GDX Executive Director Ratna Omidvar discusses Toronto’s long history as a city of refuge, at the Walrus Talks Cities of Migration event held on October 28, 2015 at the Ted Rogers School of Management, Ryerson University.

Source: The Walrus Foundation

By Pico Iyer

Stepping off a United Airlines plane in San Francisco, 18 months ago, I was greeted by the slogan, “The word ‘foreign’ is losing its meaning.” I got out two flights later, in Mashhad, Iran, and was greeted by an air-bridge lined with portraits of “martyrs” from the Iran-Iraq War.

That tiny contrast might have been a reminder of how treacherous it is to assume that the word “foreign” is losing its meaning. Indeed, the distances, the differences between cultures are often greater than ever before, in part because of the illusion of closeness. Multinationals have every investment, quite literally, in telling us that we’re all part of a single market, and idealists may hopefully echo them; my experience, after 39 years of travelling the globe, almost without a break, suggests the opposite.

Yes, we may share the same fast-food joints and Seattle coffee-houses, perhaps. Yet I defy anyone to go to a McDonald’s outlet in New Delhi (full of commotion and the smell of spiced chai, with mostly vegetarian dishes on the menu) and tell me that it’s any less Indian – or any more like a McDonald’s in Toronto – than many an Indian restaurant nearby. Or go into the McDonald’s down the street from me in Nara, Japan: Are the “Moon-Viewing Burgers” that you see on the menu to be found in Santa Monica, Calif.? Are the chic girls in Dior and Saint Laurent akin to your neighbours at the next table in Halifax? Is the way they speak – or don’t speak – and cover their mouths when they smile any less Japanese than it would have been five centuries ago?

Yes, we may share the same cultural products. But go to a showing ofAvatar in China, and tell me that it carries the same meaning for its audience as it would in Studio City. For the former, I’m sure, it’s as much about environmental destruction as to the latter it might be about a dazzling new technology. Watch the same movie in Baghdad and it becomes a parable about imperialism. Every country may draw from the same pop-cultural pool, but each translates it into its own context and language and tradition. We file into the same movie, but come out having seen a radically different film.

Again and again, in fact, what strikes me when I touch down in Jerusalem or Pyongyang is not how much it shares with Washington or London, but how much it doesn’t, in spite of common surfaces, (yes, nine months ago, I did see the two pizzerias and the 36-lane bowling-alley in North Korea’s capital). Which is why travel is more urgent than ever: Our screens vividly bring faraway places into our homes, projecting an image of closeness, but every encounter with the foreign in the flesh reminds us forcibly of how much lies far beyond our reckoning.

Thus political differences have hardly diminished, I would say, even as we all join in on Let it Go and hurry to American Sniper. Go to the West Bank, and most of the kids you see may be wearing T-shirts and jeans; I doubt anyone would say that they’re any closer to their counterparts in New York (or Tel Aviv) because of that. The more we may know what Arabia looks like, from movies such as Syriana, the more those in the Gulf may watch American Idol, the less we may know about what the Other really thinks deep down.

It’s almost as if the 21st century and the first century are living side by side, nowadays, but also back to back, across the globe and in your own province. Many a Torontonian surely feels that rural Ontario may be a far more foreign country than is New York or even Hong Kong; even in our major cities the gap between rich and poor is increasing daily. Someone from Santa Monica is far more likely to find herself in Shanghai or Paris than in the gritty areas around South Central Los Angeles 10 minutes from her home. Even if we’re all on the same page, more and more people are in the margins.

Of course, the gulfs and divisions that remain aren’t entirely a terrible thing. When people say the world is growing homogeneous, losing its savour and individuality, I wonder if they’ve been to Yemen or Ethiopia recently. If someone tells you that we’re all blending into a Disneyland whole, singing “It’s a small, small world,” take them across town to where Haitians and Somalis are struggling to get by. Covering six Olympic Games in 14 years reminded me that the family of man is about as united and harmonious as many another family, even when on its best behaviour.

In Isfahan, Iran, not long ago I found the stores filled with pirated copies of Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs, and last year in North Korea I saw a local crane forward to ask two visiting workers from Apple how Tim Cook’s management style differed from that of his celebrated predecessor. In the mausoleum where Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il lie, embalmed, we saw the sleek MacBook that the latter was said to have been using when he was reportedly felled by a heart attack on a train (our two Appleites confirmed that this was the perfect model to have in 2011, when he died). It’s wonderful that we can share more and more, and enjoy the tastes of foreign cultures in our hometowns and online.

But pity the politician who assumes that will really bring him any closer to Beijing or Tehran. The only way we’ll survive the global neighbourhood is by assuming we know nothing and recalling that a “Yes” in Tokyo – or Mexico City – conveys what we would mean by a “No.” I love the way that we can experience Jamaica, Pakistan, Haiti, Vietnam in our classrooms and cities; I shudder at the notion that to see them is to think we understand them or can easily be one with them.

Some people worry that soon all of us will be speaking English; my deeper fear is that, even if we are, we’ll still be largely incomprehensible to one another.

Pico Iyer is the author of a dozen books such as The Art of Stillness: Adventures in Going Nowhere and Video Night in Kathmandu, has been writing about his travels, movement and the notions of home for more than 30 years.

On May 7, 2015, Pico Iyer was the the distinguished guest speaker at the inaugural GDX Annual Lecture: Big Ideas on Diversity, Prosperity and Migration.

This article originally appeared in The Globe and Mail on June 6, 2015 and is reprinted with permission.

By Jan Niessen, Director, Migration Policy Group

Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises are engines of growth and economic development. They operate mostly at the local level and make significant contributions to employment, income generation, investment and international trade. Cities can capitalize more on the diversity of its population by ensuring that male and female entrepreneurs with an immigrant background benefit from general measures promoting a favourable entrepreneurial climate. Immigrant-owned businesses provide added value as they have knowledge of and fill gaps in markets, which are not necessarily covered by large mainstream businesses. They also open additional avenues to international trade.Overall, micro,small and medium-sized enterprises tend to be more innovative and flexible, making them interesting for mainstream business partners that are often bigger and more traditional, static and risk averse. Local policies cannot only promote the development of business skills and competences of all entrepreneurs, but can also facilitate that immigrant businesses are linked with mainstream economic players. This makes good business sense and has a positive impact on immigrants’ socio-economic integration.

Incubating small business at the local level

Unfortunately, too many municipalities do not seem to be aware of these facts. Luckily,those which are provide direct support to all entrepreneurs and encourage private and civil society sector organisations to do so as well. Usually, such support includes assistance on administrative, regulatory and tax matters, on building a solid business plan,and on training in accounting, marketing and finance. It should neither be taken for granted that all entrepreneurs are aware of the existence of these support measures, nor that every entrepreneur can actually benefit from them. Experience demonstrates that for entrepreneurs with an immigrant background special outreach campaigns are needed as well as additional measures, such as translation and interpretation services.Specific measures are to address challenges with which only entrepreneurs with an immigrant background are confronted, such as those related to residence status,recognition of foreign qualifications and discrimination.

Municipalities can push for the development of the intercultural competences of the staff of services providers and for recruiting staff from among the immigrant population. This will enhance the effectiveness and quality of service provision. When such measures are also adopted by financial institutions this helps to remove obstacles for equal treatment in accessing finance for starting and growing a business. Another area where municipalities can promote change in existing policies and practices,relates to membership of organisations and participation in networks. Being well-connected with a variety of organisations is important for all entrepreneurs, and even more so for immigrant entrepreneurs, as this offers opportunities for new business and for mutual learning among peers. It also increases social capital, status and influence. In name many organisations and networks are open to all entrepreneurs. In reality too many of them are rather closed bulwarks of vested interests. Opening them up for entrepreneurs with a diverse background is in their own longer-term interest. Municipalities can lead by example and regularly consult with all stakeholders, expressly including immigrant entrepreneurs and their organisations, and promote cooperation among them.

Government as economic actors in their own right

Governments are not only policy makers and service providers, but also economic actors in their own right. They are among the biggest employers and in OECD countries they spend on average 13% % of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on goods, services, infrastructure, education and health. This would be much more when state owned businesses such as utilities (water, electricity, etc.) were included. More than half is spent at the local level. In other words, governments are very big economic players and wield considerable purchasing power, which they can use to also achieve socio-economic goals. Strangely enough, these facts seem to be unknown by many local policy-makers, thus leaving un-used a potential powerful means to promote the economic integration of immigrants.By adopting a supplier diversity programme municipalities facilitate that immigrant businesses are linked with mainstream businesses. This entails that the municipality keeps a record its total spend and its suppliers. This may demonstrate that immigrant entrepreneurs are underrepresented as supplier of the municipality (which could amount to indirect discrimination). To change the situation various things can be done. The municipality can divide calls for tender in lots enabling small businesses to submit a bid. It can bring calls for tenders under the attention of all potential suppliers and reach expressly out to immigrant entrepreneurs. Meetings can be organised at which all potential suppliers are informed on procurement rules and procedures. Smaller businesses can be assisted to form consortia. Diversity and equality aspects of bids can be made a performance award criterion when there is a link with the subject-matter of the contract. Social clauses can be included in contracts with a view to prevent discrimination.

Public private partnerships on supplier diversity

Last but not least, the municipality can encourage its corporate suppliers to undertake the same type of action. Together public and private procurers can create a wider candidate pool of suppliers that provides wider choices which in turn brings access to innovation and flexibility into supply chains. By engaging fit-to-supply immigrant businesses, they invest in areas where immigrants live and help these communities to generate revenues. By linking immigrant businesses with mainstream businesses they avoid these businesses becoming trapped in a non-profitable niche industry or becoming ghettoized serving only their community. Together public and private procurers can mitigate risks, enhance their reputation and share good practice.

Incubating a win win situation

Ideally, all the above cited activities are embedded in municipalities’ overall socio-economic and urban policies, requiring internal communication and cooperation between various departments of local government. This is not always easy to achieve because different municipal departments have their own mandates, priorities and resources. On top of this, many cities have to cope with budget cuts and a less favourable climate for working on integration issues. This forces city governments to become more creative and cost-effective and to cooperate with actors in the private and civil society sector. Demonstrating the contribution of businesses owned by immigrants to the local economy strengthens efforts to socially integrate immigrants, increases trust amongst various groups in the population and enhances confidence in local integration policies.

Ten cities in Europe, united in the Council of Europe led and European Commission sponsored DELI project, have worked together for 18 months on the topic of inclusive entrepreneurship, with the Migration Policy Group providing expertise and background information. The results of this work will be presented at a conference, “Building Inclusive Societies,” in Brussels on 23rd and 24th of June 2015. Newly designed management standards will be presented together with other tools such as an on-line assessment tool with good practice example and a public procurement matrix.

For further information visit the DELI project website.

Jan Niessen in the Director of the Migration Policy Group in Brussels. The Council of Europe and Migration Policy Group share responsibility for the overall coordination and implementation of the Diversity in the Economy (DELI) project.

By Ratna Omidvar, Executive Director of the Global Diversity Exchange

Sheryl Sandberg made waves when she told women to “Lean In.” It’s a neat two-word philosophy for what the Facebook executive wants women to pursue: the will to lead.

Pursuing diversity also takes the will to lead. It requires leadership, effort and time. Only then can we proceed from aspiration to concrete action.

Here is where the Global Diversity Exchange comes in. With thought leadership, policy innovations, research, and ideas to serve a variety of stakeholders – the public, governments, employers, institutions and communities.

A caveat. Diversity is a big word. Technically it embraces all of us because we are diverse, all different from each other. GDX will focus, at least for the first while, on the diversity that is a result of global migration.

Around the world there are 214 million people on the move. Put them all together and you have a country larger than Brazil. As it gets easier to move people, capital and ideas around the world, migration takes on new forms. Many people move to stay permanently in their country of destination,  yet others come and go and come again, or stay for a short time before moving on to somewhere else. Whatever their motivation, the sheer numbers and ebb and flow of people across the globe add a dynamic, charged dimension to that movement. Diversity – some call it hyper-diversity – follows the great urbanization of the world. Today there are probably more cities that are new hands at managing migration and diversity than old ones. They are in the global north and in the global south, where the majority of the world’s migration occurs. Here diversity is the new norm.

Can diversity bring more trade, more talent, more innovation and more prosperity? We think it can. The evidence linking diversity and prosperity is strong and growing, bolstered by new voices, new research strategies and forms of collaboration, and more effective story-telling. Like them, we see diversity as an asset and not simply a demographic footnote.

We know that our task is not easy. We know for instance that simply being located in a diverse place does not always lead to utilizing diverse talent. We know that a diverse community does not necessarily translate into responsive institutions and neighborhoods. We know that a highly diverse city can also be a highly divided one. And we now know that where there is significant inequality or isolation, alienation and disengagement can follow and can lead to unrest and deplorable acts of violence.

But we also know that for every problem, there are good ideas in policy and action that can offer solutions. Whether these ideas are transformational or incremental, institutional or community-based, local or global, we are optimistic they can help shape and develop more prosperous communities.

GDX will identify, amplify, document and disseminate these links between prosperity and diversity resulting from global migration. We focus on important institutional levers and success factors that link the two concepts: employment, entrepreneurship, diversity in leadership, and – on the frontlines of integration – cities. Through thought leadership, research, and action, GDX aims to be the go-to home and space for new ideas, new instruments and strategies for how we live and work together in our hyper-diverse world

Over time, we aim to lean in to places that are most relevant and ripe for change: small and large employers, public institutions, civil society organizations, national, state and local governments, and the neighbourhoods and communities where problems and solutions often surface first.

