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.”
