Dominated by Brexit? A closer look at Liberal Democrats, Greens, UKIP and SNP manifestos on migration

In our previous article, we examined the Labour party and Conservative party manifestos for the quickly approaching UK General Election. Today we’ll take a closer look at the Liberal Democrats, Green Party, UK Independence Party (UKIP), and Scottish National Party (SNP), who altogether make up a share of about 16%, together with others, according to recent polling by IPSOS Mori.

vi-political-monitor-may-2017

Liberal Democrats- Supporting Immigration while Opposing Brexit

In their manifesto, the Liberal Democrat party is positioning itself as true opposition to both Labour and Conservatives, highlighting their steadfast opposition to Brexit.

On the biggest question facing all of us, Brexit, which has such huge implications for our young people and our future, Corbyn ordered his MPs to stand down against Theresa May’s government. Where the Liberal Democrats are fighting every step of the way, Labour is holding Theresa May’s hand as she jumps off the cliff edge of a hard Brexit.

The Liberal Democrats say they are offering up a strong opposition that counters the pro-Brexit or Brexit acceptance of the two largest parties. So what would this opposition look like for immigration?

Brexit: In policies that highlight their opposition to Brexit, Liberal Democrats propose protections for citizens of EU countries and British people living in EU countries. They would guarantee the rights of people from the EU currently living in the UK and streamline these people’s ability to register, receive permanent residence and/or apply for citizenship. They oppose abandoning the principle of free movement in either direction, and want British citizens to retain benefits of travel and international study in programs like Erasmus. They would ensure respect for international students and guarantee the rights of people from abroad working for the NHS or Social Care (but they are vague as to how.) In short, the Liberal Democratic approach is to try to ensure that individuals currently in Britain as migrants don’t lose their jobs or ability to stay as a result of Brexit.

Immigration: “Immigration is essential to our economy” according to Liberal Democrats, and their approach to newcomers (not those already present in the UK) is based for the most part on economic impact. They would consult with parliament in a yearly debate to determine which areas of the market need skilled people from other countries, and they would continue to allow visas for high-skilled job-seekers as well as family reunification visas. International students would not be counted in immigration statistics, and students studying STEM areas would be able to stay and additional period if they find employment within 6 months. Finally, a “Migration Impact Fund” would be available to communities “adjust” to pressures associated with migration.

libdems

Asylum: On asylum, Liberal Democrats differ greatly from the other parties. They would end indefinite detention by applying a 28-day limit to the time period where people seeking asylum can be detained, and attempt to offer safe routes to the UK by, for example, reforming family reunification rules to make it easier for people to join their families without risking dangerous routes. Additionally, they would expand acceptance of people fleeing Syria to 50,000 in the next five years under Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme and accept 3,000 children who are unaccompanied, offering them leave to remain indefinitely in Britain.

Green Party – Reject Brexit

Like the Lib Dems, the Green party is openly opposed to Brexit and uses terms to like “big”, “bold” and “brave” to describe their vision for the future. They want citizens to be able to vote for an option to remain in the EU, and place environmental concerns like climate change front and center. Immigration is not a focal point of their comparatively brief manifesto, but there are several points which show them generally in favor of immigration.

Brexit: The Green party wants an option for Britons to reject the Brexit deal and remain in the EU after all, through a referendum to be held following negotiations. Failing that, they want to retain freedom of movement from both directions and remain in the common market. They call to “immediately guarantee the rights of EU citizens to remain in the UK and urgently seek reciprocal arrangements for UK citizens in the EU.” They would also seek to guarantee rights for British citizens to work and study in the EU, including taking part in the Erasmus program.

Immigration and Asylum: The Green Party guarantee on this topic is short and vague: “A humane immigration and asylum system that recognises and takes responsibility for Britain’s ongoing role in causing the flow of migrants worldwide.”

UK Independence Party (UKIP) – Net Immigration at Zero

Britain’s UKIP party sees itself as radical, agenda-setting outsiders, as party leader Paul Nutall states in the party’s manifesto.

When we first said that Britain could not only survive but prosper outside the European Union, the political class laughed at us. When we spoke of the need for a points based system for migrants we were derided as racists and xenophobes by the same people. … Be it our stance on balanced migration, constitutional reform or integration, I predict we are leading where the other parties will eventually follow.

But a risk of setting the course is that bigger parties hijack and co-opt your ideas. With Britain’s largest party, the Conservatives, endorsing Brexit and taking a hard-line stance to reduce immigration, can UKIP offer something new?

Brexit: UKIP stands for the hardest of hard Brexits, rejecting Article 50 as a trap by Brussels, and setting out a list of “tests” that can be used to evaluate whether the extraction from the EU has been thorough enough. One of these is the rejection of all forms of free movement.

UKIP

Nevertheless, in their section “Defending our National Health Service”, UKIP promises to guarantee the right to remain for health care workers from EU countries, regardless of what happens to British citizens in EU countries.

Immigration and Asylum: UKIP seeks to differentiate themselves from both the Labour and Conservative parties on their immigration plan, promising to ease public fears while still welcoming “the best and brightest from around the word” to Britain.

UKIP would reduce net migration to zero over five years (meaning that the number of people coming and leaving would be balanced, which would require dramatic reductions to incomers or larger numbers of people leaving.) They would achieve this by emulating the Australian immigration system, which awards points to people wishing to immigrate based on various pre-selected indicators and requires a certain number of points to obtain a visa. (You can read an example of points calculations here.) Unlike Australia’s system, however, UKIP would add an additional integration requirement to “test the social attitudes of migration applicants to foster community cohesion and protect core British values.” What this would entail is uncertain, although they mention attitudes towards women and gay people as possible indicators.

The party would not seek changes to Student visas or earnings thresholds for family reunifications visas, and pledges to continue to respect the 1951 Refugee Convention. However, newcomers to Britain would only gain access to public services and the NHS after paying taxes into the system for five consecutive years. UKIP would also ban immigration of people with “low skills” for five years after Britain leaves the EU.

Scottish National Party- Passionately “in”

The Scottish National Party did not spend significant time discussing immigration in their 2016 platform, which is the latest one available and reads a little like a “greatest hits” review of the party’s success as Scotland’s largest party (and third largest party overall in the UK). The main policy proposals by the SNP that would impact immigration is their continuing pledge to fight against Brexit, and at the same time, to fight for Scottish independence.  On their website, their immigration stance is similarly sparse, proposing “a fair, robust and secure immigration system that meets Scotland’s social and economic needs.”

As third biggest party in British parliament, the SNP’s opposition to Brexit, and very real threat to secede from the UK, has the potential to wield substantial opposition to a “hard Brexit.” This in turn could impact the plight of EU migrants and Britain’s adherence to EU obligations regarding migration and asylum. But this is an indirect effect of the SNP’s Brexit stance, and could be said as well for the Lib Dems and Greens.

The SNP declares that Scotland will actively help to tackle the refugee crises, and will continue to resettle people seeking asylum in Scotland. Apart from that, the party offers “crises grants” for families seeking refuge in Scotland, and wants to fight for access to tuition-free education for newcomers, as Scottish citizens are entitled to. Additionally, on their website, they suggest extending work visas to individuals who study in the UK.

Sources and Further Reading

Comparing the Conservative and Labour Manifestos on Migration, MV
May 2017 Political Monitor, IPSOS MORI
Change Britain’s Future- The Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2017
The Green Party for a Caring and Confident Britain 
Britain Together- UKIP Manifesto 2017
SNP 2016
What is the SNP’s policy on immigration? SNP Website
Image via UK Parliament on Flickr,  (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0).
Advertisements

Dutch coalition talks collapse over differences on immigration

Dutch coalition talks have come to a halt over disagreements on migration, infomateur Edith Schippers announced Monday.

The Dutch election took place over two months ago, but coalition talks are still underway, (which isn’t unusual for the Netherlands). At the time, we pointed out that it was going to be a tremendous uphill battle to make changes to asylum and immigration because of a few factors. First, the fact that the top parties all excluded the possibility of forming a coalition with Geert Wilders’ PPV party (which came in second, with 20 seats) meant that it would be necessary form a broad, and maybe unstable coalition. In this case, the center-right VVD, Christian conservatives CDA, environmental leftists GL and democratic liberals D66 have been attempting to negotiate an agreement- despite representing a broad spectrum of different political views. (Read our explainer of where the parties stand on migration and asylum here.)

