IS THERE A MIGRATION POLICY FOR REGIONAL INTEGRATION

IN SOUTH AMERICA? EMERGING EVIDENCE FROM MERCOSUR.

By: ANDRÉ LUIZ SICILIANO

Word Count: 7 429

Submission for Oxford Migration Studies Society

Migration: Theory and Practice

2013 Conference

Abstract

The present work is an investigation about immigration policies and on how the South American

regional integration has been a place for a regional migration policy, especially within MERCOSUR

and its associated states. This article is divided into two parts, the first one is theoretical and it aims

to define what a regional migration policy is and who immigrants are. In the second part, all regional

agreements on immigration will be analyzed and compared with regional migration figures in order

to identify whether they are able to facilitate migration between the member states of MERCOSUR

(Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela) and its associate states (Bolivia, Chile,

Colombia, Ecuador and Peru), or to improve the flow of people across borders. Finally, regional

advances as well as continuing difficulties will be pointed out with regard to regional integration.

Key-words: Migration policy, MERCOSUR, regional integration, immigration.

About the author:

André Luiz Siciliano is a lawyer who graduated from the Catholic University of São Paulo (Brazil) in

2003 and is currently a graduate student at the Institute of International Relations of the University

of São Paulo (USP-Brazil); his research is about the Brazilian Immigration Policy. In 2006, he lived

in Vancouver, Canada, where he began his studies in the field of international law. He currently

conducts research in the fields of human rights and immigration and his latest publication was “The

Role of the Universalization of Human Rights and Migration in the Formation of a New Global

Governance”, SUR – International Journal on Human Rights, vol.9, n.16., Jun/2012.

Introduction

This paper seeks to identify recent regional advances in facilitating migration between the

MERCOSUR member states (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela) and its associate

member states (Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru) as well as shedding light on the

challenges still to be confronted for there to be a more profound regional integration. For this

reason, it will first be clarified what a migration policy consists of, who an immigrant is and which

are the possible perspectives to be adopted while dealing with the question of regional migration.

As a next step, the regional treaties which were celebrated with the aim of facilitating the

movement of people within the bloc and the associate states will be mapped out because they are

the normative instruments which shape the policies in use in the regional sphere. However, the

research will focus on isolated actions of countries within the region that are contributing to

improve the conditions of migration within the bloc.

Finally, an attempt will be made to identify the challenges to be met, be it by the individual

states or by the group of countries which compose the regional bloc in question, in the sense of

enhancing migration conditions between the states and of enabling a qualitative leap forwards with

regard to regional integration.

What is a migration policy?

A migration policy is usually understood as a series of actions of the government to regulate

the entrance into, staying in and departure of foreigners from one given national territory as well as

the measures aimed at maintaining the ties between that state and its nationals residing abroad.

International migration is a complex social phenomenon due to the fact that it not only consists of

the movement from one place to another but also from one jurisdiction to another (ZOLBERG,

2006).

Thus, a migration policy should be understood as a measure of the state to regulate its link

with the foreigners that are located within its territory as well as with its national citizens that are

under the jurisdiction of another state. It is worth citing the definition constructed by Zolberg:

“International migration is an inherently political process since the relevant

policies include not only the regulation of movement across state borders but

also the rules it entails about the acquisition, maintenance, loss or voluntary

renunciation of citizinship in all its aspects – political, social, economic and

cultural.” (ZOLBERG, 2006, p. 11).

It can be stated, therefore, that a migration policy is also a legal phenomenon since it

determines the conditions of bestowing citizenship on foreigners in its territory as well as the

conditions of the exercise of its nationals´ citizenship when under the jurisdiction of other states.

Zolberg (2006) goes on to clarify that migration policies are extremely interactive given the limits of

the international system of states: any kind of emigration implies immediate immigration into

another place; on the other hand, the possibility of immigrating affects the decisions to emigrate;

and the closing or opening of a specific national entry affects the potential fluxes in other states.

In that sense, international treaties celebrated in the regional sphere are a manifest

expression of the will of states to establish specific legal norms that aim to improve the quality

and/or quantity of migration fluxes in a given area affected by that treaty. Evidently, such treaties

will only be in force after the internalization of its dispositions by each state which want to be part

of it. Thus, the analysis of international migration in the regional sphere should take place at both

the domestic and the international level1.

Another element to be highlighted is that the issue of migration has so far been examined

mostly from the perspective of the nation state. This approach owes much to political realism and

its view of the international system, in which the individual migrant, as a human being, is not

perceived as an agent or subject of rights but rather as a term in the equation of migratory fluxes

which generate effects for the respective states. One can observe that even among key authors from

the South this framework is not given up.

In a book published in 2012, by the Scalabrini International Migration Network (SIMN),

entitled “Public policies with regard to migration and civil society in Latin America – the cases of Argentina,

Brazil, Colombia and Mexico”, authors such as Leonir Mario Chiarello, Lelio Mármora, Neide Lopes

Patarra, Roberto Vidal and Cecilia Imaz Bayona analyze the migrations policies of Argentina, Brazil,

Colombia and Mexico from the perspective of migration policy as a public policy on migration.

