--
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/sais/nexteurope/2008/10/has_the_eu_been_watching_lou_d.html
link to image
Has the EU Been Watching Lou Dobbs?
By Roberto Peña
Immigrants detained indefinitely, fingerprinting racially-profiled populations, mass deportations: this may sound like a typical European's justification for prosecuting President Bush at the International Criminal Court, but these disturbing developments are, in fact, part of a wave of anti-immigration policies taking hold in the European Union. The sentiment is likely a result of slowing economic growth and increased pressure on highly regulated labor markets, but such pressures are testing the limits of one of the EU's founding principles, the free movement of labor.
What began as a debate over undocumented immigration is turning into a debate over the merits of immigration, both legal and illegal, and leading to calls of preserving national identity
Recent anti-immigration sentiment contributed to the downfall of the proposed treaty to reform the EU in Ireland and the Netherlands. The 2004 murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by Muslim radicals sparked a right-wing movement in the Netherlands, ultimately leading to the defeat of the treaty referendum. Polish immigration and a slowdown in the construction sector may have sealed the treaty's fate in Ireland.
From race riots in France to Mohammed cartoons in Denmark, every major European country is confronting rising levels of undocumented immigrants and the policy responses are startlingly un-European. Italy's immigration plan seeks to expel EU citizens who commit crimes, a possible violation of the EU's Community Law, which limits the expulsion of EU citizens from member states, and Brussels is threatening legal retaliation.
While the immigration reform legislation in the U.S. collapsed over the highly sensitive issue of amnesty, the European Commission chastised Spain and Italy for granting amnesty to undocumented immigrants in the last few years. Berlusconi returned to power in Italy, in large part, by talking tough on crime and immigration; the country passed a highly controversial immigration pact soon after his election. The plan formally criminalizes illegal entry and raises penalties, but perhaps the most controversial measure involves the fingerprinting of the Roma population. While an independent census can help policymakers understand their options, when combined with politically motivated and discriminatory actions, it is a recipe for disaster. In August, realizing the political gains derived by linking crime and immigration, a new plan involves Carabinieri patrolling the streets in several major cities to tackle both problems. Adding to this mix, several high profile incidents of violence against immigrants and amnesty now appears more likely in the US than in Italy. Last month, even the Vatican weighed in, urging for more compassion on the issue.
The U.S. debate offers a valuable model for analyzing the politics of immigration. The prevailing wisdom in Washington, circa 2006, was that immigration was a winning issue for Republicans touting their national security credentials. This strategy proved an utter disaster when the Democrats took over Congress and several single-issue conservatives lost their seats. In Italy, the immigration issue brought Berlusconi back from the dead, but whether or not this concern can distract voters from an ailing economy and political corruption is yet to be determined. When privacy concerns, civil liberties and human rights are taken into account, questions remain regarding Italy's immigration pact, let alone the frail coalition holding its government in place.
Roberto Peña is a former legislative aide in Congress currently pursuing his Master's Degree in International Afffairs at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Bologna, Italy.
Posted by Roberto Peña on October 17, 2008 1:59 PM
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Johns Hopkins University.
---
Some WaPo comments on this article
Posted on October 17, 2008 15:25
Lolo2
This article's main conclusion is precisely the opposite of its title: the EU has been the sole reason immigration policies have stayed "un-Dobbs-ian" in Europe.
It is true that national politicians in Italy, Austria, the Netherlands and Denmark (among others) have increasingly sounded alarmist tones about immigration. But it is precisely because the EU imposes certain basic principles that these national tendencies have been reined in. Italy will likely fail to deport large masses of Romanians, Austria will not be able to espouse xenophobic policies, and no European country can toughen its own immigration policies unilaterally.
The EU itself (as noted in the article) is in the forefront of guaranteeing basic rights to immigrants across the continent. It is working on an EU "blue card" to enhance legal immigration for skilled workers, and is the only bulwark against anti-immigration voices in national governments.
Using national examples to say that the EU is watching Lou Dobbs is like using examples of hardline candidates in state legislature races in New Mexico to argue that the US as a whole is espousing anti-immigration policies.
October 17, 2008 3:15 PM |
tbone4719 Author Profile Page:
Uneuropean? Are you kidding me? The europeans have always had more trouble than the U.S. in dealing with immigrants, especially assimilating them into their culture. These issues go back decades in most of the major European countries. The issues have taken a harder slant in recent years as immigration has amped up, islamic terrorism has become more prevalent and violent, and the EU has made cross-border migration easier than it was before. But the underlying issues remain the same. Europena nations still define themselves by bloodlines and herritage far more than Americans ever have, and because of that they have a far harder time dealing with immigration than we do. Just look at Germany and their trouble dealing with their sizeable Turkish minority. Even after the horrible lessons learned during the Showa, Germany still defines Germaness based on bloodlines, which is why Russians of German descent, who themselves speak no German but have the right genes, are able to get German citizenship far more readily than people of Turkish descent born in Germany, who speak fluent German, who understand and identify with German cultural practices.
October 17, 2008 3:31 PM
Doom_of_cthulhu
Why is it that Europeans are always held to a higher standard than other groups? It's about time that Europe realized that they have profoundly important choices to make with regards to immigration... particularly in light of the profoundly negative impact immigration has on the societies in Europe. Personally, I think it's been a profound mistake to try to treat people from former colonies as 'French' or 'British' just because they speak the same language. Cultural differences run profoundly deep and it's unreasonable to expect people to become European when they're not European. Instead, we now see vast migrations of Muslims moving to Europe instead of staying in their own countries. This would be less problematic if they weren't also expecting Europeans to change THEIR cultural values to those of the immigrants. Would non-white countries tolerate this? Would you see the Chinese making room and changing their culture to accomodate whites? I doubt it.
Europe is not America. If you want diversity, move to the U.S.
October 17, 2008 4:28 PM
Ahi2001 Author Profile Page:
Design1:
I stand corrected but please don't hide behind my error. If you're not calling for such desperate measures, you sure seem to be sympathetic to or unsurprised by such desperate measures, without explaining why you would consider the situation so desperate?
The two examples you provide are of people booing a national anthem and the majority of one ? Is that a reason Well, in soccer matches across Europe, black people are booed at and people make monkey noises. What desperate measures does that provoke? The second is that North African Muslims should become the majority in your town (which is probably happening in very few towns to begin with). Why is that a cause for desperation? That has happened in the US in many towns and hasn't brought down this country or even weakened it. Why is Europe so insecure about it's own fragility?
Also, I think it is interesting that you place Albanians with other non-Europeans. Albania is a part of Europe. Why include Albanians? I think I know why, but wonder whether you have the integrity to explain what I can wager is a rather undignified bias.
October 17, 2008 5:24 PM
Luciana1 Author Profile Page:
This seems to me like a very "European" not "un-European" approach. There is a lot of cultural nationalism and xenophobia in Europe and of course historically there was quite a feeling of superiority to other, non-"European" nations as well. European anti-Americanism has some strains of racism, xenophobia and nationalism as well, it's not all just due to Abu Ghraib. Haven't you ever heard of the idea, expressed by more than a few Europeans, that Americans are just "losers" because we are, many of us, descended from European "losers" who were not able to be successful in Europe? Like Jews and younger sons and poor people and the like. So the "best" Europeans stayed behind in Europe and the losers had to go to the US where they constructed an inferior culture. European cultural nationalism, xenophobia and feelings of superiority to outsiders are still pretty powerful.
October 17, 2008 5:50 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment