University of Music and Performing Arts Vienna
March 31, 2017
March 31, 2017
March 28, 2017
March 24, 2017
March 14, 2017
By 19606
David D. Sussman, a 2003 Sylff fellow of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, reengages the findings from his master’s thesis, which analyzed how remittance-sending affected the integration (self-sufficiency) of immigrants in Boston, and interprets them given the current political environment in the United States. This article was written in early January 2017.
* * *
During the recent presidential election in the United States, the topic of immigration was once again brought to the forefront of political discussions. One candidate, Donald Trump—now president-elect—called for building an impregnable wall on the country’s southern border, limitations on refugee admissions, the deportation of millions of immigrants, and a registry of all Muslims. Putting aside debates over the sensibility (not to mention the legality) of these propositions, we might focus on the lives of refugees and immigrants who already reside in the United States and thereby test the critique that they are not integrating into society quickly enough.
Do we fully appreciate the difficult financial situation of immigrants in the United States? How might our perspectives shift if we better understand the double bind that some of them face, to improve their local situation while also caring for family members overseas? Despite ideological differences between liberals and conservatives on the positives and negatives of migration, each side can agree in hoping that new arrivals improve professionally and educationally. Notwithstanding the passage of time, the research presented here, from my Sylff-supported master’s degree, remains relevant. This article provides relevant background explanation, an overview of my approach, and a summary of findings and briefly reflects on the implications, given present-day political and economic circumstances.
An investigation of this topic was inspired by previous work as a resettlement case manager with the International Rescue Committee in Boston. During my time working with refugees from Africa and Latin America, I was moved by their ongoing struggles. Beyond needing to learn about a new city and culture, and often burdened by traumatic past experiences, US government protocol required them to quickly find any possible job, often at the minimum wage. They worked long hours in such positions as grocery baggers, hotel bellhops, or, if fortunate, as nursing assistants. Their expenses for rent, food, and other basic necessities stretched them to their limits, as Boston was and remains to this day one of the most expensive places to live in the United States. At the same time, nearly all of the refugees sent weekly or monthly remittances to loved ones they had left behind. Often, they received phone calls at all hours of the day and night, from friends and family pleading for further support. The financial challenges faced by these resilient and hard-working refugees was readily apparent, and I knew that, if given the chance one day, I wanted to further study and better understand their circumstances.
For millions of persons who cross borders to seek a new and better life, the memories of and commitment to friends and family back home lead them to maintain connections with their place of origin. In many situations, remittances (financial resources that migrants wire back to their country) serve as the primary purpose of migration, while for those coming from conflict-affected countries, it is primarily safety and freedom that they seek, with remittances as a significant secondary objective. My research examined the potential impact of sending money on immigrants’ integration, as measured through financial and educational “self-sufficiency.”
Immigration remains part and parcel of the United States. As a nation founded by immigrants (at the expense of indigenous populations), new waves of arrivals to the United States over the past two centuries led to continual processes of adjustment and varied degrees of inclusion in the country’s social and economic fabric. As of 2010, more than one in eight persons in the country had been born abroad.1 The foreign-born population remains quite diverse today (53.6% from Latin America, 28.2% from Asia, 12.1% from Europe, and 6.5% from elsewhere),2 though among new entrants, Asians now outnumber Latin Americans.3 The historic role of Massachusetts and the Greater Boston region as host to immigrant populations continues to the present day. The state’s number of immigrants nearly doubled to 1,046,155 between 1990 and 2013,4,5 such that it now has the eighth highest percentage of foreign-born residents, rising from 9.5% in 1990 to 15.6% in 2013.6 In the state’s urban areas, such as Boston (Suffolk County), 27.4% of persons were foreign born as of 2013.7
Globally, remittance amounts have risen dramatically over recent decades—from less than $2 billion in 1970 to $70 billion in 1995,8 and despite a brief slowdown during the global financial crisis, to more than $430 billion in 2015.9 Sending remittances is a high priority among the financial decisions that immigrants face. The 2003 National Survey of Latinos in the United States found that many respondents remitted before taking care of their bills, others paid for their household expenses first, and only a few did not consider sending funds to be important.10 According to one Mexican interviewed, “Before anything, I send them the money because they count on it. Then afterwards I pay my bills, my rent, but the first thing I do is send it.”11