Thus, migration policy is understood as the measures taken by the state, by its agents or by a

group of states with the intention of regulate the relations of the state with humans who are located

within its territory but are not national citizens as well as with its national citizens who are not

within its territory. Moreover, given the regional context, it is necessary to point out that the

migration policy will be determined by the groups of measures and, especially, by the normative

documents produced and accepted by the states in question.

1 Concerning two-level analysis, see (PUTNAM, 1988).

Who is an immigrant?

For Guido Soares (2004) and André Carvalho Ramos (2008) foreigners are individuals who,

despite being residents in a particular state, do not possess the nationality of that state. This is thus

the case of a negative point of reference: the status of an individual who does not have the same

rights or obligations as other individuals, who are considered nationals by the legal order. In this

way, the starting point of this study is the nationality of persons and the rights and obligations which

are attributed to nationals and which, in principle, are not recognized for foreigners.

The characterization of the concept of nationality for Guido Soares is a configuration on the

part of a local authority of a politically autonomous unit which becomes an indivisible unit that

composes international relations. The foreigner would thus be an individual outside of the social

group and, thus, the victim of major hostilities. For Carvalho Ramos, the foreigner can be seen from

different normative realities: i) the immigrant, i.e. the foreigner who migrates to another state with

the intention of staying there legally or illegally; ii) the transitional foreigner, who moves to another

state temporarily; iii) the foreigner in special conditions, who possesses the same right as the

national citizens due to bilateral, multilateral or regional agreements; and iv) the refugees.

The category of interest for this study is the one of the immigrant, referring to the foreigners

who would have rights guaranteed if they were under the jurisdiction of their own state but who

reside in the territory of another state which does not recognize them as nationals. Thus, as will be

shown below, within a regional bloc that constantly seeks to enhance its integration, the challenge

consists in enabling the immigrants to have their right recognized as if they were national citizens

while at the same time admitting for certain punctual restrictions.

Visions on Migration Policy

The literature on international migration is characterized by a divide with regard to the

perspective adopted by the observer, which can be either based on the countries from which the

migratory fluxes originate or the countries which are the goal of these fluxes. The latter perspective,

referring to the destiny countries of migration, is the one found in greater numbers given the fact

that, as mentioned above, the decision of close or open borders to immigration generates impact in

the potential migratory fluxes and produces effects in other states. This is what makes it more

relevant to international relations.

Furthermore, the countries which receive migrants are in most cases developed countries,

which is also where most research is produced. These studies examine, for example, the causes of

national rejection of the immigrant (MEYERS, 2004), the most efficient ways of selecting

immigration or the advantages and disadvantages of receiving immigrants (BOERI, et al., 2002;

ZOLBERG, 1994; 2006).

On the other hand, the research produced in the countries of origin tends to investigate the

impact of emigration on them, especially with regard to the remittances and to the relationship

which is kept with the emigrants (HUJO & PIPER, 2010), however the results of these actions have

a very limited impact on other countries.

Katja Hujo and Nicola Piper (2010) highlight that developing countries are usually not

studied as being countries that receive migrants but rather as mere exporters/emitters. They go on

to point out that there are moments and place where the borders between domestic and

international migration become fizzy and, in general, a change has been observed in the sense of the

liberalization of intra-regional movements within the context of regional economic integration

between developing countries.

Regional Integration and Migration Policies

According to Eytan Meyers (2004), regional integration of whatever type tends to

influence the policies of immigration control of the member states in the sense: i) of facilitating the

movement of people between the national territories of the member states; and ii) when this

facilitation of circulation of people occurs between the member states, of seeking to develop a

“common foreign policy of migration” which will probably be more restrictive towards immigration

than it had been before the formation of the regional bloc (MEYERS, 2004, p. 217).

This can clearly be verified in the case of the European Union, which featured the

unification of a consolidated migration policy through the creation of the Schengen area. The South

American experience, however, has not yet confirmed Meyer´s theory because despite certain

advances with regard to free movement of people within the bloc no ostensible measures have been

taken in the sense of closing the bloc off towards external immigration.

Inspired by the existence of the progressive unification of Europe, the Common Southern

Market (MERCOSUR) has aimed at integrating its member states in a way which granted them an

initially trade-related but increasingly political sphere with the aim of an improved economic

position in the international arena. The emergence of the Common Market presupposes the

existence of 4 liberties: i) liberty of free circulation of people; ii) liberty of capital flows; iii) liberty of

circulation of goods; and iv) the liberty of circulation of services. However, even the Treaty of

Asunción in its first article limits itself to seek “the free circulation of goods, services and productive

factors between the countries”, omitting the free movement of people intentionally.

In 1996, through several agreements of economic cooperation, Bolivia and Chile became

associated with the bloc, acquired observer status and began to accompany some ministerial

meetings of the bloc. Subsequently, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru also became associated with

MERCOSUR and, on 13th August 2012 Venezuela officially entered the bloc despite Paraguayan

resistance.

