How to help the huddled masses through immigration
How to help the huddled masses through immigration
By Gideon Rachman
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Published: March 13 2007 02:00 | Last updated: March 13 2007 02:00
Next week I hope to visit the US. I will put it no more strongly than that. I have learnt not to take my right to visit America for granted - ever since being ignominiously deported in 2003.
When I rang my wife from Dulles airport to tell her that I was being put on the first plane home, she briefly feared that I was about to reveal a double life as an international drug-smuggler or pornographer. Nothing so interesting. I had simply forgotten to get myself a journalist's visa.
The best stories of this sort usually involve the innocent foreigner being shackled or bundled off to the state penitentiary. Not in my case. The officials dealing with me were polite, sympathetic - but implacable. I protested feebly that I was a former Fulbright scholar who had lived in the US for several years. I had written for American journals, I knew important people, Britain was fighting alongside the US in Iraq. None of it cut any ice. As one of the immigration people explained: "We could have made an exception before 9/11, but not now."
Eventually we settled down to fill in the long questionnaire for deportees. The last question was: "Do you have anything further you want to say?" I said "no". The immigration officer smiled faintly and said: "That's good, because normally people tell me to 'F off' at this point." A few hours later I was flying back to London.
As a result of my unfortunate oversight, entering the US is always a bit of a performance. I am now wearily familiar with the look of consternation that crosses the immigration officer's face, as my name comes up on the computer. Then I get pulled over for a "secondary inspection". Usually, after 15 minutes or so, I am on my way.
But I am far from alone in feeling uneasy when I find myself in an American immigration line. In November, a survey of more than 2,000 regular foreign travellers found that 66 per cent of them agreed with the statement: "If you make a simple mistake or say the wrong thing to US immigration or security officials, you might be detained for hours or worse."
Even to me, this seems hysterical. After all, some 1.1m foreigners enter the US every day and, as I have enviously noted, most of them sail through immigration with no problem at all.
However, the survey for the Discover America partnership - a group of big businesses that seeks to promote tourism - also suggested that 39 per cent of regular travellers rate the US "worst" for immigration and entry procedures; the Middle East came second on 16 per cent. Discover America complains of a "climate of fear" and a "travel crisis". It cites a "near 20 per cent drop in the United States share of overseas travellers since 2000" and claims that this has cost 200,000 jobs and $93bn (£48.2bn) in revenue.
There is always a slightly spurious precision about figures like these. But it is not just the tourism industry that is complaining. A McKinsey report into America's financial services industry, also published in January, warned that New York risks losing its status as the "financial capital of the world" within 10 years. The first two problems it cited were over-regulation and fear of litigation. But problem three was "US immigration restrictions which are shutting out highly skilled workers". Getting foreign businessmen into the US for one-off meetings can be a problem. Long-term work visas are an even bigger issue. One financial service executive is quoted as complaining: "It is much easier to hire talented people in the UK - I couldn't hire the team I need in the US and I wouldn't bother trying."
The McKinsey report says Wall Street is still the best place to find talent. But the City of London is catching up, as it benefits from free movement of workers within the European Union and the fact that Britain does not have a quota-limit on work visas, even for non-Europeans.
Testifying before Congress last week, Bill Gates of Microsoft argued that US computing companies are also suffering from a severe skills shortage and that: "America's immigration policies are driving away the best and brightest, precisely when we need them most." Mr Gates sees an interlocking set of problems. A smaller proportion of international students are now studying at American universities, partly because it is made so hard for foreign graduates to then get a job in the US.
In 2001, the US issued 200,000 H-1B visas for highly skilled workers. That figure has now shrunk to about 65,000 a year. A big increase is promised, if and when a new immigration act is finally passed. But in the meantime Mr Gates complains that American companies are shifting research and development work overseas.
Presenting an unwelcoming face to the world has political as well as economic implications. Surveys regularly show that foreigners
who have actually visited the US
have a much more favourable impression of the country. The
same report that uncovered widespread fear of American immigration procedures reported that 72 per cent of visitors had a "great" experience inside the US.
The good news for the US is that so far the damage is at the margins. American universities, investment banks and computing companies are still clearly the world leaders. The American government has shown that it is keen to improve immigration procedures. The annual number of student visas issued for the US, after falling for some years, rose in 2006. The number of business visas issued for the US also rose. The waiting time to get a visa interview in India, which used to be notorious, has been cut back to a few days. Tourist numbers are also going up again.
A lot more needs to be done.
But at least there is an awareness of the problem.
As for myself, when I am in Washington next week (God willing),
I will make a point of cultivating people who might one day get top government jobs. I would do this anyway for professional reasons. But I also have an ulterior motive. Perhaps one day, one of my friends will get me off the immigration watch list. I explained my reasoning recently to one National Security Council hopeful. His reply was not encouraging: "Sorry - but it would easier for me to launch an air strike than to get yourname out of the immigration computer."
