European Blue Card - the EU Finally Moves on Non-Compliance

I've described the implementation of the EU Blue Card as a "shipwreck in the fog looking for a coastline." Implementation has been very slow and, as all of you can attest to, it has been very frustrating trying to figure out which countries are moving forward and which ones are taking a more leisurely approach.

The European Commission issued this press release, "Blue Card' – Work permits for highly qualified migrants 6 Member States fail to comply with the rules" at the end of October.  They say:

On 18 July 2011, the Commission sent letters of formal notice (the first step of the infringement procedure) to Germany, Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal and Sweden concerning their failure to notify the Commission of measures taken to implement the Directive.
Three of them (Italy, Malta and Portugal) have still not signalled any such measures within the set deadline (two months), prompting the Commission to act.
The three others (Germany, Poland and Sweden) replied to the letters of formal notice but indicated that new implementing legislation would not enter into force until next year. The Commission decided to send reasoned opinions to these Member States as well.

From this release I extrapolate that Germany, Poland and Sweden will not fully implement until next year, that Italy, Malta and Portugal are on stand-by and that the EU is satisfied with the other member-states' progress.

I was very curious to know exactly what this "infringement procedure" is so I looked it up.  According to the European Commission website, it starts with a "pre-litigation state" which seems to consist of warning letters and an investigation into the reasons for non-compliance.  The final stage is taking the recalcitrant state in front of the European Court of Justice where I assume the Court can apply a ruling and any applicable fines.  Knowing the EU I would imagine that this is a long process and I certainly can understand their desire to encourage member-states to comply without going so far as to actually take them to court.

However, I think they underestimate just how frustrated people are with the progress (or lack thereof) on the implementation of this Directive.  It's a combination of factors: the rather stiff salary and contract requirements, the confusion over which member-states are implementing and how to apply, and the lack of any centralized European information source - a website, for example, with a dashboard that show progress and gives clear indications about which countries are ready to start taking applications.  Perhaps such a thing exists but I sure haven't found it.

It is encouraging that the EU is taking action but they might want to speed up their efforts before all those highly-qualified individuals that they ostensibly want decide that Canada or Australia look like a much better deal.

My .02.

Class War? A Chat with the Experts

I went into town (Paris) this weekend and had the real pleasure of chatting with some representatives of the French political party, Lutte Ouvrière (The Worker's Struggle).  Why was it a pleasure?  Well, it's rather refreshing to talk with people who have a completely different take on current events and who have very strong and usually thoughtful convictions about what it all means.  Over the years I have known (and count among my friends and colleagues) people from the French Communist Party which until recently enjoyed a fair number of adherents here in France.  One woman in particular (an American who has lived here over 20 years) earned my deep respect for her work on behalf of employees at one company I worked for.  She spent a great deal of time at the prud'hommes (the French court for labor disputes) defending workers who the union felt were unjustly fired - in particular older workers over 50 who were shed primarily because of their age.

The Lutte Ouvrière is separate from the PCF (Parti Communiste Francais).  They are Trotskyites and have serious differences with the other sort.  I think this paragraph in their program sums up their position quite nicely:

Lutte Ouvrière est une libre association de femmes et d’hommes, jeunes ou anciens, travailleurs manuels ou intellectuels, qui ne se résignent pas à l’idée que le capitalisme serait le seul avenir possible pour l’humanité. Qui n’acceptent pas les idées reçues selon lesquelles l’individualisme serait le seul comportement responsable, et la loi de la jungle, le chacun pour soi, la règle normale de fonctionnement de l’humanité. Qui ne se résignent pas à l’idée qu’il serait impossible de mettre les fantastiques possibilités offertes par la science et la technique au service de toute l’humanité. Qui ne se résignent pas, en somme, à l’idée que la société inhumaine et barbare dans laquelle nous vivons serait le fin mot de centaines de milliers d’années d’évolution de l’humanité.
The Worker's Struggle is a free association of women and men, young and old, blue collar and white collar workers, who are not resigned to the idea that capitalism is the only possible future for humanity.  Who do not accept the current ideas that individualism is the only responsible behaviour and that the "law of the jungle" and "everyone for himself" is the normal rule by which humanity functions.  Who disagree with the notion that it is impossible to put all the possibilities offered by science and technology at the service of the human race.  Who do not believe that the barbaric and inhumane society in which we live is the final word in the thousands of years of human evolution. 

