the government’s policies. It also meant that many believed in the Le Pen-ian rhetoric, according to which immigrants were to blame for the slow growth of the economy. Alas, the government, now under Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin had little choice but to tighten existing immigration legislation. Asylum law was tightened, entry and residence curtailed and measures to combat illegal immigration were stepped up.

A first, yet feeble, attempt was made to work toward the better integration of migrants, by introducing so-called “integration contracts.” These ‘contracts’ forced migrants to attend language courses, alongside seminars on French society and values. In addition, these integration measures were supposed to offer more intensive individual support for adolescents from difficult backgrounds. These insufficiency of these measures were made painfully clear during the 2005 banlieu riots, however.

Addressing Islam

Since 9/11, France – as many other countries – has put a premium on constructively addressing the role of Islam in French society. The objective here has been to strengthen moderate Islamic forces that recognize the French Constitution as a primary guidance. With around 5 million Muslims, the country boasts the largest Islamic community in Europe. In 2003, the first French Islamic Council (CFCM) was elected. Its role was to represent all Muslims living in France vis-à-vis the government. It had additional responsibilities regarding the education of the country’s imams.

While addressing the needs of the large Islamic population in France, the government launched a near simultaneous reexamination of the secular values of the Republic. The headscarf affair, discussed in our earlier posting on migration issues in France, tapped a new discussion on religious symbols in schools. A lengthy discussion on “laïcité” – the separation of church and state ensued, which resulted in a new law to prohibit all religious signifiers in schools. This naturally included the removal of Christian crosses and the wearing of the Muslim headscarf and other symbolic relics.

Although analysts had predicted the contrary, the law was met with relatively little opposition. This is in part linked to the fact that the country’s Muslim organization, which had long opposed the law and encouraged protest, abandoned its criticism following the abduction of two French journalists in Iraq. The kidnappers had demanded the government drop the controversial law in the ransom notes communicated to Paris, threatening to kill the correspondents, should the government not comply with their demands.

In solidarity with the kidnapped journalists, who were freed in December 2004, the imams of all the leading mosques in France called upon girls to take off their headscarves before they entered school.

New faces - same policies

The government of Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, which featured Sarkozy as the interior minister, focused on curtailing illegal immigration - particularly following the 2005 riots. Upon taking office, de Villepin had announced that he “believed in a generous and determined France. A France where there is a place for everyone according to their merits. A France of opportunities.” This policy sat well with the measures introduced toward attracting the best foreign students to France and facilitating their remainder in the country upon graduation.

In an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, he promised to counteract the alienation of migrant youths by encouraging or even forcing companies to switch to a ‘blind’ recruitment process, whereby names of applicants and their racial or ethnic background would be obscured.  He also promised to increase the number of scholarships kids from ethnic and difficult socio-economic backgrounds received for elite preperatory schools. Individualized career counseling for France’s alienated suburban youth was also intended to help diffuse the situation.  In addition, his government was going to invest EUR 30 billion, “in order to renovate the whole urbanism.” Unfortunately, beyond these announcements, the Prime Minister’s website features no reference to the implementation of these measures.

Nevertheless, the period between 2002 and today was a busy one for France’s immigration policy, as outlined above. One of Sarkozy’s first key decisions was to close down the Sangatte refugee camp, which had become untenable by humanitarian standards. By 2005, the impact of the ‘reforms’ introduced by the earlier Raffarin government were beginning to make inroads. In the first months of 2006, 33,000 illegal migrants had been sent back, while the figure of those in detention centers more than doubled. Voluntary return payments, system which has resurfaced time and time again as a policy, was revamped, offering migrants willing to leave more money.

Rules for residency permits were also tightened during that time, diminishing the number of ‘cartes de sejour’ attributed. This, Sarkozy felt, was all linked to his policy of ‘resoluteness and severity.’ The continuation of this line, should he become Prime Minister, include the creation of a separate ministry for immigration and national identity and a further overhaul of the existing system.  Nevertheless, the regularisation of migrants continued under Sarkozy, despite official rhetoric to the contrary.

