Welcome to Austr-- I mean ស្វាគមន៍ការ មកកាន់ ប្រទេសកម្ពុជា

The Australian and Cambodian Immigration Ministers signed an agreement in late September which will allow refugees who arrive in Australia to be resettled in Cambodia. In exchange for accepting an unspecified number of refugees, Cambodia will be given 40 million Australian dollars as well as extra resettlement costs. The 40 million will be spent on development projects and is in addition to the 79 million in aid that Australia has already given to Cambodia. There are fears that this money will be misused or lost to corruption.  

Immigration Ministers Scott Morrison and Sar Kheng after signing the agreement

(http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29373198)

Cambodia has a population of about 15 million, 20% of which are living below the poverty line with 37% of children under 5 suffering from chronic malnutrition. The schools system is poor and infamously corrupt. The country is one of the poorest in Asia and over half of the government's money is from international aid. 

Mr. Morrison encouraged the deal, saying that "those found to be in genuine need of protection will now have the opportunity and support to re-establish their lives free from persecution," only months after the Australian government condemned Cambodia's human rights history at a UN human rights hearing. Amnesty International is calling the deal "a new low in Australia's deplorable and inhumane treatment of asylum seekers," and other Human Rights groups have stated concerns that Australia is ignoring international obligations.

Antonio Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, commented on the situation saying, "We are seeing record forced displacement globally, with 87 per cent of refugees now being hosted in developing countries. It's crucial that countries do not shift their refugee responsibilities elsewhere." The UNHCR supported his statement, saying that asylum seekers should be protected by the state in which they arrive in accordance with international law. 

At the moment, the deal between Australia and Cambodia seems more like a trading agreement. In this situation it is not cotton or oil being exchanged for money, but people.

Myths About Immigration

Myth #1: Immigrants don't pay taxes
Immigrants pay income, property, and sales taxes at both the state and federal levels. Immigrants pay 90-140 billion dollars in taxes annually. Lack of documentation does not make immigrants immune exempt from paying taxes, and undocumented immigrants pay tens of billions of dollars in income tax each year. Furthermore, undocumented immigrants cannot apply for federal benefits such as welfare, the SNAP program, or medicare. (http://www.aila.org/contentViewer.aspx?bc=17,142#section4)

Myth #2: Immigrants take jobs away from natural-born Americans
Immigrants create jobs for U.S. workers and foreign-born students fund U.S. graduate programs. Companies created by Chinese and Indian immigrants generated over 19.5 billion dollars and 73,000 jobs in 2000. Immigrants often take labor-intensive jobs that natural-born Americans don't want. 511% of employment growth in Massachusetts from 2000-2004 was because of new immigrants. (http://berkshireic.com/?page_id=8)

Myth #3: Immigrants bring crime and put Americans in increased danger
Immigrants are less likely to be charged with crimes. Every immigrant ethnic group has lower rates of imprisonment and crime than native-borns. Immigrants comprise 5% of all Armed Forces and 7% of Navy personnel, therefore increasing the security of Americans.  (http://berkshireic.com/?page_id=8)

Myth #4: Immigrants don't want to learn English
Over 75% of immigrants speak English well after ten years in the country. Adult English language classes are in high demand, and most immigrants must wait for months--for those in Massachusetts the wait can be up to two years--before they taken off of class waiting lists. 
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/education/27esl.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

Myth #5: Immigrants are different today than 100 years ago
The U.S. has a foreign-born population of 11.5% compared to 15% in the early 20th century. Just like 100 years ago, immigrants today first settle in single-ethnic communities, speak to each other and read newspapers in their native language, and create businesses to serve their communities. They also face the same suspicion, stereotyping, and discrimination as those who arrived in the early 1900s. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf)

Immigrants arriving in 1900...

…and in 2013

Image 1

Image 2

Immigration Policy: Canada vs the United States

How does immigration policy differ between the U.S. and Canada?

 Canada actively works to attract immigrants and has public support for ongoing immigration. Many Canadians are interested in ensuring that foreign credentials are recognized and put to use to avoid what they refer to as "brain waste." 11% of those elected to parliament in 2011 were not born in Canada with 20% of all Canadians being born abroad.