The second issue was the fact that there were big gains for both pro- and anti-refugee parties. The three parties with the strongest results all took harsh stances on asylum policy, but the parties that made the biggest gains in seats campaigned on multiculturalism and openness to people seeking asylum. So it’s understandable that politicians might not be completely clear exactly where the public stands on immigration and asylum policy. This uncertainty, in combination with a coalition stretching across the center right to the left, was bound to create disharmony on the topic of migration and asylum. And it looks like it has.

Health Minister Edith Schippers, acting as informateur, announced in a press conference that the negotiating factions were unable to overcome their differences on migration, among other topics. “The substantive differences proved too great,” Schippers said.

What differences were the final stumbling block? It could have been a number of specific issues, but we would be willing to bet that the largest differences were between VVD and GL. Remember, the VVD, led by current PM Mark Rutte, wrote in their platform that while refugees have a right to security, that right applies to their own region, and people who make it the Netherlands are more likely to be “economic migrants.” “Asylum applications in Europe are no longer needed.” This strict view varies totally from Groenlinks, who support working rights for people seeking asylum, minimum assistance for rejected asylum seekers, and a continuation of the practice of accepting asylum seekers to the Netherlands. CDA’s position is much like the VVD’s, and while D66 had a more liberal stance on asylum policy, they also concur that the Netherlands should accept smaller numbers of people. It’s reasonable to assume that Groenlinks was the barrier to an agreement, a view most of the press is concluding as well.

On twitter, GL leader Jesse Klaver wrote, “We have made every effort, but this formation attempt has failed. The differences were too great. And that is a great pity.” Geert Wilders also chimed in, tweeting, “As the second party of the Netherlands PVV is fully available.”

Now that its back to square one, will anyone take up Wilders on his offer? Or will we see Groen Links out, in favor of a minority government that is willing to back VVD’s tough asylum policy? There could still be a long way to go before we know what kind of government the Netherlands will have.

Sources and Further Reading
Election Explainer: Netherlands, MV
Dutch Election Results: Mixed Signals on Migration, MV
Where do the Dutch Parties Stand on Refugees?, MV
Press Conference: Edith Schippers on Formation Failure, RTL (video) (Dutch)
Jesse Klaver on twitter
Geert Wilders on twitter 
Dutch Must Restart Coalition Talks After Collapse on Immigration, Bloomberg, May 16.

With AfD back on the rise, MV takes a closer look at their new leaders. Part 1: Alexander Gauland

On Sunday, regional elections were held in North Rhein-Westphalia (Nordrhein-Westfalen or NRW in German) and the results were striking for two reasons. First, the center-left Social Democratic party fell significantly in comparison to 2012, from 39% to 31% in Germany’s largest state (as measured by Infratest Dimap below). Their national government partners the Christian Democrats (CDU) outperformed them, in the latest test of the appeal of SPD’s new leader Martin Schulz versus current CDU chancellor Angela Merkel.

Secondly, two parties made significant gains: the neo-liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the far-right Alternative für Deutschland, which will sit in the state’s parliament for the first time.

chart_95275

Its been a good few weeks for the AfD, with their success also being reflected at the national level, as this opinion poll from Ipsos demonstrates. AfD has risen to become Germany’s third biggest party.

Ipsos_Public_Affairs_Wahlforschung_07-05-2017

This upswing comes after AfD’s party congress in Cologne in late April, where they voted to go a new direction in party leadership. Frauke Petry, the popular party chief who garnered widespread media attention as well as comparisons to Donald Trump, has been replaced by two people to stand as candidates (“Spitzenkandidaten”) for the party in September elections: AfD founder Alexander Gauland and investment banker Alice Weidel. This was a major rejection for the internationally well-known Petry, who’s proposal for a “Realpolitik” revamp of the AfD was not even debated at the party congress.

Thus far, the party has taken a hard-right line on migration issues, calling for the closure of German borders and an end to social-welfare access for people seeking asylum, among other things. Are Gauland and Weidel likely to alter this course? We’ll be taking a closer look at the new candidate duo and their influence on the AfD platform, starting with AfD founder Gauland.


Alexander Gauland: A Focus on Education and “Self-Preservation”

12172421146_69e27f64a9_z

Alexander Gauland is a conservative journalist and politician who founded the AfD together with Konrad Adam and Bernd Lucke after the Greek financial crises and leads the party in Brandenburg. Born in Chemnitz (former East Germany) he sought and received asylum in West Germany in 1959, fleeing after high school. He then studied at the University of Marburg, where he received his doctorate. He served as the state secretary of Hesse under Walter Wallman, and is the author of various history and political books, such as Instructions for Conservatives (2002) and more recently Worry about the West? A Debate (2017).

According to FAZ, as state secretary under Wallman, Gauland traveled to Hong Kong in 1979 to bring 250 Vietnamese people who had fled from the war on boats to Hesse as refugees. This is quite a contrast to his position in recent years, where he has stated that boats containing people seeking asylum should be turned away (in violation of international law). However, in Hong Kong Gauland himself allegedly hand-picked which individuals would come to Germany, selecting highly skilled workers that he thought could easily integrate, such as watchmakers and mechanics. One could conclude from this that Gauland is not against migration, but wants Germany to welcome only people with high skills or education levels. This view is consistent with the original AfD party platform, which says “We welcome highly-skilled immigrants with a distinct willingness to integrate.”

But at some point after his mission in Hong Kong, he seems to have stopped believing that there are highly skilled or educated people among migrants to Germany.

This can be seen in a recent press release about the German school system. Gauland said:

“It is becoming increasingly clear that the vast majority of the millions of migrants who come to us are not skilled at all but illiterate and very low-educated people*…. Germany does not need non-integrable illiterates, which are left to the welfare state for a lifetime. We need highly qualified specialists, which we have to choose according to a points system ourselves. Everything else hurts our society.”

(*It is unclear what Gauland is basing his statement on, and should be noted that prior to the civil war, the adult literacy rate of Syria was 84% and primary school enrollment was over 99%, according to UNICEF.)

AfD’s newly agreed upon campaign program, which details their platform for the upcoming election in September, echoes Gauland’s doubts that any of the people in the current wave of migration can integrate. The AfD’s immigration program now starts by detailing a “demographic problem” between Africa/the Middle East and Europe, and says the aim of their immigration and asylum policy is not self-selection, but rather self-preservation.

The aim of the AfD is self-preservation, not self-destruction of our state and people. The future of Germany and Europe must be secured in the long term. We want to leave our descendants a country, which is still recognizable as our Germany.

The new platform strays away from talking about who is welcome in favor of who must be kept out, and takes a much stricter tact, echoing Gauland’s press release claiming that a majority of people seeking asylum are illiterate and unable to integrate (again, without offering evidence.)

The borders must be closed immediately. The unregulated mass immigration into our country and its social systems by mostly professionally unqualified asylum seekers is to be terminated immediately. A successful integration of all these people, including a considerable proportion of illiterates, is impossible.

The campaign platform goes on to call for an end to jus soli (birthright) citizenship and a reduced number of people with dual citizenship, both measures that would apply to people who already here, regardless of whether their parents arrived through the asylum process.

This sounds like the Gauland not of 1979 but of 2016, who evidently takes issue not only with people who have migrated but also with people whose parents have immigrated to Germany, like Jerome Boateng, the football star who was born in Berlin to a German mother and a father originally from Ghana. Talking to Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Gauland said about the German player: “People find him good as a football player. But they wouldn’t like to have a Boateng as a neighbor.” Thus even a uniquely skilled individual like Boateng is viewed as potentially not belonging (though he was born in Germany.)

The AfD campaign platform seems to have shifted slightly to allow for Gauland’s ethno-nationalist views to take precedence: migration is viewed as a threat to German identity, whether the person is highly skilled, integrated, or even born in Germany. As Gauland himself sought asylum in West Germany and managed to receive an education there and succeed to high ranks of the German government, it is worth asking why he now assumes the same trajectory is impossible for others.


