Philippe Legrain

Greenspan: Blame everyone but me for the crisis

Money quote: “To this day it is hard to find fault with the conceptual framework of our [financial risk management] models as far as they go.”

Of course not.  

Tom Friedman talks some sense for once..

on the benefits of immigration: 

All these kids are American high school students. They were the majority of the 40 finalists in the 2010 Intel Science Talent Search, which, through a national contest, identifies and honors the top math and science high school students in America, based on their solutions to scientific problems. The awards dinner was Tuesday, and, as you can see from the above list, most finalists hailed from immigrant families, largely from Asia.

Ouch!

 
 from FT.com

Surprise, surprise

The US government's much-touted E-Verify programme for detecting whether workers are authorised to work in the US detects fewer than half of illegal workers, while initially rejecting some legal workers. 

Technology is not a quick fix for the political problem of what to do with 12 million undocumented immigrants in the US.

Sharp fall in Mexican migration to the US

The New York Times reports that:

about 226,000 fewer people emigrated from Mexico to other countries during the year that ended in August 2008 than during the previous year, a decline of 25 percent. All but a very small fraction of emigration, both legal and illegal, from Mexico is to the United States.

Opponents of immigration tend to assume that people want to move from poor countries to rich ones irrespective of the economic circumstances - perhaps to languish on welfare, for instance.

This is nonsense, of course. Most people who uproot themselves to another country do so in order to better themselves by working hard.

When there are jobs to be filled, they come. When there aren't, they don't.

On a march against the US Border Patrol

Our biggest domestic menace never was waiting outside Home Depot, hoping to clean your basement. Unauthorized immigrants are not about to destroy anything, not even when they get angry and loud and march in large groups. On the contrary, they are inspiring. Their ethic of self-reliance and hard work is one that Americans should recognize and celebrate.

Exhibit A: Riverside, Calif., where I went recently to watch immigrant advocates march against the Border Patrol.

Read the full article in the New York Times

American jobs for American workers

As more Americans lose their jobs, the U.S. government is actively discouraging the recruitment of foreign workers, from dude ranchers and fruit pickers to lifeguards and computer programmers. Full article in WSJ.

In the NYT, Casey Mulligan points out how that preventing foreigners working to save American jobs is as absurd as the "marriage bars" which proliferated during the Great Depression. These prevented married women getting jobs, or led to women being fired when they got married. But since then, as the share of women working has soared, the share of men working has remained unchanged.

There isn't a fixed number of jobs to go around. Women don't take men's jobs, and immigrants don't take local workers'. Full article here.

Protectionism watch

After the Omnibus Appropriations Bill signed into law by President Obama scrapped a pilot programme that allowed a small number of Mexican trucking companies to carry cargoes north of the border - as NAFTA requires - Mexico has responded by slapping tariffs of up to 45% on 90 American agricultural and industrial imports.

Renault is to move production of its new Clio from Slovenia back to France, after President Sarkozy granted a bail out to French carmakers on condition they repatriate production from central and eastern Europe. Renault insists the decision is a commercial, rather than a political, one. So much for the EU single market.

Gardening is still a step up for US immigrants

Hispanic immigrants who work in construction, hotels and other blue-collar jobs have suffered from the brutal economic climate. But immigrant gardeners appear to be weathering the harsh conditions well.

"Gardening isn't like working at a factory, where you depend on one employer," says Manuel Quezada, a 54-year-old veteran gardener, as he and his team put down sod in the front yard of a house here. "If I lose one house, it doesn't hurt that much."

The full article is in the Wall Street Journal.

Two more American immigration fiascos

What do you get when you mix inhumanity with bureaucratic targets? Immigration raids that make up the numbers by rounding up the easiest targets rather than the most dangerous fugitives.

The New York Times reports that:

Federal immigration officials had repeatedly told Congress that among more than half a million immigrants with outstanding deportation orders, they would concentrate on rounding up the most threatening — criminals and terrorism suspects.

Instead, newly available documents show, the agency changed the rules, and the program increasingly went after easier targets. A vast majority of those arrested had no criminal record, and many had no deportation orders against them, either.

Meanwhile, America's border wall is proving to be another fiasco, the Wall St Journal reports:

Opponents of the fence have petitioned the Obama administration to halt construction. Environmentalists are demanding a top-level review of the route, which they say would block such rare species as the ocelot from critical habitat. Property owners are contesting federal seizure of their land. Engineers are struggling to address flooding concerns.