By Gideon Rachman
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Published: March 13 2007 02:00 | Last updated: March 13 2007 02:00
Next week I hope to visit the US. I will put it no more strongly than that. I have learnt not to take my right to visit America for granted - ever since being ignominiously deported in 2003.
When I rang my wife from Dulles airport to tell her that I was being put on the first plane home, she briefly feared that I was about to reveal a double life as an international drug-smuggler or pornographer. Nothing so interesting. I had simply forgotten to get myself a journalist's visa.
The best stories of this sort usually involve the innocent foreigner being shackled or bundled off to the state penitentiary. Not in my case. The officials dealing with me were polite, sympathetic - but implacable. I protested feebly that I was a former Fulbright scholar who had lived in the US for several years. I had written for American journals, I knew important people, Britain was fighting alongside the US in Iraq. None of it cut any ice. As one of the immigration people explained: "We could have made an exception before 9/11, but not now."
Eventually we settled down to fill in the long questionnaire for deportees. The last question was: "Do you have anything further you want to say?" I said "no". The immigration officer smiled faintly and said: "That's good, because normally people tell me to 'F off' at this point." A few hours later I was flying back to London.
As a result of my unfortunate oversight, entering the US is always a bit of a performance. I am now wearily familiar with the look of consternation that crosses the immigration officer's face, as my name comes up on the computer. Then I get pulled over for a "secondary inspection". Usually, after 15 minutes or so, I am on my way.
But I am far from alone in feeling uneasy when I find myself in an American immigration line. In November, a survey of more than 2,000 regular foreign travellers found that 66 per cent of them agreed with the statement: "If you make a simple mistake or say the wrong thing to US immigration or security officials, you might be detained for hours or worse."
Even to me, this seems hysterical. After all, some 1.1m foreigners enter the US every day and, as I have enviously noted, most of them sail through immigration with no problem at all.
However, the survey for the Discover America partnership - a group of big businesses that seeks to promote tourism - also suggested that 39 per cent of regular travellers rate the US "worst" for immigration and entry procedures; the Middle East came second on 16 per cent. Discover America complains of a "climate of fear" and a "travel crisis". It cites a "near 20 per cent drop in the United States share of overseas travellers since 2000" and claims that this has cost 200,000 jobs and $93bn (£48.2bn) in revenue.
There is always a slightly spurious precision about figures like these. But it is not just the tourism industry that is complaining. A McKinsey report into America's financial services industry, also published in January, warned that New York risks losing its status as the "financial capital of the world" within 10 years. The first two problems it cited were over-regulation and fear of litigation. But problem three was "US immigration restrictions which are shutting out highly skilled workers". Getting foreign businessmen into the US for one-off meetings can be a problem. Long-term work visas are an even bigger issue. One financial service executive is quoted as complaining: "It is much easier to hire talented people in the UK - I couldn't hire the team I need in the US and I wouldn't bother trying."
The McKinsey report says Wall Street is still the best place to find talent. But the City of London is catching up, as it benefits from free movement of workers within the European Union and the fact that Britain does not have a quota-limit on work visas, even for non-Europeans.
Testifying before Congress last week, Bill Gates of Microsoft argued that US computing companies are also suffering from a severe skills shortage and that: "America's immigration policies are driving away the best and brightest, precisely when we need them most." Mr Gates sees an interlocking set of problems. A smaller proportion of international students are now studying at American universities, partly because it is made so hard for foreign graduates to then get a job in the US.
In 2001, the US issued 200,000 H-1B visas for highly skilled workers. That figure has now shrunk to about 65,000 a year. A big increase is promised, if and when a new immigration act is finally passed. But in the meantime Mr Gates complains that American companies are shifting research and development work overseas.
Presenting an unwelcoming face to the world has political as well as economic implications. Surveys regularly show that foreigners
who have actually visited the US
have a much more favourable impression of the country. The
same report that uncovered widespread fear of American immigration procedures reported that 72 per cent of visitors had a "great" experience inside the US.
The good news for the US is that so far the damage is at the margins. American universities, investment banks and computing companies are still clearly the world leaders. The American government has shown that it is keen to improve immigration procedures. The annual number of student visas issued for the US, after falling for some years, rose in 2006. The number of business visas issued for the US also rose. The waiting time to get a visa interview in India, which used to be notorious, has been cut back to a few days. Tourist numbers are also going up again.
A lot more needs to be done.
But at least there is an awareness of the problem.
As for myself, when I am in Washington next week (God willing),
I will make a point of cultivating people who might one day get top government jobs. I would do this anyway for professional reasons. But I also have an ulterior motive. Perhaps one day, one of my friends will get me off the immigration watch list. I explained my reasoning recently to one National Security Council hopeful. His reply was not encouraging: "Sorry - but it would easier for me to launch an air strike than to get yourname out of the immigration computer."
posted by Carlos T Mock at 10:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home