Migration

*This post has also been cross-posted in the FPA’s Latin America Blog.

Two countries have stood out in their respective regions as economically progressive policy successes in the last ten years. In Europe, Spain along with Ireland have seen much of the positive development and economic growth when the rest of the EU has been wrestling with high unemployment rates and drastic changes in governments. In Latin America, Brazil under Lula and under the former Cardoso Administration have grown at a steady positive rate, breaking the traditional Latin American plague of economic collapses and large booms that seem to be commonplace in almost all South American economies to date. With success, the importance of Spain and Brazil have taken on a new form in their regions and abroad. Traditionally the place of the United States, these emerging regional powers now seem to be inheriting some of America’s traditional problems.

Brazil has always been a country of immigration. The population of Brazil, while taking in only some immigrants from Asia, Africa and Europe in the last few years, was one of the countries that absorbed much of the world’s immigration since the 1880s. This open policy remained, and while economic problems and changes from populist, to military, to democratic governments took shape since the 1930s, immigration remained strong as long as there were jobs to be done in one of the world’s largest countries. With traditional economic instability and some recent success, many Brazilians have chosen to go abroad to either find more work or utilize their assets to enjoy life abroad. In Spain, this emigration from Brazil has taken a foothold with both emigrants coming and living illegally for work or working in legal low paying jobs, as well as those upper middle class Brazilians coming to make a life and career in Spain as professionals and entrepreneurs.

While the general impression of Brazilians in Spain is a positive one, there have been some problems against immigrants at the main Spanish airports and in society as a whole. Many immigrants, including many Brazilians often enter Spain and stay illegally. This has been a problem one many fronts, as many Latin Americans, Africans and other Europeans do not go through the normal procedures to live and work in Spain but come as temporary workers or as refugees or simply pass through the border and disappear. With Spain having some economic expansion and the closing off of the US to many immigrants, the Spanish immigration system has become overwhelmed. Since 2006, the number of Brazilians coming into Spain has nearly “tripled or quadrupled”, while at the same time in Spain eight Brazilians a day are deported.

The solution to the Brazil-Spain situation needs to be addressed by both countries. Brazil needs to reform its immigration to fit with its position as an emerging power in the world. With 3-4 millions Brazilians living abroad, Lula will have the responsibility to create and international Brazil without losing all of the most talented to other countries and still maintain funds coming from those emigrants abroad. Spain will also have to accept Brazilians and the diversity of the Brazilian social strata now living throughout the Iberian Peninsula. It will take a long time to adapt the infrastructure to treat foreigners in a respectful fashion, but attempts need to begin immediately. Brazilians and others will be challenged living in Spain in becoming Spanish. While it might be easier from some, it is doubtful that those migrants to Spain who are not seen in a positive light will be so easily welcomed in the near future.

*This post has also been cross-posted in the FPA’s Latin America Blog.

I was happy to read a clever article called: Linking NAFTA and Immigration by Ted Lewis of the San Diego Tribune as he discusses the campaign issues and how they are being spun to effect the campaign and America’s neighbours in a negative fashion. Lewis suggests that reform in NAFTA and effects on the poorest in the three member states needs to be addressed in a logical fashion, and not via the lens of the complete benefit of free trade or lowbrow electioneering. Addressing poverty and its root causes of increased unemployment in Mexico needs to be addressed in any future NAFTA negotiation. Lewis states that much of the illegal immigration comes from a lack of economic progress in Mexico since the agreement began and has lead to massive amounts of immigration to the US. Lewis also mentions that the electioneering between Obama and Clinton creates arguments against free trade, and in my impression creates intentional dissent in the US against Canada and Mexico. While Obama was blamed for not being serious in changing NAFTA, Clinton has used this small scandal to re-ignite her campaign. Ironically, the alienation of friendly foreign governments was always something linked with Bush, but support for the next Clinton Presidency may rest on the backs of Canadians and Mexicans alike if it continues to hurt Obama.