And all the while, drug smugglers and illegal immigrants continue to breach the fencing that is up, forcing Border Patrol agents and contractors to return again and again for repairs. The smugglers build ramps to drive over fencing, dig tunnels under it, or use blow torches to slice through. They cut down metal posts used as vehicle barriers and replace them with dummy posts, made from cardboard.

Texas state Sen. Eliot Shapleigh gets it right:

What we see is a muro del odio [wall of hate]. Simply put, it doesn't work. We hope Obama will take the wall down.

Into the light

As the era of the dark side recedes a little, my sense of the looming reality is as follows. The men who ordered a man tied to a chair, doused in water, and chilled to hypothermia so intense he had to be rushed to emergency medical care, the men who presided over at least two dozen and at most a hundred prisoners tortured to death, the men who ordered an American servicewoman to smear fake menstrual blood over a Muslim's face in order to win a war against Jihadism, the men who ordered innocents stripped naked, sexually abused, terrified by dogs, or cast into darkness with no possibility of a future, and did all this in the name of the Constitution of the United States, the men who gave the signal in wartime that there were no limits to what could be done to prisoners of war and reaped a whirlwind of abuse and torture that will haunt American service members for decades: these men will earn the judgment of history. It will be brutal.

Andrew Sullivan on the end of the Bush years.

Don't want our money? Don't worry, we don't want to give it to you

In recent years, Western governments have voiced concerns about Asian governments' vast sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) investing in Western companies. Some called this "investment protectionism"

But as Western banks faced collapse, they were delighted to receive capital injections from Asian SWFs - and Western governments didn't object. In a crisis, needs must.

Now, though, Asia's SWFs are having second thoughts.

China Investment Corp, the country’s sovereign wealth fund, will no longer risk investing in western financial institutions because of concerns about their viability and a lack of consistency in their governments’ policies, according to its chairman.

“Right now we don’t have the courage to invest in financial institutions because we don’t know what problems we will put ourselves into,” Lou Jiwei said.

Perhaps Western governments will realise that the only thing worse than receiving investment from Asia's sovereign-wealth funds is being denied it.

Who's lecturing who?

For years, the US has lectured China on how it should run its economy. Now, the tables are turned.

US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson went to Beijing to urge the Chinese government not to let its currency weaken.

The Chinese hit back in style. Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the Chinese central bank, urged the US to rebalance its economy.

“Over-consumption and a high reliance on credit is the cause of the US financial crisis,” he said. “As the largest and most important economy in the world, the US should take the initiative to adjust its policies, raise its savings ratio appropriately and reduce its trade and fiscal deficits.”

The balance of power in the world economy is shifting faster than most people realise.

Krugman: big fiscal stimulus that boosts government spending needed

Now, the United States tried a fiscal stimulus in early 2008; both the Bush administration and congressional Democrats touted it as a plan to "jump-start" the economy. The actual results were, however, disappointing, for two reasons. First, the stimulus was too small, accounting for only about 1 percent of GDP. The next one should be much bigger, say, as much as 4 percent of GDP. Second, most of the money in the first package took the form of tax rebates, many of which were saved rather than spent. The next plan should focus on sustaining and expanding government spending—sustaining it by providing aid to state and local governments, expanding it with spending on roads, bridges, and other forms of infrastructure.

The usual objection to public spending as a form of economic stimulus is that it takes too long to get going—that by the time the boost to demand arrives, the slump is over. That doesn't seem to be a major worry now, however: it's very hard to see any quick economic recovery, unless some unexpected new bubble arises to replace the housing bubble. (A headline in the satirical newspaper The Onion captured the problem perfectly: "Recession-Plagued Nation Demands New Bubble to Invest In.") As long as public spending is pushed along with reasonable speed, it should arrive in plenty of time to help—and it has two great advantages over tax breaks. On one side, the money would actually be spent; on the other, something of value (e.g., bridges that don't fall down) would be created.

In short, Nobel laureate Paul Krugman says a fiscal stimulus needs to:
1. be big (unlike in the UK, where it amounts to only 1% of GDP)
2. prioritise government spending rather than tax breaks (unlike in the UK, where it consists mainly of a temporary VAT cut).

Attitudes to immigration in America and Europe

The latest Transatlantic Trends survey of attitudes towards immigration in America and Europe finds that 47% of Europeans and 50% of Americans think immigration is more of a problem than an opportunity.

