BajaNomad - Immigration: The Battle for World Opinion

Immigration: The Battle for World Opinion

Gypsy Jan - 11-13-2010 at 03:46 PM

November 13, 2010

"Internationally, migration stands out as one of the most heated issues of
the times. Across the world, restictionist measures increasingly shape
public discourse. On November 10 and 11, representatives of 146
governments met in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, where they discussed how
public perceptions of migrants figure in the contemporary global political
landscape.

A consensus on combating the demonization of migrants was evident at the
the Fourth Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD), but
differences emerged on how best to counter anti-immigrant sentiments and
whether governments-especially those from the developed world-are
doing enough to curb outbreaks of xenophobia and support immigrants.

At one session, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Navanathem Pillay stressed that governments are obligated to apply
international legal instruments dedicated to the rights of migrants.
Pillay urged more countries must ratify the Migrant Workers Convention.
"It's shameful that only about 40 states have ratified this convention,
which has been around for about 40 years," she said.

The host country of the 2010 GFMD, Mexico is among nations which has
signed and ratified the Migrant Workers Convention.

Based in Switzerland, an international network of civil society
organizations is promoting the ratification and monitoring of the
agreement, which mandates that signatories accord rights to immigrant
workers that are increasingly the source of heated political disagreement
in developed nations. The members of the network include Anti-Slavery
International, Human Rights Watch, the World Council of Churches and many
other labor and human rights advocates across the world.

Fresh from a speech delivered to the Council on Foreign Relations in which
he highlighted the "critical role" of immigration in US history, State
Department official Eric P. Schwartz led the US delegation in Puerto
Vallarta.

In a presentation to the GFMD, Schwartz, an assistant secretary
for refugee and migration affairs, spoke about the Obama
administration's efforts to assist local and state governments in refugee
resettlement and the integration of newcomers in host communities.

Although perpections of migrants are shaped by interactions at the local
level, it is incumbent on Washington to help ease the transition of
migrants and their integration into society, Schwartz said.
To do otherwise, he said, represents a federal let-down of local communities.

Government has a role to play in shaping public attitudes about
immigration, Schwartz told a packed room, specifically through a
leadership that channels concerns and fears, opposes the demonization of
immigrants and emphasizes the costs to society of keeping migrants as an
"underground population."

Despite the prevalance of a "difficult conversation" on immigration in
the US at the moment, Schwartz said demographic changes were among reasons
he was optimistic about the long-term future of immigrants in a nation
built up by immigrants. In the not-too-distant future, no single racial or
ethnic group will constitute a majority in the US, he added.

A representative of the socialist government of Bolivian President Evo
Morales questioned the immigration policies of the US and other developed
nations. Eliciting a round of applause from an audience stacked with
officials from different governments, Alfonso Ramiro Hinojosa, general
director of consular affairs for Bolivia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
slammed measures like Arizona's SB 1070 law for inflamming public opinion
against migrants.

Schwartz countered that the Obama administration opposes SB 1070 and backs
comprehensive immigration reform as an answer to the growing attempt by
states to assume federal authority. In comments to Frontera NorteSur,
Schwartz reiterated that President Obama is against several parts of SB
1070, and both the US president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
have taken time to "articulate their set of concerns" about the law, as
well as speak out on the general importance of immigration to "our
well-being."

Internationally, SB 1070 continues being a contentious matter. In Puerto
Vallarta, flyers were passed out at the GFMD urging readers to contact
Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig and demand that the 2011
All-Star Game be moved out of Phoenix.

Washington's response to SB 1070 is still "insufficient,"
Bolivian official Hinojosa told Frontera NorteSur. "This law continues
generating dramas among migrants in our countries," Hinojosa said.
Bolivia's posture, he said, is shared by the rest of South America.

In late October, Bolivia hosted the most recent meeting of the
South Amercan Conference on Migration, a grouping which brings together 12
nations. The regional sentiment, Hinojosa added, is to uphold a "dignified
immigration" that respects human beings who are usually subordinated to
the interests of capital.