Economic self-sufficiency is often defined simply, as when immigrants’ wages attain levels similar to those of native populations.12 In reality, it can also be measured in various other ways, particularly education and social achievement. For example, the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development’s assessment form to determine self-sufficiency demonstrates the complexity of factors influencing the measure; areas of focus include employment, education, health, childcare, family development, housing, income management, transportation, resident participation, and nutrition.13
For my research I focused on studying Somali refugees and Salvadoran economic migrants (among a broader range of Latin Americans) living in Boston due to their significance as immigrant groups and, with preliminary evidence showing that they remitted at high levels, the potential for differential findings between them. To connect with potential respondents, I volunteered in English as a Second Language (ESL) classes at two community organizations supporting immigrants, Centro Presente and the Somali Development Center. In this way, it was possible to meet clients who felt comfortable agreeing to qualitative interviews (16 Somalis and 19 Central Americans, 6 of them Salvadoran). Notably, those who visited the agencies were probably both a) poorer and more in need of support than more wealthy families and yet b) better connected and more successful than other persons in that community who did not have knowledge of or the ability to attend a social service agency.
The thesis research was unique because it 1) conducted extensive one-on-one interviews, using qualitative as opposed to quantitative analysis, 2) focused on the economic and educational self-sufficiency of the immigrants, which was a narrower approach than the multiple factors that other authors had investigated, and 3) considered the impact of remittance sending by both refugees and economic migrants.
Overall, the study found that sending remittances could be correlated with a difference in the self-sufficiency of migrants. In short, sending money abroad reduced immigrants’ available resources for advancing their careers and pursuing education, thereby making them less likely to become self-sufficient. In a number of cases, interviewees directly noted that they saw how their lives were impacted by remitting, potentially reducing opportunities.
The interaction between individual household characteristics and remitting is depicted in the figure I created below, which I refer to as the “Remittance/Self-Sufficiency Cycle.” A combination of financial, educational, and social factors lead to the attainment of household self-sufficiency and influence the amount of money that immigrants have available to remit if they wish to do so (see no. 1 in the figure). The sending of money to friends and family overseas can affect the ability of a family to achieve self-sufficiency; the monies that would have otherwise been invested in such areas as education, housing, and job skills are instead remitted (see no. 2).
Interestingly, there also appeared to be an important distinction in the approach to self-sufficiency. While Somali refugees hoped to get jobs and thought about the long-term, a significant number of the Central Americans wanted to remain in the United States long enough to earn money and then return to their country of origin. The Latin Americans pursued education to improve their job prospects but seemed less focused on aspects of permanent relocation. It is possible that differences in the economic situation of the two groups existed because, as refugees, Somalis qualified for a period of government assistance, whereas many Latinos (particularly those who entered illegally), as economic migrants, did not.
As such, the impact of remittances can be studied at two points: at “basic self-sufficiency” and at “long-term self-sufficiency.” The majority of the immigrants interviewed made sure that they addressed some but not all basic needs before sending remittances. Considering the elements of basic self-sufficiency, food and housing were priorities. Education and language abilities, however, often came second to sending monies overseas. Looking at long-term self-sufficiency, few immigrants were able to consider these needs. For most of them, if not all, the purchase of a house was beyond the realm of possibility, as was buying items like cars and computers. While a number improved their education level and advanced in their employment, they remained at relatively low wages. Nevertheless, when immigrants reflected on their life in the United States, they often made a comparison to their country of origin and so, despite their present difficulties, considered themselves fortunate to be in the United States.
We live in a mobile world, and the long-term prognosis is that migration pressures will continue. The significance of this study’s findings is that they show how, given economic obligation to family members, migrants are doubly responsible for both their relatives’ livelihood and their own well-being.
