Adventures of a Gringa

Amendment Aims To Halt Brazilian Immigration to the U.S.

This actually happened.

From The Hill:

The [U.S.] House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday approved a 2014 Homeland Security funding bill with a bipartisan voice vote. The bill is expected on the House floor in June. In a surprise development, the committee approved an amendment from Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), which would effectively end immigration from Brazil. The provision was included in order to pressure Brazil to extradite Brazilian-born Claudia Hoerig to the United States for trial in the murder of her husband, Air Force Major Karl Hoerig. The Ryan amendment does not affect travel visas or visas for temporary workers, an aide said.

If passed, the amendment would defund USCIS operations that involve processing immigration applications from Brazilian nationals.

Em português, do Estado de São Paulo:

Ao aprovar na quarta-feira, 22, um projeto de lei para liberar recursos para a segurança interna dos Estados Unidos em 2014, o Comitê de Finanças da Câmara dos Deputados avalizou emenda que impede a emissão de visto de residência permanente para cidadãos brasileiros nos Estados Unidos. O projeto de lei será submetido ao plenário da Câmara em junho e, se vier a ser aprovado pelas duas casas do Congresso americano, comprometerá o atual esforço dos EUA de aprofundar sua relação com o Brasil.

It's important to note: Brazil's Constitution prohibits extradition of Brazilians. Plus, it's complicated: Hoerig renounced her Brazilian citizenship when she became a U.S. citizen in 1999, but Brazil's Ministry of Justice never finished processing her paperwork to terminate her citizenship. Since Brazil still considers her a citizen, it won't extradite her, but the U.S. also considers her a citizen.

While it seems unlikely that something this ridiculous could pass, stranger things have happened, and this Congress doesn't exactly have a great track record. It's especially scary because it got tacked on as an amendment and could easily get lost in the fray.

I agree that impunity is a serious problem, and I think others would too. But this is also a sign of how far from reality some members of Congress are in terms of comprehending Brazil's importance to the United States. Brazil and the U.S. may have disagreements when it comes to binational legal disputes like this (see: Goldman case), but this is not something you do to a serious ally. You don't punish people who aren't to blame for the problem.

UPDATE, 6/9: Good news - the House eliminated the language on banning Brazilian immigration from the bill on June 5.

What you can do:

• Contact Vice President Joe Biden, who will be in Brazil next week.
• If you live in the United States, contact your representative.
• If you live in Brazil, contact Itamaraty via email or social media.
• Contact Brazil's Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota.
• Contact Representative Tim Ryan's office via phone, email, or social media.

Legislating Against Racism in Brazil

President Rousseff with university students from Pernambuco, a state that is 58% multiracial and black.

May 13 marked the 125th anniversary of the signing of the Lei Áurea, the law that abolished slavery in Brazil. More than a century after Princess Isabel penned the law, Brazilians of African descent have 1.6 fewer years of schooling than their white counterparts, and earn about 60 percent of what whites earn. Black Brazilians represent 65 percent of homicide victims, and have an infant mortality rate 60 percent higher than white Brazilians. Black Brazilians make up about 60 percent of the prison population, and have an average life expectancy of six years less than white Brazilians. There's a lot of sixes.

To try to correct these historic inequities stemming from slavery, the Brazilian government has made efforts to pass legislation to ensure rights and equal opportunities for black Brazilians. But can one legislate a change in culture?

The first law was passed in August 2012, requiring public universities to set aside half of their spots for public high school students, largely aiming to benefit black Brazilians. And though racial quotas had been in place at numerous universities for at least a decade, the law inspired and continues to inspire controversy. There are those who argue that race in Brazil is too hard to define, and that social class should be a basis for quotas. Some say the system is easy to exploit. There are those who argue that quotas incite more racism, and lower the quality of education. And there are those who simply deny that racism or racial inequality exists at all. Early results show that quotas actually have the opposite effect, since in some universities, affirmative action students tend to get higher grades than their counterparts (though they tend to do worse on standardized testing, according to one study). I recently had a conversation with a black professional from Rio and a white journalist from São Paulo who both explained why they oppose quotas based on a variety of the aforementioned reasons.

Last year, Alex Castro wrote about race in Brazil for Papo de Homem, saying:

"The worst still are those people (many of whom are black) that are against quotas (and other similar things), arguing that they 'never needed them.' And I consider this and say: 'I agree, of course, how could I not? And what's more, I'm also against that whole dialisis thing in public hospitals and wheelchair ramps in buildings.' All that happened yesterday, and continues happening today. The past, like a stone thrown in a lake, creates ripples in the water and has an effect on the present. The past is the present. Racial quotas are necessary today not to correct the historic injustices of the past, but to correct the daily injustices of the present."

Even though Brazilians of African descent make up at least half of the population, only 6 percent of university students are black. That university classrooms have historically been largely white means a major sea change for establishing a more diverse student population. It means changing not only the culture of colleges, but the concept that universities should no longer be centers of privilege.

Then there's the Domestics Law, which was signed in March and went into effect in April. The law has revealed a serious culture clash between the past of slavery and the modern reality of labor rights. Brazil has nearly 7 million domésticas, more household servants than any other country. The majority are women, and over half are black. Now, household workers have the same labor rights as formal-sector workers, like a 44-hour work week, a lunch hour, overtime, and unemployment insurance.

The fear is that the law could lead to mass layoffs--around 815,000, by one estimation. Some have complained that they won't be able to afford maids anymore; conservative magazine VEJA published a calculator to determine how much maids will cost under the new law. It also published a cover story about the law with an image of an unhappy man doing the dishes with the headline: "You tomorrow." Globo published a piece about what it will mean for families that have to do their own cooking and cleaning. One psychoanalyst quoted in the story predicted "emotional confusion" and a higher rate of divorces.