Nous voulons changer le monde. Nous restons profondément convaincus que le communisme est l’avenir du genre humain.
We want to change the world.  We remain profoundly convinced that communism is the future of humanity.

Powerful stuff and, yes, they are quite serious about it.  And you certainly don't have to agree with them to find their ideas interesting.  Here is what I gleaned from my talk with them:

1.  They are very clear about differentiating themselves from what they refer to as the "Stalinists."  They reject any association with the bloody regimes of Stalin, Mao or North Korea.

2.  They don't believe a "social contract" exists.  Capitalism is evil, has always been evil and is directly responsible for the evil in the world.  It cannot be redeemed or improved.

3. They are a bit amused by the notion that, for example, the Occupy Wall Street people are being accused of starting a "class war."  From their perspective the "war" was declared long ago, we are smack in the middle of it today and the capitalists started it, not the workers or the demonstrators.  If you need further proof of their unswerving belief in this war, just have a look at their monthly magazine which is called "Lutte de Classe" (Class Struggle/Battle/War).   

4.  They consider themselves to be an international organization.  They are against anti-immigrant rhetoric and measures and they are for working people everywhere regardless of the country in which they work.  As I talked with them, an older Frenchman walked by and muttered, "Les Grecs ne paient pas leurs impots." (The Greeks do not pay their taxes.) To which they replied quite firmly that this fact was not the fault of the Greek, French, German or any other European worker and their view is that workers should not be made to suffer because of the idiocy and cruelty of bankers and governments.

The joy in talking with members of a minority party is that they know they won't win the elections so they can pretty much say what they think with no softening of the message to appeal to the broadest possible audience.  In other words, they see no need to prostitute themselves for votes.  If you are interested, their program can be found here on their website.  Their candidate for the 2012 French presidential election is Nathalie Arthaud.  

MPI Report on EU and US Immigration Policies

The Migration Policy Institute has just released a report called Shared Challenges and Opportunities for EU and US Immigration Policymakers.

This is a good overview of current immigration policy in both regions. Since there are so few comparative studies out there, this one is worth a look. MPI's recommendations also have the virtue of being calm and sane at a time when elections on both sides of the Atlantic are provoking just the opposite.

Immigrants seem to be a "problem" everywhere but concrete proposals for how to shape immigration policy are hard to pin down. Some proposals seem almost entirely in the realm of punitive fantasy (electric fences along a thousand mile border or the French "Guantanomo" solution).

All this is terribly unrealistic not because it is impossible but because the outcome is not desirable and not at all what anyone really wants - not natives, migrants nor nation-states. The MPI report puts it very clearly: "Immigration is a significant component of any strategy to boost economic growth and competitiveness." Period. If you want your economy to grow and you want your country to be competitive in the world market, then you will have immigration. One of the great paradoxes of globalization is the fact that capital is highly mobile but people are less so. Matching opportunity and people is one of the great challenges of our age. Both the EU and the US are having trouble meeting this challenge.

On the U.S. side MPI reports that they were blessed with a strong employer-driven system which has traditionally done a very good of matching people to jobs. Today this system seems to be breaking down and has become an inefficient bureaucracy which creates uncertainly because it has lost the ability to meet labor needs in real time. The EU on the other hand is a mishmash of different immigration policies that range from point-systems to employer-driven systems to quotas. The member-states appear ready to work toward a common EU policy on migration, but even with the EU Blue card effort, they have a ways to go.

The U.S. does a bit better than the EU when it comes to selective immigration - luring the highly-skilled, highly educated workforce to its shores. But the MPI report makes a very good point that just because this has been true in the past does not mean it will be true in the future. I had a very illuminating conversation with an Indian who works in hi-tech who said that he judged a country not only on its opportunities but on its infrastructure. If I have to drive on poor roads, send my children to private schools and pay for private healthcare, he said, my interest in the U.S. wanes since paying for these things out of my own pocket severely cuts into my salary. I had not thought of it that way but I concede his point.