But young Europeans (aged 18-34) are much more positive about immigration than older ones. In both the US and Europe, the better educated people are, the more positive towards immigration they are. While 52% of Europeans and 55% of Americans who have not completed secondary school think immigration is more of a problem, only a third of Europeans with a university degree think so. Among those with a post-graduate degree, the figure is 28% for Europeans and 27% for Americans.

People who actually have contact with immigrants are also much more favourable towards immigration. Whereas 54% of Europeans and 61% of Americans without immigrant friends or colleagues said that
immigration is more of a problem, only 42% of Europeans and 43% of Americans with at least a few personal or professional immigrant contacts said likewise.

There was also a strong left-right divide, with Democrats, independents and Europeans who identify as being on the left or centre much more positive about immigration than Republicans and right-wing Europeans.

While the overall picture is not particularly cheery, the fact that those who are younger, better educated and have contact with immigrants are more positive is a good sign. Generational change, improvements in education and contact with real people can make a difference.

Prospects for US immigration reform

The upside: Many Republican anti-immigration extremists will no longer be members of the incoming House of Representatives. Nine or 10 have lost their seats; their leader, Tom Tancredo, is retiring, as is Duncan Hunter.

The downside: Leading reform advocate Ted Kennedy is fighting cancer, and John McCain watered down his reform commitment during his election campaign. The priority for the foreseeable future will be coping with the economic and financial crisis. And when unemployment is rising, opposition to immigration is likely to strengthen.

But immigration doesn't cost jobs. On the contrary, immigrants tend to create them.

A new study suggests immigrants are far more likely than non-immigrants to start and own businesses. It finds that immigrants start about 17% of the 484,000-some businesses created each month, and are 30% more likely than non-immigrants to start businesses each month, according to the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy.

Hat tip: WSJ.

Change has come! YES!

The doubts are over: Obama has won. What a great day! Not just for Americans, but for the whole world. He was the right choice, not because of the colour of his skin, but because of the content of his character.

The many Europeans who are snooty about the US should ask themselves: in which European country could the son of a Kenyan immigrant have achieved this? Despite its many flaws, America provides greater opportunities to legal immigrants than other countries do. That is something to celebrate - and something to reflect on.

It's striking, though, how close the election result was. While Obama swept the electoral college, the popular vote split 52% to 47%. Among men, he won by only 49% to 48%, while women favoured him 56% to 43% (according to a CNN exit poll). And while 18-29 backed him by a 2:1 margin, he was level-pegging with McCain among 45-64 year olds, and McCain won among the elderly.

But dissecting the results is for later. Today is a day for celebration.

Migrants feel the mortgage squeeze

Undocumented immigrants in the US can no longer get mortgages - even though their default rates are low.

Previously, established migrants could get mortgages with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, but now they need a US Social Security number.

"If you want to buy a house and you're here without papers, now you can forget it," says Jesus Benitez, a real-estate agent who caters to Hispanics in Brooklyn.

From the WSJ.

One airline is (unfortunately) booming

ICE Air provides one-way flights home for immigrants that the US is deporting. Story at the WSJ. More photos here.

Absurd comment of the day:
"For a lot of these immigrants, it has been a long journey to the U.S.," said Michael J. Pitts, chief of flight operations for deportations and removals at ICE. "This is going to be the last impression they have of the United States. We want to provide good service."

A Cuban conspiracy

It is bad enough that governments conspire to keep foreigners out. It is even worse when governments conspire to keep their own citizens from leaving. Violating Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that every one has the right to leave a country, including their own, the Cuban and Mexican governments have agreed to cooperate to prevent Cubans reaching the US.

Cuba rightly rails against the unfair and counterproductive US embargo. But it has no qualms imposing its own embargo on Cubans going to live and work in the US.

US immigration raids are a costly sham

America is paying the price for Congress's failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform last year. In the biggest crackdown for two decades, high-profile raids on companies suspected of hiring illegal immigrants are proliferating. And the upshot? A lot of pain for very little gain.

Honest employers are being penalised for hiring workers whose credentials they cannot reliably verify.

Illegal immigrants who are doing jobs Americans don't want to do are being punished for the government's failure to recognise reality.

American workers whose jobs depend on those done by illegal immigrants are suffering too.

And what does the crackdown hope to achieve?

Not an end to illegal immigration, still less the departure of all 12 million illegals on American soil. According to the New York Times,

Bush administration officials said the crackdown was the price employers must pay to persuade voters to agree to open the gates to immigrant workers. In an interview, Mr. Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, said, “We are not going to be able to satisfy the American people on a legal temporary worker program until they are convinced that we will have a stick as well as a carrot.”