According to Jeffrey Reitz, a sociologist at the University of Toronto,  Canadian public opinion on immigration differs from their southern neighbor for two main reasons: economic benefits and interest in multiculturalism.

Canadians believe that the positive economic benefits of immigration outweigh the negative. Many struggling towns turn towards immigration to create jobs and stimulate their local economy. Unlike the U.S., immigrants are not usually blamed for "taking away our jobs" because Canadian immigrants work under a point system. This system authorizes them for specific jobs dependent on their credentials. In 2008 21.2 percent of Canada's labor force was made up of foreign-born residents, compared to 16.5 percent in the United States

Canadian attitudes towards multiculturalism are very different from U.S. attitudes. Canada was part of the British commonwealth and severed its last ties with the British Parliament as recently as 1982, although Queen Elizabeth remains as sovereign. When the time came for Canada to develop its own national identity apart from the Commonwealth, there great involvement from the Francophone and first people minorities. As a result, Canada has a commitment to bilingualism and multiculturalism. 

Unlike the United States, Canada doesn't have a significant concern with illegal immigration. The U.S. acts as a large barrier between Canada and those attempting to gain entry from central and south america. Also, Canada is about 136,390 square miles larger than the U.S., its population is about 9 times smaller. This thinner population density combined with a lower birth rate than the U.S. leaves Canada reliant on immigration for population growth.

While Canada has the entire continental U.S. as a buffer zone to those trying to immigrate from central and south america, the U.S. has only areas of shallow water or empty desert, and therefore Canada does not have to deal with illegal immigration to the extent that the U.S. must deal with it. This leaves the government (and the public) free to see immigrants as those they want to attract, rather than those 
who must dealt with or protected against. 

The U.S. does not accept or employ immigrants based on a point system. Canada's point system gives preference to immigrants with French and English proficiency, a higher-level of education, and job qualifications. Applicants under or over a certain age receive less points, and those without a certain level of wealth or health problems are ineligible for immigration. While this attracts many educated and skilled applicants, it excludes the majority of interested parties.

The United States prides itself on being a so-called "melting pot" of cultures, but proponents of looser immigration policies rarely advocate for immigration because it improves diversity and promotes multiculturalism. Interestingly, the U.S. has no official language, but is less welcoming of other languages in schools, government, etc. While obviously a diverse nation of immigrants (in comparison to other nations), the U.S. wants the country to remain "American." 

U.S. Immigration Statistics

The media is constantly talking about the flood of immigrants pouring into the U.S. from its southern border or being flown in as refugees. Obviously, news channels rely on sensationalism to draw-in viewers, but according to the picture they paint, the U.S. and its social service programs should be drowning in immigrants.

When looked alone, the flow of immigrants into the country is quite significant. The average inflow of immigrants in the thousands between 2001 and 2010 according to the OECD was 1,050. This number puts the U.S. at the top of the list ahead of Germany, Sweden, and the U.K. as the most popular destination for immigrants. 

While accurate, this ranking is misleading because it fails to take into account the enormous size of the U.S. as well as the outflow of immigrants.

When considered as a percentage of the country's total population, the ranking is strikingly different. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2012/11/18/is-the-u-s-the-most-immigrant-friendly-country-in-the-world/)

Sin Nombre

Released in 2009, Sin Nombre (Without a Name) follows two teenagers trying to reach the United States. The film starts out with telling the children's stories separately--Sayra in Guatemala and Willy in Mexico--but merges about a quarter of the way through. 

Sayra's story begins in Guatemala. Her father left Guatemala years ago in search of work in the United States and was recently deported back to Guatemala. He desperately wants to return to his wife and children in New Jersey, and has offered to take his daughter and brother with him. Afraid of sexual assault and gang activity, frustrated by her future prospects at home, Sayra decides to follow her father. 

For Willy, the decision to go North is much more sudden. He has seen trains carrying people north since he was a baby, but it isn't until he is faced with imminent death threats from the infamous Mara Salvatrucha (also known as MS-13) gang that he decides, somewhat unwillingly, to make the trek north. 