Despite the fact that trade questions dominate the agenda of the bloc, some important steps

have been taken with the aim of improving the flux of people across the internal borders of the

bloc. In December 1997, the “Multilateral Agreement of Social Security of the Common Market of

the South” was signed in Montevideo (promulgated in Brazil through the decree 5.722/2006). By

means of this agreement, the time of contribution to social welfare in one state will be recognized by

the other before which the request for retirement will be made. Furthermore, immigrant workers

and their families are guaranteed the same right and obligations attributed to national citizens of the

state in which they reside.

In December 2002 the “Agreement on Residence for Nationals of MERCOSUR member

states, Bolivia and Chile” (promulgated in Brazil by the decree 6.975/2009) was signed. Through

this agreement, the citizens of each of the signatory countries who seek to establish residence in

another of these states will be able do so in a facilitated way with a possible temporary residence

permit of up to two years. This authorization will be convertible into permanent residence under the

condition that the visa conversion be requested up to 90 days before the temporary visa runs out.

It is important to underline that nationals from Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay or

Uruguay who reside in the territory of one of the other countries and who which to settle there, can

present their request of regularization to the local immigration services as well as asking for

authorization for temporary residence which can be converted into permanent residence at the end

of two years independent of the migratory conditions under which they have entered the country. In

that way, any citizen who currently finds himself in an irregular migratory situation can request his

regularization without needing to leave the country and without a finei.

In 2008, the “Agreement on Travel Documents of the Member States and MERCOSUR

and Associate States” was signed, which recognizes the personal identification documents of

citizens of each state as valid. Like this, national identities suffice as travel documents accepted for

movement across borders and for identification of residents in another member or associate state.

With regard to the measures that aim to protect education, several agreements have been

signedii: the “Protocol on Educational Integration and the Recognition of Certificates, Titles and

Studies of Primary and Secondary Level of non-technical nature”2; the “Protocol on Educational

2 Decision of the Common Market Council (CMC) nº04/1994.

Integration and the Revalidation of Diplomas, Certificates, Titles and Recognition of Intermediate

Level of technical nature”3; the “Protocol on Educational Integration for the Continuation of

Postgraduate Studies at Universities of MERCOSUR member states”4; and the “Agreement on the

Admission of Titles and University Degrees for Academic Work in MERCOSUR Member States”5.

All these agreement in the area of education aim to permit the recognition of studies carried out in

on member states by another member states, allowing for the continuation of studies without delay

or major disadvantages.

In continuation of the integration measure, the “Agreement on the Exemption of

Translation of Administrative Documents for Immigration between the MERCOSUR member

states” was reached in 2000, which reduced the costs and bureaucracy of migration between the

countries of the bloc. Despite still not being able to precisely measure the impact of all these efforts

listed above on the flux of people between the countries, it is important to recognize the political

endeavor to produce normative texts with the goal of facilitating migration of citizens within the

bloc.

What, however, would be the impact of these treaties on the intraregional migratory flows?

Would it be possible to identify direct effects on the quantity of international migrants in the region?

While trying to answer questions such as these, it is important to consider that each country

internalized these treaties at different times, which is why it is not an easy task to establish a direct

causal relation between the treaties and the migratory fluxes. Moreover, in order to determine in a

consistent way the effects of the immigration laws on certain migratory fluxes it would be necessary

to examine the circumstances both of the emitting as well as receiving countries because both

influence the observed migratory fluxes. Additionally, one would need to differentiate between the

nature of the people flows (whether for studies, work, with the intention of permanently settling

there etc.), but currently realized surveys do not permit such identification6. It is worth pointing out

that currently not even visa systems have a uniform categorization.

Either way, it is important to at least estimate the number of people affected and the

potential of the region in relation to international migration within the regional bloc and for this

purpose the existing data bases suffice. In this manner, with the help of quantitative analysis, it will

be possible to establish some comparative references and, above all, to observe the degree of

evolution of regional integration with regard to international immigration.

3 CMC Decision nº07/1995. 4 CMC Decision nº08/1996. 5 CMC Decision nº09/1999. 6 The available data from the consulates are produced through a periodic census or collected by the respective Ministries of the Interior, whose categories are limited to temporary and permanent immigrants, refugees/asylum seekers, family reunions and whether they are men or women.

Migratory Fluxesiii

According to studies carried out by Adella Pelegrino (2009), the regional migratory

movements over several decades indicate a slow growth and a steady demographic impact. Pelegrino

goes on to show that the existence of MERCOSUR did not have a significant impact on migratory

fluxes, be it regarding direction or volume, and the state of these fluxes seems to be more related to

asymmetric processes of economic development as well as with the economic and political

vicissitudes of each country (PELEGRINO, 2009). Consequently, regional international migration

consists predominantly of low skilled workers.

The first important factor worth pointing out is that international immigration is extremely

low in all countries of the region. Figure 1, which compares the immigration in MERCOSUR

countries and its associated states with Costa Rica, Canada and the US, clearly demonstrates that the

quantity of immigrants present in South American countries is far from reaching critical levels. The

data presented in the following consider only the volume of immigration (with the purpose of

residence, be it temporary or permanent).

Figure 1

Source: Second Report of the System of Continuous Reports on International Migration in the Americas (SICREMI). OEA, 2012.