With much of the support for the Clinton campaign coming from the blue collar democrats in the northern states and America’s traditional industrial heartland, it makes sense that Clinton would use Canada and Mexico to blame for poor US policy in the past, much of which came under her husband’s term in office. In reality, the Mexican economy has purged its traditional weaknesses since 1994 and has maintained a solidly valued Peso, growth in the long run and even produced a more equitable government with the PRI dominated Presidency toppling a few years after NAFTA came into effect. The reality is that Mexico is a developing nation in many ways and has problems which 10 years of trade policy could never resolve in its best performance. To end poverty and develop a country, a generation is needed to end generations of poverty and inequality. Targeted anti-poverty policy is needed to help remove the 30% of Mexicans who live in poverty and have always lived in poverty. Economic progress in Mexico has created such negative results because the flow of money often reaches the poorest last. This is the trend in almost every country where poverty dominates the political agenda. No one has addressed this in the Obama camp, and with the Clinton campaign it seems that immigration and NAFTA come second to embarrassing Obama as much as possible.

While poverty and success in Mexico’s economy can always be debated, the main issue of concern is that anti-immigrant and anti-NAFTA effects of running a negative campaign. It seems apparent that even though NAFTA is a mixed blessing, the current concerns with China seems to be targeted towards America’s neighbours. While China has a right to progress economically and diversify its society as it wishes, Americans need to debate how they want to proceed with their neighbours and China in a logical, fair and respectful manner and choose where they wish to take America in the future. No country can live in a vacuum, but every country has the ability to take measured and fair responses to grow its own economy and produce trade and development to assist its own people, create a net benefit in jobs and reduce poverty.

In a response to one of the FPA’s blogs, a candidate for Congress in the US claimed the wholly negative effects of NAFTA and America as losing its sovereignty over NAFTA. I responded in kind in order to dispel myths which seek to create straw man arguments of America’s friends and neighbours. I encourage readers to read the responses to the blog and address their concerns in kind. All fair points of view are respected and I encourage open debate. The response is noted in the FPA’s Latin America Blog: Paranoia on the Frontier: NAFTA and the US Election

This week’s news roundup features the Bush administration’s last ditch attempts at addressing the immigration issue in absence of fundamental policy reform. We also look ahead to the immigration issues at stake in the Spanish elections on March 9. Germany breathed a sigh of relief, when the deadly blaze that killed nine Turks, including two children, was discovered to have originated from a construction problem in the basement rather than a xenophobic arson attack, as originally assumed.

• Despite the failure to push comprehensive immigration reform through the Senate late last year, the Bush government is stepping up its efforts to stem illegal immigration through the introduction of a “virtual fence”, enhanced border patrols and by making the use of E-Verify - the electronic system to check the status of employed immigrants - mandatory for employers.
• New demographic data by the Pew Research Center points to the fact that the United States will become ever more dependant on immigrants to float welfare programs, similar to the predictions made for Europe’s demographic development: “What such an outcome could portend, other analysts have said, is a nation riven politically between older, whiter, voting retirees who are increasingly supported by a younger, darker, working population that, as immigrants, may be disproportionately ineligible to vote.”
• Spain takes to the polls next Sunday. As a relative newcomer to the circle of immigrant receiving countries, the last two governments have struggled to define functional policies that allow the country to benefit from the influx of people, while maintaining balanced social and welfare systems. Most recently, the Socialist government has issued an amnesty for illegals living and working in the country. The conservative Partido Popular has now put up its own plans for immigration policy under its candidate Mariano Rajoy. He would like to see immigrants sign an ““integration contract”. This would oblige them to learn Spanish, to work hard to integrate—and to return home if they are unemployed for too long or commit a crime.” We will follow the immigration debate in Spain as election day draws nearer.
• The artery is clogged - that would be one way of describing the state of affairs at the Canadian-US border, which, according to the Economist, is having detrimental economic effects. Since September 11th the additional border control measures have meant that patients who need emergency medical care across the border are dying en route, red tape is tying up trade and hampering the exchange of services, as proven by the example of the volunteer firefighters held up at the border for so long, the building they were planning on saving had burnt to a crisp.
• Arson has been ruled out as the cause of the deadly housefire that killed nine Turks in Germany’s town of Ludwigshafen. Reminded of the fires that ripped through asylum seeker homes throughout the country in the early nineties the fire was not only seen as a human tragedy but had reopened existing debates over xenophobia and integration policies. In a bold political move, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had flown to Germany to both express his condolences to the victim’s families but to deliver two key speeches, which were contradictory in nature. While he called upon his countrymen and women to integrate into German society in one statement, he demanded they resist assimilation into the dominant society in a speech to thousands of Turkish citizens in one of Cologne’s largest arenas. More on the story can be read here.

 *This post has also been cross-posted in the FPA’s Latin America Blog.