To reach the U.S., both Sayra and Willy ride "La Bestia" aka the cargo trains traveling through central and south america. Immigrants jump onto the (relatively) slow moving train between stops and ride perched on the roofs of the railcars. This free transpiration is estimated to carry 500,000 immigrants into Mexico every year and comes with considerable risk. Riders risk amputation and death, and violence and extortion from the gangs controlling this popular route north. 

Unfortunately, because of the widespread extortion found along the route, many of the immigrants fleeing gang violence end up funding the very gangs from which they are trying to escape. 

The number of children crossing into the U.S. from Mexico increased by 77% this past year. Between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014, there have been 68,541 unaccompanied minors taken into custody while trying to enter the country. 

This influx of young immigrants began in 2011, but increased rapidly in 2014. The heavy flow of young immigrants was at its highest in June when over 10, 000 minors arrived at the border without an accompanying adult. Numbers shrunk down to 5,501 in July, to 3,141 in August and 2,424 in September. 

(http://blog.amnestyusa.org/americas/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-u-s-mexico-border-crisis/)

The children arriving at the border are fleeing from gang violence and drug-related violence. Most are from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. A recent report from the USCCB summarizes problem as "generalized violence at the state and local levels and a corresponding breakdown of the rule of law have threatened citizen security and created a culture of fear and hopelessness." Children whose parents are living and working abroad are especially vulnerable to being targeted by these gangs. 

Another factor contributing to the flood of unaccompanied minors to the U.S. border is the belief that children will be granted greater leniency by border patrols. Parents who have been saving to bring their children to the U.S. that now is the time to do so, and often tell their children to surrender themselves as soon as they see a border officer.

In some communities, like Chelsea, Massachusetts immigrant children are welcomed, while others, such as Oracle, Arizona, stage protests. 

Immigration has been a hot topic for a long time, and after the events of this past summer, it has become even more heated. Clearly immigration reform desperately needed, and we will certainly be hearing a lot rhetoric relating to this topic from the country's campaigning politicians. 

I think it is important to resist falling into the trap of an us-vs-them mentality. Yes, our immigration system needs help, but those fleeing from war--especially the children--should not become our nation's scapegoat. 

Terraferma

Terraferma is an Italian film directed by Emanuele Crialese and released in 2011. It takes place on Linosa, a 2.1 square mile island 27 miles north of Lampedusa, the island featured in my previous post. 

It is a film is about choices: old vs new, sacrifice vs self-preservation, what is correct vs  what is right. The story begins with an old fisherman, his grandson, and a friend fishing on a clear morning. They see a small boat filled with "clandestini" trying desperately to get their attention. As the men approach the vessel, some of the asylum seekers jump into the water. On Linosa, locals are charged with facilitating illegal immigration or human trafficking if they bring immigrants onto their boat. This policy forces fisherman to decide between the their own ancient laws of the sea or the Italian laws of the land.

Last week marked the one-year anniversary of the drowning of 366 asylum seekers less than half a mile off the coast of Lampedusa on October 3rd, 2013. five-hundred of asylum seekers piled onto a 65-foot long boat docked in Tripoli. When it was just half a mile from the shore, close enough to see lights from the houses, a leak was discovered in the ship's hull. In an attempt to attract attention, the captain lit a sheet on fire, but burned himself, dropped the sheet, and ignited the gasoline that had spilled on the wooden vessel. People ran away from the flames and caused the boat to roll. Those on deck fell into the ocean and the women and children who had been sent below were trapped as the ship sank. Of the 155 people who survived, all were rescued by local fisherman. Italian divers spent days retrieving and cataloging the bodies under 150 feet of water.

Lampedusa is a Italian island with an area of only 7.8 square miles and a population of under 5,000. With well-established fishing and tourism industries, the island has recently added a new type of traffic: people. Italians call these asylum seekers "clandestine" which means "the secret ones." 

Referred to as the "gateway to Europe," Lampedusa received 117,000 immigrants from July, 2013 to July, 2014. Most of these immigrants are from Eritrea, Tunisia, Somalia, and Libya, who pay smugglers to get them to European islands (although geologically on the African plate) which include Pantelleria, Linosa, Lampione, Lampedusa, and the nation of Malta. Once on these islands, immigrants ask for asylum from the government in the hope that they will be brought to mainland Italy, from where they can continue up into Northern Europe. 