Ultimately, then, the immigration raids are political theatre: a costly sham.

US immigration raids: tragedy laced with farce

Federal immigration officials raided an Iowa meatpacking plant this month in what is being called the largest operation of its kind in U.S. history. Nearly 400 of the plant's 900 employees were arrested on immigration charges. Do you feel safer?

Thus begins a generally excellent editorial in today's Wall Street Journal, pointing out the absurdities of the current crackdown on immigration. Check it out!

Also interesting in the WSJ: how US visa curbs are hitting businesses that rely on seasonal workers.

Folly of cap on immigrant visas

America's annual dash to hire skilled foreign professionals is already over. It began, perhaps appropriately, on April Fool's Day and within a week the 65,000 quota was filled.

High-tech employers said their inability to get visas to import workers would force them to expand their operation overseas. Robert Hoffman, vice president of Oracle Corp., said the company last year sent jobs to Ireland and India when it couldn't get enough H1B visas and that the company has 1,000 openings for skilled jobs it can't fill locally.

Supporters of an immigration cap in Britain - the Conservatives, UKIP, MigrationWatch, and now the House of Lords economic select committee - try to bolster their position by referring to the fact that other advanced economies, notably the US, impose one.

Indeed, many do. And look at the consequences.

5 Myths about NAFTA

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton often likes to take credit for her husband's achievements as president. But then there's NAFTA. Clinton may have been present at the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994, but she wants everybody to know that it's not her baby. She now proposes to "fix" the agreement to make trade "work for working families." Sen. Barack Obama, meanwhile, makes the fallout from NAFTA sound downright nuclear, lamenting that "entire cities . . . have been devastated as a consequence of trade agreements that were not adequately structured to make sure that U.S. workers had a fair deal." Despite the heightened rhetoric, he, too, wishes to "fix" the treaty, not nix it. Only the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, would leave NAFTA untouched; his priority is freeing up global trade.

The Democratic rivals have bought into most of the myths that have been peddled about the agreement and have placed their opposition to NAFTA at the center of their campaigns. Here's some information that could help them update their stump speeches.

1 NAFTA has transformed the U.S. economy.

Hardly. Critics rightly point out that NAFTA's economic benefits were oversold, but they're wrong to heap the blame for all America's woes on it. NAFTA, which expanded the existing Canadian-U.S. free-trade area to Mexico, has had only a marginal effect on the U.S. economy. Yes, exports to Mexico have more than tripled since 1993 -- but at $161 billion last year, they still account for only 1.1 percent of the economy. Considering that total U.S. exports have more than doubled over the same period, to more than $1.6 trillion a year, the boost from NAFTA is just a trifle.

Though imports from Mexico have risen nearly five-fold since 1993 -- potentially threatening some U.S. businesses -- they only amounted to $230 billion in 2007, or less than 1.7 percent of the $14 trillion U.S. economy. That's peanuts. And for all the fears of factories being shipped south on the back of an 18-wheeler, the total U.S. investment in Mexican factories and offices adds up to a mere $75 billion. Mexico received just $19 billion in foreign direct investment in 2006, while the United States attracted $175 billion. Thus, the "giant sucking sound" that Texas businessman and independent presidential candidate H. Ross Perot heard back in the 1990s doesn't sound so giant after all. But the benefits of NAFTA don't seem so remarkable, either.

2 NAFTA has put countless Americans out of work.

Not really. Obama claims that NAFTA has destroyed a million American jobs. Suppose he's right. Total employment still rose by 27 million jobs between 1993 and 2007, to 137.6 million, and the unemployment rate has fallen. At worst, then, NAFTA has cost only a tiny minority of American workers their jobs. And even that is a one-sided view. As Mexico opened its economy to U.S. trade and investment, NAFTA created new American jobs, too.

NAFTA critics also decry the trade deficit with Mexico, but at $70 billion a year, it accounts for only 0.5 percent of the U.S. economy. These figures should quiet NAFTA foes, who point to lost jobs and stagnant manufacturing wages, as well as boosters, who trumpet claims of rising output and record-high exports. The fact is, NAFTA has had only a fractional impact on these trends. Mexico's biggest impact on the U.S. labor market is not through trade, but through immigration. And the money that Mexican migrants send home contributes more to the Mexican economy than foreign direct investment does.