Sources and Further Reading
NRW election Results, Infratest Dimap, May 2017 (German)
Sunday Questionaire, Ipsos Germany, May 2017 (German)
Federal Party Day: Voter Program agreed to and new lead candidates selected. AfD, April 2017 (German)
Meet Frauke Petry, the Donald Trump of Germany“, Newsweek, Mar. 2017.
Interview: Alexander Gauland on the topics and objectives of the AfD. HNA, Sept. 2014 (German)
Bio of Alexander Gauland. AfD (German)
Books by Gauland, Amazon.com
Searching for the Earlier Gauland, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 2016 (German)
Gauland: Send boats with migrants back, AfD, Oct. 2016 (German)
Manifesto for Germany: The Afd Party Platform, AfD
Gauland on the Migrant Quota, AfD, April 2017 (German)
Syria at a Glance, UNICEF
Campaign Program for September 2017 Elections, AfD (German)
Gauland insults Boateng, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, May 2016 (German)
Image: Gauland via Metropolico.org on Flickr, http://bit.ly/2oSPRdZ (CC by-SA 2.0)

With Macron in the Élysée, what’s next for migration in France?

Emmanuel Macron of his En Marche! party won handily in Sunday’s runoff election, defeating far-right Marine Le Pen (formerly of Front National) with a margin of 66% to 34%, among people who voted for either candidate. The number of abstentions, blank or null votes was also significant, making up around 33% of registered voters. (Read our interview on the abstention debate here.)

FrenchElectionResults

Within our previous analyses, we noted that Macron does not suggest many changes to the migration system, and did not campaign as heavily on the topic as his opponent. Now that Macron will be president of France, what should people interested in migration be watching for?

How will Macron draw people with high education or special skills to France?

In his campaign proposals on immigration, Macron promises to introduce new types of visas for professionals, scientists, and creators while streamlining existing procedures to make it easier for Masters students, artists, entrepreneurs and other highly qualified people to come to France. He even took to youtube to invite American scientists to immigrate to France to fight against climate change.

But will he have a legislature willing to extend working rights to people who immigrate for these purposes? Will they be amenable to creating new visas? And will any highly-skilled people already in the country but lacking a visa be able to apply for such benefits?

Will Macron move to detain all people seeking asylum?

Among Macron’s promises on immigration is the pledge to reduce the time for people seeking asylum to receive decisions on their applications (which also presumably reduces the time for deportations. ) He suggests that detention is the best way to speed up the process. As we explained previously, European law is pretty solidly against universal detention of people seeking asylum.

Detaining all people seeking asylum (including, presumably, children) so that their applications can be handled more quickly might infringe on international law, and Macron may be called upon to give a different justification for such a policy, or to restrict it to certain types of people (such as, e.g., people considered flight risks or threats to public security.)

It will be interesting to see if Macron comes up against European law on asylum detention if and when he attempts to reform the asylum system.

Will he face opposition from both the right and the left?

Finally, it is very much worth watching France in the run-up to their parliamentary elections in June to see whether the energy stirred up in this contentious election campaign dissipates or builds. On the right, Marine Le Pen’s base is no doubt gratified by her best result ever and a respectably solid number of supporters that has been growing in recent years. Many may have realized that there is a pool of abstainers as well as plenty of smaller parties on the right that could be potentially persuaded to join a broad-based movement based on opposition to immigration and national identity. Will Le Pen now be able to build a movement outside of the Front National and persuade voters across the right to build a unified and vocal opposition?

On the other side, many of the the 33% of people who abstained or voted blank or null are probably supporters of Jean-Luc Mélenchon and will present an additional layer of opposition to Macron’s centrist policies. With the traditional socialist party facing a historic defeat in the first round, and the far-left represented by Mélenchon’s Unsubmissive France coming off an election high, will there be space for the left to come together to oppose both Macron’s neo-liberal policies and the growing influence of the far-right? Will the mainstream socialists be absorbed by En Marche, or Unsubmissive France?

These questions will probably play out over the next few years, but we’ll get our first clues when France goes to the polls once again in June.

 

Sources and Further Reading
Official Election Results 2017, French Ministry of Interior (French)
Results of the Second Round, Ipsos France (French)
Macron v. Le Pen on Migration, Asylum, and Integration. Migration Voter.
Macron’s Campaign Platform on Immigration, En Marche (French).
Macron’s Message to American Scientists, Youtube, May. 2017.
Cover Image via Laurie Shaull on Flickr, http://bit.ly/2pxHscc (CC by-SA 2.0)

100 days in, has Trump kept his promises on migration?

By Christina Lee & Christian Jorgensen

Way back in November 2016, US President Donald Trump released a clear and enumerated list of goals to be achieved during his first 100 days in office. A number of these pertained to migration and asylum, putting down onto paper concrete promises that backed up the immigration-heavy rhetoric of his campaign.

Now officially 100 days in to Trump’s presidency, it’s clear that this list was more than mere campaign promises: quite a few of them have been attempted by the Trump administration, in exactly the wording promised. (You can read the entire list here.) Below, we break down the progress the Trump administration has made toward keeping his promises on migration and refugee policy.


√× Cancel all funding to sanctuary cities

“Sanctuary cities” is a broad term used by both pro and anti-immigrant movements to describe cities who do not prioritize local enforcement of federal immigration laws. While what this actually entails can vary widely, there are a number of cities that identify as “sanctuary cities,” and unrelated and separate to this fact, many big cities receive millions of dollars in grants and funds from the federal government. President Trump campaigned on a promise to withhold federal funds from these “sanctuary cities” if his administration does not feel they fall in line with federal immigration policies.  Given that “sanctuary city” is not an official designation but rather a vague declaration of intent that means different things to different cities, it was bound to be difficult to use this as a basis for withholding federal funding – but the President did try.

In January, Trump signed an Executive Order entitled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States“, which calls on the government to “Ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law.”  The executive order contains other provisions, but this clearly matches his promise.

The executive order was followed up in April by a letter sent by the Justice Department to nine so-called sanctuary cities, in which the cities were told that they must demonstrate their compliance with federal immigration law or lose certain federal grants.

Two of letter recipients- San Francisco and Santa Clara- immediately took legal action to challenge the and prevent the law’s enforcement, seeking a declaratory judgement that the order violates the Tenth amendment of the Constitution, which retains all powers not delegated to the federal government by the constitution to the individual states. The argument here is essentially that the federal government has the prerogative to enforce federal immigration laws, but it may not force state governments to use their resources to do so. They also challenge the order for being vague and groundless (as we mentioned, lacking a standard) and for violating due process by removing funds without an opportunity to challenge. Strangely, the Trump administration’s argument seems to be that the order is actually toothless, given that it can only apply to a very small number of millions of dollars worth of federal grants.

Even so, the court agreed with the cities. In the order granting an injunction against enforcement of the order, the ninth district wrote:

The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds. Further, the Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that the total financial incentive not be coercive. Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves.

These issues with the Executive Order are not limited to San Francisco and are likely to cause some major problems for Trump’s sanctuary city order generally. So the verdict on this promise must be: Tried and blocked.


“Begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back.”

This goal has only been partially achieved, but then, he did only say “begin.” Within Trump’s first 100 days ICE data shared with national news agencies has shown that 54,564 individuals have been deported as part of the “Operation Cross Check” roundup. However, it should be noted that only 30,664 are individuals with a criminal record.  This number obviously does not include the many individuals currently going through deportation proceedings so it could be that the number is nearing 2 million.

So although ICE is apparently targeting non-criminal persons with irregular status for deportation and not only people with criminal records, this promise can be marked as: in progress.


×√“Suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.”

This promise appears to predict the so-called “Muslim Ban,” which was passed but has been blocked by a federal appeals court in Hawaii. As we pointed out back in January, this was always going to be a very difficult promise to keep, given the multiple complications involved in enshrining religious discrimination into immigration law. The Trump administration ended up opting for a ban based on countries (which we predicted was more likely) and faced the problem we thought he might: by only banning a handful of majority-Muslim countries, his ban appeared arbitrary and not serving a compelling national security interest. If he had selected the top countries who had produced terrorism he would have included some non-Muslim majority countries (like Belgium) or important US allies like Saudi Arabia. By avoiding both these pitfalls, he reinforced the conclusion that the ban was necessary for political and discriminatory reasons, rather than for security the of American citizens. Thus it failed to pass muster and was blocked by several judges, with a renewed and reworded version being blocked indefinitely by the federal district court of Hawaii.

So the Muslim ban is another promise that was: tried and blocked.