We have hit the ground running at our new home at the Ted Rogers School of Management at Ryerson University, which boasts Canada’s most diverse student body. In our new home, our flagship programs are reaching new and different audiences. DiverseCity on Board, already internationally recognized, will now expand from Toronto to six other cities in Canada. Hire Immigrants, our successful interface for Canadian employers will now become global. Cities of Migration will connect drivers of social innovation to new audiences and geographies to enhance its collection of good ideas in immigrant integration. In the fall, our first book, Flight and Freedom, a compelling look at stories of escape to Canada, will hit the bookshelves.

Our formal launch will take place on May 7, 2015 in Toronto with an Inaugural Annual Lecture featuring renowned philosopher and global citizen Pico Iyer, whose theme will address the oldest and most enduring expression of our collective identity: culture.

Diversity drives prosperity, but only if we lean in.

Lean in with us.

By Khalid Koser, Deputy Director and Academic Dean, Geneva Centre for Security Policy. This article has been adapted from  his keynote speech on Cities and the Case for Migration at the 2014 Cities of Migration Conference in Berlin on June 5.

The Cities of Migration Conference stands out for at least three reasons.

First, it provides focus – today and tomorrow on cities. Too many migration events are too general, and narrowing our focus is important if we want to go beyond a talking-shop and actually try to achieve something.

Second is its sense of purpose. The program is interactive and solutions-oriented.

Third, I am impressed by how inclusive this meeting is. Bringing together a wide range of stakeholders, from government, civil society, the business sector and so on is the best way to generate new ideas. And I think it is important that our discussion here is not exclusively about rich cities, or the urban elite, or highly-skilled migration alone.

What frustrates me most about the migration debate today is a lack of vision, and I hope that our deliberations at this meeting can be visionary.

Because make no mistake, new thinking is required. This meeting takes place in the heart of a continent where migration has become a toxic issue. Governments have failed to make the case for migration in Europe, and allowed far right parties to hijack the debate. Migrants continue to die in deserts and drown in the sea in their efforts to come here for protection or to work. Governments are increasingly securitizing migration, with the risk that this will legitimize and normalize extraordinary responses. The international community has become gridlocked by 60 year old mandates and institutional rivalries.

The theme of my presentation, and I think of this meeting, is that cities have the potential to make a difference – to the discourse on migration, to migration policy, and to the lives of migrants themselves – and not just in cities, but globally.

Cities represent the best and worst of migration: migrant entrepreneurs and migrant exploitation; innovative migrants and irregular migrants; diversity and discrimination; hope and hatred.

Faced with these extremes of the migrant experience, cities again and again have been able to move the needle from negative to positive, from challenge to opportunity.

If cities in all their complexity can realize the potential of migration, then states, and the international community don’t have far to look for the success stories and best practices that can help generate a new approach.

But I would argue it is not just up to states and the international community to learn, it is also up to cities to teach. With rights come responsibilities. Cities have benefited from migration; it is time that migration benefited from them.

Policy areas for cities to pursue

Let me outline three policy areas in particular where I think cities can – and should – take the lead on making a difference.

The first is migration governance. We know that with very few exceptions governments struggle to manage migration. They need to resolve competing priorities; they are subject to public and media scrutiny; they are trapped by electoral cycles in short-term policy and planning.

There are also significant shortfalls in the global governance of migration. No dedicated UN agency; no consolidated legal framework; few binding agreements beyond the bilateral and regional levels.

It seems to me that cities are relatively unencumbered by some of the obstacles to governance that confront governments and the international community.

The most important is sovereignty. The main reason that states continue to try to manage on a unilateral basis what is by definition a transnational issue, is that migration strikes at the heart of sovereignty – identity, economic competitiveness, security.

In contrast cities can be – and are – more single-minded in their interaction with migration, and increasingly cities interact to manage migration at the city level.

A second policy area where cities are taking the lead – although more work is required – is on engaging the business sector.

One of my roles is to chair the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Migration, and our priority has been to engage businesses and governments in migration policy. This has not been easy. Government and business have different priorities; they speak different languages; they are trying to satisfy different stakeholders; they define success differently; and they work to different schedules.

At the city level, in contrast, the dialogue between business and mayors is much more fluent and effective. And one reason may be that unlike our national politicians, many local and city politicians have direct experience of working outside politics.

A third area where I look to cities to take a lead is on promoting an objective debate on migration.

Space for objective debate

One of my main concerns about migration today is that the space for a sensible, honest debate is shrinking. There is a polarization of views, between those at one end of the spectrum who champion migrants and those at the other end who demonize them.

