NEWS,22.12.2012

A US-Europe Free Trade Deal Allows US to Rethink Immigration Policy

Momentum seems to be gaining this week on the idea of a Transatlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA). As the Washington Post reports, a joint White House-European Union committee exploring the topic is due to report back in a few weeks' time. If the committee's report is to be of any value, it needs to examine a key corollary to free trade labor mobility. A TAFTA agreement done right will help us move towards a much more rational immigration policy.Unfortunately, in most countries today, immigration policy has become tied to citizenship and many of the benefits that come with it, including government welfare services. Those benefits are so costly to taxpayers in modern welfare states that many democracies have tried to restrict immigration, to the detriment of both free trade and labor mobility. Yet not all who work in a state want to become a citizen of it. It is long past time immigration policies reflected that.Throughout history, economic growth has been fueled by what the classical Greeks called metics, and what have been known in English as sojourners. As James Bennett puts it: A sojourner is one who moves from one country to another to reside and engage in economic activity, but does not give up his previous identity, returns to previous countries of residence frequently, and remains in constant communication with his home network. This sojourner is an essential element of transnational cooperation, making possible entrepreneurial activity on a wide scale with an extremely low cost of entry.The European Union, to its credit, recognized the importance of such status, allowing free movement of labour at its founding in 1957. In that same spirit, the joint committee absolutely needs to address the issue of labor mobility in its report. By recognizing some form of sojourner status distinct from citizenship, the agreement could provide the framework for a rational rethink of America's immigration laws.What would sojourner status look like? Given the political difficulty of introducing genuine labor mobility, it should initially provide a right not to seek employment but to engage in business, such as entrepreneurship, consulting, or contracting. No rights to social insurance would accrue to a sojourner, nor would political rights such as voting or contributing financially to political campaigns. Efforts by sojourners to claim those citizens' rights outside legal channels would be grounds for repatriation. Sojourner status would only be granted to nationals of countries willing to grant reciprocity in the arrangements. As such, a sojourner would not be appropriate status for those wishing to gain citizenship, but it would be appropriate for those who wish to offer their skills in return for opportunity. Sojourners in the United States would generally return home, taking with them new skills and an appreciation for America that would probably extend beyond the economic. Meanwhile, it would give native-born Americans a new appreciation for immigrants, as the perception of their costing taxpayers through their use of welfare services would dissipate. In fact, return migration is a natural market phenomenon that was common through much of American history until it was disrupted by arbitrary restrictions on entry first implemented in the 1920s. The overwhelming majority of early 20th century Italian immigrants to the United States returned home after a few years.  Reentry restrictions, by contrast, provide incentives to overstay making it more difficult to come in also makes it more difficult to go back.A TAFTA that included steps towards increased labor mobility could provide the basis for a more rational immigration policy. The use of sojourner status, if successful, could be expanded to other countries (always on the basis of reciprocity), breaking the link between immigration and citizenship benefits, thus providing more economic bang per immigration buck.It is sadly unlikely the White House-EU committee will grasp this particular nettle. If it did, however, the benefits to transatlantic trade could be immense.

 

John Kerry Brings Passion to the State Department

 