×√ End Illegal Immigration Act Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.

This act, as worded, has not been passed, but several of the provisions within have been discussed. As we wrote about in April, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has introduced new procedures and guidance to make re-entry more difficult and to make enforcement of immigration rules stricter across the country. The main provision discussed being the wall along the U.S.’ southern border with Mexico that Trump touted as a top priority during the 2016 campaign. According to top Republicans and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

The main provision discussed above is, of course, the wall along the U.S.’ southern border with Mexico, which Trump touted as a top priority during the 2016 campaign. In January, Trump signed an executive order (“Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements“) calling for the “immediate construction” of a wall along the border with Mexico.

According to top Republicans and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) the wall will cost up to $15 billion dollars, however, Congress has currently not agreed on any budgetary amount that they are willing to spend, and Mexico is apparently unwilling to fulfill Trump’s promise that they would pay for it. In a televised address to the nation in January, Mexican President Nieto denied that Mexico would fund the proposed wall, saying “I’ve said time and again; Mexico won’t pay for any wall.”

In April President Trump, in order to keep his promise of reforming visa rules, signed an executive order, called the “Buy American, Hire American” law, that works to reform the HB1 visa program. An HB1 is a visa program that allows companies to hire workers from other countries with certain specialties usually focused in the areas of science and technology. Although the executive order has not currently changed the HB1 visa, what it has done is called for various federal agencies to start creating reforms to the HB1 process. President Trump believes this will lead to firms being forced to “Hire American” though of course it is yet to be seen if this will be the case.

So for this promise, Trump’s progress must be judged as: partially in progress, partially not attempted.


X Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military ….. establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values.

This was from the outset a vague promise that didn’t have much hope of being passed. After all, it would require America to have a defined set of values outside of the Constitution, the main thrust of which is to allow for different values. We have not yet heard any news of new guidelines to customs and border control to quiz people on values and support of American people, so this must be considered: not attempted.


Conclusions: Despite attempts, Trump is far from his immigration goals, and getting further

A majority of people who voted for Trump (64%) identified immigration as the most important issue in the 2016 election and were likely gratified to see Trump making immigration reform a centerpiece of his campaign. As his success rate here shows, however, Trump may have overpromised on what he could achieve in a number of areas. It’s unclear whether Trump regarded these promises as achievable, but the presence in his cabinet of hardline anti-immigrant activists suggests that advisors may have pushed him to embrace unrealistic goals that were on their wishlist for years, but had little chance of success.

When it comes to immigration, the question for people supporting the President has to be: is it enough to try and fail or are the results what really matter?

Sources and Further Reading
Donald Trump’s Promises for the First 100 Days, NPR, November 2016.
Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, White House, Jan. 2017
Sanctuary Jurisdiction Cases, USDC for Northern District of California (PDFs of order available to download.)
Justice Department Warns Sanctuary Cities, NPR, April 2017.
ICE data shows half of immigrant arrested in raids had traffic convictions or no record, Washington Post, April 2017.
Will Trump go forward with a “Muslim Ban” and if so, how? Migration Voter, Jan. 2017.
Hawaii Court Order blocking Muslim Ban, Vox (PDF) Mar. 2017
Is the ‘Trump Era’ of Immigration Enforcement starting to take shape? Migration Voter, April 2017
Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, White House, Jan. 2017
McConnell: Here’s how much the border wall will probably cost, Business Insider (video), Jan. 2017.
Mexico: We will not pay for the border wall. BBC (video), Jan. 2017.
Buy American, Hire American Executive Order, White House, April 2017.
Here’s an H1-B Visa, and Here Is How Trump Wants to Change It, Fortune, April 2017.
Border Wall Cost
Background on ICE statistics (More)
2016 US Presidential Election Exit Polls via the New York Times.
COVER IMAGE via Gage Skidmore ON FLICKR, http://bit.ly/2pmmXl5 (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Macron v. Le Pen on Immigration, Asylum and Integration

After lots of excitement in the final weeks leading up to the French election, Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen will proceed to the runoff, a result that was widely predicted and yet produced significant surprise when it actually came to be, given the current distrust in the accuracy of polls.

When it comes to immigration, the differences between the top two candidates are significant, although they are not as diametrically opposed to one another as, say, Le Pen and Jean-Luc Melenchon. While Le Pen offers a vision of a dramatically altered immigration regime for France, Macron essentially makes some measured tweaks to the status quo, focused on making the country a more attractive immigration destination for certain types of people and making the asylum process more efficient. Let’s see where the candidates come down on some of the big questions surrounding immigration, asylum, and integration.

Immigration: Invite more students and skilled labor, or reduce across the board?

Le Pen’s overall approach to migration is restrictive, although she doesn’t eradicate it totally as she has suggested in some speeches. She promises to reduce legal immigration to a total of 10,000 people per year, and change the law to restrict family reunification and acquisition of citizenship through marriage or birth in France. She also wants to crack down on irregular as well as EU immigration by leaving the Schengen zone and reestablishing borders, while bolstering border forces and customs agents.

Macron does not get into many specifics about his intentions on all forms of legal immigration, leaving us to assume that he wants to maintain the law as it stands on issues like the acquisition of citizenship and family reunification. (In fact, he asserts that “fantasies” about family reunification are overblown: only 12,000 received family reunification visas in 2015, and of these the majority received them under international rather than domestic legal commitments.)

Instead, Macron focuses on students and other types of “knowledge” migration. He would introduce new types of visas for professionals, scientists, and creators while streamlining existing procedures to make it easier for Masters students, artists, entrepreneurs and other highly qualified people to come to France.  Once they get there, he also wants to make it easier for them to access the labor market.

Asylum: Incredibly restricted, or restricted?

Both Le Pen and Macron in some way want to bolster the existing asylum regime to make it faster (and easier to deport people who do not receive asylum.) Le Pen would recruit 6,000 new border officers over five years, alter the asylum system to only take place in French consulates but not on French territory, and expel everyone else. (As we have noted, as stated these two last points likely violate French domestic and international obligations.)

Macron advocates for a “dignified” system that is nevertheless “inflexible” with people who are not entitled to remain. This inflexibility is reflected in a much faster decision process: decisions on asylum applications should be reached in 8 weeks (it currently averages around 11 months) and judgments on appeals should take 6-8 weeks. In this same proposal, Macron implies (without stating outright) that he prefers people seeking asylum to remain in detention to help speed up the process.

Having the applicants on site greatly reduces the processing time (removal of unavailability and sickness, which involves one quarter of the cases, removal of travel costs) and eliminates the time and notification disputes.

This notion could be problematic under European and international law, so here we need a little detour to briefly discuss the legality of mass detention of people seeking asylum.

As the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) lays out in their Detention Guidelines, detention is an extraordinary measure that must be proscribed by law and justified by some legitimate purpose, not merely for convenience in speeding up asylum application proceedings.

Detention can only be exceptionally resorted to for a legitimate purpose. Without such a purpose, detention will be considered arbitrary, even if entry was illegal.

The Council of Europe concurs, saying in a recommendation on the subject of detention that people seeking asylum, although non-citizens, are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights: “no one shall be deprived of his liberty save in exceptional cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, as stipulated by Article 5.1.b. and f. of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

A recent case at the European Court of Justice (2016) reiterates these principles and applies them directly to EU member states like France, narrowing the scope of justification for the detention of people seeking asylum to cases where the individual him or herself (and not just his or her status) presents a danger to public order or national security. Below, part of the Court’s ruling from JN v. Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie:

“…keeping an applicant in detention under point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Directive 2013/33 is, in view of the requirement of necessity, justified on the ground of a threat to national security or public order only if the applicant’s individual conduct represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat, affecting a fundamental interest of society or the internal or external security of the Member State concerned.”

Detaining all people seeking asylum (including, presumably, children) so that their applications can be handled more quickly might infringe on international law, and Macron may be called upon to give a different justification for such a policy, or to restrict it to certain types of people (such as, e.g., people considered flight risks or threats to public security.)

Integration: Everybody just speak French

One place where Le Pen and Macron both concur is on the need of newcomers and nationals to learn French. Macron would encourage this by giving every newcomer to France the “entitlement” to learn French to the level of B1. In practical terms though, this isn’t so much a right as a requirement, since he proposes making this language acquisition a condition of a residence permit.