The MPI report has several recommendations to make to both the EU and the US. In both regions, they say, the bureaucracy needs to be reduced and procedures clarified and stream-lined. Governments should encourage business to participate in the debate and have some say in the process. Some of the international students being kicked out of France right now have jobs but their employers do not seem to have had any say in the implementation of the new policy.

And finally, both regions need to create a mechanism by which immigration policies can be quickly reviewed and fine-tuned according to the actual data (the "facts on the ground"). Immigration is a moving river - by the time a law has actually gone through the legislative process the situation (economic, demographic, political and so on) may have radically changed. Flexibility and agility are key here and I have to wonder if some of the smaller (but very attractive) countries like New Zealand may not have an edge. The "Silver Fern" program is a brilliant idea and I cannot imagine either the US or the EU being able to do something similar without years of debate.

Of all the MPI recommendations, I think the most crucial is providing some clarity and simplifying the procedures. When you look, for example, at the EU Blue Card program, it has all the elements of a shipwreck in the fog looking for a coastline. Information is hard to obtain and just figuring out how and where to apply has many people gnashing their teeth in frustration. The U.S. is not much better with a Byzantine bureaucracy and long waiting times for visas. I defy any American or any European to, off the top of his head, explain U.S. or EU immigration policy to the curious (but uninitiated) foreigner.

On one side you have jobs and countries undergoing demographic crisis. On the other you have people ready to fill those jobs and ready to re-locate and put their talents to use by raising families, starting businesses and contributing to the overall welfare of a nation that is not their own. The current state of immigration policy in the EU and the US reminds one of a dysfunctional dating service and if they can't do better than this than they both deserve to sit at home alone while everyone else dances 'til the wee hours of the morning.

Playing for Change - United

This one starts slowly - like small waves on the shore - but keep watching because the music builds and builds and becomes sublime.  A simple song that is hauntingly beautiful.  It's the first time I've seen them use my kind of strings (violins, violas, cellos).  And what is the fascinating instrument played by the woman in China?

"We have to bring the world together."  Amen to that.

Marine Le Pen in America

Marine Le Pen, the leader of the right-wing French party, Le Front National, will cross the Atlantic for a five day tour of the United States. According to her agenda, she begins her pilgrimage in New York where she will meet with French-speaking diplomats and ambassadors at the United Nations and then she is scheduled to give a speech at the Republican Women's Club on 51st street.  Later in the week she will go south to Florida to meet with French expatriates there and possibly with members of the Democrat party.

Her voyage is not without controversy.  Clearly the purpose of the trip is to demonstrate that she has the stature to move in the international political and diplomatic realms.  A blog in the French paper, Le Figaro, is putting this spin on her trip to the U.S.:

Etrange initiative pour quelqu’un qui défend le "chacun chez soi", qui tonne régulièrement contre "l’impérialisme yankee" et qui vient de déclarer sa flamme à Vladimir Poutine, le tsar russe dont la politique autoritaire et centralisatrice est à l’opposé du modèle américain.

Strange initiative for someone who defends "each to his own home", who regularly cries out against "yankee imperialism" and who has just declared her fondness for Vladimir Putin, the Russian tsar whose authoritarianism and centralizing politics are at odd with the American model.

Point.  But he goes on to say that one purpose of her visit is to meet with Tea Party members - this strange grassroots Right-wing movement that is sort of under the wings of the Republican when it absolutely must declare party affiliation but is probably much broader than, and certainly at odds with, any establishment, Democrat or Republican.

And here I think Yves Thréard goes a bit too far.  Yes, she has tried to meet with representatives of the Tea Party but a quick look at her agenda shows that she is not confining her attentions to them in particular.  Perhaps there is an affinity between her philosophy and theirs but that certainly isn't stopping her from trying to meet with the more mainstream established parties as well.

Alas, we may never find out if the Front National can find common ground with the Tea Party or other political creatures in American because they do not seem terribly interested in meeting her.  According to The Telegraph, Ron Paul has cancelled a visit with her due to "scheduling problems."

And I think that is a shame for two reasons.  The first is that I find myself very disappointed in the Tea Party overall and Mr. Paul in particular, for their lack of courtesy.  Gentlemen, where are your manners? Call me old-fashioned but didn't your mothers teach you that when you make a date with a lady you have a certain obligation to show up even if you have already decided you'd rather dance with someone else?

