Migration Studies and Jesuit Identity: Forging a Path Ahead

The subject of this conference is particularly timely because the varying policies of countries throughout the world demonstrate that there is a range of practices and debate about the phenomena of migration itself. The United States has focused its efforts on promoting safe, dignified and lawful migration. If you did not already know that states practices in the area of migration are a sensitive issue and in some quarters even considered controversial, consider this: last month, I was heckled at a regional meeting discussing international cooperation on international migration. This occurred at a meeting where all the participants were presumably hand-picked and invited by the secretariat of the Global Commission. Bishop DiMarzio will likely remember that incident. That’s never happened to me before in thirteen years of representing the United States in various fora. The protestor, an American NGO representative, was not very clear in his arguments, but I think, in part, he was claiming that any efforts to regulate migration into the United States are racist. In fact, our country has a proud tradition of welcoming the stranger. The Department of Homeland Security reported over 700,000 legal immigrants to the U.S. in FY2003, 35% from Asia and 43% from within the Americas. Mexicans alone comprise over 16% of the legal immigrants in FY2003. And, last year, we brought more than 50,000 refugees into the United States, and over half of them were from Africa.

My heckler may also have been under the misperception that the U.S. is shutting out all newcomers. There were 463,000 naturalizations in FY-2003. From 1990-2003, the number of immigrants admitted to the U.S. never dipped below 600,000 annually, not even after 9-11. Clearly, the doors remain open.

I am concerned that these negative attitudes may reflect common misperceptions about U.S. migration policy. As a nation of immigrants, and a country of compassion, we are not going to close our doors to the rest of the world or seek to exclude any particular nationality. My aim as a policy-maker is to make migration as safe and orderly as possible, for the United States and for the migrants themselves.

President Bush’s immigration reform proposal, announced in January 2004, is based on the truth that America is a welcoming nation. The hard work and strength of immigrants has made this country prosperous. The key element of the President’s plan is a new temporary worker program to match willing foreign workers with willing U.S. employers when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs. The program would be open to new foreign workers, and to undocumented men and women currently employed in the U.S. This new program would allow workers who currently hold jobs to come out of hiding and participate legally in America's economy while not encouraging further illegal behavior. Congress is now discussing such a program.

Curbing irregular migration is a key part of any effort to improve migration management. People should not put their lives at risk by trying to enter the United States illegally, including through the use of smugglers or traffickers. In fiscal year 2004, there were 325 migrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border. The state of Arizona has already recorded 111 deaths so far this year.

Attempting to enter the U.S. illegally makes migrants vulnerable to abuse by traffickers and smugglers. Human smuggling is a criminal commercial transaction between two willing parties. The person being smuggled cooperates in the illegal activity, and when the transaction is complete, the individuals go separate ways. Trafficking in persons, in contrast, is a modern-day form of slavery, involving victims who are typically forced, defrauded or coerced into sexual or labor exploitation. Trafficking specifically targets the trafficked person as an object of criminal exploitation. Fraud, force, and coercion all play a major role in trafficking. The person trafficked is a victim.

Trafficking in persons is the subject of an annual report issued by the Department of State. Secretary Rice rolled out the 2005 report just last Friday. This year, for the first time, you’ll find a mention of the Bureau of Population, Refuges, and Migration in the report. In fiscal year 2004, PRM provided in excess of $5 million for anti-trafficking initiatives carried out in cooperation with the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and IOM’s associated non-governmental organizations. Our projects focus on repatriation and reintegration assistance for victims; capacity-building to help national governments manage migration and provide care for victims; and training non-governmental organizations to provide mental health care for victims. PRM and IOM also launched an initiative, funded at $188,000 in its first year, to assist trafficking victims in the United States who wish to return and reintegrate in their home country. This program also provides logistical and reunification assistance for family members of trafficking victims in the United States who are eligible to come to the U.S. on a T-2, T-3, or T-4 visa. T visas are granted to trafficking victims who have complied with reasonable requests for assistance to investigate or prosecute acts of trafficking. Victims who receive T non-immigrant status may remain in the United States for three years and then apply for permanent residency.

The legislation that created the T visa also established the U visa. The U visa is available to persons who are victims of or who possess information concerning certain kinds of criminal activity, including rape, torture, trafficking in persons, female genital mutilation, and many others. Receipt of a U visa is contingent on a determination by a federal, state, or local official that the person’s assistance is necessary in a criminal investigation or prosecution.

The vast majority of people who are assisted in illegally entering the United States are smuggled, rather than trafficked, but in either case the individual is at risk. Of course, the security of our country is also potentially at risk when someone enters illegally.

Migration does not happen in a vacuum. A state cannot effectively manage migration alone, as most countries share their border with other states. Furthermore, with the increase in air travel, states share "virtual" borders with any other state from which there is a direct airline flight. Therefore, an important part of migration management is strengthening partnerships with other countries. The United States engages in intensive dialogue with our neighbors. Examples of these dialogues include the Partnership for Prosperity that President Bush and Mexican President Fox launched in September 2001, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America that President Bush, President Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin announced this part March. Notable successes of the dialogue with Mexico on migration issues include last summer’s repatriation of 14,000 Mexican at-risk nationals who were in the U.S. illegally.