Le Pen rejects the concepts of multiculturalism and prefers the standard of “assimilation” over integration. To this end, she wants to strengthen ties with French-speaking communities across the world, ensure that French is spoken in universities, and “ensure primary schools spend half their teaching time on teaching spoken and written French.”

An imbalance in the candidates’ focus

In sum, the major difference between Le Pen and Macron is their focus. Le Pen has made restricting immigration and asylum one of the cornerstones of her campaign, while Macron is far more focused on economic and social considerations. Will his lack of focus cost him at the polls? Or will French people reject the kinds of radical, across the board changes that Le Pen is running on? We will find out in two weeks.

Sources and Further Reading
Marine Le Pen’s 144 Presidential Commitments (English) (PDF)
Emmanuel Macron’s Immigration and Asylum Proposals (French)
Detention Guidelines. UNCHR, 2012.
Rec(2003)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on measures of detention of asylum seeker. Council of Europe, 2003.
J. N. v Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie Judgment, Court of Justice of the European Union, 2016.
Detention of Asylum Seekers: The First CJEU Judgment -Steve Peers on EU Law Analysis Blog.
Images: Macron via Ville de Nevers on Flickr, http://bit.ly/2plFT1E, (CC by NC-SA-2.0), Le Pen via Blandine Le Cain http://bit.ly/2qa7K4Q (CC by 2.0)

A radical departure? Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s Party on Migration and Asylum

With mere days until the first round of the French presidential election, the polls have evened out to the extent that it looks a four-way race (within the margin of error), with centrist Emmanuel Macron taking a narrow lead and closely followed by far-right Marine Le Pen, center-right Francois Fillon, and far-left Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Sunday’s vote will most likely narrow down the race to two candidates, who will face off in a runoff election two weeks later.

There is an upside to the fact that the election is so wide open: practically the entire range of possible views on migration are represented! This is unusual, especially in comparison to the more common scene: candidates who say the same thing on migration policy in different ways, while heavily favoring the status quo.

We’ve already summarized where the major candidates stand on migration and asylum, and examined Le Pen more closely, as she has campaigned continuously and heavily on the theme of restricting immigration. But far-left candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon deserves a closer look as well. He and his brand-new party, Unsubmissive France, have been steadily gaining in the run-up to the election, and his proposals on immigration would present as much of a departure from current French policy as Le Pen’s.

The Business of Xenophobia

In Unsubmissive France’s in-depth explanation of their migration policy, (not written by Mélenchon himself, we should note) the authors offer an anti-capitalist critique of the European migration crisis. The European Union, by creating a migration policy based on borders and security have incentivized both the exploitation of migrants and the fear of them, they write.

“…[S]ecurity policies lead to the development of a “business” of fear and xenophobia by giving the transnationals of the security industry the opportunity to benefit from a new financial windfall at European level. These policies keep migrants in a state of permanent insecurity, in particular encouraging them to put their available work force of employers who want to benefit from exploitable labor, and place them at an inability to meet their most basic rights.”

Given this diagnosis of the problem, the party proposes numerous EU-wide policies that would solve it: work for peace and avoid military deployments, end the imposition of unfair trade deals that destabilize other countries and regions, work on adequate development and climate change policy that will make home countries more livable, and people less ready to leave them for Europe.

These policies have the advantage of being unique among French candidates and speaking to larger global and economic issues. A major downside is that they are not policies that can be implemented by Mélenchon if elected. He can work to promote these views at the European level, but as one member state, even an influential one, he cannot meaningfully promise voters the ability to enact an entirely new EU security or trade policy (and cannot accomplish these by threatening to leave.) In that sense, these proposals are unrealistic, but give an idea of the general worldview of the party: anti-capitalist, pacifist, labor-oriented.

Unraveling migration laws and trade agreements

The party goes on to elaborate a plan that would fundamentally alter the legal situation of migrants in France, from acquisition of citizenship to family reunification to asylum. Many of the proposals aim to erase restrictions now existing, while others propose new laws or policies.

For instance, the party calls for France to:

  • Decriminalize illegal residence and end detention of immigrants, especially children
  • Break with European directives and repeal the successive laws that aimed to restrict the right of asylum in France,
  • End free trade agreements and replace with protectionist solidarity

In effect, Melenchon is calling for “amnesty” for undocumented migrants and for authorities to stop enforcing immigration laws. This could, theoretically, be achieved but would require the dismantling of an entire system created to apprehend, detain, and deport undocumented migrants, which employs many people and is connected to numerous criminal and civil code provisions. It would no doubt create some upheaval and be difficult to get past the legislature.

As for the idea to break with European directives, this could be less tricky, depending on how it is operated. Many European directives applying to asylum regulate “minimum standards” for the asylum process in member states. In other words, they regulate the least the state can do in certain situation but do not prevent that they do more. In fact, they deliberately allow for this possibility. For instance, the 2013 EU Asylum Directive in article 5 states “Member States may introduce or retain more favourable standards on procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, insofar as those standards are compatible with this Directive.” So if Melenchon “breaks” with EU directives in a way that offer more protection to asylum seekers, it will probably not be a legal problem at the European level.

Ending free trade agreements unilaterally, on the other hand, will. The EU generally negotiates as a block on trade agreements and is currently implementing deals with numerous countries and regions, such as one with West Africa, East Africa, and Canada. Could France withdraw from these and replace them with “solidarity” or development schemes?

The answer is probably no, unless they withdraw from the EU as Britain plans to do. Trade policy is an area that is firmly within the scope of exclusive EU competences- meaning only the European Commission can negotiate trade deals with other countries or regions, and individual member states can’t alter these or exit them. This also applies to foreign direct investment. So without withdrawing from the EU customs union more generally, which as Brexit has shown is no small undertaking, France will probably not easily extricate itself from EU trade policy.

Granting More Rights

Unsubmissive France has more in their program than just repealing laws and treaties. They also have some positive legal proposals with ranging levels of realism:

  • Restore jus soli citizenship rights for people born in France
  • Allow asylum seekers to work while they wait for their cases to be reviewed
  • Allow for “flexible” return scenarious, with fluidity between France and other countries and ability to return elsewhere without losing residence rights

“Our collective mission is to respect the human dignity of migrants and their fundamental right to family life,” Unsubmissive France writes, and their policy proposals support this migrant-centered mission and present new ideas that make France more welcoming both to new immigrants and for people already living in France who are not citizens. 

The introduction of jus soli citizenship would make France the first country in Europe to have an US-style citizenship law, wherein being born in France entitles a child to automatic citizenship. This idea, in combination with decriminalization of undocumented migrants, would mean that multi-generation families without residence rights would be a thing of the past. This proposal would represent an extension of the form of jus soli citizenship already in place under the French civil code, which was detailed in our article on Le Pen (who, in contrast, wishes to eradicate Jus soli citizenship.)

The priority of workers rights and the value that UF places on work is visible from policies granting work permission to asylum seekers and people who wish to return to other countries for temporary periods to work. These promises are a little vague, and one can’t help but wonder whether proposals like these would encounter resistance from powerful French labor unions. But as with many of these proposals: its usually easier under the law to give new rights than to take them away.

Radical, and Sometimes Unrealistic

Overall,  Melenchon’s party proposes radical changes to the status of migrant under the French system that could be difficult to get through the legislature, but overall comport with their own constitution and international commitments. They propose ideas that would be a major change from how things are done now, but do not necessarily break with French values as embodied in the constitution- in many cases they just extend them further. 

Where UF’s plans are weakest are when they refer to EU-wide activities, like trade. Its not impossible for France to follow Britain out of the EU in order not to be bound by EU-wide trade agreements and other commitments, but this would make it far more difficult too simultaneously influence EU policy on distribution of asylum seekers or military engagements in other countries. And organizing a “Frexit” referendum would require Melenchon to spend valuable political capital that could otherwise be used to reorganize immigration law in the way he proposes.

For pro-immigrant voters, Melenchon’s policies have lots of appeal. But voters will have to weigh this against the overwhelming ambitiousness of UF’s plans, to consider whether one candidate can really achieve so many massive changes at the same time without setting priorities.

