No remittances without representation!

Sir, you write “Poor government plagues Central America”, “Central America needs a bold gesture from the US”, FT April 22.Those migrants who often see no choice in life than to depart, with their family remittances produced their efforts far away from home, too often only help to keep in power those who caused them to depart.

An ambitious process such as that one referred to by FT, requires time to acquire political feasibility, and moments of sharp internal divisions might not be the best moment to find it.

In this respect I argue that to help the migrants acquire much more political representation in their homelands, would be a better place to start.

And the migrants sure have economic ammunition they could use. For some of these countries the GDP they help generate in e.g., USA, is larger than the whole GDP registered in their respective homeland.

The Honduran migrants chase a more reachable American dream, so as to be able to chase a more unreachable Honduran dream

Sir, Jude Webber writes: The scope of Wilson Flores’ American dream — to send money home to his mother and younger siblings, and eventually to go back to Honduras and open a shop — is modest.” “Honduran migrants chase the American dream” October 31.

It is a sad dream. Even if Flores manages to get into America and get a job, the money he will send home to his mother and younger siblings, will also be helping to finance the permanence in power of the system that made him migrate in the first place, and so he might never be able to go back and realize his Honduran dream.

I was an Executive Director at the World Bank, 2002-04, representing, among other, Honduras. There I did what I could to remind everyone that when compared to the remittances sent home by the Central-American migrants, all other support by donors and multilateral institutions were peanuts. In fact I repeated whenever I could that for instance what the Honduran migrants earned gross in the US, was more than the GDP of Honduras, which should make you wonder sometimes where the real Honduras is.

And I protested loudly when by means of diaspora bonds many tried to capture even more of the migrants’ savings, to finance their governments even more. 

On top of it all, those Honduras migrants had/have much less influence in their homeland than foreigners…and so I frequently argued “No remittances Without Representation.” 

If host nations, like the United States wanted to reduce the flow of migrants, one way positive way would be to help the migrants gain political power in their homelands, so as to help them create the conditions that could allow them to return… and live their Honduran dream. As an absolute minimum the migrants should have a sizable representation in their respective congresses or parliaments.

Down the line, if a majority of the citizens of a nation have migrated, like 51%, and if they suddenly wanted to take back their country by democratic powers, or even with force, would that be classified as foreign intervention, as an intromission into a sovereign’s domains?

Sir, more than a decade later, these sincere concerns I had, are sadly not longer just about my friends from Honduras or El Salvador, they are much closer home; they are about my landsmen the Venezuelans. For a starter what would now be happening in Venezuela, without family remittances?

@PerKurowski

Political correctness is just another type of authoritarianism that can also bring on revolts.

Sir, Gideon Rachman writes, “In 1989, liberal and nationalist causes were allied in the struggle for democracy in eastern Europe. Now the two ideologies are opposed. The battle between liberalism and nationalism is being waged internationally. It is also unfolding on the streets of small towns in Germany.” “Protests in Germany echo beyond borders” September 4.

No! I do not think this is a battle between liberalism and nationalism, although that might be what polarization profiteers want us to believe. That because there are a lot of “nationalists” that are true liberals, but only wish that some outlier expressions would be somewhat more considerate to their national traditions and interests.

For instance, with respect to migration, is it wrong, for a German, a Swede or any other national, to make a difference between those migrants who believe that “When in Rome do as Romans do”, and those believing “When in Rome I do as I bloody want to do”?

I would say no, but have the moral besserwissers allowed Europeans thinking so? No!

Rachman holds: “Germany has long nurtured as a bastion of liberal values.” Again that is what those defining in the public debate what the liberal values are, wants us to believe. Some of the out of this world liberal values, do not have it in them to ever become bastions… I hope.

Sir, sincerely, I feel sorry for all those minorities who I will not name, but who have been led and egged on by political correctness profiteers into overplaying their cards. When the tide turns, many nationalists will be there for them… again within reason.

PS. Political correctness could, in the best of cases, be a type of Neo-Victorianism... but, unfortunately, it seems more to have become the Neo-Inquisition of our days.

 @PerKurowski

Remittances that help family and friends to survive, sadly, usually, help keep in power those who forced migrants to leave their homelands.