Migrants open businesses and generate employment and wealth; but they also can be over-dependent on welfare. Migrants are on the whole hard-working tax payers; but some are criminals. Diversity excites some people; but it overwhelms other people. If we can’t have an open and critical debate on migration, then don’t be surprised that the media doesn’t.

And it seems to me that cities are best placed to convene this debate. You can find the entire spectrum of views within a few blocks in most cities. Cities have the venues and the community organizers. And whatever their perspectives on migration and migrants, city dwellers tend to be open to debate and exchange.

While states are building walls; cities are building bridges. While states are launching patrol boats; cities are launching ideas. While states are unilateral; cities are transnational.

Cities have a responsibility to promote good governance; engage the right stakeholders; and preserve the space for an objective debate.

Dr Khalid Koser is Deputy Director and Academic Dean at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy and chair of the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Migration.

By Mekonnen Mesghena, a policy analyst and head of Migration & Diversity at the Heinrich Böll Stiftung in Berlin. This was his opening speech on June 5 at the 2014 Cities of Migration Conference in Berlin:

A week from today on 12 June, the whistle will blow to mark the start of the World Cup. But while the world eagerly awaits the football championships in Brazil, mass protests have rocked the big cities there. Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators have taken to the streets in Fortaleza, Salvador, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and other Brazilian cities. The protests are not of course aimed at football but at the frustration and daily experiences of social exclusion, corruption and misguided development projects. What people want is simple: better living conditions, security and the mobility to get to work. “An advanced city is not one where even the poor use cars, but rather one where even the rich use public transport,” said Enrique Peñalosa, Bogotá’s former mayor.

Large cities like São Paulo or Rio de Janeiro are dynamic places with major promise and potential for development. Longing and hope drive countless numbers of people into these big cities every year. At least some of them manage to find a better life with access to education, work and better living conditions. For many, however, it remains a distant dream. In Rio alone approximately 1,200 favelas exist in which roughly 1.4 million people ­live – this represents a quarter of the city’s population. In São Paolo there are roughly 1.3 million people who live on the social, economic and cultural margins of the city. Throughout the whole world, roughly one billion people live in these precarious and extremely poor living conditions.

This situation is likely to come to a head in many cities in the future. Across the globe, city populations are growing by around 70 million people per year – that’s approximately 1.4 million per week. Nowadays more than half the global population lives in cities – and by 2030 this proportion will grow to 60 per cent, and by 2050 to 70 per cent. In coming years, only three per cent of the planet’s surface will generate about 90 per cent of the global economy for around three quarters of the global population. In Europe too, the demography of certain regions is shifting due to migration and changes in age structures: the result is growing cities and shrinking regions.

Freedom of mobility

The growth of cities is, on the one hand, the result of people’s lives shifting to urban areas and on the other, the result of increasing immigration ­– especially in the EU where citizens enjoy freedom of mobility. This is one of greatest achievements of the European project, against which right-wing conservatives and populist political movements mobilize and stir up fear nowadays. However, the success of the populist parties in Austria, Denmark, Great Britain and France is not only a reaction to the Eurozone crisis and a vote against the loss of national sovereignty. It is equally a statement against “others” both inside and beyond borders, and is therefore another attempt to segregate and exclude by defining European ethnic identity and its territory as markers for membership. This is an attack on the foundation of the European Union – an embodiment of multiculturalism and diversity.

Germany, the geographical centre of Europe, contrary to reason and the facts, has vehemently denied its state as a country of immigration despite every fifth German citizen being from an immigrant family. Thanks to its stable economic situation, according to a recent OECD report, Germany ranks as the second most popular country of immigration after the USA. This is where a populist myth is unmasked: although in the last twenty years the figures for immigration have never been as high as they are today, the jobless figures have never been so low.

In the region of Stuttgart alone, where full employment prevails, some 63,000 jobs cannot be filled because of a lack of labour force. On the other hand, countless numbers of young people have had to leave their families, familiar surroundings and social networks in search of better perspectives to start a new life elsewhere. But the new generation of immigrants to Europe do not necessarily head to sources of work and food. Mostly, they go to cities where they believe they will find functionality, modernity and new opportunities of development. “Many Italians, Spanish and Greeks come to Berlin but the jobs are in West and South Germany,” says sociologist Edith Pichler. On the other hand, people’s choices are not only based on economic reasons but also how to make their ideas and plans come true: migrants don’t just go to Germany, Denmark or Great Britain but quite specifically to Berlin, Copenhagen and London. “Large cities will become increasingly important in the future and people will increasingly define their identities through them,” says the globalization and development researcher Ian Goldin.