0123456789

101112131415161718192021

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Perc

enag

e of

Pop

ulat

ion

(%)

Percentage of Immigrants in the Overall Population Including the US, Canada and Costa Rica

Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia

Ecuador Paraguay Peru Uruguay Venezuela

Canada USA Costa Rica

It is worth highlighting that, between 2001 and 2010, the countries of MERCOSUR and the

associated states did not manage to raise the percentage of immigration to above 1% of their

respective population despite efforts to facilitate the circulation of people in the bloc. However,

during the same period, the US and Canada feature a growth of approximately two percentage

points each, moving from 11% to 12.9% and 17.6% to 19.9% respectively.

Analyzing more closely just the South American situation, one can note that the number of

immigrants in percent of the overall population has remained quite stable in all countries of the

region during the last decade.

Figure 2

Source: Second Report of the System of Continuous Reports on International Migration in the Americas (SICREMI). OAS, 2012.

On top of the fact that the number of immigrants in Latin American societies is significantly

small in relation to the overall population of each country, the rise of this percentage has been

modest, even after the adoption of the mentioned measures of integration. In Brazil, for example,

even with increasing immigration in recent years, the percentage of immigration in the overall

Brazilian population remains at less than one percent7. Argentina, as will be shown below, is one of

the region´s countries with the most advanced immigration laws and which has shown the most

significant increase in numbers of legal immigrants (see figure 3); even so, it presents a low

7 However, there has been an expressive increase in the percentage of immigrants from MERCOSUR and associate states, from about 16% in 2006 to almost 22% in 2012 (see Annex IV).

0

1

2

3

4

5

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Perc

enta

ge o

f Pop

ulat

ion

(%)

Percentage of Immigrants in the Overall Population

Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia

Ecuador Paraguay Peru Uruguay Venezuela

immigration percentage of nearly 4.5% of the overall population. This reinforces Adella Pelegrino´s

thesis that the impact of international migration in the region has been little and steady, and that the

creation of MERCOSUR has hardly influenced the increase in immigration.

This is the regional reality: all countries present a low percentage of immigrants of in the

composition of their societies, which leads one to believe that immigration still has a great potential

to be explored in contemporary South America. In the US, as seen above (figure 1), the immigrants

make up almost 13% of the population and total almost 40 000 000 people. In Canada, the number

of immigrants corresponds to about 20% of the population, adding up to about 6 800 000 people

and even in Costa Rica, which is a less attractive country for economic immigrants than the two

cited ones from North America, the immigrants account for 8% of the population, which is nearly

double the percentage of Argentina.

Argentina is the country which receives the greatest number of Latin American migrants,

with 1 805 957iv8. It is worth underlining, however, that in 1960 when the total population of

Argentina was half its current size, there were 2 540 226 immigrants in the country. Figure 3 below

illustrates the absolute numbers of immigrants of MERCOSUR countries and associate states for

the last decades and shows that five countries feature a growth of the immigrant population since

the year 2000 (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador (more obviously) and Colombia (more modestly).

8 National Census of Argentina, 2010.

Figure 3

Source: IMILA/CELADE database for the 2000 census and previous ones; Brazil - SINCRE/Ministry of Justice, Set/2012; Argentina and Uruguay – National Census of 2010; Chile – Departamento de Extranjería y Migración, 2010; Colombia – World Bank, 2005; Peru – Census of 2007; Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay e Venezuela - IOM9.

The data on the quantity of immigrants in each country demonstrate that both in Argentina

and Brazil there is a constant reduction of these percentages from the 1960s until the 2000s. Since

then, and during the last decade, this tendency has reverted and, currently, both countries feature a

growing immigrant population. However, this growth – while significant – is not very expressive in

absolute terms.

Another important element to be examined is the quantity of immigrants that are effectively

authorized by the national governments because this authorization implies: i) the existence of norms

that permit such authorization; and ii) the recognition of the immigrant by the state and his

reception with the society. As can be seen in figure 4 below, this element is the most sensitive with

regard to the adopted policies by the countries in the region.

9 Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2009). Trends in International Migrant Stock: The 2008 Revision (United Nations database, POP/DB/MIG/Stock/Rev.2008).

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Htou

sand

s of i

mm

igra

nts

Immigrant Population in Absolute Numbers

Argentia Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia

Ecuador Paraguay Peru Uruguay Venezuela

Figure 4

Source: Second Report of the System of Continuous Reports on International Migration in the Americas (SICREMI). OEA, 2012, p. 240

When taking a closer look at the above figure, the immigration peak in Argentina is

particularly striking. It can be explained by the fact that in 2006 the program “Pátria Grande”10 came

into force, which enabled the regularization of immigrants´ documentation as well as permission for

residence and work. According to the Argentine government, 423 697 immigrants had been

beneficiaries of the program from 2006 until the end of 200811.

In a study on Argentinean Migration Policy coordinated by Lelio Mármora (MÁRMORA,

2011), it was identified that the constant demand for work force in the different sectors of economic

activity led to the creation of policies of opening and immigration since the beginning of the

Argentine Republic. Thus, the Argentinean migration policy is not just perceived as a set of norms

created for the contention or favoring of the migratory flow but especially with regard to the

measures of inclusion of migrants in the Argentine society. The political participation of foreigners

is a recognized right.

