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.

PBS.org in the last few years has done a remarkable job at airing many great shows like our Great Decisions program, documentaries on the Second World War and the most recent documentary series The Jewish Americans. The Jewish Americans series goes through 350 years of Jewish history in the United States and does a great job at defining the different types of Jewish people who came to the US and the evolution of the community in line with the development of rights in the United States over its history as a nation. In the latest episode which aired the week of January 21st, the civil rights movement was placed in the context of how Jewish Americans viewed it as well as how African-Americans saw the interaction for better or for worse of the two communities. This cultural analysis allows for racist ideas to be placed into a historic context, highlighted by the recent Presidential candidates ability to leave race out of the major decision making processes for many Americans, whereas just a few years ago it would have likely determined the result of an election.

The contrast to the upcoming UN Conference on Race is stark. Due to the experience in the last UN Race conference, many countries have not been able to agree on the debate of the upcoming conference as issues on the denial of Jewish history in the Holocaust and motions attacking Jewish people from some UN members has been seen as directly Anti-Semitic in a conference which would serve the world better if it tackled real issues. Holocaust and the lack of acknowledgement of the Jewish people’s suffering in it in a UN forum to reduce racism really pushed the opportunity to help in Darfur or address real concerns for other nations away from the purpose of such a conference and makes it into an entirely politicized venue focused against many Western nations. As a result, countries such as Canada have decided not to attend and many others have taken a defensive position on many conference issues.

From debates on trade and aid and from race to the laws of space, UN debates are often split between wealthy Western nations and developing countries. This is the nature of the UN and often it creates a perfect forum to lose the opportunity to tackle any global issues. The irony of it is that if the UN did not exist, we would have to create one as it is the only way to attempt to tackle issues of a global dimension. It is only hoped that issues of a historical context would be valued as they have been by many in the evolution of race in the United States.

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.

A debate on the Canadian talk show The Michael Coren Show on January 7th discussed a foreign perspective on the recent success of Democratic Candidate Barak Obama and the change in perception of children of immigrants in the larger political sphere in North America. Obama was seen not as an African-American campaigning on African-American issues, but more of what they called a “colourless” candidate campaigning on issues of the status quo. The success of Obama really comes from the fact that someone who’s parent is an immigrant can make such progress in their life as to become president of their adopted nation. In a nation where immigration is often tied into issues surrounding the failing economy and terrorism, Mr. Obama has gone beyond prejudices of origin, ethnicity and status in the United States to become the most likely candidate for the presidency. In a country with a strong history of societal divisions throughout its history, this election has gone beyond electing the first African-American or first woman in the US (It already happened this year in Chile and Argentina, why not the US?) and moved towards who is the best person to clean up 8 years of damage from the Bush era.

The open minded approach to these candidates could be the reflection of a post-modern image of how immigrants fit into society. In the article “The Great Canadian Identity Crisis” by Scott Carpenter, Canadian’s are seen as essentially being “Not” Americans, which leaves the question, how can you “Not” be a post-modern version of an American if the American itself is in the process of removing barriers to its own past? The article was responded to in the blog Roccodg.com, where the author and the responses on the blog detailed essentially how historic identities no longer exist, but in addition that this is more of an urban creation where many people have their origin in other countries due to immigration. In response, Canadians do have regional identities, but for many immigrant families like Obama’s, they are able to live in freedom within the constraints of their society. This lack of obligation to adapt may have manifested itself with Obama, where the traditional obligations to run based on your heritage and background appears to not have constrained Obama as he is able to have the complete freedom to be whoever he wants to be in the eyes of the American public. This ability rarely existed amongst locals or immigrants and is certainly the result of a post-modern candidate from a society which has not restricted his identity as an immigrant nor as an American, but as simply let him grow as a person.

The often unanalyzed result of migration 50 to 100 years after the fact often is taken as a study in Genealogy as opposed to a study in immigration, but if you had the opportunity to bring some attention to the issue, how would you go about getting people’s attention?

The obvious approach would be to get someone famous, such as the lead singer Steven Page of The Barenaked Ladies, and bring him to the city of his birth and help him trace back his family roots and air it on national television.

In the show Who Do You Think You Are? Aired on the Canadian Broadcast Corporation on December 26th this journey of the Page family was taken. Steven discovered that his family were originally from Poland/Russia and came to live in Toronto, Canada in the early half of the 20th Century. His investigation with the help of local historians, his family and the community in Poland where his family was originally from helped him find out more about his heritage, including the realization that his Grandfather was one of the first recorded Hasidic singers in Canada and finding the last traces of his family and why they left Poland in the first place.

Like Steven’s family, many Jewish people left the region of Poland/Russia at the turn of the century due to unequal treatment and Pogroms, which were attacks and killing of members of the Jewish community in Eastern Europe by local officials at random over accusations which sought to tie the alienated Jewish community towards crimes against society and state at the time. Many of the people who left at the time make up the majority of the Jewish community in North and South America, as well as a large portion of Jewish people worldwide. This look into one migrant family from 100 years ago is very interesting for students of Genealogy, Immigration and individual families as a whole.

Europe circa 1900

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.