Cities have always been laboratories of social innovation and pioneering places of change for precisely the reasons of social and cultural diversity that makes them stand out. Democracy was thought up and experienced in cities, great inventions have been made in them and new lifestyles have been tested. They are places where innovative forms of cohabitation have to be developed such as participation in a diverse, multicultural society. The success of many large cities is largely to do with the fact that the hopes and dreams of those people who have decided to settle in them can come true. If successful, the result can be an urban society that is strong both socially and economically as well as dynamically cosmopolitan. For centuries, migration has played an active part in the urbanization and development of cities.

Liberal and inclusive cities are successful in creating opportunity-oriented conditions that offer integration, participation and upward mobility. Cities and their immigrants can contribute to a social, political and economically successful society. Failure can result in segregation, marginalization, poverty and social tensions.

Channels of access to legal rights and freedom from discrimination on the work market are some of the decisive factors that can help migration have a positive effect on urban wealth. City politics have a great influence on economic opportunities and initiatives that enable migrants to fulfill their potential. Discriminating and racist urban and economic structures not only harm the people that they directly affect; they also have a negative effect on the state and development of the city.

This not only applies to migration, of course. Urban populations are much more heterogeneous nowadays. They are more diverse in every respect: socially, culturally, ethnically, demographically etc. But the extent to which diversity is reflected in the cultural, political and economic structures of cities is a very different story. Cities deal with their heterogeneity in very different ways ­– and are often quite differently prepared for it.

Incidentally, the liberalism and openness of a city cannot simply be measured by whether and how it attracts and accommodates a “creative class” – as Richard Florida describes the group of highly-mobile and highly sought-after professionals. The openness of a city should be measured above all by the way it accepts people into the community who have little and who arrive with little, who need its protection and help; and by the way it helps those people to stand on their own two feet as quickly as possible. Anything else harms not only the people affected but also the community, giving impetus to marginalization and racism. The public space occupied in Rome, Berlin, Hamburg, Amsterdam and several other European cities by refugees from Lampedusa and refugee activists no doubt presents cities with enormous challenges. But there is also no doubt that the problem cannot simply be erased from the cityscape by excluding refugees from cities, and from the work training and employment markets.

Need for representation

A humane and progressive city requires not only a progressive spirit but also progressive institutions and facilities: kindergartens, schools, universities, the work market, public administration, the media, theater, museums and so on. In all these areas, however, we are dealing with glaring gaps in representation. To different degrees, this continues to affect different social groups: women, the elderly, people from immigrant families, the disabled etc. Politics and political institutions are just two areas where blatant gaps exist between reality and representation. While every fifth German citizen comes from an immigrant family, German city parliaments are made up of just four per cent of people with an immigrant background. This is precisely where representation forms the nucleus of democracy. The proportion of immigrants in many German cities is as high as 50 per cent.

In the media, the situation looks even direr: only every 50th journalist is from an ethnic community. The situation in city schoolyards is even more dismal. Despite the growing numbers of schoolchildren who have an immigrant biography, and who are culturally and linguistically diverse ­­– in some classrooms, up to 80 per cent of the class ­­– barely 5 per cent of their teachers come from immigrant families. Civil servants are particularly underrepresented.

In the face of rapidly changing city demographics and growing multiculturalism, cities are forced to look for and formulate political and practical approaches that address the entire city population. The progressive and tolerant dynamism that urban coexistence requires must not be forced into parochialism that lacks vision. It has to be made tangible for the rest of the country. A modern city society, characterized by social and cultural diversity requires policies on diversity that raise the visibility, representation and mobility of various population groups in cities on several levels, while creating opportunities to take part in decision-making.

This speech by Mekonnen Mesghena was first published on the Heinrich Böll Stiftung website.

By Roger Casale, Chair of New Europeans

At the beginning of April, a young woman came to my door collecting for Battersea Cats and Dogs Home. We have one dog and two cats in our house so we struck up a good conversation.

It turned out that the young woman was a trained lawyer, about to start a Masters course at UCL. “That’s wonderful” I said,  “I noticed a slight accent in your voice, do you mind if I ask where you were born?”

“I’m afraid I can’t tell you that” the young woman replied” in Britain it is considered a weakness if you come from my country.”

It may me feel very uncomfortable to think that things had got to this point in Britain.

This young woman, with so much to offer this country, felt that the climate of opinion was so negative in Britain – and this in London – that she was unable to acknowledge where she came from.

