Migration

In an IHT.com article published recently, the issue of visas being given to Iraqis by the US was discussed. US visas were finally being given by the US for Iraqis who worked with the US since 2003 in administering development after the beginning of the war. The argument by the writer was that due to all the assistance many of these individuals have given to the United States, it is finally justifiably reciprocated through the issuing of US visas for these US allies. While this is true, a large part of the story which is continually avoided was regarding the other two million Iraqis, many of Iraq’s best and brightest taking refuge in Syria and Jordan, overwhelming societies in both nations without any movement by the US or Europeans to taken in many of these Iraqi refugees.

In past posting in the FPA Migration Blog, Rich Basas and Cathryn Cluver have made several postings on the issues regarding Iraqi refugees and the response by the international community. While meeting in international bodies have done much to address the existence of the issue, the result was to place further onus on countries like Syria and Jordan, who have gone beyond their humanistic responsibility in trying to accommodate and adapt many Iraqi refugees into their societies. This failure of the international community comes with actions taken in Iraq since 2003, lacking in any response or much media coverage on the displaced 2 million. Only when Iraqi government initiatives have sought to create some sort of incentive for its citizens to return has media responded to the issue, still lacking in urgency through much of the narrative however.

It is not the first time media and the international community has failed displaced people in the region. Many reports on the Israeli response to Darfuri refugees had criticized Israel, like Jordan and Syria with Iraq’s refugees, for not allowing more African migrants to settle in Israel. While the Israeli government did settle many people and continued to take in Sudanese refugees and place them under protection, many of Sudan’s neighbors have killed Darfuri refugees with no response towards the shooting of dozens of Darfuri refugees at the Egyptian-Israel border by Egyptian border security by media or the EU and US. Placing the onus of large international refugee problems on smaller nations, while taking no effective response themselves lead many to believe that the international community will allow another Rwanda with little effective response. While this point of view is the source of much debate, the effect of not responding to Darfur, or having the US in Iraq is that many Western powers may not legally allow an Iraqi to claim refugee status as the US already is present in that nation, which is considered as protecting Iraqi people inside Iraq itself. Iraq cannot prosper and Darfur will become a symbol of poor international leadership unless effective policies are created in the region. While the ICC and Den Haag can ask for extraditions of Karazdic and Sudan’s leaders, law without enforcement becomes another failure in global justice.

The Mezze plate, if unknown to readers is a mix of different appetizers of various Middle Eastern foods, often combined together in a mix of powerful flavours and textures. Food in the region is often like its people, a combination of tastes that while creating a wonderful mix of culture and language also can create indigestion in some cases. The following is a mix of issues that have charged the region and its people abroad in the last week, often celebrating victory in conflict and enraging further problems.

-Israel at 60: Last week was the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence as a sovereign nation. At the same time, for many Palestinians it was the remembrance of the Naquba, or ”Catastrophe” of the migration of many from their original homes and towns upon the creation of the new state of Israel. Festivities took place in Israel and among Israelis and Jewish communities all around the world. In 1948, the State of Israel was created as a home for the Jewish people after the mass genocide of the European Jewish community and pogroms of Eastern Jews bringing many into the newly formed nation. While 1.5 million Israeli-Arabs live inside Israel and are a part of Israel society with full legal rights, legal challenges for increased rights for Israel’s Arab minority, Palestinians and even some Jewish people with Eastern roots push the system to promote a better equality among the multicultural Jewish State. Separate from the systemic stresses faced in the Israeli context, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are embroiled in a Hot Peace between Fatah and Hamas who periodically debate and often fight for power and control of a future state of Palestine. While some movements for peace between Israel and Fatah in the West Bank have started to produce results, rocket attacks coming in from Gaza leaves little chance for change despite the best and very last minute efforts of Carter or Bush. Unknown to most outside Israel, the conflict in 2006 did not produce the release of Gilad Shalit who was kidnapped by Hamas at the time. The continued attacks and retaliations, blockades, increased poverty and the maintained hostage taking of Shalit will not help produce any peace in Israel anytime soon and will give more support for creating more walls between the various people in the region.

-Muslim Immigrants to Europe: In a Foreign Policy Association Religion and Politics blog post by one of our charming and intelligent bloggers, Karin Esposito, the integration of Muslims into European society is discussed on her posting: Integrating Immigrant Communities. Karin points out in refer to author Olivier Roy, that after 9/11, the French immigrant riots and the killing of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh there is a feeling that assimilation and multiculturalism was a failure in the European context. In reference to a HRW report in Immigration in the Netherlands, she points out that tests sent to the home countries of many immigrants may act as indirect discrimination, targeting specific immigrant groups even before they come into the country as detailed in the report. The challenge is far from being resolved, as a new way to view integration will likely have to be created to promote any dialogue between communities, preferably without the use of Cartoons.