The boats are packed with immigrants, and sit low in the water, making them susceptible to capsizing. There are usually no lifejackets and most passengers cannot swim. Hundreds have drowned making this journey. Sometimes the smugglers are still with the boat when the Italian Coast Guard arrives, but often they have abandoned their vessel and left passengers adrift in the the sea. It is estimated that 19,000 immigrants have drowned in the last 20 years while attempting to cross the Mediterranean.

(http://voiceofthepersecuted.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/immigrants-flee.jpg?w=730&h=369)

It is clear that asylum seekers are not going to stop attempting this journey, regardless of the dangers. Those who are sent back attempt the journey again, and smugglers put more money in their pockets. 

                                                 (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/04/21/the-anchor)
         

There is some good news. The horrific tragedy that happened last October triggered  changes in Italy's immigration policy and resulted in a sea search-and-rescue program called, "Mare Nostrum" or "Our Sea." This operation aids asylum seekers who have made it into international waters. According to the Italian navy, this program has rescued 44,500 asylum seekers from the sea. Unfortunately, this operation seems to be encouraging more people to attempt the dangerous crossing in increasingly dilapidated ships. While effective, Mare Nostrum costs the Italian government 11.4 million annually, and will soon be discontinued. Italy is only just beginning to receive real help from other E.U. nations in its ocean rescue missions. Once the asylum seekers reach shore, they are trapped indefinitely. The E.U. is bound by the Dublin Convention, which requires immigrants to apply for asylum in the first country they enter. This puts enormous strain on Italian processing centers and causes unbelievably long waiting periods. 

For those interested, here is a map outlining Mediterranean immigration routes

Rain in a Dry Land

A great documentary for those interested in refugee resettlement is Rain in a Dry Land. Directed by Anne Makepeace, filmed by Joan Churchill and Barney Broomfield, and released in 2006, this documentary follows two Somali Bantu families as they make the transition from refugee camps to life in the United States where they face racism, culture shock and poverty. The documentary illustrates the dignity and determination of its subjects, and neither compliments nor condemns U.S. resettlement procedures. I sat down expecting the film to portray families achieving so much from their resettlement in the U.S. I imagined them getting education, access to health care, training and job opportunities, safety and security, and while the families experience many triumphs after settling in their new homes, I was left feeling conflicted. At its core, this film is more about what the families lose than what they gain, and viewers must decide if all of those sacrifices were worth the prize of living in the U.S.

Here is the trailer… 

and a short clip from the beginning of the film...

This past spring, the mayor of Springfield, MA (one of the cities featured in the film) demanded that the U.S. State Department stop resettling refugees in his city. He says that agencies do not provide new arrivals with enough support, that these families are placed in sub-standard sometimes without heat or electricity, and that they put stress on the city's already overburdened public school system. He told reporters, "I want to help. All I am asking for is accountability from the agencies. You can't continue concentrating poverty on top of poverty.

Refugees make up about 1% of Springfield's total population and Massachusetts is cited as one of the top cities for refugee employment with 73% of refugees enrolled in state employment programs finding work. These workers can help stimulate the economy and reinvigorate the community of struggling cities. No one denies that the Springfield school system is in trouble or that many of the city's residents are living in poverty, it is not appropriate to make refugees the scapegoats for the city's problems or shortcomings.

Explaining the Resettlement Process

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state, the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. 
                                               -Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

It is not easy to achieve refugee status, and very few refugees are ever considered for resettlement. Less than 1% of all refugees are resettled in third countries.

Refugee camp in Chad (http://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/Refugee_camp)

To qualify for the United States resettlement program, an individual must fulfill four criterion: 

1. Belong to the priority category for a specific nationality in a specific region.

2. Be referred by a U.S. embassy, UNHRC, or specific NGOs

3. Meet the U.S. Definition of a 'refugee' which distinguishes such a person to be one located outside of the U.S. and "is of specific humanitarian concern to the United States, who demonstrates that they are persecuted, or fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular group," 

4. Not be excluded under INA Section 212(a) which rejects any applicants with a communicable disease, has not been vaccinated for specific illnesses, suffers from a mental or physical disorder and behavior related to that disorder that poses a threat to others or property, or who is a drug user. 

