'Every object the individual uses, every transaction they make and almost everywhere they go will create a detailed digital record. This will generate a wealth of information for public security organisations, and create huge opportunities for more effective and productive public security efforts.'

That's not a quote from George Orwell; it is a statement of the EU Presidency, and it is contained in a new report by Statewatch, a organisation that monitors EU policy and politics (download the report, press release and eight-page conclusions here). According to Statewatch, 'The EU is currently developing a new five year strategy for justice and home affairs and security policy for 2009-2014. The proposals set out by the shadowy ‘Future Group’ include a range of extremely controversial measures including techniques and technologies of surveillance and enhanced cooperation with the United States.'

The Statewatch report, 'The Shape of Things to Come (60 pages) 'examines the proposals of the Future Group and their relation to existing and planned EU policies. It shows how European governments and EU policy-makers are pursuing unfettered powers to access and gather masses of personal data on the everyday life of everyone – on the grounds that we can all be safe and secure from perceived “threats”.'

But how, asks Tony Bunyan, Statewatch Director, “are we to be safe from the state itself, from its uses and abuses of the data they hold on us?

This has clear implications for immigration policy, and Statewatch is a keen observer of the details of immigration and asylum policy across Europe (which it tracks in one of its dedicated observatories). Statewatch previously published the report 'Border Wars and Asylum Crimes'

A quick internet survey suggests that the only place this has been picked up in Ireland is by Digital Rights Ireland. In the UK, the Mirror and the Telegraph have stories on it.

Does Ireland like immigrants? Attitudes to immigration are much discussed, and disagreed about: there was much argument, and contradictory evidence,  on whether or not an anti-immigrant sentiment was influential in the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. (There is an extremely thorough review of that argument in the new Irish Left Review.) The past week saw a number of surveys rich in data on attitudes to immigration and integration here. First off, the Government's survey of the reasons why people voted no to Lisbon. From the Irish Times report on Thursday:

'Immigration did not emerge as a significant reason for voting No in the spontaneous responses, but the pollsters said it was clear from the data and focus group research that No voters viewed immigration considerably less positively than Yes voters.'

More substantial was the Amárach Consulting report on attitudes to integration in Ireland. (There's a very accessible slide show presenting the data on Amarach's site.) The Irish Times front page report summarised that the survey 'found generally positive attitudes towards recent immigration, with 54 per cent saying it had on balance been good for Ireland. Some 33 per cent felt immigration had been bad for the country and 13 per cent believed it had made little difference.

'When asked about future policy, however, given the economic outlook, 66 per cent felt immigration policy should be made more restrictive. Seven per cent said it should be made less restrictive and 27 per cent felt the policy should be left as it is.'

I've also just come across July's Eurobarometer survey on discrimination in the EU (you can download the Irish results here). The Boston Irish blog has a useful summary:

'The EU report shows that Ireland scores high on toleration for ethnic diversity, toleration for different sexual orientations, and toleration for religious diversity. It says nothing about toleration for alcohol, where I'd hope we'd score highly too (sorry, I could not resist).

'Compared to the European average, Irish people were more likely to be happy to live next door to someone of a different ethnicity, religion, or someone who is homosexual.'

Frontex is a little known but extremely significant EU agency. Its name comes from the French, 'Frontières extérieures', and it is responsible for coordinating and enhancing security at Europe's external borders. It's based in Poland and, according to its Wikipedia entry, has 20 aeroplanes, some 30 helicopters and approx 100 boats at its disposal. A measure of its significance comes in statistics just released, and available on its website (and henceforth to be published every Tuesday).

