How the rest of the world deals with aliens at the ballot box
By SARAH NOORBAKHSH
Excerpt:
Acknowledging the rights of immigrant groups, “recognizing special ties among particular groups of countries” and reciprocation are often part and parcel of granting suffrage, says Michele Wucker, executive director of the World Policy Institute. The EU, the Commonwealth, Brazil, Portugal and Spain are cases in point. However, the decision in South Korea had the effect of enfranchising mostly Taiwanese immigrants rather than being a “quid pro quo” reform benefiting Japan, and the country has thus far only indicated that it hopes for a similar move here in Japan. Also worth noting is that whereas 6,000 noncitizens benefited from the law change in South Korea, there are over 900,000 permanent foreign residents in Japan, including over 400,000 “special permanent residents” — mostly Koreans and Taiwanese who lived in Japan before and during the war, as well as their descendants.
So what about the argument that, rather than give voting rights to permanent residents, they should be encouraged to naturalize instead? This attitude is prevalent in North America, where noncitizen voting rights have been rolled back. In contrast, Chile introduced alien suffrage to in part to compensate for its slow, inefficient nationalization system.
“If people feel that they are part of a community with their neighbors, then they are more likely to embrace national values and even apply for citizenship as well,” suggests Wucker. Indeed, movements in Toronto as well as Rome have used this argument in pressing for the involvement of immigrant groups in local politics, though demonstrating objectively that granting foreigners the vote leads to an increased demand for naturalization has proved a challenge.
Video, audio, and transcript from “Beyond Relief: Helping Haiti,” a Council on Foreign Relations panel discussion in which Michele participated February 18, 2010.
Michele Wucker est la directrice exécutive du World Policy Institute (Institut des politiques mondiales) et l’auteure de Why the Cocks Fight: Dominicans, Haitians, and the Struggle for Hispaniola [Pourquoi le coq se bat: Dominicains, Haïtiens et le combat pour Hispaniola]
(translation of the article that appeared on ForeignPolicy.com Jannuary 19th)
part of a collection from the December “The Right to Move?” conference in Tokyo.
January 26, 2010
Facing demographic and economic challenges, countries around the world are reconsidering the policies that govern migrant rights—the basis on which people are allowed to enter a country, the access that non-citizens have to services and rights, and the ability of non-citizens to naturalize. Decisions about who gets the right to move have significant consequences for the citizens, societies, and economies of host and sending countries alike.
The central question for many countries is: Who is admitted and how? In countries where ethnicity or family ties are priority criteria, the ethics of deciding who enters are closely tied to national conceptions of self-interest and identity. Sometimes these conceptions conflict, as Germany found when reconciling its long-standing policy of admitting people based on blood ties with its national desire to provide hospice to refugees. Admissions decisions also have consequences for sending countries which in turn ripple back to host countries when borders are weak and economic pull is strong.
Immigration rights advocates often make a moral argument for liberalizing immigration policy. No matter how good the moral case is, however, under the fraught politics of immigration the only arguments that will succeed are those that make a strong case for the self-interest of the host society. Yet the moral arguments are not necessarily opposed to self-interest; in fact, they often coincide. Continue reading Jan 26: Linking Ethics and Self-Interest in Human Mobility
The danger, says Michele Wucker, executive director of the World Policy Institute in New York, is that talks could get mired in an ideological debate over the role of the private sector and the state in Haiti’s future.
“You need both,” says Wucker. “You need an engaged private sector, a strong state, and you need accountability for both.
“In the best-case scenario, the rebuilding process is done in such a way that Haitian civil society is engaged, that there’s a way for communities to communicate what their priorities are.”
And whatever the eventual details of that reconstruction, attaining one legacy may well be crucial.
“The focus (should be) on collaboration and building the capacity of the Haitian government, so that, at the end of the process, we have some institutions that can withstand changes of government at the top.”
On January 21. I appeared with Marselha Gonçalves Margerin of the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice & Human Rights on a Worldfocus Radio segment on the Dominican Republic and Haiti, hosted by Martin Savidge. Follow the link for audio and comments.
Five experts on nation-building, economic development, and emergency aid weigh in on how best to help devastated Port-au-Prince.
JANUARY 19, 2010
(Fellow experts include Paul Collier and Jean-Louis Warnholz; Clare Lockhart; and Dan Schnitzer)
By Michele Wucker
Amid the rubble, Haitians trying to find reasons for hope can look to the chance to rebuild. Although there are as yet no reliable estimates of what it will cost, it’s clear that Haiti will need a long-standing commitment of amounts far beyond what has been committed to past rebuilding programs — and any new development schemes should look to past attempts to avoid repeating their mistakes.
Video from my appearance on The Agenda with Steve Paikin, TVO Canada, from Friday January 15th, discussing Haiti with Gage Averill, Elizabeth Abbott, Chantalle Verna, and Kara McDonald.
Toronto’s Globe and Mail newspaper quoted me in an article about Haiti and the Dominican Republic that ran this morning, Wednesday, January 20th.
A tale of two nations
Tourists pose for a picture on the beach in Samana, Dominican Republic. Eduardo Munoz/Reuters
Although they have a shared history and geography, Haiti and the Dominican Republic are worlds apart
SIRI AGRELL
From Wednesday’s Globe and Mail Published on Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2010 12:00AM ESTLast updated on Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2010 4:16AM EST
They have been both been colonized, oppressed and exploited. They have lived through brutal dictatorships and U.S. invasions.
The two countries that occupy the tiny island of Hispaniola may have a shared history, but they have developed into two startlingly different places. The massive earthquake that devastated the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince left many people in the Dominican Republic, just 250 kilometres away, feeling nothing worse than a little dizziness.