Sir, Gideon Long (and Vanessa Silva) report “Migration has also helped Mr Maduro to stay in power. The UN estimates that 2.3m people — 7 per cent of the population — have left Venezuela since 2015. Many are prominent opponents of the regime and while their voices are still heard from exile, they are no longer in Caracas orchestrating protests.” “Venezuelans display resilience in face of hyperinflation” August 25.

But how many millions Venezuelans are kept alive by the remittances from their emigrant family members or friends? Several millions? So that clearly helps the Maduro government to hold on to power much more than the absence of some prominent (but also until now quite ineffective) opponents.

Fifteen years ago I served as an Executive Director in the World Bank. My Chair also represented nations from Central America like El Salvador and Honduras, which had millions of migrants working abroad, primarily in the United States, and from where with great sacrifices, they constantly sent their families vital monetary assistance.

As much as I admired these emigrants, I abhorred knowing that their remittances were also helping to keep in power those who were basically responsible for them having to emigrate.

For instance if we assume that migrant workers remit 20% of what they earn, then according to remittance data supplied by the World Bank, in 2008 and with respect to Honduras, we could calculate Honduran migrants gross earnings abroad, representing 122% of Honduras GDP. And so, in economic terms, where is really Honduras?

Time and time again I push for the idea that, as a minimum minimorum thank you for providing their homelands with these lifelines, the migrants should at least have an important representation in their respective general assemblies. That way they could at least try to change the realities so as to be able to go back to their homelands, before they forgot these. “No remittances without representation”.

We often hear about the dangers that brain-drain could represent for these countries. I always thought heart-drain to be much worse menace.

@PerKurowski

Migration is about freedom of movement of people. But what about freedom of movement of bank credit?

Sir I refer to Tim Harford’s “The real benefits of migration” October 24.

For me it is hard to understand how someone who takes such a positive view on migration as Harford therein expresses, at the same time is seemingly ok with regulations that interfere with the free allocation of bank credit.

Not long ago I went to visit the Statue of Liberty for the first time. While standing there I thought about what would have become of these migrants if, on top of how bankers are adverse to risk, regulators also had instructed the banks, by means of lower capital requirement incentives, to stay away from the “risky” migrants?

I ask: “In a world where we rightly abhor racial and sexual discrimination” why should we agree with regulators discriminating against the bank borrowing needs and wishes of the risky? And such discrimination occurs even when for instance in the US there exists an Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

Tim Harford argues the “supposed costs or benefits [analysis] always omit one crucial group. That group is the migrants themselves”. But, in the case of bank regulations, there is also an omitted group, namely all those SMEs and entrepreneurs who have been denied bank credit, precisely because regulators disliked “the risky”.

PS. Tim Harford refers to concerns about “brain drain”. I, having been an Executive Director of the World Bank for many nations depending on remittances by their migrants, have always been more concerned with the possibility of a “heart-drain”.

@PerKurowski ©

Political correctness is a society-wide groupthink that can be very dangerous.

Sir, In the Shrink and the Sage’s “Can we get used to anything?” of May 16, the Sage mentions “society-wide groupthink”. And the best example of current society-wide groupthink I can think of is “political correctness”.

I just came back from a week in Sweden. There I heard many expressing to me, in sotto voce, sort of ashamed, sort of “don’t tell anyone about this”, some very ordinary and human concerns about there being too many migrants and about the risk they felt that could dilute their meaning of being a Swede.

My immediate thought was that political correctness, if it blocks this way citizens from venting their concerns, then it must be a dangerous powerful growth hormone for extremism.

In other words, if you use a “That’s like Hitler” in response to too many of people concerns, then too many might end up thinking “That Hitler guy sound’s quite right for me”.

Let us never forget that the emotions involved in the not liking something for the wrong reasons, are just as strong as that of the not liking something for "the right reasons".

PS. My father suffered years of concentration camp because of Hitler. I don’t remember him saying, “That’s like Hitler” about anything or anyone… perhaps because he would never want to diminish Hitler’s evilness to something being sharable.

@PerKurowski

What are the costs of not allowing immigration?