10 Law N. 25.871/2004. 11 Ministry of the Interior, National Direction of Migration, statistical report, August/2012.

0

50

100

150

200

250

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Thou

sand

s

Authorized Immigration (2001-2010) Temporary + Permanent (year by year)

Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia

Ecuador Paraguay Peru Uruguay

For Mármora this law, along with the ratification of other agreements, reinforces democracy

and citizen participation through the evolution of spaces and with processes of integration and

consensus adopted in South America. This law, without doubt, is one of the most advanced texts in

terms of migration policy in countries of Latin America since it adopts of humanist perspective with

regard to the migration question by recognizing the human right to migrate and having human

rights as its principal concern.

Another prominent element on Figure 4 is the peak of authorized immigrants in Brazil in

2009, which was certainly influenced by the Amnesty Law12, approved on the 2nd July that year and

which, according to the Ministry of Justice, enabled the regularization of more than 40 000

immigrants (particularly Bolivians). Brazil has still not reformed its immigration law and the gap

between the valid norms (in force since 1980) and the demands of the contemporary Brazilian

society has been patched by numerous normative resolutions frequently edited by the National

Council for Immigration (CNIg)13.

In the case of Chile, according to information from its Ministry of the Interior, the

explanation derives from the application of extraordinary procedures of regularization of migrants

since 2007 (Ministério del Interior, 2010, p. 1). Furthermore, is it necessary to highlight that more

the 61% of immigrants in Chile come from neighboring countries (Ministério del Interior, 2010, p.

3). It can also be noted that the Chilean migration policy can serve as an example to be followed

with regard to border questions because, since the government of Ricardo Lagos (2000-2006), Chile

has witnessed the beginning of modernization measures of its border control while at the same time

there was an attempt to carry out actions to enable greater openness of the country towards

migrants. Despite not having a formal migration policy, greater integration with Argentina, Peru and

Bolivia was sought, which culminated with the creation of the “Borderland Card” (LEVINSON &

DOÑA-REVECO, 2012).

This card allows people who reside in communities near the borders to travel to cities in

neighboring countries with greater ease, be it for work, medical treatments or tourism. In that

period, the right of migrants´ children, independent of their migrant status, to attend school under

the same conditions as national citizens was recognized. A second policy allowed the health

treatment in public hospitals for pregnant women and for immigrants´ children, also independent of

their migrant status.

Uruguay is a special case because in 2008, despite not having registered an increase in the

numbers of authorized immigrants, it approved its new legislation on immigration which formally

12 Law n.11.961/2009. 13 CNIg is an inter-ministerial organ which has the prerogative to deal with questions of migrations in the sphere of the Executive.

recognizes migrants´ rights and those of their families. Particularly interesting in the Uruguayan law

is the extension of the chapter related to family reunification which includes the right of permanent

residency until the third generation and not only for the spouse but also for the partner. Despite the

fact that the impact of these measures is hard to visualize in the figure above since the volume is

relatively small, the data in Annex III confirm an expressive growth in the Uruguayan records since

2008.

In other words, when putting together the selected information above, one can state that the

policies in force in the regional sphere did not substantially increase the quantity of migrants

received by each country on a yearly basis. However, specific measures of some countries allowed

for the regularization of undocumented immigrants and thus enabled their integration in society and

the recognition of their rights. The cases in hand demonstrate that, in truth, one can still not speak

of a growth of the volume of immigration but it is impossible to deny the increase in the registration

of immigrants in the region and, consequently, of the quality of regional integration.

Challenges

Despite the verified advances in the migration policies of MERCOSUR member states and

associate countries, the progress is still little with regard to the increase of the quantity of

immigrants and, especially, concerning the participation of the immigrants in the destination society.

Most countries of the region allow for permanent immigrants to vote in local elections; however,

this practice – while it should indeed be incentivized – is insufficient to promote the

accommodation of the immigrant.

According to Zapata-Barrero (2004), when speaking of integration of whatever meaning

given to the term, one is always referring to one sole addressee: the immigrants. The

“accommodation”, on the other hand, has as unit of analysis the relation between the immigrants

and the citizens with different institutional structures (public spaces). These public spaces of

interaction are the proper context of the policies of “accommodation” (ZAPATA-BARRERO,

2004). He affirms that terms such as “integration” semantically do not entail the necessary

component of interaction, of “bi-directionality”, which he believes to be intrinsic in migration

policy.

Moreover, Zapata-Barrero and Gemma Plnyol (2008) discuss the role of administrators in

the process of migration. For them, the migratory dynamic cannot be understood without bearing in

mind the actors who influence it and who, in most cases, substantially modify the dynamic. The

decisions taken by the public actors, such as the interventions of other social or economic actors,

can significantly influence a migration process, lead it, manage it or limit it in a way that makes these

involved actors induce and manage social and political change.