Frontex has counted 5,203 migrants having arrived in the Canary Islands in 2008 (including those intercepted at sea and brought to the Canary Islands). The number of those it has intercepted at sea and returned or diverted to Senegal/Mauritania is over two thirds of this, 3,767. Meanwhile, 111 traffickers have been arrested in the course of Frontex operations

IntLawGrrls is the intriguing title of a blog we've just come across that offers some useful commentary on issues of international law, occasionally venturing into migration issues. They recently blogged on the issue of circular migration (as also covered below), providing a summary of the Migration Policy Institute's recent report as it discussed migrant worker programmes in Canada and Spain:

'The Canadian Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program offers workers repeat employment with the same farmer if they and their employers comply with the program's terms, which include labor protections (pay rates, shelter and food, health care) monitored by the immigrants' home countries and the obligation to present a sealed employer's evaluation to the home government upon return. These immigrants in turn have invested in land and businesses in their home countries.

'The Spanish Contingente de Trabajadores Extranjeros uses both carrots and sticks to encourage circular migration. It requires migrants to register with the Spanish consulate in their home country to ensure return, and those who do return are able to participate in the program without undergoing the selection process. After four years of successful participation, the migrant obtains easier access to permanent work authorization, and can then choose circularity.'

The New York Times has an interesting commentary on the plight of undocumented workers in New Orleans during Hurricane Gustav.

'When a disaster hits, saving lives comes before anything else, even when those lives don’t have the right immigration papers. That is why the Department of Homeland Security called off its agents when Hurricane Gustav bore down on New Orleans' they write.

But it wasn't so simple. Undocumented workers arriving at a Red Cross shelter for evacuation received assurances that the Red Cross, which is impartial, wouldn't ask about their immigration status or report them to authorities. But they weren't reassured - they sought assurances that they would be safe from immigration agents while in the shelter. Those assurances weren't forthcoming, and the people organised their own evacuations.

The Times concludes: 'The federal government and the Red Cross still lack what should be an ironclad public policy: that during all phases of a disaster, from evacuation to shelter to return, victims without papers need never be afraid of accepting life-saving help.'

The Red Cross's principle of impartiality is explained here.

As mentioned before, Dave Eggers's Voice of Witness project has produced an oral history of undocumented immigrants in America, 'Underground America: Narratives of Undocumented Lives'. The San Francisco Chronicle has a report of a recent book 'reading' at which one of the individuals in the book spoke, and an interview conducted by email with her subsequently. An excerpt follows:

What do you think are the biggest misconceptions about immigration and undocumented immigrants?

That we're all Mexican. That's one of the most surprising and pleasant things about this book - there are immigrants from all over. For some reason, most people think all undocumented immigrants come here because they want to! They think, "Oh, it can't possibly be that bad in their country!" As if we cross one of the deadliest deserts, risk drowning, being raped, kidnapped, getting, lost, getting sold, etc., just because we want to see what it's like in the United States.

Fine Gael's enterprise spokesman Leo Varadkar made the news on Thursday with his comments at a parliamentary discussion on unemployment, raising the question of whether foreign nationals who are unemployed here should be offered financial inducements to return home.

Fianna Fail's Thomas Byrne objected, suggesting that 'politics in this country has reached a new low when a member of Fine Gael suggests a voluntary repatriation scheme', and saying Varadkar's suggestion was 'in the dishonourable tradition of the British National Party, the American South and other organisations which I do not care to mention'.

The spat made the Nine O'Clock News on RTE. It followed close on controversy over recent comments by Fine Gael's Brian Hayes suggesting that, if immigrant children were holding up classes through lack of English language skills, then those children should be 'segregated' from native speakers. Brenda Power wrote a well-argued, if provocative, defense of his comments in the Sunday Times, which included the observation that 'we are meant to be pursuing a policy of interculturalism, which requires immigrants to respect our ways and culture when they come to live here, rather than multiculturalism, which seeks to place native and immigrant cultures on precisely the same footing'.

Leo Varadkar's comments in full were as follows:

'Up to 16% of those on the live register are foreign nationals. That is how it should be as 16% of the labour market comprises foreign nationals. All of those people have worked, paid their taxes and are entitled to benefits. Would there be a case for making an offer to foreign nationals on the live register to receive up to six months of benefits if they agree to repatriate to their country of origin and forego benefits? Would it not make sense economically to give them that option? It would not be forced on them but would just be an option.