Sir you are absolutely correct when in your editorial “Migration debate” November 5 you call out for more “fact-based analysis, not rumour-based angst”. You also say that “Any debate about immigration must begin with asserting the truth that immigration makes most existing residents better off” and though I gladly sign up on that principle, I must remind you that the most missing piece of evidence in the whole debate, is the analysis of the costs of not allowing immigration.

Maids for your professionals or professionals for your maids?

Sir Martin Wolf is absolutely right when in “Why immigration is hard to tackle”, November 2, when he says that “this is no area for stealth” and requests more transparency. For instance he makes a good point when mentioning that the “impact on the gross domestic product of migration should be measured after subtracting the incomes earned by the migrants” although perhaps there is also a need to differentiate between temporary and final migrants. Where I am not really sure is when he mentions market-compatible systems like auctions of work permits to be better than arbitrated point systems since neither one of them seems to be covering the problem that could be caused by in relative terms favouring the highest added value workers and therefore implicitly perhaps relegating your own to the lower earning sectors. Do you want to allow a foreigner to work as a maid so as to give your own professionals a better chance or do you want to give the foreign professionals a better chance and have your own work as maids? Not an easy proposition to handle.

Personally what I most favour, everywhere, is massive temporary worker programs so as to allow for the market to cover its short term needs without necessarily forcing the society to enter into long terms commitments. To make these temporary programs more feasible I am currently investigating the use of private insurance companies to guarantee compliance (going back home) instead of putting the burden on already overly stretched migration authorities.

The main obstacle to the development of temporary worker programs lies ironically in the arrogance of developed countries believing that anyone who gets there wants to stay there forever. So instead of making good livable room for all your temporary needs what you are getting is more and more permanent fixtures.

But what about a bachelor degree in being happily unemployed?

Sir, as you say June 14 happiness lessons might not be a subject to add to the national curriculum, but perhaps some core course in how to be an unemployed with socially acceptable behaviour could be useful in times of so much outsourcing and migration.

In immigration, more than barriers new riverbeds are needed

Sir Clive Crook in “How to untie the immigration knot” June 14 gives a glimpse of what is needed by arguing that instead of working on how to solve the 12 million stock of illegal immigrants the US would be better served by first working at the flow control valves. Doing that it is important to remember that the best way to control a flow is not always by building a barrier but sometimes by finding new riverbeds where it could run more orderly. It is in this respect that I believe FT’s readers could be interested in hearing about an initiative of trying to have private insurance companies stepping up to the plate and offer to guarantee the payment of a substantial indemnity to the US government for each worker who being favored by a temporary visa program does not return home in a timely fashion.

Immigration policies should not be a Noah’s Ark.

Sir, you are absolutely right when in “Small steps needed on US immigration”, June 12, you insist on the need to build credibility, which is exactly what some of us are trying to do by for instance developing a private insurance programs destined to guarantee that workers with visas issued under temporary programs will return in a timely way, or else paying some very substantial indemnities. What is not that clear though is why you think that creating bureaucratic biases in favour of high skilled workers is a naturally good thing to do instead of allowing the market to signal its own and very dynamic relative worker shortages. One thing is a Noah’s Ark in times of flooding and quite a different thing when it remains in the same spot, on dry land.

We should be able to do a lot of good with temporary worker programs

Sir, when you comment what you find as the better flawed than nothing US immigration deal, May 21, you mention in it that “the temporary worker program offers no paths to citizenship” and that it “will merely create a huge new pool of permanently illegal aliens”. You are mistakenly looking at it from a very negative (might I dare say almost “supremacy”) perspective.

There is a real urgent need for a substantial temporary worker program that really is temporary, that has nothing to do with earning citizenship, and that if adequately executed could bring a lot of economic growth and social satisfaction for both sending and receiving countries. The program now announced might possibly be our last opportunity in a long time to have a chance of creating a good example to follow and we need everyone’s help and support for that, including yours. Many of us are already working on organizing our Central American workers so that they, while fully complying with the laws of the program, can best utilize their few legal working years in the US to earn and learn the most, so as to be able to do their best for their beloved homelands upon their return.

And, by the way, these workers, they are no aliens; they are all just earthlings like me and you.