-Beirut the next Baghdad?: In a May 18th New York Times article and among media worldwide, the issue of sectarian violence taking charge over the fragile democracy that exists in Lebanon is becoming a great concern to the region. After Hizbollah attacks against Sunni citizens, media and political parties put the Lebanese government and the often targeted and assassinated Hariri family into the spotlight again, Lebanon may be approaching a large conflict between its Shi’a and Sunni communities. Like in Iraq, indiscriminant violence by one community over the other has lead to the declaration of blood feuds among Lebanon’s communities. In the Middle East the extremity of violence often intentionally created humiliation and dishonour to many proud groups and cultures which can only be met by delicate diplomacy or outright revenge and conflict. While the international community often focused its attention on the Israel-Lebanon conflict in 2006, attention and understanding of the divisions now taking place needs to have the attention it deserves to avoid an all out civil war in Lebanon.

Since the early 1900s, hundreds of thousands of refugees in countries throughout the Middle East left or were forced to leave without a Pound or a Franc from lands where they had lived in since biblical times. What is often not addressed in English language media or worldwide as a whole, is that many of these people were Jewish communities which were slowly destroyed for political, cultural and religious reasons in the 20th century. Many of these communities eventually inherited the fate of the Jewish Community in Spain during the Spanish Inquisition, leaving towns and villages where their cultures and communities thrived for generations for new destinations abroad, slowly losing their heritage and homes to satisfy the desires of the political majority. While not all countries in the Middle East treated their Jewish communities with severe contempt and some communities were given some equality in their respective societies, the majority of Jewish people who had lived for thousands of years in the Middle East were forced to leave for Europe, the Americas the new state of Israel and even Asia.

Many Jewish people from Arab lands settled in France where Algerian, Tunisian and Moroccan Jews could speak French and integrate into society. Jewish people from Iraq and other former British colonies settled in London and the United States, even making it as far as China and Singapore. Many settled in Latin America as well, with Syrian, Lebanese and Iraqi Jews creating communities in Brazil and Argentina and many Turkish and Syrian Jews settling in Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela and even Cuba. In one community in Havana alone, an entire village with all their religious texts and chattels from their original town in Turkey were transplanted into Cuba in the early 1900s. They moved to live in the US Protectorate at the time of Cuba, which spoke Spanish, similar to the dialect of Ladino they inherited from their ancestors who escaped from Spain to live in Turkey, Italy, France and Greece. In 1948, half of Israel’s population alone was made of Jewish people who came from Arab, Persian, Central Asian and Turkish lands. These refugees were often forced to leave their birthplace and all their funds and land built up upon generations in order to arrive poor and homeless in Israel and abroad. While these people often had a difficult time in their birth countries and in Israel upon arrival, their situation has only been given some slight attention in the last 10 years. Almost none of their original communities exist today; making Jewish culture from Arab lands some of the oldest decimated cultures to have been lost to the world in the last 100 years.

Some slight progress has been made in addressing the issue of Jews from Arab and other Middle Eastern lands. On April 1st 2008, the U.S. Congress passed House Resolution 185, which grants first-time-ever recognition to Jewish refugees from Arab countries. For the first time those hundreds of thousands of refugees and emigrants who lost their homes and were turned into poverty were recognised 60 years later as being not simply a forgotten people. US Rep. Ros-Lehtinen made a statement saying:

“Far fewer people are aware of the injustice faced by Jewish refugees from Arab lands and Iran. Many Jews saw their communities, which had existed vibrantly for centuries systematically dismantled. They lost their resources, their homes, and their heritage sites, fleeing in the face of persecution, pogroms, revolutions and brutal dictatorships.”

With many smaller cultures in the Middle East facing persecution in the last 50 to 100 years, the first steps to addressing refugees beyond those well known refugee groups are beginning to take place. Beyond those Jews from Arab lands, other groups such as Zoroastrians, Armenians, Kurdish, Bah’ai, Assyrians, Christians, recent Iraqis and various other oppressed groups and political refugees need to be acknowledged. After 60 years of unknown suffering, this small group of people are finally able to reconcile their history and future as a recognized people and culture in the world community.

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.

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.

*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.

Thank you, Roger Cohen, thank you. We here on this humble little blog have underlined time and time again, how the Iraqi refugee issue is getting out of hand, and how the United States as leading military force in the country is failing to live up to its commitments in sharing the burden to secure the saftey of refugees fleeing the war-torn country. In earlier entries, we highlighted how Sweden, a country that in many ways could serve as a role model for international refugee policy and immigrant integration, has accepted thousands of Iraqis into the country and has offered them generous protection, including the possiblity to become a Swedish citizen five years upon their arrival.