America's policy toward Israel and the Middle East was front and center in the political debate this election year, from Iran's nuclear program to Israeli-Arab peacemaking to America's response to the Arab Spring. And American Jews decided resoundingly by a 70 percent - 30 percent margin that Barack Obama was the right man for the job of commander-in-chief.Now the president needs to pick a new secretary of state, one who will have big shoes or, as my wife would say, pumps to fill. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been a superb secretary of state, not only leading but also managing to be a great teammate. Her approval ratings are as sky-high as her effectiveness.John Kerry, the senior Democratic senator from Massachusetts, who was officially nominated Friday, would be a great pick to succeed her.I interned for Kerry back in the 1990s as an undergraduate student at Brandeis University, perhaps the most pro-Israel college in the country. To me, Kerry seemed larger than life, a passionate man who could command a room without effort, and who had an extraordinary grasp of the issues, domestic and foreign. I saw Kerry's passion again, more than a decade later, when I worked at the Middle East desk at the State Department and later in the Senate as a foreign policy aide. I witnessed how Kerry made the tough calls and led by example, just as he had done when he spoke out against the Vietnam War as a young man and combat veteran.Kerry understands how to use these formidable skills to strengthen our country's relations with close allies like Israel. He is a longtime advocate for an ironclad defense partnership between Israel and the United States, and a vigorous American diplomatic role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.He understands the challenge from Iran and is a ruling voice for active American global leadership to resolve the crisis over its nuclear program. Kerry has directed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he leads to take on each of these issues, ensuring that Israel gets the defense aid it needs and the diplomatic support it depends on, and that Iran gets the penalizing sanctions it deserves.And Kerry understands that the Middle East is changing in ways that we can't predict, with ramifications for both the United States and Israel. He has led the Senate's efforts to engage this new Middle East, including being the Senate's leading voice for new relations with Egypt and post-Qaddafi Libya. Both Israel and America will benefit from his ability to build new alliances in this turbulent region.Yet being a strong secretary of state is about much more than just foreign policy smarts. Outside of the president, the secretary of state is the most prominent American face to the world. Doing the job well requires vision, gravitas and the full backing of the president. John Kerry possesses these qualities in spades. Kerry has the vision, having been a Senate leader on efforts to combat climate change, to end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars responsibly, and to prevent nuclear weapons from ever being used again. He knows how to implement that vision, having guided through the Senate in 2010 a strategic nuclear arms control treaty with Russia that passed with bipartisan support during partisan times. He likewise has the gravitas, having nearly been elected president in 2004, garnering more than 59 million votes, and having served prominently in the Senate for nearly three decades. For this he is frequently called upon to travel to global hotspots like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Egypt to smooth out relations during crisis moments. Kerry has proved that he commands the respect of America's adversaries and allies alike before even entering the room.Perhaps most important, he has the trust of the president. In 2004, Kerry gave then-Illinois's state senator Barack Obama his first national platform as a keynote speaker at the Democratic convention. Obama returned the favor this year, inviting Kerry to deliver the main foreign policy address at the 2012 Democratic convention. If selected for secretary of state, there will be no doubt around the world that Kerry has a direct line to, and the full confidence of, the president.American Jews overwhelmingly voted for President Obama, and now they want this president to lead. John Kerry as secretary of state would help Obama do just that as a powerful voice for America on the world stage, a visionary leader who understands how to deal with complex challenges and a staunch friend of close allies like Israel.

Why Europe Is Wrong About Jerusalem

On Wednesday at the UN, the representatives of Britain, France, Germany and Portugal expressed their strong opposition to further announcements by the Israeli government of plans for new construction in East Jerusalem. They reiterated particular concerns, expressed in a statement by EU foreign ministers last week, about plans to build in E1, a sensitive area of 12 square kilometres extending into the West Bank just east of Jerusalem. European governments are right when they say that neither side should take unilateral acts which could undermine the viability of a two-state agreement. The Palestinians should refrain from trying to impose their version of a solution through UN resolutions, and Israel should refrain from trying to impose theirs by building in new areas of the territory under dispute. European foreign ministers said as much in last week's statement, emphasising that a solution to the conflict, including on borders, must be agreed by the parties. But they also said something else which undermines their own logic. Not only has Europe expressed dismay at building in E1, but it has also been rehearsing the Palestinian argument that building in E1 would be 'jeopardizing the possibility of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state and of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states.' The Palestinians have good reason for wanting E1 as part of their future state, with valid concerns that Israeli construction there might inhibit their access to East Jerusalem and contiguity between Ramallah and Bethlehem. But successive Israeli governments have also had a position on E1. Israel wants to control the area because without it the large settlement of Maale Adumim, which sits on strategic high ground to the east of Jerusalem, will be vulnerable to being cut off from the rest of Jerusalem. Israeli negotiators in 2008 offered the Palestinians solutions that would link the areas dissected by E1 with a road that would serve as a corridor, providing contiguity between Palestinian East Jerusalem, Ramallah and Bethlehem. UN Security Council resolution 242 affirms the rights of all states in the region to secure and defensible borders, including Israel, and many Israelis see E1 as integral to Israel's defensible borders. When both sides have a claim to this small but strategically significant piece of land, the way to resolve the issue should be through negotiations between the parties, just as the EU is calling for. Why then has the EU prejudged the outcome of those negotiations by taking the Palestinian side of the argument? If Israel is wrong to prejudge the fate of E1 by planing to build on it, how can it be right for the EU to prejudge its fate by adopting the Palestinian position?Appearing to automatically take the Palestinian line undermines the EU's aspiration to play a more significant political role in the peace process. Israeli governments will be less likely to pay attention to the Europeans if they see them as champions of the Palestinians, rather than champions of a deal which will address the needs of both sides. What's more, by adopting the Palestinian position so wholeheartedly, the EU could harm the prospect of a future deal by binding the Palestinian's hands in negotiations. Reaching a deal in the long run will require difficult concessions and maximum flexibility and creativity from both sides. The international community prejudging the details in favour of one side or the other will, if anything, reduce the scope for compromise.