And the second is the sheer lack of intellectual curiosity and courage displayed by my compatriots.  I am no fan of Marine Le Pen and her ilk.  When I go to the Front National website my reaction is visceral - some of their rhetoric literally makes my stomach hurt.  When confronted by politics that I strongly dislike and that threaten me and my family, my first impulse is to make the sign of the cross and say, "Exorcizo te, omnis spiritus immunde, in nomine Dei..."  This is not only pointless, it is childish.  Their ability to provoke this reaction in me means that I need to listen twice as hard to what they have to say not only for my own protection but because maybe, just maybe, there is something in their message that I need to hear and might actually agree with. 

I doubt that the Tea Party and Le Pen will find much common ground but their decision to forgo a meeting deprives everyone (including them) of a chance to find out.  Whether their actions are based on fear ("guilt by association") or sheer ignorance, I cannot know, but I am convinced of this:  When you fear something it is your master.  And when you find your master, you have found a teacher.

Ted Talk: Hans Rosling Explains Global Population Growth

Using "analog teaching technology" from Ikea (of all places).

I am in awe of Hans Rosling.  This man makes data come alive and his talks are usually beautifully scripted   using animated graphs to show you how the real world changes over time.   This time around he keeps it simple and all the animation is in his voice and in his face.  He says that he is neither an optimist nor a pessimist - he is a "possibilitist."

Carpetbagger

I've said before that I consider "assimilation" to be a dubious concept at best.  I am fearful of it because it implies a kind of surrender (abasement even) before the altar of a foreign culture.  Giving up everything that has made you up to this moment and exchanging it for something that seems brighter and more appealing feels like the highest treason against oneself and a sure path to future insanity.

And it's not terribly thoughtful.  I don't think you can come to another culture via a rejection of your own without doing yourself enormous damage.  It's not flattering to the host country either.  To say to your new country, "I love you because you are not where I come from" is a little like saying to a future spouse, "I love you because you are not my ex-husband."

You come to another country and culture with baggage - what you hold in your hand and what you have in your head.  The American writer Henry Miller understood this very well.  When asked about his essays (some of which were very critical of the United States) he replied, "The tenor of most of them, though strongly critical of our way of life, is nevertheless strictly kosher.  American is seen through the eyes of an American, not a Hottentot.  And Europe, which is often favorably contrasted with America, is a Europe which only an American might have eyes for."  And he goes on to cite Walt Whitman who once said to his compatriots, "You are in a fair way to create a whole nations of lunatics."

So call me one of the deranged.

What being abroad has done for me is to give me some compassionate (not dis-passionate) distance from  the conversation.  I was not in the United States during 911, nor was I there during the debate over the Iraq war or the sub-prime crisis or Occupy Wall Street  or a thousand and one other events that have shaped my country over the last 10 years.  Watching it all from a distance (and fiercely debating these things with my friends here in France and in other countries) has given me no end of grief and guilt.  It has also given me enough space to think long and hard about what these and other things have meant for my country and the world.  Surrounded by other voices, other points of view, that challenge my own ways of thinking every single day, the place where I sit is well outside the comfortable majority and I am harshly insulated from any sort of groupthink.

None of this has turned me anti-American or anti-US.  On the contrary, I hope it has made me a better American.  My compatriots who fear foreign ideas (attacks against "European-style" Socialism, for example) and attempt to purge these things from the national conversation are, quite simply, fools.  If a new thought and a bit of fresh air could truly sink us, well, then perhaps we deserve to drown. Americans are free individuals or we are nothing.

In the final days of the constitutional convention in 1787 when all the delegates were bickering futilely and unproductively themselves, Madison reported that Benjamin Franklin (patriot, ambassador extraordinaire and Francophile) rose and gave this speech:

Mr. President
I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right-Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."

Mr. Franklin was a great man and a great American.  If I do a tenth as well in my lifetime in service to my country, I will be content.  A large part of that service and the thing that will keep me an intellectually honest and loyal American is being constantly, intentionally and willfully exposed to "better information."  And that is the very best reason to love and to be eternally grateful to the other country of my heart, France.