Among the actors involved in the implementation of the immigration policy the subnational

entities deserve special attention. Regional integration, which is usually thought of in terms of a

relationship between countries, can never reach higher levels without mobilizing its subnational

entities (provinces, federal states, municipalities) to help in the implementation of a migration policy

of regional integration. Maloney and Korinek (2011) endorse this perspective because they consider

local polices of integration of immigrants into society as part of migration policy.

Furthermore, it becomes increasingly clear that the majority of immigrants are living in cities

as well as in smaller cities in rural areas and, therefore, the awareness that the integration of migrants

occurs at the local level should definitely enter into political and scientific discourses about

integration (CAPONIO & BORKERT, 2010). In that way, the municipal adminstrators should be

seen as important actors in the implementaion of immigration policy.

A final observation needs to be made with regard to the production and availability of

information about immigrants. There are a lot of data available but there is no synergy between the

states of the region in order to enhance this information and, consequently, the policies regarding

international migration.Thus, it would be of fundamental importance that the Common Market

Group (CMG) of MERCOSUR be interested in making the member states´ and associate countries´

interests more compatible with the aim of establishing a common data base on international

migration in the region14.

A second step, more ambitious but equally necessary, would be the uniformazation of the

visa systems15, in order to enable that all countries of the region had at least the same modalities and

categories of visas for foreigners.

Conclusion

Resuming the above, one can state that the regional agreements are important for

establishing guidelines on immigration in MERCOSUR and associate states, and that, above all,

measures that allow for the regularization of the immigrant´ situation, even when adopted

individually, have an impact on the quality of regional integration. However, the regional agreements

and the actions taken to regularize the situation of irregular immigrants are not instruments that can

generate significant impacts in the migratory fluxes.

14 Currently, only the OAS and the IOM feature consolidated information in international immigration in the region. 15 The IOM classifies the visa systems of the countries of the region into 3 groups; see (OIM, 2012, pp. 75-76).

The consolidation of a migration policy for the region would result in a transformation of

the process of regional integration, which – well beyond strict trade questions – would contemplate

social, cultural and humanist aspects of MERCOSUR and associate states. Currently, the

institutional reality of the region and the gap between the adoption of measures with regard to

immigration in each state do not allow the affirmation that there is a regional migration policy

despite the recognition of recent advances. Moreover, the actions taken in the regional sphere are

restricted to establishing norms that seek to make some social dynamics more compatible, such as

work, education and health. Nevertheless, this has been insufficient to induce an integration which

is reflected in an increase of immigration, since there is neither a clear political orientation for the

region nor a broad set of measures to be followed.

In some countries, such as Argentina, Uruguay and Chile, significant advances can be

noticed in dealing with migration issues, such as treating the immigrants in accordance with

international norms of human rights and recognizing their participation in their societies in a

broader sense. It is desirable, without doubt, that these examples be followed by the other countries

in the region.

In the regional sphere, however, it is necessary to rigorously seek to accommodate the

immigrants in the receiving society by enabling their effective participation in the local community

as if they were nationals. In order for that accommodation to take place it is mandatory that the

subnational entities (federal states, provinces, municipalities or districts) get involved in the

implementation of the regional migration policy. In the end, it is in the cities and districts where, in a

more evident way, the spaces of interaction and contact between the nationals and the immigrants

take place. This area of “conflict” is the ideal space for the state to act in the sense of promoting

regional integration.

Bibliography ALBA, F., 2010. Migration Information Source. [Online] Available at: http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=772 [Accessed 05 Dezembro 2012]. ASIS, M. M. B., 2006. Migration Information Source. [Online] Available at: http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=364 [Accessed 05 Dezembro 2012]. BOERI, T., HANSON, G. & McCORMICK, B., 2002. Immigration Policy and the Wealfare System. New York: Oxford University Press. CACCIAMALI, M. C. & AZEVEDO, F. A. G. d., 2005. Prolam/USP. [Online] Available at: http://www.usp.br/prolam/downloads/cacciamali_azevedo.pdf [Accessed 25 junho 2012]. CARVALHO RAMOS, A. d., 2008. Direitos dos estrangeiros no Brasil: a imigração, Direito de Ingresso e os Direitos dos estrangeiros em situação irregular. In: Igualdade, diferença e Direitos Humanos. Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris, pp. 721-745. DAUVERGNE, C., 2005. Humanitarianism, Identity and Nation - migration law in Canada and Australia. Vancouver: UBC Press. DAUVERGNE, C., 2008. Making People Illegal - what globalizations means for migration and Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. HANTTON, T. J. & WILLIAMSON, J. G., 2005. Global Migration and the World Economy - Two centuries of policy and performance. s.l.:Massachussetts Institute of Technology. HUJO, K. & PIPER, N., 2010. South–South Migration - Implications for Social Policy and Development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Human Develop Report - OIM, 2009. Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development, s.l.: s.n. LEVINSON, A. & DOÑA-REVECO, C., 2012. Migration Information Source. [Online] Available at: http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=895 [Accessed 23 Outubro 2012]. MEYERS, E., 2004. International Immigration Policy: A theoretical and Comparative Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Ministério del Interior, 2010. Informe Anual - Departamento de Extranjería y Migración, s.l.: s.n. NEWLAND, K., 2007. Migration Policy Institute. [Online] Available at: http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=580 [Accessed 01 December 2012]. OEA, 2012. Migración Internacional em las Américas, Segundo Informe del Sistema Continuo de Reportes sobre Migración Internacional en las Américas (SICREMI), s.l.: Organização dos Estados Americanos. OIM, 2012. Panomarama Migratório de América del Sul 2012, s.l.: s.n. PATARRA, N. L., 2005. Migrações internacionais de e para o Brasil Contemporâneo. São Paulo em Perspectiva, pp. 23-33. PATARRA, N. L., 2006. Migrações internacionais: teorias, políticas e movimentos sociais. Estudos Avançados, 20(57). PATARRA, N. L., 2011. Políticas Públicas e Migração Internacional no Brasil. In: L. M. Chiarello, ed. Las Políticas Públicas sobre Migraciones y La Sociedad Civil en América Latina. São Paulo: Scalabrini International Migration Network, pp. 151-276. PELEGRINO, A., 2009. Las migraciones entre los países del Mercosur: tendencias y características. In: O. d. P. P. d. D. H. e. e. Mercosur, ed. Las migraciones humanas en el Mercosur. Una mirada desde los derechos humanos.. Montevideo: s.n., pp. 17-26.