If we do see a ‘Sarko’ vs. ‘Sego’ run-off, as analysts are now predicting - in keeping with the flip-flop tradition of French polices - migrants’ status could change relative quickly depending on their individual situation. It will thus be interesting to closely follow the debate between these two polar opposites as they approach the second round in early May. Should Le Pen make the race after all, Sarkozy will be forced to take another tack to make his point clear…this should be an interesting Sunday…

Nearly 180,000 undocumented migrants in Germany will soon be able to live in the country legally - providing they have a job by 2009. This is one of the core provisions etched into the compromise solution hammered out between the members of the ruling coalition, the Social Democratic and Christian Democratic Parties last week. The new regulations on the so-called “right to remain” (Bleiberecht) have been heavily criticized by migrant rights groups and the Green Party opposition. German news magazine, Der Spiegel, offers an English overview of the commentaries featured in various German dailies. The German Parliament is set to vote on the compromise before the Easter break.

Migrants who have either entered the country illegally, have outstayed their asylum periods or have seen their asylum claims rejected will have their cases reexamined according to these new provisions. First criteria, however, is that they entered the country prior to July 2001. Migration organizations, such as the Refugee Board (Fluechtlingsrat) Berlin have been particularly critical of the fact that this new law does not take a comprehensive approach, but again includes some and excludes others. The SPIEGEL-article underlines a number of other limitations: “Spouses can only follow “tolerated” immigrants to Germany if they are aged 18 or over and can demonstrate language competence in German. Likewise, various services available to German residents can be withheld, such as child credits and welfare. The new legislation would also allow authorities to verify the background of immigrants.”

Commentators accross the country agree that giving asylum seekers and undocumented migrants the right to look for work is a key step toward facilitating integration. Previously, asylum seekers were barred from working until their eventual fate had been decided. This led to the outbreak of racist violence, particularly in Eastern parts of Germany in the early 1990s and again in the early years of this decade.

Critics of the compromise are outspoken against the power given to local state bodies to decide the terms of aid payments for this group of migrants. Bavaria has been a long-standing advocate of giving asylum seekers only basic supplies (food, shelter) instead of direct welfare payments. Migrant organizations criticize this approach as a way of keeping the social status of these migrants as low as humanly possible. And what of these former illegal migrants who cannot be gainfully employed due to illness or old age? No provisions have been made with regards to their status.

Migration organizations are also doubtful of the role immigration officers are to play in assessing the potential terrorist threat of these type of immigrants, as suspects or those with a criminal record are to be deported upon full assessment of their files.

A commentary in the left-leaning Berliner Zeitung, closes by saying “it (the proposed legislation) also says a lot about the German attitude toward those who have fled their home countries to escape war, persecution or economic distress. They’re tolerated, but not accepted.”

A reform of other pieces of the legislative puzzle on immigration is next on the Interior Minister’s agenda. In keeping with the framework laid down by the previous government and the goals set by the EU’s Hague Program, these changes must be comprehensive, functional and cognizant of Germany’s changing needs with respect to migrant labor. Again, commentators aren’t too hopeful: “Now Germany is returning to an immigration policy that denies reality. In a globalized world where nation states are increasingly in need of the knowledge immigrants bring, Germany’s governing coalition is setting up further obstacles to immigration. It’s heading in the wrong direction.”

TIME Magazine featured an interesting cover story a few weeks ago. In it, author Jumana Farouky highlights five steps toward a true muticultural society in Europe. She suggests that the debate on headscarves take on a more rational approach accross Europe, as a sign of a true acceptance of Islam into the multi-facetted spectrum of religion in Europe. Her discussion of the issue is over simplified, yet nevertheless compelling. She argues in favor of allowing women to wear the hijab (i.e. the headscarf) in public places, including their place of employment. This should also hold true for teachers, who have been banned from wearing the headscarf in many federal states in Germany and accross France. Teachers, she says, would then have the option of which school to teach at. (This vision, however, is incompatible with the French and German constitutions, which codify the separation of church and state). Nevertheless, her’s is an interesting approach.