3 "Fixing" NAFTA would be easy and cost-free.

Not so. Any changes would require a lengthy and complex renegotiation with Canada and Mexico. As Canada's prime minister, Stephen Harper, has pointed out, "Of course, if any American government ever chose to make the mistake of opening [NAFTA], we would have some things we would want to talk about as well." Just the threat of pulling out of NAFTA would do some damage, too. Far from boosting America's international reputation -- something all presidential candidates agree is important -- it would fan fears that the United States is an unreliable ally and discourage foreign governments from committing to future agreements with Washington. The slim chance of concluding the World Trade Organization's Doha round of global trade talks would vanish. And if the next president wants, for instance, Mexico's help in dealing with immigration reform and Canada's hand in combating terrorism, then blaming America's friendly neighbors for its perceived woes is hardly the way to start.

4 Making NAFTA's labor and environmental regulations stricter would benefit U.S. workers.

Probably not. Clinton wants to make the treaty's labor and environmental provisions "far tougher and absolutely binding" and to require that all future trade agreements include similar language. The stated purpose is to raise labor and environmental standards around the world and to make it harder for companies to ship jobs to countries where workers have fewer protections than in the United States. But America's trading partners would probably see the move as covert protectionism -- since when have the Teamsters cared about Mexican wildlife? -- and may retaliate. Meanwhile, consumers would probably resent the increased cost of their imports.

In any case, tough social clauses could backfire on the United States. Canada's labor and environmental standards are generally higher than the United States', and Canadians could claim that lax American standards amount to unfair competition. Given that Canada and Mexico have joined global efforts to curb climate change, they might wish to restrict American imports if the United States continues to hold back. And Mexican workers arguably have stronger labor rights than Americans: Unlike the United States, Mexico has ratified most of the International Labor Organization's conventions on core labor standards, including those on freedom of association, collective bargaining and employment discrimination. If the United States bashes Mexican labor practices, what's to stop Mexico from objecting to American imports produced in non-unionized factories?

5 Renegotiating NAFTA should be a priority for the new president.

Absolutely not. With the housing market plunging, the financial system seizing up and the economy apparently shrinking, tinkering with a treaty that governs trade with two of Washington's trading partners is a costly distraction -- whatever your view of NAFTA. The next president will have much bigger things to worry about, such as stopping the economy from going into a tailspin; cushioning the blow for vulnerable Americans who lose their homes, their jobs and their health care in the downturn; and helping frame new regulations that protect the economy against future financial excesses without stifling the market. Compared to all that, changing NAFTA looks like small change.

Like it or hate it, NAFTA is not actually a big deal for the US...

Read my article in the Washington Post here.

Indians' contribution to the US

Indians account for 38% of doctors in the US, 36% of scientists at Nasa, and 34% of employees at Microsoft, 28% at IBM and 17% at Intel, Prospect reports, quoting The Times of India, 11/3/8.

Obamamania?

As a politics junkie, I find the US presidential race exciting - certainly better than Gordon Brown's ignominious coronation - but not particularly inspiring. I'm not wild about any of the candidates.

I find Hillary Clinton uninspiring: a robotic, machine candidate, with a nasty streak and an offputting sense of entitlement. That's a pity. Her policies are a mixed bag; I preferred Bill's.

I think Obama is a great speaker, but I'm not hugely enthusiastic about him either.

Being for "the future" "change" and "hope" is all very well, but tell me which candidate is in favour of "the past" "more of the same" and "despair".

There is something worryingly content-free about his message. Apart from his symbolic opposition to the Iraq war (which is more a consistency issue than a policy difference, since Clinton's current position on the war is not very different to his), there is not much to separate him from Hillary on policy. Instead, he is basically selling himself as him: "Vote for me because I represent change, I represent unity", rather than "Vote for me because this is how I want America to change, this is how I will somehow unite a deeply polarised country."

"Yes, we can" is a great slogan, but how exactly does Obama plan to heal the deep divide over immigration, for instance?

Of course, having a non-white president whose father was a Kenyan immigrant would be hugely symbolic, a credit to American society, and a powerful example of the benefits of immigration. But the most powerful person on earth is more than a symbol - and I would like to have a better idea of Obama's world view before he is granted such power. Symbolic figures are not necessarily good decision-makers.

I also find Obamamania disconcerting precisely because it is a mania: half-way between a Britney Spears concert and the Nuremberg rally. (In case anyone tries to draw silly conclusions, of course I am not comparing Obama to Hitler.)