Founded in 1999, the South American Conference on Migration promotes a
gradual but decisive drive towards a "regional integration based on the
construction of the free mobility of persons and South American
citizenship," according to an organizational document.

Hinojosa estimated that about 250,000 Bolivians currently reside in the
US. In the bigger scheme of things, Bolivia is among countries in the
world that could be most impacted by climate change and forced migration-
issues which were considered in this year's GFMD.

According to Hinojosa, President Morales' government considers a climate
agreement at the upcoming Cancun summit a "top priority," but will not be
too disappointed if no accord materializes from next month's world
meeting. The massive turn-out of 30,000 at the Cochabamba climate
conference hosted by Bolivia last spring is an example of the inexorable
tide in favor of climate action, Hinojosa insisted.

"We're accumulating forces," the Bolivian diplomatic official said. "If
not Cancun, something soon."

On immigration, Hinojosa said "double-talk" characterized the stances and
policies of developed countries. Besides SB 1070 in the US, he exorciated
Italy's denial of health care to migrants, France's deportation of Romas
and the failure of developed nations to ratify the Migrant Workers
Convention.

Hinojosa said he was dismayed that he had not heard a single Mexican
official address the massacre of 72 Central American and South American
migrants in the northern Mexican border state of Tamaulipas last
August. "Not talking about it, doesn't make it go away," he maintained.

Not surprisingly, debate at the GFMD examined the role of media in
shaping public perceptions of migrants. A representative of Lebanon
reported how radio spots promote a positive image of immigrants, whose
exodus after war broke out with Israel in 2006 caused a crisis for a small
country suddenly short of foreign workers.

An official from the Phillipines described how his government employs
the popular soap opera format on television to give migrants a
high-profile in the public sphere. Armed with access to all the latest
statistics on immigration and its economic impacts, the GFMD should do
more in the public relations field for migrants, some speakers concurred.

Several members of non-governmental organizations were allowed to address
government meetings of the GFMD. While pledging to continue her work
against racism and xenophobia, Carol Barton of the United Methodist Church
in the US said economic changes were needed to counter public insecurities
that stem from the economic crisis and fan anti-immigrant attitudes.

"Just giving facts and figures doesn't change the reality of those
fears," Barton said. Concrete action was necessary on home foreclosures,
mass unemployment and other problems arising from the Great Recession, she
said. Getting to the structural roots of economic problems, the church
activist contended, was paramount "if we are going to end this kind of
backlash that's directed against migrants."

The next GFMD is scheduled for Switzerland in 2011."

-Kent Paterson

Frontera NorteSur (FNS): on-line, U.S.-Mexico border news
Center for Latin American and Border Studies
New Mexico State University Las Cruces, New Mexico

For a free electronic subscription email: fnsnews@nmsu.edu

Barry A. - 11-13-2010 at 04:07 PM

Not one mention of the most important issue in the uproar about migrants----------ILLEGAL migrants is the problem, not LEGAL migrants.

And, how did the issue of "climate control" get into this discussion?

It has been my observation that most people who are speaking out against migrants are totally talking about ILLEGAL migrants, NOT Legal migrants.

Barry

Nancy Drew - 11-13-2010 at 05:10 PM

how about practicing birth control. hence the population need not grow.

Bajahowodd - 11-13-2010 at 05:18 PM

As, but you just stirred-in the religious issue. Many religions have hard and fast rules against contraception, probably rooted in the need to increase the number of adherents. Only another reason why people need to adapt to current conditions instead of blindly following thousands of years old dogma.

woody with a view - 11-13-2010 at 08:27 PM

Jan

why are you trolling? everyone knows the US cannot last as a beacon of hope, freedom and justice by bringing the bottom of the social ladder into her boosom (sp?). i love the people of mexico as much as anyone. i also want to keep what my people who came before left for me and mine. mexico won't let foreigners own property or corporations, to the demise of the little folk.

if everything was equal we could debate the finer points. it will never be equal, so quit pretending like there is injustice....

BTW, what do the Filipinos and Bolivianos have to do with Baja?