In her second short piece, she advocates the creation of affirmative action-like quotas to get immigrants into mainstream European political parties. While it is hard to contest the need for migrant participation in traditional party politics, the introduction of quotas would be highly controversial in many European countries, who have just recently struggled through the process of adopting formal anti-discrimination legislation. Established parties in Europe, for example the Social Democrat and Green parties in Germany, have long pushed for an increased number of first, second and third generation migrants as active party members. Only few, such as Cem Oezdemir, have made it to the front lines of federal politics. But many are at the front lines of grass-roots and local politics. Introducing quotas, while an idea worth playing through in practice, would introduce a number of follow up questions: to vote and be elected into political office in most European countries, you must hold citizenship of that country. Naturalization of migrants has been dropping steadily in Germany, since 1997, however.

Her third point about inclusion in education is valid. Immigrants must have access to additional language education and if necessary, subject specific assistance in addition to help them live up to their full potential in their new countries. The Europe-wide PISA studies, conducted with middle school children proved that immigrants across Europe were suffering from unequal treatment in the classroom and were underperforming in comparison to most natives. In Sweden, the example that the TIME correspondent quotes, bilingual education (i.e. in the migrants mother-tongue and Swedish) is practiced from kindergarten onwards. The Nordics, with their emphasis on life-long learning lead the way - the rest of Europe must follow.

Developing smarter methods for legal migration is a point that has long been advocated, especially on the EU level, and it is Farouky’s fourth point. In exploring modern immigration policies that can apply across Schengen countries, the EU has been closely examining the Canadian, US and Australian points-based systems. A number of EU countries have developed their own, albeit none too functional, Green Card systems. For long these systems have been geared toward attracting the most highly-qualified migrants to a country. But even this has been difficult. To enter Germany as a highly-qualified migrant on the Green Card system, you must prove an earning power of at at least EUR 85,500. The leading industry association in the country has advocated that this be dropped to EUR 40,000 to fill the currently existing skills gap, left by German scientists and engineers who - as part of the inevitable brain drain - have left the country for greener pastures. For other countries, it’s not the highest qualified migrants they need. The British NHS system is overly dependent on an influx of well-trained Phillipino nurses, for instance. EU countries must be able to fill their skills gap in a sustainable matter. What of the German Green Card migrants who were left unemployed, when the IT market turned sour a few years ago. Europe needs migrants, in part to quell its looming demographic crisis. This need must be communicated and immigrants welcomed to Europe through a calibrated, functional and controlled migration system. Point blank.

“Think locally, act locally” - is her closing advice and nothing could be more true. Plenty of good examples exist, but we need to hear more about them. Sharing best practice examples and models across countries is at the heart of initiatives, such as USable, a competition run by the German-based Koerber Foundation. The initiative invites Germans and Americans to examine best practice examples in the other country and write project proposals on how best to transfer these good ideas to the other cultural context. Reporting on positive projects is a political necessity. Unfortunately, good news rarely makes headlines.

The protection of fundamental rights for all residing in the EU is the goal of the European Fundamental Rights Agency (EFRA) launched today in Vienna, Austria. EFRA previously functioned as the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). The agency’s core competence will remain the same: data and information collection on the abuse of fundamental rights in the Union. This monitoring function has become all the more important since the introduction of formalized anti-discrimination legislation, through Article 13 of the EU Treaty. Robust anti-discrimination legislation is a part of the legal foundation of functional integration policy and crucial toward allowing regularized migrants equal accesss to employment, housing and social services. The creation and remit (i.e. limited statute of EFRA) has been the subject of criticism, though in absence of the European Constitution, that would have firmly anchored the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the EFRA might prove to be as good as the European Union can get given the current political circumstances. Member States had enough problems transposing the EU anti-discrimination Directive into national law, although this goal has finally been achieved. We will monitor the effectiveness of EFRA in helping migrants integrate into European society closely on the pages of this blog.