PUTNAM, R. D., 1988. Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games. Internaitonal Organization, Summer, Volume 3, p. 42. REIS, R. R., 2011. A política do Brasil para as migrações internacionais. Contexto Internacional, Jan/Jun.33(1). SOARES, G. F. S., 2004. Os direitos humanos e a proteção dos estrangeiros. Revista da Informação Legislativa, Abr/Jun, 41(162), pp. 169-204. ZAPATA-BARREIRO, R., 2013. Borders in motion: Concept and policy nexus. Refugee Survey Quarterly, pp. 1-23. ZAPATA-BARRERO, R., 2004. Inmigracón, innovación política y cultura de acomodación en España. Barcelona: Fundació CIDOB. ZAPATA-BARRERO, R., 2010. Cultural Policies in Context of Diversities: the city as a setting for inovation and opportunities. s.l.:Icària. ZAPATA-BARRERO, R. & PLNYOL, G., 2008. Los gestores del proceso de inmigración - actores y redes de actores en España y Europa. Barcelona: Fundación CIDOB. ZAYAS, A. M. d., 1975. International Law and Mass Population Transfer. Harvard International Law Journal, Volume 16, pp. 207-258. ZOLBERG, A. R., 1994. Changing Sovereignty Games and International Migration. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 2(1), pp. 153-170. ZOLBERG, A. R., 2006. A Nation by Design - Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation . NOTES: i In 2005 a detailed study was carried out by Maria Cristina Cacciamali and Flávio Azevedo with regard to the use of undocumented immigrants in the textile industry of São Paulo, which used irregular Bolivian work force, often in slave-like conditions (CACCIAMALI & AZEVEDO, 2005). Since 2009, with the entering into force of the Agreement on Residency for Nationals of the Member States of Mercosur, Chile and Bolivia, the problem pointed out by the authors has tended to disappear due to the new possibility of regularization of the migrant situation. A new study on this matter would be of great relevance because, if the irregular exploration continued, it might be states the vulnerability would not derive from the condition of being an undocumented foreigner but possibly from the high costs for formalization to work in Brazil due to the duties of work. ii The institutional structure of MERCOSUR is composed of the Common Market Council (CMC), which is the highest organ of political deliberation of the bloc; by the Common Market Group (CMG), the executive and technical organ; by the Trade Commission of MERCOSUR (TCM), auxiliary organ to the CMG and responsible for the application and monitoring of the common trade policy; by the Common Parliamentary Commission, the representative instance of the parliaments of the member states and in charge of harmonizing the legislation between the countries; by the Consultative Economic and Social Forum, which consists of a consultative collegiate on economic and social topics; and by the Administrative Secretariat, which looks after the maintenance of the headquarters in Montevideo, Uruguay. iii The data presented in this study were obtained through reports of the IOM and the OAS. In a first step, the headquarters in São Paulo of each of the general consulates of the countries of the region were contacted. However, the obtained information does not follow the same pattern, which would require an extensive work of making them compatible. However, it resulted that both the OAS and the IOM use the same source indicated by the general consulates in their reports (National Census or reports of the Ministry of the Interior). Thus, in the end, the compilations of the IOM and OAS were used. iv It is interesting to note that during the accumulated time of 2004-20122, more than 75% of the authorization of permanent residency for immigrants was given to Asian citizens (mostly Chinese), while for citizens of MERCOSUR it was only slightly more than 2%; the authorizations for temporary immigrants were 32.6% for American citizens outside MERCOSUR (mostly Cuban), 26.3% Asians (mainly Chinese) and 15.8% for MERCOSUR citizens. However, one can note that in the Argentinean case the entering into force of the regional agreements meant a strong decrease of the register of temporary immigrants (see Annex III). (Source: Records of the application “SAdEx” of the DNM (Ministry of the Interior, p.15-16)