Lobsterman - 11-14-2010 at 06:56 AM

While having a discussion with my teeage daughter the other day while the news was on an item about illegal immigrants came up. She matter a factly said, "those are the people who are taking our jobs away". I questioned her further on that. She said that she and her friends are angry that there are so many illegals in California "canyon boys" as they call them, that take jobs that they are qualified for. She and most of her friends have a hard time finding steady employment cuz many of the entry level jobs are take by these criminals.

The Gull - 11-14-2010 at 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nancy Drew
how about practicing birth control. hence the population need not grow.

Ask your parent.

Skipjack Joe - 11-14-2010 at 08:32 AM

Latinos kids are now the majority in California public schools. Just over 50%. White kids now form 27% of our schools. That's from yesterday's paper.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/13/MNIG1GBD0C.DTL

mcfez - 11-14-2010 at 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lobsterman
While having a discussion with my teeage daughter the other day while the news was on an item about illegal immigrants came up. She matter a factly said, "those are the people who are taking our jobs away". I questioned her further on that. She said that she and her friends are angry that there are so many illegals in California "canyon boys" as they call them, that take jobs that they are qualified for. She and most of her friends have a hard time finding steady employment cuz many of the entry level jobs are take by these criminals.

Not true. At all.
I operate several businesses that requires "labor".

We place ads in Craigslist.org under the help wanted section for digging holes, trenching, and movement of material(s). The "canyon boys" as you put it.....will grab the jobs because all others wont work for the Ca. minimum wage ($8.00). Even at $10.00 most refuses that wage. Most refuse the hard work too.

Outside of Home Depot......many many many are standing out there waiting for jobs....yet I never see the whites, blacks, Japanesse....your teenage daughter's friends.....out there!

Entry level jobs? "canyon boys"? Guys living in the canyon taking entry jobs? What is your definition of "entry jobs"?

[Edited on 11-14-2010 by mcfez]

Lobsterman - 11-15-2010 at 09:04 AM

Horns,

So you are part of the illegal immigration problem in the USA. Shame on you for hiring the illegals at slave labor rates. If people like you did not hire them, then the slave labor rates you pay would go to a wage determined by the laws of economics. Then more people who needs jobs will apply.

As long as people like you continue to hire them they will still come and have to live in horrid conditions because of the low wages you pay.

[Edited on 11-15-2010 by Lobsterman]

Natalie Ann - 11-15-2010 at 09:17 AM

Lobsterman -

Those "slave labor rates" you refer to are California State minimum wage, higher than the Federal minimum wage. Many thousands of people are paid that wage, especially for entry-level jobs.

nena

JoeJustJoe - 11-15-2010 at 01:40 PM

Quote:

Tell your daughter and her weed smoking friends to quit scapegoating undocumented Mexican aliens because they can't find jobs minimum wage type jobs that are on the bottom rung here in America and that undocumented aliens are willing to do because compared back home these wages here in the US look pretty good.

But as Mcfez pointed out there are jobs out there that usually require back breaking work, or work in fast food joints if your willing to do that type of work.

So instead of scapegoating and pointing fingers at other hard working immigrants your daughter and her friends should be in college or college bound, and/or learning job skills that pays well, and will probably mean they won't have to compete with new hard working immigrants.

[Edited on 11-15-2010 by JoeJustJoe]

Bajahowodd - 11-15-2010 at 02:44 PM

Maybe this deserves its own thread. But since we're already talking about immigration, I found this article quite interesting. From today's LA Times.

Some say they're not fully American by the standards of many in the U.S., yet they're also cut off from their 'homeland' culture. But the limitations of that either/or definition are being quickly erased.
By Gregory Rodriguez

November 15, 2010

Writing from Mexico City
Is there one Mexico or two? That's what Mexican writer and television host Sergio Sarmiento asked me and two other Mexican American writers Tuesday on his weekly show. It's a fundamental question that is actually about Mexicanness: How Mexican are Mexican Americans? Are Mexicans and Mexican Americans siblings? Distant cousins? Strangers?