The comparative numbers have always startled and shocked me, and Cohen’s use of them in his recent Op-Ed in the International Herald Tribune, makes the underperformance in this area all that more obvious:

Between January and August this year, Sweden took in 12,259 Iraqis fleeing their decomposing country. It expects 20,000 for all of 2007. By contrast, in the same January-August period, the United States admitted 685 refugees, according to State Department figures.

In January, Sweden admitted 1,500 Iraqis vs. 15 that entered the United States.

In April, the respective numbers were 1,421 and 1; in May, 1,367 and 1; and in August 1,469 and 529.

Cohen goes on to express his frustration with the US government:

“Of all the Iraq war scandals, America’s failure to do more for refugees, including thousands who put their lives at risk for the U.S., stands out for its moral bankruptcy. Last time I checked, Sweden did not invade Iraq. Its generosity shames President Bush’s fear-infused nation.

I know, the U.S. is showering aid (more than $122 million in 2007) on Iraq’s neighbors to help more than two million fleeing Iraqis. It set up a refugee task force in February and, when that faltered, appointed two refugee czars this month.” (..)

“An aggressive American intake of refugees would suggest that their quick return to Iraq is improbable: that smacks too much of failure for Bush. Moreover, you have to scrutinize refugees from countries ‘’infiltrated by large numbers of terrorists,'’ Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff opined recently.”

Note that Sweden seems to be handling that threat just fine.

Slowly but surely, the US government is beginning to understand that it has a potential problem on its hands, as reported “bottlenecks” are preventing Iraqis from coming to the US.

‘’The numbers are totally embarrassing,'’ says Kirk Johnson, who worked for the United States Agency for International Development in Iraq. ‘’We can’t recognize a moral imperative any more.'’

No kidding.

Please, do yourself a favor - read Cohen’s full article. Then pick up a pen, a phone or open that email account. Write to your Representative. Do something. Thousands of Iraqis - mothers, fathers, children - are fleeing a country ravaged by civil war and the invasion. Don’t tolerate this - Speak up!

In a place like Toronto, Canada an interesting situation which rarely exists in many cities in the world is common place in the streets of Canada’s largest city. Immigration is seen as a staple of Canadian society and economy, with over 50% of Toronto being foreign born, but at the same time the divisiveness of institutions in Canada while being open to everyone, does not take into account much of the layered societies which live in the country. Often the Government gives priorities towards larger immigrant groups and avoids addressing smaller immigrant minorities in processes of health, immigration procedures and education.

Institutionally, the Government in the Province of Ontario in Canada offers many programs for new immigrants in society, but when the issue places minority groups against other minority groups the Government has often institutionalised and tried to justify some groups getting funding, while others go without. No other issue makes this evident beyond funding of only Catholic Schools in Ontario. In Ontario it is prohibited for other religions to have access to funding for faith based schools with the justification being that opening funding for faith based schools promotes the “segregation” of people in Canada. Despite this statement it goes without mention from the same Government representatives that their current policy is doing precisely what they are campaigning they are strictly against. While no one is anti-Catholic in any manner, it is completely unjustified to prohibit funding for some groups and not others. This was raised as a problem of inequality in a 1989 UN Report on the issue that suggested that there was no other just measure unless all are funded or none are funded. In addition to this fiasco, the Government two months ago were criticized for funding ethnic communities in Ontario without properly recording the funding going out and to which organizations. The opposition was called on as being anti-immigrant and racist upon questioning Ontario Primier McGuinty, only to find out that in an Official Inquiry into the issue that undocumented funds were given to many minority societies without documentation and with funds well above the requested amounts. This embarrassment of Ontario’s ethnic communities and involvement in a corrupt process has gone unresolved to date. An election highlighting these issues is taking place Oct 10th.

Immigration is also an issue facing Canadians. While most developed countries seek out the best and brightest, Canada’s immigration system often forces the middle class immigrants out of the process and leaves those middle class and below to apply via the refugee system. The current policy also invites highly educated migrants to come to Canada only to make them re-study much of their professional degrees at very high costs and at very long periods of retraining while they are prevented from entering any lucrative labour roles in Ontario society due to lack of Canadian Experience…whatever Canadian experience is…This is the opposite of most other developed countries who seek the best and brightest and let them prosper and grow the economy and country. The result is a lack of Doctors in Ontario as well as thousands of internationally qualified professionals and university educated immigrants driving taxis and living in a state of poverty in downtown Toronto.

In the end, those minorities within larger minorities are dependent on a social system which does not address needs past majorities in society and they are unable to rely on deep social connections to neutralise the negative effects on becoming a newcomer in society. Social connections, whether they exist or not, are also greatly relied upon in the formal immigration system as well. This is often the case of those seeking some support or sponsorship from their larger community in larger cities in Canada when looking for support or sponsorship.

