Migration

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.

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In an novel experiment, BBC reporter Jose Baig and his Spanish-speaking camera man are heading off on a tour of the Southern US States to see how far they will get speaking español. With their little test they hope to offer a living picture of how immigration has influenced the linguistic and cultural melting pot that is today’s US of A. They will document their adventures in a blog (naturalmente in Spanish) and we will keep tabs on their progress as they head through eight states and twelve cities on their journey. Their trip will end in Los Angeles, where they will attend a debate on the influence of Latin American language and traditions on modern American culture.

You can follow their journey here. If you want to contact the two journalists, you can do so by leaving a message using Skype with the account bbcmundohispano or join the group “¿Hablas español y vives en EE.UU.?” on Facebook.

This week’s news features commentary on the future of illegal immigration in the United States, a roundup of the integration summit in Germany and a call to change the international refugee convention to include the victims of famine and drought.

• Der Spiegel has full coverage of the German integration summit (in English), which hardly went as originally planned, plagued by boycotts from Turkish organizations. The overall integration concept was criticized by migrant groups for not being inclusive enough. Given the almost 40 years during which Germany denied being an immigration country, despite the largest number of foreigners living on its soil in Europe, this policy action plan attempts to be a tour de force. Nevertheless, much like the immigration legislation that was introduced during the last administration, one cannot but feel that all this comes a little too late. Coverage on the issue from the IHT can be found here.
• The European Council on Refugees and Exiles has published its report on the situation for refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced
  persons (IDPs) in Belarus, Moldova, Russian Federation and Ukraine in 2006.
• Over in the UK, the Institute for Public Policy Research is calling for an amnesty on illegal immigrants so that these migrants could become active tax payers. The think tank argues that deportation of Britain’s estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants would not only be a huge burden on tax payers, but is practically impossible - to say nothing of the fact that it would take over 30 years at the current rate. The BBC has the story here.
• Australia’s newspaper The Age features a commentary by Dr. Mirko Bagaric, former member of the Refugee Review Tribunal, who argues that the international refugee convention should be amended to include those suffering from famine and abject poverty: “Australia should take a leading role in broadening the scope of people it will allow to migrate for reasons of need. We need to broaden the definition of a refugee so that our compassion extends to those who are suffering the greatest degree of deprivation.”
• One of New York City’s most prominent immigration activists, Victor Toro, might face deportation, the New York Times reports, after his status was unveiled in a routine check by border patrol agents on regional transport.
• Another article in the same paper chronicles how immigrant activists are increasingly turning to second generation migrants as allies in their political efforts: “Many young people raised in this country know their way around a system that sometimes baffles their parents. Those who are citizens can speak out for those who have yet to get their papers.”
• Though not strictly from this week, The Economist, features an article on the drive to naturalize legally resident immigrants ahead of the US Presidential elections next fall.
• The same magazine comments on the failure of the Senate immigration Bill and offers a glimpse into the future: “Likely consequence will be an outbreak of ad hoc law-making in cities and states. Liberal and Hispanic enclaves may follow the example of National City, on the outskirts of San Diego, and declare themselves to be “sanctuary cities” where police officers are told not to quiz people about their immigration status. Others—probably a greater number—will tell the cops to do precisely that, or enact other laws against illegal immigrants and the people who house and employ them.”

With the failure of the Immigration Reform Bill there has been a refocusing on the issues regarding the current state of affairs surrounding illegal immigration. This year there has already been 275 bodies found between US-Mexico border and it is expected that that number is going to rise to a record of over 500 bodies in 2007. Much of the criticism coming from some border experts is that increased border security creates a situation where migrants seek more dangerous and unfriendly means to make it across the border, and since 1994 when border security was tightened nearly 4,500 Mexicans and Central Americans have perished trying to make it to the US.

While there is much debate on why it has become more dangerous to cross the border, it is believed that while in the past many met their fate due to traffic accidents, the main culprit in recent history is hypothermia from cold desert temperatures and many being drenched while crossing the Rio Grande river between Mexico and the US and not being able to warm themselves to save their lives. Another risk mentioned are the cases of some smugglers, commonly called “coyotes” abandoning their migrants or physically assaulting them. While much of the statistics show the evident rise in risks in crossing the border and the links with border security, much of the information details only the situation US side of the border. Despite all these statistics, or lack thereof, much of these issues are common knowledge on both sides of the border.

The question that needs to be asked in my opinion is whether these migrants from Mexico and Central America and the US and its economy and people are two independent issues, or whether in that part of the Americas those two groups are completely interdependent on each other. One can only give their best observation, but I believe there is a solid point to be made in the film A Day Without a Mexican-2004 where California is ground to a halt when on May 14th every Mexican worker disappears from the streets of California and its citizens attempt to manage their lives without the thousands of illegal immigrants who do much of the labour in today’s America.

Despite the humoristic observations of the filmmakers, in reality the situation on the border is one of perpetual crisis. With an economy so dependent on its inexpensive labour and so resistant to accept the workers who do those tasks, it seems the solution to many of these issues are non-existent except to make a movie about something no one can agree on yet everyone knows they could not live without.

The failure of Immigration reform in the US marked a special occasion in recent US political history where both parties have come to complete consensus over an issue, and have decided that NO ONE can agree on anything when it comes to reforming the unworkable immigration laws in the United States. The plan was finally put to rest when members of both the Democrats and Republicans could not come to any consensus in reforming the key issues tied in with immigration last week. The main points of disagreement among US politicians were debates over border security, what to do with the approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the US, and allowing a new process for foreign workers to be able to work legally in the US. Addressing these three main issue were considered by many as asking too much too soon in altering current US immigration policy.

The effect on the Bush Administration disallows any attempt to improve domestic support and his overall reputation before he leaves office. Many political experts see immigration as a dead issue until 2009, when a new President can adopt the issue to gain their own support and leave the Bush legacy with only Iraq and scandals as its main points of historical debate. It remains to be seen how future candidates will address immigration, if at all in the upcoming US elections.

The real losers however are immigrants and Americans themselves. In the June 30th article by the New York Times: Immigrants Work On as Bill Dies and Views Divide, news of the failed reforms met some concerned groups with quiet mediocrity while others were happy to know that they may still have a good chance to make it to America without increased border security hindering their chances. Workers currently in the US, like Ediberto Perez reacted by saying: “Well, I am just going to keep working, What more can I do?” Also spoken about in the New York Times article was Mr. Brito, who thought him and his companions would never gain legal status. He has his wife and four children living in Mexico and while said he would love to become legal, it would not stop him from working at any job he can find.

Criticisms of the continuation of the labour situation in the US have met criticism from across the border in Mexico. Mexican President Felipe Calderon called the Senate’s decision a “grave error” and a failure to find a “sensible, rational, legal solution to the migration problem.” Jorge Bustamente of the UN human rights commission for migrants criticized the lack of reform measures by stating, “It means the continuation and probably a worsening of the migrants’ vulnerable conditions.” Mexican newspaper El Universal also commented on the failure of the immigration reform by stating that while American politicians want labour, they are unwilling to legalise the labour they require.

While delaying approaching the immigration issue until 2009 may not solve any current problems, it is evident that there is still a severe lack of consensus in dealing with immigration in the United States. While agreeing to disagree is the result of this latest round of immigration issues across America and beyond its borders into Mexico and abroad, everyone concerned must deal with its political paralysis for the time being.