On a separate point, the media cycle is becoming somewhat predictable: first Hillary is miles ahead, then Obama is catching up quickly, then Obama is going to beat Clinton convincingly. When the results come in, the reality that Obama's score-draw is a huge achievement given Clinton's entrenched advantages is reinterpreted as disappointment compared to the hype immediately before Super Tuesday itself.

If you discount the fact that expectations overshoot because of herd behaviour, Obama did remarkably well in neutralising what was designed to be Clinton's sweeping victory.

Gene Epstein of Barron's recommends both my books

I have to say a big thank you to Gene Epstein, economics editor of Barron's, who recommends both my books as gifts "that promote thought".

Speaking on Culture Shocks

I was a guest on Culture Shocks with Barry Lynn, a US talk radio show,  talking about immigration. Listen to it here.

Praised in the Huffington Post

Read Tim Berry's post here

Interviewed on the Freakonomics blog

Check it out here

Cato Institute lecture

I spoke at the Cato Institute in Washington, DC, last month about my book, with comments by Stuart Anderson of the National Foundation for American Policy. Watch it here.

Interviewed on TCS Daily

By Nick Schultz. Read it here

Interview on Leonard Lopate show

I was interviewed on WNYC radio by Leonard Lopate, a conversation that I very much enjoyed. Listen here.

Carnegie Council speech

The speech I gave at the Carnegie Council in New York focuses on the ethics of the immigration debate. Listen here.

US speaking events

I am currently in the US promoting the publication of Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them by Princeton University Press.

The Page 69 test

Immigrants features on the Page 69 test, a bookish site run by Marshal Zeringue. Check it out.

From illegal migrant worker to brain surgeon

As Stephen Dubner points out on the Freakonomics blog, there is a fascinating and moving article in the New England Journal of Medicine by  Alfredo Quiñones-Hinojosa, the director of the brain-tumour stem-cell laboratory at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

Interviewed in Roll Call

Bryce Bauer interviewed me in Roll Call:

Immigrants reviewed in The Freeman

Immigrants has been very favourably reviewed in The Freeman, the magazine of the Foundation for Economic Education. Thanks.

Bill Steigerwald in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

has positively reviewed Immigrants. Thanks

The Google case for immigration

It is common knowledge that Google was co-founded by Sergey Brin, who arrived in the US as a refugee from the Soviet Union aged six. Perhaps less well-known is how important a contribution other immigrants have made to the iconic company of the internet age.

US publication brought forward to 21 June

With the US immigration debate heating up as the Senate debates an ambitious immigration reform bill, Princeton University Press have brought forward the publication of Immigrants in the US to 21 June. :)

Better than nothing

The new U.S. immigration bill drafted by leading Democratic and Republican senators is a deeply political bargain that has been hammered out over months, and it shows: The result is a 380-page Frankenstein.

Better than nothing

From phantom security enhancements to a complicated points system that only a bureaucrat could love, the immigration compromise before the US Senate is worse than nearly every realistic alternative except one: more of the same.

Read my article on ForeignPolicy.com here

Breakthrough for US immigration reform?

The White House and leading US senators have agreed a deal that could pave the way towards a reform of the US immigration system. Details of the deal are available here.

Immigrants will be available in the US from 16 July

The US edition of Immigrants is now available for pre-order on Amazon.com. It will be on sale from 16 July.

Human cargo

Australia's treatment of asylum seekers has long been shockingly inhumane. But prime minister John Howard's latest policy twist is truly despicable: he plans to "swap" would-be refugees held in the country's illegal offshore detention centres with Cuban and Haitian detainees the US is holding in Guantanamo Bay. People are to be treated as chattel, shipped off half-way across the world at the whim of a desperately unpopular politician who will seemingly go to any lengths to bolster his chances of re-election later this year. The first asylum seekers to be exchanged are likely to be the 83 Sri Lankans and eight Burmese held on the Pacific island of Nauru, according to the BBC.

Not quite the deal of the century

The US's most significant "free-trade agreement" since NAFTA, the first with an Asian country, with "state-of-the-art" chapters and "unique" provisions - the embattled Bush administration was wheeling out the superlatives to describe the bilateral trade deal clinched with South Korea this morning.

US book deal signed

I'm delighted to say that I've signed a US book deal with Princeton University Press. I've been busy writing a special preface for the US edition of Immigrants, which will be out later this year. I can't wait.