“Well you’ve knocked on the right door,” I replied, “because I am part of an organisation called New Europeans, which is working with other groups to change the narrative on migration.”

The young woman’s name is Mihaela. I gave her the contact details for New Europeans and she then told me she is from Romania and offered to help with our campaigns. “Thank you, I said, we need you, but don’t get distracted from your studies! The UK also needs your contribution and I wish you every success!”

Two years ago, we all celebrated with the world at the London Olympics. Britain showed a face that was warm, open, tolerant, welcoming and strong.

Above all, we celebrated our diversity as a nation – our unity in diversity. There were no trucks driving around the streets at that time with pointy fingers telling immigrants to go home.

Holding a mirror

One reason why this nation needs migration is because men and women from other countries help to remind us who we are.

They hold the mirror up to us. We see our shortcomings but we also see our own potential, including our potential for change. The challenge of change upsets many people – the idea that things can be done differently, that life doesn’t always have to go on as before.

The migrant, the outsider, represents change, embodies change in the journey he or she has made to be with us in Britain today.

Without migration, Britain can neither sustain its economy and public services nor grow as a nation and as a community. We are fortunate in Britain that we are a country of migration, a nation of migrants.

We are fortunate in Britain that we are a country in which you can still breathe the air of freedom.

We are fortunate in Britain that people like Mihaela come here to study, to work and to contribute to our society.

This does not make the British better or worse than anybody else – but it does mean that we are a nation, which is able to understand and celebrate difference. Migrants remind us who we are. New Europeans have joined the Migrants Contribute campaign because we firmly believe that migration is a powerful and positive force in our society.

It is high time that we the ‘open’, ‘tolerant’, ‘fair-minded’, ‘diverse’, British were shaken up and reminded of that fact.

And as for the politicians who play politics with the issue of migration – well in my view, we need to send a clear, simple, co-ordinated message with these three words “Don’t you dare!”

We want to live in a country where Mihaela and others like her feel comfortable and proud to say where they come from, don’t we?

Roger Casale is the Chair of New Europeans, a civil society movement promoting the rights of European citizens. Previously he was the Labour MP for Wimbledon and a parliamentary private secretary in the Foreign Office.

This opinion was first published in Migration Pulse web space of the Migrants’ Rights Network and is being shared here under Creative Commons 2.0 license.

By Dana Wagner

Where in the world do immigrants reside?

A few neat infographics caught our eye showing the cities with the highest populations of immigrants. They may not be strictly scientific, but they’re fun and give a good taste for the cities that count among the world’s most diverse. These are a mix of the usual-suspect cities in North America and Europe, and others like Singapore, Hong Kong and Riyadh.

The GOOD Cities Project maps the huge range of major cities with low and high foreign-born populations, from Tokyo’s 1.7% residents to Dubai’s 83%. Among the most diverse cities are Los Angeles (34%), Hong Kong (42%), Jiddah (37%), Vancouver (39%) and Tel Aviv (36%). (Toronto is missing though it’s foreign-born population is 46%.) And among the least diverse cities are Seoul (1.8%), Rio (1.1%), Barcelona (5%), Helsinki (4.5%), and Oslo (6.2%).

See infographic.

A second from GOOD features the cities at the top of the foreign-born population list. Home to over one million immigrants, these hyper-diverse cities are: San Francsico, Los Angeles, Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, Chicago, Miami, Washington, New York, Toronto, London Paris, Moscow, Medina, Riyadh, Mecca, Medina, Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Sydney and Melbourne.

See infographic.

Looking larger than cities, the Migration Policy Institute has a data hub focused on international migration. The interactive maps let a user create a visual for immigrant and emigrant populations by country since 1960.

See migration data hub or immigrant and emigrant maps.

It is time to rethink migration, says Manjula Luthria of the World Bank’s International Labour Mobility program. A new series, On the Move, aims to re-frame the debate around migration through new perspectives on how to realize its many potential gains. 

International labour markets are perhaps the last bastion of protectionism. We know that easing restrictions on the movement of people, especially the less skilled, can unleash huge welfare gains which by some estimates dwarf the gains from complete trade liberalization. And yet, progress on this front has been too slow.

In attending the numerous conferences and events on this topic I’ve come away frustrated by how we haven’t been able to move the discussion forward in effective ways and struck by the consistency of certain ways of thinking that just keep pulling us back.

To be able to really move forward we need to put our intellectual and convening powers towards facilitating the death of three long held views and then become matchmakers in facilitating a wedding ceremony.