In immigration policy the perfect is also the enemy of the good

Sir, you write about “the mess over US immigration policy” May 9, and, as usually happens, most of the mess is created by those who want to court their followers by showing off that they want it all and perfect for them, when perfect, as always, is the enemy of the good.

Instead of what you imply I say for instance that if the price for getting some order back into immigration policies, before dirt hits the fan, is to have the migrants pay some punitive fees for their permits, so be it, that is still much better than having them paying the much more expensive punitive costs of not having permits. Let them put the price on the table and, after we haggle a bit, we will find the ways and means to help the migrants pay those fees.

That they must go home for extended intervals? Well we could argue about the length and the timings of such home-goings but it is not really a preposterous thing to ask of temporary work programs to include clauses that could keep their hearts warm to their homelands and lessening the risks of that heart-drain that could make their return much more difficult.

Sir, we sincerely appreciate your good intentions but please, don’t embrace us too much, and help us instead to get as many workable pieces of a solution formalized as fast as possible, before the problems get out of hand. Already having 12 million flesh and blood earthlings called illegal aliens is no minor problem.

Do not tax the migrants, make them save instead.

Sir, I could not agree more with Philippe Legrain on that Europe (and the US) need urgently to develop some large scale temporary immigration programs if they want to have a fighting chance of keeping what is happening under reasonable control. If the political price to pay for such programs is along the lines that he suggests in “A migrant tax would slash illegal entry into Europe”, April 25, namely an “extra payroll tax on foreign workers” so be it, and only because something is better than nothing. Nevertheless, let us be clear that what he is suggesting is a form of bribery offering all the “true” citizens to share into the earnings produced by the migrants, the secondary citizens. It is also equivalent to a handicap system where you place a special tax on the shoulders of foreigners, so that your homeboys can easier compete, which could have of course some long term debilitating effects for your own.

Much better is a system that looks to really guarantee the temporary aspects of it all. Not only do you have to make certain that the migrants keep up their contacts with their homelands, so as to avoid the risk of any heart-drain but also, that those same homelands manage to get better homes to return to. That you take a percentage of the migrants earnings and place it into a savings account that he will get back when he returns home, sounds much more reasonable than taxing him so that he might remain poor and impeded from returning home.

Bank needs products

eSir, your “Bank seeks customers”, April 4, in which you describe the headaches of someone who is losing a valuable market niche, in this case the Asian Development Bank (ADB) as its clients have grown richer and don’t need it anymore, reminds us about a not so well known flip side to that saying that a bank only lends you the umbrella when the sun shines and asks it back when it rains. Your title might not be entirely correct since the customers are still there and so what they really have to seek are new products. No interest income? Go for fees! In questions about the environment and energy there is much need for some really independent and neutral advice, as the world might be wasting its last chances of fixing its climate change problems by falling for some well marketed but inefficient hybrid solutions. And in terms of the increasing global migration, why does not ADB develop a temporary worker program that meets everyone’s expectations and needs, then patent it, and charge for its use.

Should we let the market really work the migration flows?

Sir, I subscribe almost entirely to Martin Wolf’s “Why immigration policy must be a compromise”, December 22, and the almost is there as I find it hard to understand how his view “that work permits should be auctioned” to the best bidder is related to a “compromise”. Will the one offering the most for the work permit be the best worker or is he just the one needing or capable of paying the most for a shelter?

If Wolf really believes that the market mechanism should be used to optimize migration flows then anyone wanting to move out of his country should also have the right to sell his “place” in the market. We could thereby create some real incentives for people to sell an expensive UK residence right and buying themselves a dirt-cheap Tanzania one, with view of making a huge capital gain when this last poor country gets developed.

In the debate on immigration we must never forget that no matter how much we take shelter behind reinforced borders, at the end of the day, we are all still living, ever more cramped, on the very small planet earth.

'American Union' passports could work

Published in FT, April 10, 2006

Sir, It is sad in today’s globalized world to still find so many local Americans who believe that when they ship a criminal band member over the border, to someone much less resourceful, they have gotten rid of their problem.

In this respect, Jacob Weisberg, ("Immigration ideas bordering on perverse”, April 6), aghast with the current ideas on immigration law reform in the US, proposes not passing any reforms but to keep going as if nothing’s happening.