In light of the recent transfer of power from a Democratic to a Republican administration, this deeper understanding of immigrants and their self-sufficiency remains particularly important. On the one hand, liberals can look at the struggles of immigrants as evidence that more (e.g., legal protection and social services) is needed to support their successful adjustment to life in the United States. There are challenges, however, and with deepening inequality as a broader societal concern, one question is whether some immigrants, burdened by caring for families across borders, may become trapped as an underclass.
On the other hand, conservatives may point to difficulties in achieving self-sufficiency as evidence of the need to restrict certain types of immigration to the United States. They may believe that when many immigrants have a hard time attaining a middle-class lifestyle, it exemplifies their failure to work hard and succeed in the US economy. This misconception may lead to anti-migrant policies under the Trump administration, but even if there are limitations on immigrant entry, millions of foreign-born residents will still possess a legal right to remain in the United States.
Under these circumstances, what is in citizens’ control—regardless of government policy—is their support and welcoming attitudes toward newcomers, and a steady pressure placed on policymakers. In this way, their individual or collectively organized actions can make a positive difference in the lives of new arrivals, and society at large.
1U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. “The Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2010,” p. 4.
2Ibid.
3Pew Research Center. 2015. “Asians Projected to Become the Largest Immigrant Group, Surpassing Hispanics,” accessed at: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/ph_2015-09-28_immigration-through-2065-05/.
4Uriarte, http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/ph_2015-09-28_immigration-through-2065-05/Miren et al. 2003. “Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Hondurans and Colombians: A Scan of Needs of Recent Latin American Immigrants to the Boston Area,” edited draft, May 12, 2003, final report of the 2003 Practicum in Applied Research of the PhD Program in Public Policy at the John W. McCormack School of Policy Studies at the University of Massachusetts Boston, p. 3.
5 American Immigration Council. 2015. “New Americans in Massachusetts: The Political and Economic Power of Immigrants, Latinos, and Asians in the Bay State,” accessed at: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/new-americans-massachusetts.
6 Index Mundi. N.D. “United States—Foreign-Born Population Percentage by State,” accessed at: http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/all-states/foreign-born-population-percent#chart. American Immigration Council. 2015.
7Index Mundi. N.D. “Massachusetts Foreign-Born Population Percentage by County,” accessed at: http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/massachusetts/foreign-born-population-percent#chart.
8Taylor, J. Edward. 2000. “Do Government Programs ‘Crowd In’ Remittances?” Inter-American Dialogue and Tomas Rivera Policy Institute.
9World Bank. 2016. “Remittances to Developing Countries Edge Up Slightly in 2015,” accessed at: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2016/04/13/remittances-to-developing-countries-edge-up-slightly-in-2015.
10Suro, Roberto et al. 2002. “Billions in Motion: Latino Immigrants, Remittances, and Banking,” Pew Hispanic Center and Multilateral Investment Fund, p. 7.
11Ibid.
12Borjas, George. 1999. “The Economic Analysis of Immigration,” accessed at: http://www.ppge.ufrgs.br/giacomo/arquivos/eco02268/borjas-1999.pdf, p. 22.
13Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development. “Massachusetts Family Self-Sufficiency Scales and Ladders Assessment Form.”
February 28, 2017
February 10, 2017
By 19619
Dr. Gosia Pearson, who received a 2004 Sylff fellowship at Jagiellonian University to study at Oxford University, currently works in the European Commission’s department for humanitarian aid and civil protection (ECHO). She reports on the challenges of the humanitarian sector and outlines solutions to overcome them.
* * *
Working for the leading humanitarian donor—the European Commission’s Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid (ECHO)—is an exceptional privilege. Each year, ECHO provides over 1 billion euros to help around 120 million victims of natural and man-made disasters in over 80 countries worldwide; these include not only major crises that are high on the international agenda but also those that escape media attention. But the job also carries an enormous responsibility to exert all efforts possible to save lives and give hope to disaster-affected populations. This is particularly difficult in current times, which witness challenges not seen in recent history.