Sources and Further Reading
Respect Migrants, Regulate the Causes of Migration. L’Avenir en Commun, Migration Program of Unsubmissive France (in French.)
How France’s Presidential Election could break- or make- the EU. The Guardian. (April 2017)
DIRECTIVE 2013/32/EU (Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection). Official Journal of the European Union. (2013)
The EU’s Bilateral Trade and Investment Agreements- Where are we? European Commission (2013).
Trade- overview. European Commission website.
What is Trade Policy? European Commission website.
Le Pen’s Promises on Immigration and Asylum: A Closer Look. Migration Voter (April 2017)
Cover image via Pierre-Selim on Flickr, http://bit.ly/2pYjgzr. (CC by-SA 2.0)

Holocaust revisionist ‘gaffes’ hide policies that target both Jews and Muslims

US White House press secretary Sean Spicer has been the target of a media firestorm since his unfortunate remarks at a press briefing last week comparing Assad to Hitler, with Hitler coming out favorably. 

“We didn’t use chemical weapons in World War Two. You had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons”…. “I think when you come to sarin gas, he was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing.”

(He later apologized.)

The remarks were clearly inaccurate, given that Hitler indeed used chemical weapons and deployed them against his own people. But whether or not Spicer was aware of that and simply misspoke, or is poorly informed on the history surrounding World War II, it provoked us at Migration Voter to reflect on recent similar “gaffes” from far-right politicians regarding the Holocaust.

For instance, Front National’s Le Pen said during an event with Le Figaro in April:

I think France isn’t responsible for the Vel d’Hiv…. I think that, in general, if there are people responsible, it is those who were in power at the time. It is not France.”

Vel d’Hiv is the shorthand for an event that occurred during the Holocaust when 13,152 French Jews were rounded up by French police at the direction of the Nazis and sent to Auschwitz, where they were murdered. France has taken responsibility for the atrocity in the past, but Le Pen implied this was hurting French pride, saying “France has been mired in people’s minds for years.”

And Germany’s far-right Euroskeptic party Alternative für Deutschland attracted a great deal of negative press following a speech in January by state leader of Thuringia Björn Höcke in which he discussed Germany’s dealing with their role in the Holocaust, referring to the Memorial to the Murdered Jews in central Berlin as “a monument of shame.”

“We Germans… are the only people in the world who have planted a monument of shame in the heart of their capital city.” “We do not need any more dead rites in this country. … We no longer need hollow phrases in this country, we need a living culture of remembrance, which brings us first and foremost into contact with the great achievements of our ancestors.”

One of the reasons why the press has seized on these comments is because they supposedly give the lie to the strong stances these parties have each taken against anti-Semitism. These promises of being pro-Jewish and against forms of anti-Semitism have been coupled with a focus on casting Muslims, especially Muslim immigrants, as a threat both to Jews and to the nations in general.

  • Marine Le Pen of the Front National has promised numerous actions to target what she calls “Islamic fundamentalism”, proposing policies targeting mosques and Muslims (such as banning the hijab.) On the other hand, she has made conscious efforts to reach out to the Jewish community, banning anti-Semitic members of her party and sending FN party secretary Nicolas Bay on a goodwill trip to Israel. While there, Bay was interviewed by Haaretz (article behind paywall, but see Breitbart), where he made FN’s position clear: “[French Jews] understand that we’re the only ones who are clearly pointing to the source of the anti-Semitic attacks – the Islamists. Marine Le Pen has already said that the National Front is French Jewish citizens’ shield against these attacks.”
  • AfD takes a similarly strong stance against Muslims and immigrants from Muslim majority countries, stating in their program that “Islam does not belong to Germany” and introducing numerous policies against Muslim religious dress and immigration to Germany, while stating “ The AfD does not concur with the view which regards the criticism of Islam as islamophobic or being derogatory.” They have also spoken out often against anti-Semitism, however. For instance, in a press release in 2016 their Federal Councilor wrote, “The thought of what many of the Muslim immigrants bring along is characterized by anti-Semitism and the rejection of Western values…. Anti-Semitism must have no place in Germany. Many Muslims are still unaware of this and represent a danger to our values and our community.”

In short, despite statements that could be construed as Holocaust revisionism, the officials of the Front National and AfD have consistently been outspoken against anti-Semitism, claiming that their policies, by excluding Muslims and fighting “Islamism”, will be the best safeguard for Jews in their countries.

The complication with this argument, that the press has so far failed to discuss as far as we know, is that a large number of the policies aimed at excluding Muslim religious practices and Muslim immigrants would inevitably also target Jews, as well as other religious minority groups. 

Policies Targeting the Muslim Community that would affect the Jewish Community

Front National

Le Pen, for instance, promises to abolish dual citizenship (see presidential commitment number 27) for non-European holders of two passports. While this would no doubt affect a large population of French people with dual citizenship from Muslim-majority countries, she has stated that it would apply to Israelis as well. (Note, however, that we doubt this policy can go through as worded.)

In another example, Le Pen promises under the banner “Eradicate Terror and Break Up Islamic Fundamentalist Networks” that she will “ban foreign funding of places of worship and their personnel.” Although she explicitly mentions Islam in the title, her language clearly indicates (“places of worship”) this would apply to synagogues and Jewish religious activities (as well as other religious groups, presumably.)

Even more obviously, in her plan “to defend French unity and the national identity” Le Pen proposes constitutional and policy changes that would certainly apply to Jews, Muslims, and any other minority group.

Capture

It is difficult to parse what consequences these changes might have for religious minorities, but it would seem to change their constitutional status and ability to retain their own culture, if it differs from the majority culture. Commitment number 97 is particularly interesting, given Le Pen’s comments on France’s role in the Holocaust.

Additionally, Le Pen and FN have advocated for the elimination of any special religious dietary options in French public schools. In a 2014 interview, Le Pen outlined her position on the issue.

“We will accept no religious requirements in the school lunch menus,” Mrs. Le Pen told RTL radio. “There is no reason for religion [dietary options] to enter into the public sphere.”

This would eliminate any halal but also any kosher options. Therefore, if something banned by both Islam and Judaism – such as pork – was on the menu for that day, then pork is what Muslim and Jewish students would also be served. 

Alternative für Deutschland

In zeroing in on policies they hope will fortify and promote German “high culture” (Leitkultur) and move away from multiculturalism, AfD also promotes ideas that would harm German Jews as collateral damage in their fight against Muslims. For instance, in their platform (pg. 46), they state that German culture is composed of three main sources: Christianity, “scientific and humanistic culture” and Roman law, and that multiculturalism poses “a serious threat to social peace and the survival of the nation-state as a cultural unit”. Judaism clearly lies outside of their three main pillars of German society- does it also form a threat that must be protected against?

Capture

Under the section “End foreign financing of mosques” there are some additional provisions that would be problematic for the Jewish community. AfD calls for a ban on foreign financing of mosques, the banning of any language other than German spoke during religious services, and for imams to get government permission before preaching in Germany. It is difficult to see how these laws could comport with the German constitution generally, but if they would they would necessarily have to apply to all religious groups. This would disproportionately impact Jewish communities as it would ban foreign (such as Israeli or American) donations to synagogues, ban speaking Hebrew, and require visiting rabbis to get permission. German Christian congregations are primarily German-funded, speak primarily German, and are led primarily by German priests, necessarily making the impact of such policies far stricter on religious minorities and immigrant groups.

Again, its worth noting that many of these policies, as stated in their party program, are completely in contradiction with German domestic law and European Union law. However, whether or not they can be achieved, they allow insight into the stated aims and goals of the party.

Why analyze “gaffes” when the policies are clear?

Like with Sean Spicer’s remarks, the Holocaust revisionist statements by Le Pen and Höcke sparked minor scandals and caused many people to ask: were these accidental gaffes, or intentional anti-Semitic messages to voters?

In the case of the FN and AfD, it isn’t necessary to get at the innermost hearts and minds of the party elite via their speeches, because we have access to their direct, stated goals and programs.

If voters are worried about anti-Semitism in populist parties out of concern for its implications for the Jewish community if these parties were to come to power, it is very clearly worth understanding that many of the policies that are meant to target Muslims will harshly affect Jews as well as other minority religious groups, especially those with numerous co-religionists in other countries. Laws restricting the ability to dress a certain way, eat a certain diet or connect with (and fundraise from) people in other countries will evenly impact any person of faith connected to a minority religious group.