It's a question befitting the historically awkward relationship between Mexico and the U.S, with its long history of conflict and cooperation, affection and distrust. Historically, most Mexicans have answered it this way: You're either with us or you ought to be. They rejected the idea of a more transcendent kind of Mexicanness -- a cultural identity separate and distinct from nationality. That left many Mexican Americans in a true diaspora: not fully American by the standards of many in the U.S. and cut off from their "homeland" culture as well.

Sarmiento's inquiry, however, is just one indicator that the duality, and the restrictions of that either/or definition, is changing.

Get the best in Southern California opinion journalism delivered to your inbox with our Opinion L.A. newsletter. Sign up »

There is some distance to go, however. Most Mexicans tend to assume that emigrants and their children should remain loyal to the country they left behind, the country that in many cases failed to sustain them economically. A 2009 Zogby poll found that an overwhelming majority of people in Mexico thought the primary loyalty of Mexican Americans -- both Mexico- and U.S.-born -- should be to Mexico. Just 20% said it should be to the U.S.

It's an utterly false picture. Like all immigrants, Mexicans Americanize over generations. Language alone bears this out. Seventy-one percent of third-generation Mexican American children speak only English. Many grow up to have no ties to Mexico, but many more find it both exotic and familiar, foreign and comforting. Like most Americans, they recognize their roots -- probably more so because Mexico shares a border with the U.S. -- even if they're also as American as apple pie.

Mexico's misunderstandings about its emigrants have historically led it to reach out to its diaspora for its own narrow national interests. When the U.S. engaged in mass repatriations of immigrants in the 1930s, for example, Mexico offered assistance to the U.S. authorities. Officials in Mexico City saw the returned laborers, who had gained skills in the U.S., as a potential benefit to their own economy, and never mind that many of them had built new lives and weren't returning voluntarily.

Decades later, emigration would become a glaring symbol of Mexico's inability to take care of its people. The flip side of that is that Mexicans often saw emigrant families as renegades who cashed in their souls for material goods. They called them pochos, which translates to something like "watered-down Mexicans."

One early sign of a shift in attitude came from official Mexico at the beginning of the new century. In his inaugural address in December 2000, former Mexican President Vicente Fox referred to emigrants not as traitors but as "our beloved migrants, our heroic migrants."

Sure, some of the change in attitude has to do with Mexico's desire to keep remittances flowing from north to south. But Fox's welcoming words keep echoing.

"We used to see Mexican Americans as imitation Mexicans," Ricardo Salinas Pliego told me this week. Salinas is the president and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Grupo Salinas. "Now we see them as brave, and worthy of respect. We're grappling with this huge population north of the border and wondering what it means for Mexicanness."

It's impressive to hear that from Mexico's high and mighty. But what most impressed me was the trickle-down effect. On my first day here, a young man in his 20s told me he thought of emigrants and their Americanized children as "global Mexicans," the ones who reached out beyond their "homeland" to absorb and adopt the practices, customs and values of another nation, while retaining, in some sense, Mexicanness. Not only did he not demean those who left Mexico as traitors or second-class Mexicans, he held them up as the cultural vanguard; early adapters in globalizing world.

So how did we three Americans answer Sarmiento's question? Is there one or two Mexicos? A more fluid identity than either/or is in sight. We settled on one and a half.

grodriguez@latimescolumnists.com

mcfez - 11-15-2010 at 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lobsterman
Horns,

So you are part of the illegal immigration problem in the USA. Shame on you for hiring the illegals at slave labor rates. If people like you did not hire them, then the slave labor rates you pay would go to a wage determined by the laws of economics. Then more people who needs jobs will apply.

As long as people like you continue to hire them they will still come and have to live in horrid conditions because of the low wages you pay.

[Edited on 11-15-2010 by Lobsterman]

Do you ever wonder what life would be like if you'd had enough oxygen at birth?

Cypress - 11-16-2010 at 05:26 AM

If all the able bodied welfare recipients in the US were required to work in order to receive benefits there would be no jobs for illegal immigrants.