Current humanitarian catastrophes are more devastating than ever before due to political, socio-economic, and environmental factors. There are numerous endemic internal conflicts, many of which are ideologically highly charged, involving elements of conventional war and terrorism, and resulting in dramatic regional consequences. Last year alone, there were over 400 political conflicts, including tens of wars, which affected lives of 50 million people. These crises often last for years because of lengthy negotiations and lack of political solutions and happen more frequently in poor and fragile states, adding up to the vulnerabilities of the local populations.
Climate change, environmental degradation, urbanization, and population growth increase possible hazards and lead to a global rise in disasters. The number of climate-related events worldwide has doubled in the last 25 years. Every year natural disasters impact the lives of nearly 100 million people, and in the last 15 years they have led to direct economic losses of an estimated 2 trillion euros. There is a growing interdependence among these factors, making crises more complex and unpredictable.
These drivers have led to unprecedented human suffering and record-high humanitarian needs. In the last decade the UN humanitarian appeals grew by 640%. At the beginning of 2016, 87.6 million people in 37 countries around the world were in need of humanitarian assistance, and about 60 million people were displaced. These numbers represent nearly a doubling of people affected by humanitarian crises in the last decade. This year the UN requested over 20 billion US dollars to meet the needs of the affected populations, which is the highest appeal in history.
The ongoing pressure on humanitarians to provide assistance that goes far beyond saving lives and alleviating suffering makes humanitarian work ever more challenging. The financial and operational capacities are stretched to the limits, hindering adequate response. Last year, donors provided over 10 billion US dollars to help victims of conflict and disaster. This was the highest contribution in history; still, it covered only half of the estimated needed help. Funds are most constrained in protracted crises, which absorb nearly 80% of humanitarian funding. In addition, the operating environment has become increasingly complex, politicized, and insecure. The humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence are often challenged, and international humanitarian law is bluntly violated, resulting in arbitrary denial of access and lack of protection. Civilians are directly attacked, sexual based violence is used as a weapon of war, and children are recruited as child soldiers. Humanitarian personnel are also victims of direct attacks and kidnappings.
The response to these challenges should be based, first and foremost, on genuine partnerships between the various actors engaged in humanitarian action. No single actor has the capacity and resources to face these challenges alone. It is only through linked and coordinated action that the global community can respond to the escalating and multifaceted crises and disasters that demand humanitarian assistance. Such partnerships should be fostered for two purposes in particular. The first is to reaffirm the very basic humanitarian values: the values of dignity, integrity, and solidarity; humanitarian principles; the respect of obligations under international law; and the commitment to keep humanitarian work distinct from political agendas. This will help ensure access to assistance, protection, and security. The second objective is to improve the effectiveness of humanitarian action. This should include risk-informed response based on needs; closer cooperation with local actors, where possible; efficient and sufficient funding; and closer cooperation with the development community.
To build a more inclusive and diverse humanitarian system committed to humanitarian principles, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called for the convening of a World Humanitarian Summit, which took place for the first time in May 2016 in Istanbul. This multi-stakeholder event aimed to set a forward-looking and collective agenda for humanitarian action. At the event, 50 world leaders and 9,000 humanitarian, development, and political stakeholders from around the world made altogether 3,000 commitments to support a new shared Agenda for Humanity and take action to prevent and reduce human suffering.
My most recent task was to prepare and coordinate the EU’s position for the Summit, where the EU pledged over
100 commitments on its own policies, programs, and funds. Some examples of its commitments include adopting new guidelines on protection of civilians, signing the Grand Bargain on Humanitarian Financing, funding for the Education Cannot Wait initiative, adopting a new policy on forced displacement, signing up to the Charter on Persons with Disabilities in Humanitarian Action, and signing the Urban Crises Charter. The EU also signed the Political Communique, which was supported by over 70 countries. Like the EU, other countries and organizations made commitments for a better functioning humanitarian system.
While the World Humanitarian Summit was an important milestone, the work toward a new global partnership linking political action to prevent crises, development assistance, and more effective and principled humanitarian aid has only just begun. The challenges we are facing are complex, and there is no simple solution. The European Union confirmed that it would play its full part in reshaping aid to better serve people in need and called on all world leaders to do the same.
January 31, 2017
January 31, 2017
January 31, 2017
January 31, 2017