The weekly news roundup features critical views of the UK points system for highly-skilled migrants, a look at how Wester Union is dominating the remittances market across the world and a preview of France’s new immigration legislation released on November 22nd.
It is becoming ever more attractive to become a US citizen - at least that’s what the latest surge in citizenship applications seems to suggest. In fact, it’s less that naturalization has become more popular over the past months, it is more a combination of a fee increase earlier in the year, fear of new immigration legislation and confusion over green card applications that is causing the bureaucratic backlog that might take up to a year to clear, the New York Times reports.

• Agence France Presse has a stunning article about the tiny village Elinkine in Senegal that is profiting from the droves of illegal immigrants passing through the town to seek a passageway to Europe. In a mafia-type set up, local families profit from “facilitating” migrants’ journeys, i.e. housing them ahead of their departures, and - the article alledges - police pockets are equally fleeced for the same purpose.
• What has five times as many locations worldwide as McDonald’s, Starbucks, Burger King and Wal-Mart combined? Why, Western Union, of course. Powered by immigrant remittances around the globe, the once bankrupt telegraph and communications company now turns a USD 1 billion profit annually. Last year migrants sent home USD 300 billion,nearly three times the world’s foreign aid budgets combined, according to this New York Times article on Western Union.
• In an opinion piece for the Financial Times, Michael Skapinker notes that the new points system to evaluate highly-skilled migrants in the UK has its faults. Geared toward the university educated, well-earning individual, Skapinker fears the new system would keep out precisely those entrepreneurs needed in Great Britain today: the brilliant minds too impatient to sit it out in a classroom, i.e. the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of this world.
• Also in last week’s FT, Gideon Rachmann ponders the realities of immigration today. He concludes that while economics can be spun both in favor of and against increased immigration flows, governments are likely to pursue restrictive policies. But, he notes that the populist arguments and general anti-immigration stance is losing force in the Western world, partially because: “Voters are more attached to the principles of an open society than the raw polling data on immigration suggest. It is certainly possible to crack down on legal and illegal immigration. But the necessary measures would often involve sacrificing freedom and convenience. You could have much tougher controls at borders - and even longer waiting-times at immigration control. (Forget just hopping on the Eurostar to Paris.) You could introduce identity cards in countries, such as the US and the Netherlands, that have long resisted them. You could bind employers in even more red tape. You could restrict people’s right to marry. You could arrange mass deportations of illegal immigrants and shut your eyes to the resulting injustices. Some combination of all of those measures probably would dramatically reduce immigration. But in the process you would risk creating countries that are not only less welcoming to immigrants. They would probably be much less palatable for native-born citizens as well.”
• France’s new, 65 article strong immigration and asylum legislation was revealed at the end of last week. While I have yet to read the full text, Le Monde offers an initial glimpse here, though again, introducing genetic testing for immigrant minors wishing to accede French territory as highlighted by the paper and detailed in article 13 is hardly new, given the debate on DNA testing an immigration a few months ago. We will cover these legal changes in a separate blog. Meanwhile, however, Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank and one of the prominent Frenchmen on the international stage has implicitly criticised the restrictive new immigration law, pointing to France’s longstanding history as a country of immigration.

*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.

Robert Dziekanski, a Polish immigrant to Canada who came to live with his mother on Oct 14th of this year was killed while police tried to detain him after arriving at Vancouver’s international airport. While being kept up for more than 10 hours in the airport, Mr. Dziekanski was seen as having an angry reaction for an unknown reason and after many hours he took to physically attacking a small table and a laptop computer before police responded with two taser shots at the individual, putting him onto the ground and then subsequently leading to his death for unknown causes yet to be investigated. Despite Robert Dziekanski’s behaviour for such an extended period of time, no efforts were made to communicate with him in his own language nor was it seen by many as appropriate to use such excessive force in detaining him as he was not assulting anyone at the time nor abusing any offices in the process. The incident was recorded by a teenager on his cellphone at the time and was widely published in the media on November 14th.

See the video here. 

Canadian officials emplored the public to consider other evidence besides the video regarding the case of Robert Dziekanski. In reality however, a witness account which was filmed goes well beyond DNA or other evidence in investigations of any crime of any type. The reality of the situation made clearer my the young man’s recording made new headlines yesterday on the BBC, across Canada and worldwide as a clear conflict in handling persons who are not considered to be a great threat, where no efforts were made to speaking to him in his own language in an international airport after more than 10 hours of a possible conflict, and which was a necessity in diffusing such a situation as an alternative to the use of tasers. In addition, it is well known by many in the policing and legal community in North America that tasers are a questionable tool, as it is overused in many cases due to its ability to maintain a proper distance from suspects, but also that more that 200 deaths have been attributed to the use of the devices without a proper inquiry into the dangers of tasers.
Lingisutic barriers and newcomers in societies such as Britian and Canada face many challenges integrating into society. One barrier however when considering law enforcement in the cases of the Brasilian victim de Menezes seen as a terrorist during the London bombings, or Canada’s Polish immigrant losing his life due to a lack of communication and responsility of law enforcement to take the initiave to communicate with people in communities which are very diverse. Logically, patience is required with linguistic situations to avoid death which are uncalled for, accidentally or otherwise. As seen in last week’s posting, the London Police were considered responsible for the death in their case, raising the standard of care towards immigrants or residence in communities without a uniform language spoken among all residents. In the Canadian case, some simple words in Polish may have made a world of difference to the lives of the Dziekanski family.