Mexico has always had a mixed relationship with its citizens abroad. Problems dealing with poverty in Mexico have not tarnished pride in their roots. Class divisions never quelled a strong sense of nationhood with its citizens on every social strata. While many Mexican’s left the country since the 1970’s, it was often for economic opportunity which was hard to come by for many in the north of Mexico and in the southern estados, and was a way to escape living in the violent areas of Mexico City where opportunity disappeared in crisis after crisis following oil shocks and multiple collapses of the economy in the late 70s to late 90s.

What those on both sides of the border have seldom addressed in those years is the connection that those who have left Mexico have to their heritage in Mexico, and towards their new lives in the United States. Many in Mexico see those who left as abandoning the country, but with poverty rates of over 30% there was never any question that leaving Mexico was a logical decision by those who made the journey. The change in perception is stark, with new generations being born and growing up in the US often as Mexican-Americans, growing up speaking only English while listening to music in Spanish and being a mix of many diverse cultures. This relatively new culture would have never existed in Mexico, but is not seen as uniquely American by those who belong in it or those outside it. Many in this new culture love being “Mexican”, but are not treated as such in Mexico and often have a tough time becoming typically American in their own places of birth. Recently politicians in both countries have taken interest in this new community as well.

After years of not being noticed politically, since the 1990’s the Latino vote has become key in the next Presidential Elections in the US. The recent Clinton Campaign has relied on much of the Latino vote in the latest Primaries, with Hispanics in America, mostly of Mexican descent, making up a large portion of Hillary’s support in many American states. Mexico has noticed it may have influence as well, if it can re-adopt many of those forgotten Mexicans living abroad. Since the Presidency of Vicente Fox there has been efforts made by his Administration and his PAN party to generate positive relations with the United States on many fronts. Before the War on Terror, the Bush administration was seen as a key player on reforming immigration and helping re-connect Mexicans in the US and Mexico to produce closer ties. While these policies were abandoned for the most part, the interest of President Calderon of Mexico to re-initiate closer ties with the US remains. With the new President likely to be one who is open on immigration, Clinton, Obama and McCain will likely have a positive partner in Felipe Calderon of Mexico.

Calderon will not only have a positive partner in any President who is elected, but is reaching out to discuss policy initiatives and re-engage Mexicans of all backgrounds with Mexico itself. While he has an opportunity to put Mexico back on the agenda in the US, he must be careful not to be seen as dictating policy to the new American President who often lose support on their policies on immigration to the US, and must give a new respect to those Mexican-Americans who feel abandoned by Mexico and will make up a large portion of America’s educated and middle class youth in the future. While Calderon can rally all Hispanics on human rights for newcomers to the US, it will be an uphill struggle to gain complete acceptance from Americans and Mexicans in America alike.

The big story in Europe this week was Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s visit to Germany and the controversial speech he gave to 20,000 of his expat voters regarding integration or assimilation into their host nation. A separate commentary on that question will follow shortly on this blog. In the meantime, Australia is stepping up its efforts to attract highly-qualified migrants, while the red tape currently tying up existing green card applications could be turning away the migrants the United States wants to bring in. More from migration related stories from around the world below:

• The Editorial in the New York Times’ weekend edition highlights modest improvements in clearing up the backlog of green card applications, that has built up over recent years. The authors rightly imply, that a way a bureaucracy treats its would-be citizens is indicative of the whether they are truly wanted or not. While that is undoubtedly true, the red tape applicants face in the US with respect to background checks by the FBI is nothing compared to the caveats future European citizens face.
• The NYT has also published an in-depth interview with Philippe Legrain, the author of Immigrants: Your country needs them, which is an extremely worthwhile read, especially alongside the views of George Borjas, whom we have quoted repeatedly in this blog for this economic arguments against low-skilled or illegal labor migration. The interview provides a good synopsis of Legrain’s book, though I would recommend you read it in full.
• The International Herald Tribune rebukes Republican presidential candidates’ views that “attrition” could be the ultimate weapon to drive out undocumented migrants.
• While other immigration countries are debating how to curtail the movement of people, Australia has announced it will increase the number of entry permits for migrants, given the high demand for their labor.
• The IHT covers a clash of immigration titans, as Marine Le Pen, the heir-apparent of the right-wing Front National in France takes on Muslim intelletual Tariq Ramadan. While their viewpoints are less than surprising, the fact that they agreed to face off in such a manner is worth reporting. Katrin Bennhold has the full story.

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.

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.