ANNEX I

Population born abroad 2001 2002 2005 2010

Argentina Total (mil) 1532 1806 Percentage of pop. 4,1 4,5

Bolivia Total (mil) 94 146 Percentage of pop. 1,1 1,5

Brazil Total (mil) 684 1575 Percentage of pop. 0,4 0,4 0,5 0,9

Chile Total (mil) 184 369 Percentage of pop. 1,2 2,2

Colombia Total (mil) 105 110 Percentage of pop. 0,2 0,2

Ecuador Total (mil) 104 194 Percentage of pop. 0,83 1,34

Paraguay Total (mil) 173 161 Percentage of pop. 3,1 3,1 2,5

Peru Total (mil) 60 90 Percentage of pop. 0,2 0,2 0,3

Uruguay Total (mil) 80

Percentage of pop. 2,4

Venezuela Total (mil) 1015 1007

Percentage of pop. 4,2 3,5

US Total (mil) 31548 39917 Percentage of pop. 11 12,9

Canada Total (mil) 5448 6778 Percentage of pop. 17,6 19,9

Costa Rica Total (mil) 276 374 Percentage of pop. 6,8 8

Source: Second Report of the System of Continuous Reports on International Migration in the Americas (SICREMI). OAS, 2012. Data on Venezuela is added which was gathered from the IOM (available at http://esa.un.org/migration/p2k0data.asp, accessed on 07/Feb./13)

ANNEX II

Authorized International Immigration

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Argentina Permanent 18652 20161 25447 50215 80968 96284 96072

Temporary 6635 36149 29380 84753 144399 117740 82076

Total 25287 56310 54827 134968 225367 214024 178148

Bolivia Permanent 2487 2278

Temporary 15067 17508

Total 17554 19786

Brazil Permanent 8561 9779 13329 12655 16440 27058 18182 14213 56852 17060

Temporary 12448 12424 13431 15168 17367 18836 22714 27749 37374 43526

Total 21009 22203 26760 27823 33807 45894 40896 41962 94226 60586

Chile Total 29835 32099 38149 48516 79377 68379 57059 63912

Colombia Permanent 2522 1322 1044 1100 1313 1452 1532 1814 2339 3352

Temporary 31894 20359 10208 7307 7848 8628 9762 11313 13863 15878

Total 34416 21681 11252 8407 9161 10080 11294 13127 16202 19230

Ecuador Permanent 40273 49428 52928 57802 61406

Temporary 23771 26774 27376 32043 33859

Total 64044 76202 80304 89845 95265

Paraguay Permanent 5222 5530 3416 2519 567 1601 3563 5354 4340 5552

Temporary 723 256 348 336 266 299 493 566 1634 6970

Total 5945 5786 3764 2855 833 1900 4056 5920 5974 12522

Peru Permanent 76 118 201 557 976 1388 2341 3056 4637 7251

Temporary 1855 1808 1765 2504 2232 1979 3385 2782 3273 2312

Total 1931 1926 1966 3061 3208 3367 5726 5838 7910 9563

Uruguay Total 993 1680 1851 1631 1216 1156 1344 3981 3825 2183 Source: Second Report of the System of Continuous Reports on International Migration in the Americas (SICREMI). OEA, 2012

ANNEX III

ARGENTINA Category by region TEMPORÁRIA

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

America (MERCOSUR)

1.283 1.259 1.072 97 60 33 116 541

America (Non-Mercosur)

1.050 1.148 1.513 1.394 1.189 873 906 1.187

Asia 442 540 1.306 1.517 1.360 961 615 720 Western Europe 685 900 1.114 1.054 900 613 513 450 Category by region PERMANENTE

America (MERCOSUR)

12 29 12 3 2 35 8 6

America (Non-Mercosur)

54 44 53 44 56 107 131 76

Asia 129 125 160 224 338 1.009 947 804 Western Europe 10 7 8 4 6 91 157 106

(Source: Records of the application “SAdEx” of DNM (National Directory of Migration, Ministry of the Interior, pp.15-16)

ANNEX IV

PRESENCE OF DOCUMENTED MIGRANTS IN RBAZIL, 2006 e 2012

Nationality

2006 2012 Brazil Brazil

Argentina 46.080 68.267 Germany 45.211 59.465 Bolivia 33.820 97.951 Cuba 3.564 5.312 China 37.800 58.914 Colombia 10.498 20.946 Chile 32.464 38.093 Korea 22.459 28.910 Spain 73.822 83.926 Ecuador 2.998 4.666 Italy 86.276 99.336 Japan 125.042 133.931 México 5.863 20.946 Nicaragua 758 1.240 Panamá 1.451 1.880 Paraguay 15.354 30.202 Peru 16.184 30.851 Portugal 317.583 330.860 Poland 9.274 11.948 Uruguay 34.021 46.059 Venezuela 4.481 8.218 Other countries 296.430 393.722 Total 1.175.353 1.575.643 Percentage of Mercosur+Assoc./total 16,6% 21,9%

Source: SINCRE/Ministry of Justice, 20th April 2006 e 24th September 2012.