First International Forum on Migration and Peace in the American Continent

New York, February 7th 2009
Rev. Alfredo J. Gonçalves, c.s.

The First International Forum on Migration and Peace, organized by the Scalabrini International Migration Network (SIMN), brought about 200 people to the city of Antigua, Guatemala. The event, entitled “Borders: walls or bridges?”, was held on January 30 and 29, 2009 and assembled representatives from almost all the American countries: bishops, leaders and staff connected with the Pastoral Care of Human Mobility; representatives of civil organizations, of the academia and of the different levels of political entities, together with Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, like Guatemalan Rigoberta Menchú, UNHCR, Red Cross, Doctors without Borders, etc..

It may seem a waste of time and words to emphasize the importance of this event, but if you follow the news in recent months and weeks, you realize that the issue of migration is emerging with growing frequency. Just one example: a popular Brazilian newspaper dedicates almost an entire page to illustrate the headline “Crisis feeds xenophobia in the US labor market.” The very first page underlines that “in the US, actions against immigrants are growing.” Writing about immigrants in the US, the newspaper explains that: “From Congress to grassroots movements, anti-immigration activists find in the recession in the US more and more ammunitions for their protests. And while the slogans are not unprecedented, the new economic context provides the ideal culture for the proliferation of dangerous attitudes;” (Andrea Murta, in the Folha de São Paulo, Feb. 5, 2009, p. b8.)

In this context and from the discussions during the Forum, we can consider three binomials. First, when talking about migration and peace, it is assumed that behind the mass migration there is a situation of violence and/or war. It is a fact that quite a few people move within a country or beyond the border, due to open conflict. There are millions of refugees, exiles, deportees or “displaced people”, all in greater or lesser extent, civilian victims of crossfire.

However, while these people are fleeing the violence, they carry also a deep aspiration for peace. The same can be said of those who migrate for socio-economic reasons. Work, respect for human rights and peace are their aims. The flight becomes a quest! That is to say, they are looking for a citizenship that was denied at home. During the current financial crisis, what will happen to the Hispano-Americans, Asians and Africans, living in the US, often underground, struggling to find the security of a homeland? The same question can be asked about the immigrants living in Europe, Australia or Japan. And again, the question is for the Bolivians, Peruvians and other South American immigrants who today inhabit the basements of the Brazilian cities of São Paulo, Porto Alegre, Manaus, Iguassu Falls, etc…

In almost all countries, rich or poor, there are people balancing on a high-wire because of their condition of immigrants. The truth is that in times of crisis, or “lean times”, the tendency for every country is to protect its own citizens rather than foreigners. Politicians and, often, trade unionists and activists come together to ensure the jobs of “our people.” The barrier between those inside and those outside tends to raise ever higher walls. Thus, while the migration is a quest for peace, it can also degenerate into conflicts between different peoples.

Second, the entire border is a mix of both walls and bridges. In an environment where faces and races, languages and flags, currencies and customs, goods and prices come together, there is always a breath of ambiguity. The ground underfoot becomes evermore slippery. The tensions and the pursuit of personal interests often cause clashes in border areas, but there is also the possibility of new human relations. Meetings, divisions and coming together again are entangled and intertwined.

The border is always a place where many dreams and aspirations are broken, but it is also a fertile ground for new opportunities. Stricter laws and walls, some visible, other invisible, are separating the nations, but they do not prevent migrants to build bridges, to cross, and crisscross, the border. In some cases, after so much boundaries breaking, they succeed in eliminating them. Walls can become bridges and vice versa. If the migrants build a survival bridge between the place of origin and place of destination, why not thinking also of a solidarity bridge joining the two poles? An example is offered by the migrants themselves who, with their remittances often are the only ones providing livelihood for their family at home.

The actual dividing line between countries can become mobile and inaccurate. It is there that we see the growing migration dynamism of the so-called frontier environment. That is, while capital, goods and technology have relative freedom to cross all obstacles; workers tend to have their steps blocked. As a consequence we see the volatility and the explosive nature of some triple borders, such as the region of Foz do Iguaçu and Tabatiga (Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay) and of Arica (Chile, Peru and Bolivia).

The third binomial - security and development – considers what is described as the “immigration problem.” The word ‘problem’ here already manifests a distorted view of rejection. Indeed, for governments and authorities, and even for many people linked to organizations fighting for human rights, the migrant is often seen as a problem. From this we have the call for the infamous ideology of national security. In the United States, for example, immigrants are often seen as a “domestic problem.” Immigration ends up being a police matter.

The Forum revealed the need to change the focus of the migration issue. Rather than talking about national security, we must aim at what Pope Paul VI, in Populorum Progressio , called total development. “Development is the new name of peace,” said the Pope. The concept of development, in this case, can be sees from two points of view: 1) from the regions of emigration, usually the peripheral countries; here development aims to include most of the citizens so that they are not forced to leave. This means improving the actual standards of life. In the ideal of Paul the VI’s encyclical, not just the technical progress and economic growth, but it must make the whole life ever more human. 2) From the regions of immigration, in general the core countries; they must take into account of how the migrants, far from being a problem, often bring a real contribution to the economy. They are like fresh blood in often decrepit organisms, or youthful enthusiasm in companies that are approaching the sunset. Immigrants are clearly a development factor, and more, their way of life and cultural expressions, when intertwined with local culture, can bring mutual enrichment.

About the author: Rev. Alfredo J. Gonçalves, cs was born in 1953 in the island of Madeira and in 1969 he moved to Brazil. He was ordained a priest in 1984 in the Congregation of the Missionaries of St. Charles, Scalabrinians. He studied philosophy, theology and Religious Sciences. His apostolic work was in the poorest favelas of São Paolo, with the sugar cane cutters, and with the immigrants. He also worked in an area called ¨Tres fronteiras¨ where Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay meet. He taught courses in Social Doctrine of the Church, Theology and Urban Pastoral Work. Today he is the Provincial Superior of the São Paolo Religious Province in Brazil.

About the SIMN (organizer of the Forum): The Scalabrini International Migration Network (SIMN) connects over 270 organizations scattered in over 30 countries in the five continents, and networks with several hundred volunteers and 700 Scalabrinian priests and religious. Its mission is to safeguard the dignity and the rights of migrants, refugees, seafarers, itinerants and people on the move.

For more information about the Forum see: http://www.forummigracionypaz.org.