The three funerals we need

The first idea that has fossilized these discussions is that development must only be about places. Hence the questions being asked in the research and policy making world essentially come down to one question: what has the migration of people done for the development of the places they come from? Whereas if development were already phrased in human development terms then all that matters is that migration offers an expansion of employment opportunities, an expansion of choice and agency, an increase in income, and often diversification of household risk. If this isn’t development, then what is?

The second unfortunate idea that has crept into our vocabulary and enjoys a unique brand name that even Coca Cola would envy is that of “brain drain” – which conjures images of loss of human capital from poor towards rich countries. The counter factual as many labour origin countries will readily testify to – is “brain down the drain!” When human capital cannot find a suitable use, it moves to another location where it does, providing an economist’s dream come true of good resource allocation.

In fact, the very prospect of radically increasing earning potential through migration can boost enrollment in certain fields of education which are internationally marketable, hence actually increasing the supply of brains. And yet, the predominant footprint this term “brain drain” has left on policy making is to give rise to paternalistic thinking that some countries “need” their emigrants more, so they should either be sent home or their recruitment should be discouraged in the first place.

These lead to the third idea that has done us more harm than good – the innocent looking AND that is found between migration AND development. This implicit assumption behind the use of this conjunction is that the words on either side are not to be treated as synonyms and hence must be linked to each other through some other channel.

This has given rise to a cottage industry that proposed these channels were either remittances or return, i.e. if migrants remitted money back home, then development was visible, or if migrants returned home armed with skills and knowledge then they had contributed to development.

Of course, both these flows can have positive effects, but chasing them as the missing link between migration and development has set us up big time! Measuring the development friendliness of migration through remittances is treating an intra-household transfer as development if it crosses an international border (if families were separated) but not so anymore if this occurs at the breakfast table (if families were not separated).

The other channel of return is also a dead end and many well-meaning efforts have tried to incentivize return and convert returning migrants into entrepreneurs. However, if the push and pull factors that drive migration haven’t been altered, then this is at best a marginal issue.

And now a wedding

What if we redefine our starting point to be something like this: Migration is development.

The relevant policy questions then focus on what can sending and receiving countries do together that puts migrants at the center of this discussion in a way that helps realize the human development potential of mobility.

This would mean we move away from worrying about remittances and return, and instead focus on policies and institutions that can help create better systems for migration – from recruitment, job search and matching, worker protection, portability of social rights and skills, training standards and certification, and ultimately successful insertion and integration of migrants into international labour markets in order to achieve the best possible human and economic outcomes.

Building these systems requires immense coordination between host and origin countries and such coordination is now virtually absent because migration policy is made so often through the eyes of national security. We could jump start this coordination by forging dialogue and partnerships at three levels:

The foremost priority is expanding mobility options for the poor and relatively unskilled and this will require that confidence is restored in bilateral labour arrangements. To do so, we will need to lead with policy experimentation in the design and implementation of such schemes – often in the nature of temporary mobility of persons (TMPs) which offer circumscribed access to labour markets in selected sectors and for a specific duration such as for seasonal work in agriculture. Such schemes offer a palatable compromise to all parties and have provided employment to vast numbers of poor people from the Caribbean and Pacific islands. But such schemes are too few because they are difficult to design, coordinate and manage. Here the Bank can take the lead in creating the public goods that are needed to foster trust and manage such schemes well, as we did in the Pacific region some time ago. This is crucial if the poor are to ever have a chance to access global employment opportunities.

For the mid-skilled, we need to create systems that allow their skills to travel with them and prevent the devaluation of skills with mobility – this will mean attention to the standards of the global labour market in tandem with better coordination between policies and private sector needs.

For the high-skilled for whom mobility is easier but who are at the root of concerns about the impact of migration on the provision of vital services – such as in health care — we need to offer innovative co-financing mechanisms where future beneficiaries invest in the education and training systems in poor countries in a way that augments the global supply of scarce skills.

Such enlightened partnerships will help turn zero-sum thinking on its head and help broker a regime that unlocks opportunities for human development in significant ways.

In my view this reset is already long overdue. Changing our approach to migration now will allow the Bank to be effective in an area where our intellectual leadership and convening power are urgently needed. We have made a start through our international labour mobility (ILM) program in the Middle East and North Africa region – please visit our website to see what we’re working on. We will also engage more deeply on the issues flagged here through a series of blog posts to follow – so please stay tuned and share your thoughts with us.

Reprinted with permission. First published on the World Bank blog, Voices and Views: Middle East and North Africa. Manjula Luthria is Senior Economist and program leader for the International Mobility Program of the MENA region’s Human Development network. She is based at the Center for Mediterranean Integration in Marseilles, France.

By Elizabeth Pinnington, Possible Canadas, published on December 12, 2014