Another more transparent route would be to bite the bullet and accept that an “American Union” between North and Central America already exists, de-facto, and issue a common passport for all the citizens of the enlarged American Union.

Such a strategy would make it possible for many of the over 11 million illegal immigrants that dare not leave the US because they do not know whether they can later return, to be freed from their (also de-facto) mother of all jails, and go home, even on a temporary basis.

It would also help to realize that had the US spent an Iraq-war sized budget assisting Central America, as the European Union did with Spain and others, the whole immigration debate could have been a moot issue, with exception perhaps of all the aging baby boomers moving south to find care and services.

Finally, the fact is that when you see how all the Central Americans toil away in the US and help their families back home, you have to ask yourself whether this is not just part of the process whereby the US manages to renew its working and family ethics, in order to remain strong.

PS. A letter in the Washington Post: How many of those governments not wanting to have their emigrants move back to their homeland, feel so because they do not want to renounce the family remittances that helps to keep them in power?

https://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2009/09/mcprison.html

https://voiceandnoise.blogspot.com/2003/02/snowing-in-washington-my-first.html

Remittances and their cost of transfer is only the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

Sir, in your weekend editorial about computers being no silicon panacea for developing countries, you make a comment with respect of the remittances to the developing countries saying they “are weakened by the crippling cost of transfers that cost as much as $30 per transaction.” This is truly looking at the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

For many immigrants having to pay thousands of dollars to get smuggled to an opportunity in life just because no functional temporary immigration programs have been enacted; being easily cheated in their new surroundings because no one cared about teaching them a foreign language; paying fortunes in phone calls to communicate with their families; having to live in cramped quarters paying exorbitant rentals; incurring many costs just because they are not allowed a drivers license; and making all type of other sacrifices in order to send some help home, the fees they pay for that might indeed be high, but, frankly, they are among the least of their problems.

Trying to understand the economic effect of immigration by looking at the remittances is a bit like trying to understand the world’s economy by looking only at the cash dividends paid out by corporation.

Development banks have looked more than enough at the issue of remittances fees and it will be solved, in due time, with competition among service providers. It is now high time to move on.

Sent to FT, November 20, 2005

A de-facto USA enlargement

When we read that in the greater Washington metropolitan area alone, there already are 550.000 persons who come from El Salvador, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the Central American countries are already a de-facto part of an extended USA Commonwealth. Put another way, the USA—surreptitiously perhaps—has gone through its own European-style enlargement. This demographic fact shows that the current debate in the USA on immigration reform could benefit by being split into two parts: immigration reform as such; and a debate about some laws and regulations affecting cohabitation in a commonwealth. Doing so would allow urgent reforms to proceed more constructively and keep the debates from being taken hostage by extreme proposals like building new Maginot Lines or Berlin Walls.

Not long ago, some enemies of the recently negotiated CAFTA agreement started spreading rumors that, through it, the United States had accepted conditions that in effect bypassed current immigration laws. This is not true, far from it. However, perhaps the CAFTA negotiations were indeed the perfect opportunity to start open and transparent discussions about what I call the de-facto enlargement of the USA. As it is, trying to look for solutions to some huge but still quite particular problems through a general immigration law is really picking the wrong instrument of change.

By the way, if I were a truly desperate builder of a wall to surround the United States, looking at the map, I would perhaps have to settle with some water barriers such as the Bering Strait and the Panama Canal.

Sent to Washington Post, April 2005, destiny unknown

migration Cafta border

Migration is much more important and transfer fees much less so!

Sir, in today’s editorial, June 10, The Global Workforce when mentioning that it refers to 3 percent of world population you are really underestimating the importance of current migration since, in some countries, more than 40% of their able workforce has migrated. Also you fall into the trap of making a big fuss about financial institutions “creaming” off large commissions on the remittances sent home by migrant workers. Honestly, in the life of a poor migrant these commission are just the smallest of their problems and had many developing agencies not spent fortunes navel-gazing this particular issue, they would have been able to advance much more in solving real problems and in helping to develop know-how about workable temporary legal migration programs. The expensive transfer fees that do not only affect migrants will be taken cared of in time by the time-honored tools of competition and technology.

migration
remittances