Voters who are concerned about anti-Semitism because of the historical context of what happens when a minority religious group is demonized and cast as a threat to the people and their national identity do not need to look too far to see that these parties already do precisely this with Muslims. For some people, that’s part of their appeal. For others, it may be a good reason to weigh their vote carefully.

 

Sources and Further Reading
Sean Spicer apologizes for gaffe” The Guardian, April 2017
Le Pen reopens old wounds” Reuters, April 2017
For Le Pen, France is not responsible for Vel’d’Hiv” Le Figaro, April 2017 (in French)
Vel’d’Hiv Roundup, Wikipedia.org
Chirac admits to France’s Atrocities During WW2 (video), Associated Press (1995)
Transcript of Höcke’s Speech in Dresden, Der Taggespiegel, (Jan. 2017) (in German)
144 Presidential Commitments (PDF), Front National 2017
‘We Just Want to Preserve Our Identity – Like Israel and Trump,’ Le Pen Party Official Tells Haaretz.” Haaretz (Jan. 2017)
French populists visit Israel to build relations“. Breitbart (Jan. 2017)
Manifesto for Germany- AFD party program (PDF), AFD 2017
Pazderski: Many immigrants bring along their anti-Semitic worldview. AFD Press Release (June 2016)
Le Pen Calls to Ban Special Dietary Restrictions, The Telegraph, (April 2014)
Cover image: Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin. Via Olly Coffey on Flickr, http://bit.ly/2nY8ahi (CC by-NC 2.0)

Is the “Trump era” of immigration policy starting to take shape?

Someone who voted for US President Donald Trump on the basis of his promises to get tough on immigrants and refugees could be forgiven for being a bit disappointed some 80 days into his administration. Mexico does not seem any closer to paying for a wall, the “Muslim ban” failed to pass legal muster (as MigrationVoter predicted), and Trump seems to have abandoned, at least for the moment, promises to crack down on funding for sanctuary cities and overturn DACA. (This last one is a real tough one to swallow for anti-immigration advocates. As Mark Krikorian of Center for Immigration Studies writes on his blog, he expected to be disappointed, but not “for Trump to break an explicit promise regarding his headline issue on the administration’s first business day in office.”)

Past disappointments aside, yesterday gave some signs to advocates against immigration that Trump has not abandoned all of his anti-immigrant promises.

First, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, himself a well-known advocate of restrictive immigration policies during his senate years, delivered a speech to border enforcement in Arizona intended to outline coming changes to the immigration and border enforcement system.

For those that continue to seek improper and illegal entry into this country, be forewarned: This is a new era. This is the Trump era. The lawlessness, the abdication of the duty to enforce our immigration laws and the catch and release practices of old are over.

Sessions announced two types of changes: 1) new recommendations to federal prosecutors mandating prioritization of certain types of crimes, 2) reforms to immigration courts.

New Recommendations to Federal Prosecutors

The new recommendations will require federal prosecutors to consider filing additional criminal charges against undocumented immigrants they capture, including: transportation or harboring of immigrants, fraud and aggravated identity theft (if they uncover forged identity documents) assault on a federal officer, and felony re-entry.

⇒ So what does this really mean? Sessions is essentially instructing federal prosecutors to stack charges against undocumented immigrants as high as possible. If any felony charges stick, that person will be labeled a criminal illegal alien, which as we know, is the group this administration has promised to target for deportation. By pushing for more felony convictions, they widen the number of people who can be considered “criminal aliens” and can make it more difficult or impossible for these people to ever return to the US.

Since these are recommendations, it is obviously at the discretion of prosecutors to push for multiple counts against undocumented migrants in their jurisdiction (and each count takes time and evidence to back up and litigate.) So to ensure that no prosecutors are tempted to ignore these guidelines out of disinterest or convenience, the DOJ has thrown in an additional component: all 94 district attorney’s offices (not just those from border areas) must now appoint a Border Security Coordinator – to headline the efforts against undocumented immigrants. If this is someone’s entire job, they are certainly more likely to prioritize the DOJ’s recommendations and try to convict undocumented immigrants of as any crimes as possible.

Changes to Immigration Court

Sessions announced a new streamlined procedure to appoint more federal judges to immigration benches, with the goal of hiring 50 this year and 75 next year to help reduce the backlog of immigration cases. In addition, all immigrants apprehended at the border will now automatically be sent to detention centers, where judges will directly come to them to decide their fates. For this, he promises to hire 25 new judges. (Note: This backs up an earlier memorandum from Department of Homeland Security calling for detention for all apprehended immigrants and more judges and officers, but it still isn’t clear whether this changes Trump’s federal hiring freeze for other kinds of supporting employees judges may need.)

⇒ So what does this really mean? People on both sides of the immigration debate agree that there is a need for a higher number of qualified immigration judges to ensure that people in immigration detention and awaiting decisions on asylum claims can have their claims adjudicated more efficiently. A “streamlined” procedure for hiring raises eyebrows, in that some may question whether it will be possible to get the best-qualified candidates to judge incredibly complex immigration cases in an abbreviated procedure. Given that under the existing system judges have faced criticism in the past, who knows whether or not this will be a downgrade. We’ll have to wait and see on that one.

The potentially more interesting aspect is the 25 new detention center judges. Unlike criminal charges, immigration offenses do not typically entitle the accused to a lawyer. Having adjudication take place directly at the detention center decreases the likelihood of an individual being aware of their rights, such as the possibility of seeking asylum or applying for temporary protection or a special visa (like Special Immigrant Juvenile Status.)

It also raises concerns about the circumstances of detention. Automatic detention for everyone would presumably include children, and there is some question to the legality of this under international law (see, for instance, here and here.)

Newcomers to DHS from the Anti-Immigrant Community

Aside from Sessions’ very clear statements yesterday in Arizona, we received another hint this week at the Trump administration’s intentions to get tough on immigration. The Department of Homeland Security hired two high-profile advisors linked to the group FAIR and think tank Center for Immigration Studies. Both organizations were founded by the far-right anti-immigration activist John Tanton, and support policies like an end to birthright citizenship and heavily reduced legal immigration, as well as much stricter enforcement of existing laws.

According to the DHS spokesman, as reported by CNN Jon Feere, formerly of CIS, has been hired as an advisor to the director of ICE. Over at Customs and Border Protection, Julie Kirchner, the former executive director of FAIR, has been hired as an advisor to the commissioner. We’ll take a deeper look at the implications of these choices later in the week, but for now its worth noting that Trump’s once stalled plans on immigration seem to be moving along once more, and their direction is quite clear.

Sources and Further Reading
Injunction against Travel Ban- Granted (Hawaii et al v. Trump) US District Court of Hawaii, March 2017
Foreign Minister said Mexico not paying for wall- Mark Rubio on ABC NEWS, April 2017
Sanctuary City list on hold – Washington Times, April 2017
Declined Detainer Outcome Report- Suspended, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Will Trump go forward with a Muslim Ban, and if so, how?” MV, Jan 2017
Is Trump going to cancel DACA or not? Mark Krikorian, CIS, Jan 2017
Sessions on immigration– OntheIssues.org
Full remarks of Attorney General Sessions, US Dept. of Justice, April 2017
DHS Memo on Implementing Border and Enforcement Policies, DHS, Feb. 2017
Presidential Memorandum Regarding Hiring Freeze, White House, Jan. 2017
Hard-line anti-illegal immigration advocates hired at 2 federal agencies, CNN, April 2017
(Image via Gage Skidmore on Flickr, http://bit.ly/2oXE0e8, (CC by SA 2.0)

Le Pen’s Promises on Citizenship and Asylum: A Closer Look

By Christian Jorgensen

Leading French presidential candidate for the far-right Front National party Marine Le Pen is running on a platform that she says will “free France”, and she has made 144-commitments that she promises will do just that. There are three that revolve around the topics of citizenship and asylum that deserve a closer look into what their impact on migrants and policy could be.

Promise 28: To return to the original spirit of the right of asylum which, furthermore, will only be granted after the filing of an application in French Embassies or Consulates in the countries of origin, or bordering countries.

In promise 28 of her 144 Presidential Commitments, Le Pen advocates a “return to the original spirit of asylum.” Expanding on that, she hopes to change the refugee application process, to only accept asylum applications from outside of France: in French embassies or consulates in the countries of origin, or in bordering countries. Looking at the 1951 Refugee convention, of which France is founding member, and French domestic law, Le Pen’s “return” may not be as easy to implement as she and the Front National may think.