Somewhere underneath Leo Vardkar's comments may have been some recognition of the concept of 'circular migration'. Circular migration implies that migrants want to move back and forth between their home country and country of employment, and will do so insofar as border controls and finances allow them. The Migration Policy Institute has released a new paper on this, suggesting that 'policymakers in migrant-receiving countries all over the world are exploring the concept of circular migration as a way to improve upon the discredited temporary worker programs of the past'.

'As a new policy tool that allows migrants to move more freely back and forth between their origin and destination countries, circular migration increases the likelihood that global mobility gains will be shared by both – and gives migrants more options to advance their working lives. Despite the growing interest, a new Migration Policy Institute report finds that the concept of circular migration is not well understood and that the experience of circular programs around the world remains thin.'

America's Voice (see below) has released a new web video, outlining what it sees as the choices for America. As ImmigrationProf notes:
'One vision recognizes our country's long tradition of welcoming immigrants and being supportive of all individuals in our nation who are seeking a better life. The second vision describes America as a nation that preaches intolerance and hate and relies on fear-mongering instead of facts. The ad, titled "Is This Your America?" sends a clear message that we cannot afford to live in a country filled with hate and prejudice, and our public policies must reflect the values and traditions that have made this country great. The ad comes at a crucial time during the national debate on immigration. The recently-unveiled Party platforms offer stark differences on immigration policy, and Latino voters appear to be trending towards the Democratic Party for the 2008 election cycle, largely due to the immigration issue.'

The Washington Post collects its reports on immigration under the heading 'The Battle Over Immigration'. Though this section of the site doesn't appear to be up to date (unlike similar sections of the Guardian and New York Times websites), they have a substantial series of photographic and video reports. Some examples are this photographic 'portrait of the complexities of life along the U.S.-Mexico border, and a more domestic report on how the Washington region is emerging as a hub for refugees of Burma, specifically for ethnic Chin. Though the Guardian and NYT provide RSS feeds to their immigration sections, the Post doesn't. No Irish paper provides a similar online collection of reports per subject.

In case you missed Refugee Week in the UK earlier this summer, in June, the Guardian has a gallery of photos of some of 'the sexy, sporty, talented and creative individuals' amongst Britain's refugee population, amongst them Khaiber Rahim, whose 'good looks first drew attention from the fashion industry while he was in his native Afghanistan, but he and his family had to flee the country because of the Taliban' and Mir Mahfuz Ali, a Bangladeshi performance poet.

More recently, Refugee Week has launched an online Information Centre, which has a series of snappy, elegant 'pop it in your pocket' booklets available for download, such as 'Mobiles, Money and Mayhem: The facts and fibs about asylum' (example: 'Asylum seekers just come her to cream off our welfare system').

Culture buffs will appreciate their list of art works dealing with refugee-related issues under the headings of Films, Literature and Music (there's a huge amount of works listed, in further subdivisions - in film, for example, there's Documentaries, Feature Films, and Refugee Actors and Directors).

Lastly, there's a selection of links to other sources of information on refugee issues online in their resources section.

It was back to school in Ireland yesterday, and the issue of schooling of immigrants was to the fore, though this year it seemed to generally be a good news story. After the extraordinary situation last year, which saw Ireland's first (and last?) all-black class primary school class, which made news round the world, the government moved to enter primary education provision itself, with a new model of school being run by the Vocational Educational Committees (VECs). According to the Irish Times, the new schools will have a strong multi-ethic enrolment, but have still to resolve the issue of religious instruction. 'Several hundred schools are expected to open under the new community model in the next decade as the primary school population grows by more than 100,000 pupils.report for details', the paper reported. Emme O'Kelly broke the story last year in a report for RTE (and followed up here). Colum Kenny gave a useful assessment in this strident column for the Sunday Independent.