At the vice-ministerial working level, I represent the U.S. Government in the Regional Conference on Migration, RCM, a forum of 11 countries in North and Central America and the Caribbean. The RCM held its 10th Vice-Ministerial meeting in early March in Vancouver, Canada, with a theme of "Integration and Citizenship." Over the past nine years, the RCM has tackled issues ranging from the human rights of migrants, to combating migrant smuggling and trafficking in persons, as well as passport issuance standards, and migration and health. Essential to the continued success and relevance of the RCM is that it takes on concrete activities on migration topics of regional interest.

Many other regional dialogues are taking hold around the world, including the South American Conference on Migration, the Bali Conference in Asia, and the Migration Dialogue for Southern Africa. It is important to note that migration flows from developing countries to other developing countries are increasing. In this context, these processes can provide an excellent forum for dialogue and discussion. The United States believes that these regional dialogues allow productive exchange between states with similar migration challenges, which can learn from each other to develop best practices for managing migration.

We also believe – and my Assistant Secretary made this point in a speech a couple of months ago at the Swiss Forum– that regional efforts are the broadest level at which migration can be discussed productively in a positive, concrete manner. The United States is highly skeptical about the ability of the United Nations to address the migration issue effectively at the global level and could not support efforts to develop a rights-based migration regime. We continue to favor discussions at the regional or even sub-regional level that require participating countries to focus on the particular migration issues that affect them, rather than engage in the often divisive debate that occurs when an attempt is made to address these issues on a global level.

We believe a global "guiding framework" for migration is neither desirable nor achievable. Because there is no current consensus on the issue, the United States would not support the creation of a new agency or convention on international migration. The United States continues to believe that the International Organization for Migration’s Council Session is the appropriate forum to discuss general international migration issues. We recognize that there are many organizations, both within and outside the United Nations that work on issues related to migration. The United States believes that an informal coordination mechanism on migration that met at the working level could potentially be useful in coordinating activities between IOM and UN and other agencies that deal with these issues.

Of course, there are many components to well-managed migration. A particular concern of mine is the third-country resettlement of refugees for whom no other durable solution exists. While the U.S. Resettlement Program has been very successful over the past three decades, we’ve been remaking it to reflect both security concerns and the new geography of refugees. The creation of a ‘Refugee Corps,’ a group of DHS officers who are trained to work with refugee populations and cooperate with UNHCR, the State Department, and our overseas processing entities, is a positive reflection of the seriousness with which DHS takes this obligation. We have made significant efforts to target several long-staying populations in Africa. A major focus of mine is also working with other nations to strengthen their willingness and capacity to resettle refugees. While there are currently only a ten states currently resettling refugees, many states have expressed interest in becoming partners in resettlement. This is increasingly important in the context of protracted refugee situations, where refugees live for many years in host countries without any reasonable expectation that they will be able to return home or integrate well in their local community.

Key in our efforts to stop criminal or terrorist elements from seeking admission to the United States is our enforcement arm. The security aspect includes keeping out terrorists, of course, but also guarding against forged papers, photo substitution in passports, and other attempts to use this program fraudulently as a way to circumvent our immigration laws. The Department of Homeland Security plays a key role in this effort.

The new geography of refugees requires us to be more active in more places in order to identify and to process refugees in need of resettlement. My office is also looking very broadly at the whole refugee admissions program. You may know that we commissioned David Martin to write a report about the program, to assess how we are doing 25 years after the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980. The complete report is posted on our website. We have already implemented some of the recommendations in the report, particularly in becoming increasingly proactive in identifying and processing new refugee groups. I am also very much interested in conducting a comprehensive study on how refugees fare once they arrive in the United States and over the long-term. Since the program is 25 years old, we have over 2½ million persons as a potential pool to query.

Obviously migration is a complex global phenomenon and one that touches on the lives of many. The UN Population Division estimates that there were 175 international migrants in the world in 2000. That’s one person in every 35 on the planet. Not only are there differences on how to approach the subject, there is often disagreement even about the potential benefits. The United States view that migration is necessary and beneficial is not shared by all countries. Migration is often at the top of the foreign policy interests of many countries. Differences of opinions on strategies for managing borders, access to labor markets, and transfer of skills and knowledge are not areas easily hammered out internationally, or even, at times, domestically.

Father Ryscavage asked us what we consider to be the cutting edge issues and problems in migration (forced and voluntary) as well as opportunities for study researchers and academics. To me, I think an area for research and evaluation – in keeping with Bishop DiMarzio’s point that perhaps we should think of studying global mobility rather than global migration — is effective return and reintegration. Much of the study of migration has focused on the impact of migration on receiving countries, and the subject of remittances to families remaining behind has been a subject of a lot of ink and thought. How best to promote successful returns might also be an interesting study. While at INS, I had one of my attorneys work with the Social Security Administration on the idea of making the contributions migrants make "refundable" or "re-investable." We didn’t get very far because of the nature of the system. But this might also be an area for consideration. Another area for further thought might be the proper role of international organizations involving internally displaced persons (IDPs).

I have mentioned a wide range of topics, which is fitting because there are many different aspects of migration. I look forward to the forthcoming question and answer session and I thank you for the opportunity to participate in this conference.