Foremost, the Refugee Convention builds on Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)which recognises the right of individuals to seek asylum from persecution. Building on this right, The Refugee Convention of 1951 defines a refugee thusly:

”As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

The key point here that Le Pen should be aware of is that a refugee is an individual who has been forced to flee his or her country of origin and most likely cannot return home or is afraid to do so. Le Pen’s proposal to require asylum to be requested in countries of origin is completely contrary to what the law states about asylum.  If an individual is forced to flee out of fear for their life, it is very unlikely that they will be able to request asylum at a French embassy in their own country.

Going deeper one can look at France’s own constitutional law on the issue. French law dating back to the preamble to the constitution of 27 October 1947, “[a]ny man persecuted in virtue of his actions in favor of liberty may claim the right of asylum upon the territories of the Republic.” This was again strengthened in 1993 in a report by the Constitutional Council, “asylum is a [French] constitutional right for persons who qualify for it” (emphasis mine.) Furthermore, the Constitutional Council found that asylum applicants have the right to reside in France until their asylum request has been processed and decided upon, and those who qualify for asylum must be allowed to stay in France. Le Pen’s promise requiring asylum seekers to file their requests overseas contradicts not only international law but French constitutional law as well.

Additionally, there is some confusion in the language she chooses to use. In response to her claim “to return to the original spirit of asylum,” what does she exactly mean? In 1951, as the United Nations led by France and the other major world powers sat at the table, they drafted the 1951 Refugee Convention to create a set of rules that address the refugee issue that had been created by WWII. Thus, France along with the other UN leaders created the original spirit of asylum. This spirit was one that emphasized the principle of non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. One could argue that Le Pen’s plan to return to the original spirit is completely contrary to what the original spirit of what modern asylum law is, perhaps she would like to return to the days of cathedral sanctuary?

Through a legal lens it is highly unlikely that promise 28 will be able to be kept entirely, as there are many aspects of international and French law that Le Pen seems to disregard.

Promise 27 To abolish jus soli (right of the soil): it will only be possible to acquire French nationality by filiation or naturalisation, the conditions for which will be tightened. To abolish dual nationality for non-Europeans.

Le Pen has made her 27th commitment to completely change the system in which French nationality is acquired and change the rules for all individuals who currently hold dual-citizenship.  With the jus soli legislation of the current French Civil Code, French citizenship can be obtained by individuals born in France in four ways:

  1. At age 18 if individual has held French residency for five years since the age 11;
  2. Between the ages of 16 and 18 upon request by the child and if the individual has been a resident of France for at least 5 years since age 11
  3. Between the ages of 13 and 16 upon the request of the child’s parents and if the individual has been a resident of France for at least 5 years since age 8.
  4. Immediately at birth, if the child is stateless

Now, per Le Pen and the Front National leaders, they want to abolish all of it. First it should be noted that to keep this promise Le Pen would need to put forth an amendment to the current French Civil Code and get this approved by the French National Assembly. With the current makeup of the French National Assembly, which is controlled by the Socialists, it is very unlikely that such a measure would pass without much contention.

The real question is the legality of the denial of jus soli citizenship for those born in France who would otherwise be born stateless. Is this legal, considering that jus soli is a safeguard against statelessness? There is an international treaty, the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness that may lead to Le Pen violating numerous areas of international law. It should first be noted that France has signed the 1961 convention but has yet to ratify it. However, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is considered by many states and international bodies to be customary international law (see ICJ, Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Case), states that being a signatory alone, “creates an obligation to refrain, in good faith, from acts that would defeat the object and the purpose of the treaty.” Therefore, as a signatory to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, France is bound to not purposefully do anything that violates the 1961 convention, which eliminating jus soli citizenship at birth for stateless individuals arguably would. It could violate Article 1(1) and Article 1(4) of the 1961 convention. Article 1(1), the first and most important article, binds states to grant citizenship to persons, otherwise stateless, born in their territory.  This may be in any matter they seem fit within their national law, but a path to citizenship must be available to those stateless individuals born on their territory. Article 1(4) requires states to give nationality to a person, otherwise stateless, who is legally precluded from assuming his/her birth of nationality.  This could extend for example to individuals born to Jordanian national single mothers to receive French citizenship, since Jordanian citizenship cannot be maternally inherited.

The last part of Le Pen’s 27th promise is that dual-citizenship would be removed from all Non-European French-naturalized-citizens.  She explains further, this would allow naturalized French citizens with dual-citizenship in other EU countries and even non-EU European countries such as Russia to keep their dual-citizenship but would require naturalized French citizens such as French-Israelis or French-Americans to choose one citizenship over the other. The inclusion of Russia begs the question of who is implied by “European” in Le Pen’s definition. Russia is not in the EU, but is in the Council of Europe and continental Europe- as are Turkey and Azerbaijan. Would this mean that all Turkish and Azerbaijani dual-citizens would be able to keep their dual status as well?

Without clarification (if she, for instance, just means EU members plus Russia), Le Pen’s ad-hoc definition of European could arguably fall under UDHR Article 15 , which states that no one may be arbitrarily deprived of his or her nationality. (Although not a binding legal treaty, many provisions of UDHR have achieved status of international customary law, and this is one of them). The UN has addressed the issue of deprivation leading to statelessness and have found for it be in violation of international human rights law (UN HRC report).

Additionally, this is not something Le Pen can unilaterally enact. To keep this promise Le Pen would have to call on the National Assembly to add additional reasons for citizen deprivation, which is dictated by Article 25 of the French Civil Code and currently only allow for deprivation of citizenship because of criminal and treasonous acts against the French Republic and not because of the state or region where an individual has additional citizenship.

Promise 31 To combat jihadi networks: stripping of French nationality, expulsion and banning re-entry into the country for any person with dual nationality linked to a jihadi organisation. To apply Article 411-4 of the Penal Code on passing intelligence to the enemy and to place any individual with French nationality, with links to a foreign organisation promoting hostile activities or aggression against France and the French people, in preventive custody. To draw up a list of such organisations.

Promise 31 is one of the few similarities between Le Pen and current French President Francois Hollande, who earlier in 2016 tried to add a similar provision to French Nationality Law.  However, Le Pen would like to deprive French nationality to all individuals with connections to “Jihadi” organizations.  French Civil Code under Article 25 would allow for deprivation of citizenship for French citizens and dual nationals who carried out terrorist attacks, but it has only been acted on a few times and the courts are very reluctant to deprive individuals of their French citizenship. Based on the court’s history of deprivation Le Pen might have a much harder time with carrying out deprivation even further.  Currently, Article 25 states that an individual who has been sentenced for committing a crime against the state may constitute legal reason for deprivation of citizenship, however, this doesn’t extend to someone who is suspected of terrorist activity or suspected to have connections to terrorist organizations.  Le Pen would have to further define what she defines as a connection to such an organization.  Is it having cousins belonging to terrorist cell? Is it indirectly fundraising for an organization determined to be a terrorist organization, whether one consciously knows it? Additionally, does this only apply to Islamist terrorist organisations, as using the term jihad implies, and not apply to terrorist organizations on the far left, or right, or terrorist organizations with a Western Religious Ideology such as Catholic or Protestant Christianity?

There is another problem with Le Pen’s vague wording, in that depriving someone’s citizenship for ill-defined connection with an organization could violate the freedom of association and legal privacy of life promised by the French Constitution. For Le Pen to keep true to her promise in this regard, she and the Front National must make this promise a great deal more specific for it to have a chance of becoming French legal practice.

Conclusion
Overall vagueness, disregard for existing law, and feasibility all seem to be reoccurring issues with Le Pen’s promises on migration and citizenship. It is one thing to make policy promises and another to navigate the pathway to successful policy implementation and this is something Le Pen and Front National should keep in mind.

READ MORE
1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
French Civil Code
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Ways to French Citizenship
More on VCLT and why it is customary international law
Marine Le Pen’s 144 Commitments (in English)
The Refugee Convention of 1951
Preamble to the Constitution of 27 October 1947
More on Statelessness
ICJ Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros
More on Le Pen and only dual-european nationals (video)
Image via Pietro Piupparco a flickr (cc By-SA 2.0) http://bit.ly/2nTYNKq