A unique community in Toronto and worldwide, Prithi Yelaja of the Toronto Star wrote an article about Jewish People of Indian Origin and their life in the Greater Toronto Area. While Jewish communities of European and North American origin are often written about and make up the majority of known media and history of the Jewish people in English language and most of Western media, a large number of Jewish people come from what are seen as unlikely places where Jews would exist. The list is broad and includes such countries as Morocco, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Yemen and India, just to name a small few. Jewish people of Indian origin which number 400 in Toronto and 4,000 in India as mentioned in the article did not know much Anti-Semitism in India, and only in Canada was there the idea of feeling as a true minority in different senses.

A minority in Canada is one common identity that many possess like the Indian Jewish Community of Toronto. While there are differences in society and with institutional issues above, they are still Canadians. There is also an issue of being a minority in the Jewish community in Canada. While many see all Jewish people as being the same, in reality Judaism is a religion which comprises many cultures and can often be confused as being only one culture, or one religion comprising one culture as well. As a minority in a minority however, even a Canadian with such a diverse background might be and often are left out of the folds of decisions made for Ontarians for the majority and those larger minority communities to which are seen as the only important groups for policy considerations. The thousands of other smaller minorities within minorities have to contend with the lack of political power indefinitely until more become citizens and can work to have economic and political pressure groups in society.

With issues such as labour, education and health reflecting Canada’s majorities, issues raised in Constitutions of equalities for all minorities will never be addressed as long as smaller groups and individuals have no political pressure groups in society. While Canada is a good place to live as a minority, not having rights and equality for all minorities, or using them for political games is an abuse of individual rights and respect in a society where most people will soon be born outside of Canada and are often minorities within larger minorities living across the country.

This week’s news roundup is truly a mixed basket of stories, including a look at the new US citizenship test, a new set of statistics on immigration, which raise a few questions for the Home Secretary in the UK and a story on how a new musical phenomenon is visualizing just how much Italian society has changed over time.

• Janet Hinshaw-Thomas, the founder and director of Prime - Ecumenical Commitment to Refugees, a two-decade-old refugee resettlement organization in Pennsylvania has been arrested in Canada for aiding Haitian migrants in seeking asylum in the country. This is the first time the 2002 law on prosecuting “criminal smugglers” has been applied to someone working for an immigrant aid organization, the New York Times reports. Hinshaw-Thomas’ organization has been accompanying migrants who have exhausted their legal options in the US to the Canadia border over the past few months, always giving Canadian authorities advanced notice. Her lawyer is disputing the charges.
• The United States has been giving citizenship tests to those seeking a blue passport for years and these have become the golden standard for many European countries who are currently developing their own versions of these exams. Now, the US test has been updated: knowing who the Speaker of the House is and correctly identifying Susan B. Anthony’s role in the women’s civil rights movement will help assess whether an immigrant has understood basic concepts of modern American democracy. American or not, would you be able to answer these questions?
• We have highlighted the difficulties the dire economic situation in Zimbabwe is causing neighboring countries in previous posts. This article from the International Herald Tribune describes the situation for Zimbabwean migrants - some permanent, some merely daily labor migrants - in neighboring Zambia. Around a 1,000 Zimbabweans cross into Zambia daily just to purchase basic provisions no longer available in Zimbabwe.
• Michael Kimmelmann reports from Rome on Italy’s changing face, visible in one of the first truly multicultural, successful orchestras. A documentary the Orchestra di Piazza Vittorio went around the international film festival circuit and boosted the group’s popularity at home. They now play sold-out shows up and down the country and politicians hungry for votes have begun to take notice.
  
• Members of the European Parliament are backing EU Commissioner Franco Frattini’s plans for an EU Blue Card.
• Looks like the UK government needs some better statisticians: earlier in the week, the Office of National Statistics published new projected migration figures, revising previous estimates with an increase of 30%. Naturally, anti-immigrant groups and opposition politicians jumped all over the Labor government for their apparent failure to live up to their “complacent assumptions” of migrants coming into the country. Instead of 145,000 migrants annually, the new figure now stands at 190,000. Home Secretary Jaqui Smith reiterated her commitment to bringing in highly-skilled migrants on a points-based system and cracking down on criminal immigrants and illegals with her proclaimed “zero tolerance” approach, while immigration minister Liam Byrne pointed to the fact that these new numbers could be attributed to the EU decision to relax rules on labor migration from the Union’s newest members to other member states.
• The UNHCR has created an excellent web resource on the Iraqi refugee situation, including an update of recent relief work in the region. In addition, the UNHCR is closely monitoring how Iraqi refugees are being treated in exile.

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!