In fact, only  four years ago on the 4th of January, 2010, HIV was listed as a condition which made inadmissible into the U.S. impossible. 

After being accepted by DHS ( Department of Homeland Security ) or USCIS ( United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ), a resettlement support center sends out what is called a 'sponsor assurance request's the U.S. This request provides confirmation that a private agency is prepared to accept the new arrivals. Refugees must then undergo medical testing to screen for different diseases such as tuberculosis. 

Post-9/11, the U.S. heightened background checks on approved refugees to include security checks through multiple federal and international databases. These intensive checks cause delays and a backlogging of cases. In 2004 DHC put a limit on the number of refugees allowed per flight ranging from 35-70 depending on the Port of Entry. 

           

        Egyptian family boards a plane leaving Libya 
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Defense.gov_News_Photo_110305-M-227H-537_-_Egyptian_refugees_fleeing_Libya_board_a_U.S._Air_Force_KC-130J_Hercules_aircraft_in_Djerba,_Tunisia,_on_March_5,_2011.jpg)

Haitian refugees board a U.S. aircraft in Port-au-Prince, Haiti (http://wwwflickr.com/photos/coast_guard/4281216556/in/photostream)

Upon arrival in the U.S. the resettlement agencies are tasked with providing the refugee with a set of services for the first 30-90 days depending on the agency. In some cases, specific services are offered for up to eight months. These services include food, housing, clothing, employment services, and follow-up medical care. While many agencies are probably provide excellent assistance, many do not, and without advocates, it is very hard for refugee families to hold these agencies accountable to their promises and responsibilities. 

Family is welcomed at the airport by the church group that is part of their sponsor team.
(http://www.rcusa.org/post-arrival-assistance-and-benefits)

While 30-90 days seems like a long time, it is not. Imagine leaving your country and being resettled in Malaysia. You have no possessions, no savings, credit score, and any qualifications you may have earned in your home country are invalid. You have a bi-weekly Malay or Mandarin class for three months after which you are expected to be 'conversational.' You must attend this class in order to receive Maylasia's equivalent to SNAP benefits--regardless of struggles with childcare or transportation--and rent assistance. The classes are over-crowded, so you and your spouse must take turns attending the class on alternate weeks. Your Malay isn't good enough for you to begin job training, so you are completely dependent on you agency to pay for food, clothes, and rent. Unfortunately, the agency could only find you a five bedroom house on the outskirts of town, so you must spend 80% of your monthly allowance on rent. Your daughter has a medical condition, but the agency is very backed-up, and probably won't be able to get your child an appointment for 13 months. Your other children are thrown into the public school system, despite being illiterate and unfamiliar with the curriculum. It is summer and 33 degrees Celcius. Your children only have coats and long pants, but you have neither the money nor the knowledge to get them shorts and T-shirts. Unable to speak or write in Malay, you are mute. Soon, your 30-90 days are up. You were promised medical treatment, education, housing and a better life. 

This is not the experience of all refugees resettled in the U.S., but it is the experience expressed to me by many friends who have been resettled in Springfield, Mass. Interestingly, most of them who immigrated as teenagers or older adults have expressed desire to return to Somalia, while those who arrived as children or in their 30s-50s are willing to stay. 

After one year in the United States, refugees are able to apply to be a permanent resident, and after five years as a permanent resident they may petition for naturalization. 

Immediate family of refugees can enter the U.S. through the Visa 93 process. This procedure is used when families have become separated and gives a spouse and unmarried children (under 21) of a resettled refugee, so long as they have not yet become a citizen, automatic refugee status.

A Bhutanese man and his two sons become citizens in Twin Falls, Idaho
(http://magicvalley.com/news/local/first-bhutanese-refugees-become-u-s-citizens/article_867779a6-4d8e-5307-b396-ec9bfd7d524d.html)