Historians compared the legislation to the Lei Áurea, saying it was a watershed moment for black Brazilians. Slavery created a "strongly exclusionary society, despite appearing racially diverse and having social mobility," said UFRJ Professor Flávio Gomes. "My surprise, with the domestics law, is the fact that these workers were in a category of "nearly citizens" in terms of workers rights."

Even today, many middle-class homes, even small ones, have a room and sometimes a separate bathroom for a domestic worker. Relationships between maids and families are complex; the movie "Neighboring Sounds" illustrates this phenomenon well. The law aims to change this, in theory, moving from a slave-owner relationship to one of worker-employer. "We’re shutting down the last of the slave quarters and throwing away the key," Senate President Renan Calheiros said last month.

But will the law work? Will families fire their maids? Will they simply ignore the law and risk being taken to court for inevitably lengthy labor lawsuits? Or will they ignore the law and count on the maid not to complain? Or will unwillingly go along with the new rules? Laws in Brazil sometimes "don't stick," and this is an interesting one to watch.

But the bigger question is if the law will actually change the culture of domestic employment. My guess is: not anytime soon. There has been talk of maid shortages due to women moving into other professions, another element of pressure on people employing domestics. My guess is that if these shortages continue and if families fear backlash from not obeying the new law, they may turn to foreign workers, which has already started happening in São Paulo. Brazil has become an increasingly bigger destination for immigrants, and low-paying jobs that involve going around labor laws are natural magnets for foreign workers.

One can look to other countries, like the United States, to try to see if legislation like affirmative actions works or has a sizeable impact. But how long laws take to change a deeply rooted culture is much more difficult to define.

Image: Blog do Planalto

Rio's 2012 Election: Now What?

Today, Rio Mayor Eduardo Paes swept the election in Rio, winning with nearly 65 percent of the vote. In second place was Rio state assemblyman Marcelo Freixo, who won 28 percent of the vote. For those familiar with Rio politics, it wasn't a surprise: Paes is a popular incumbent who raised much more money than Freixo (around 14 times more at nearly R$3 million), had a huge coalition (Freixo refused to create one), enjoyed much more TV advertising time than Freixo, and has support from the state governor, President Dilma Rousseff, and former President Lula. Amid a construction boom with new government-funded hospitals and education centers, Paes also counts among his administration's accomplishments presiding over the preparations for the World Cup and Olympics. In addition, Paes won despite recent accusations of corruption--allegedly paying off another political party not to run for the mayoralty of Rio. Freixo also was at a disadvantage due to popular appeal; Paes is a seasoned politician, whereas Freixo--who comes from a background of academia and activism--is less accustomed to smooth-talking.

Supporters of Freixo backed him, among other reasons, to support his stand against corruption in politics, as well as his famous opposition to militias and organized crime as depicted in Tropa de Elite 2. He's been critical of the mega-event preparations, saying during the most recent mayoral candidate debate: "We want the Olympics. But a city that's good for the Olympics must be good for the people who live in it." He also stood up to Paes on the campaign trail, and is not one to mince his words. Supporters saw him as a change from the usual suspects in Rio government. Given all that he was up against, it's impressive that he received nearly a third of the vote. It's also important to note that his party, the Socialism and Freedom Party (PSOL), doubled the number of seats in the city legislature from 2 to 4.

So what does this mean for Rio?

From my perspective, it means Freixo is well-positioned to play the role that fits him best, given the circumstances: that of a watchdog, a critical voice who will try to ensure transparency during the next Paes administration and the upcoming mega-events. As an activist who has worked hard to combat militias, there's still lots of work to do there. And given Rio's recent history with the PanAm Games and concerns about white elephants already emerging in the run-up to the World Cup, there's a long road ahead for the city. He's exactly the right person to spearhead efforts to see that the local government does what's best for its residents and not FIFA or the IOC. He's also the right person to work to oversee the city's preparations for the mega-events to prevent corruption and overspending. Maybe he'll be something of an Al Gore for Rio.

Rio politics may not have changed dramatically yet. But with someone like Marcelo Freixo working outside of the Pálacio da Cidade, there's a chance that there will be more accountability and a push for more transparency, as well as a continued fight against organized crime.

Photo: Marcelo Freixo 

Seats for the Obese in Brazil

Obesity is on the rise in Brazil, with over half of the population now overweight and around 15 percent considered obese. With a growing public health crisis, what was the legislative response? Well, for one, to make bigger seats.

One of the places this trend began was in Rio Grande do Sul in 2005, when the state passed a law requiring adequate space on public transportation for the obese. São Paulo state followed suit with Law 12.225/06, passed back in 2006. The law reserves plus-sized seats for the obese on public transportation, as well as cinemas, movie theaters, and concert venues. The São Paulo city metro started installing these seats in 2009, with twice the length of regular seats.

Now, you can spot these types of seats in public transportation in São Paulo, as a friend of a friend found:

Similar laws were passed in the state of Rio de Janeiro. State law 5038 passed in 2007 requires hospitals, clinics, and medical labs to have adequate equipment for the obese. Passed in 2010, state law 5829 requires schools and classrooms for any type of course to have adequate seating for the obese.

Other states and cities also followed suit. A bill introduced in Cuiabá in 2009 called for a preferential line for the obese at banks, and a state law passed in 2011 in Mato Grosso do Sul set aside space for the obese on intercity buses (though the law also allows bus companies to charge more for those who take up two seats). State law 14.720 passed in Pernambuco last month allows the obese to enter public buses without going through the turnstyle, which can be a tight squeeze. Bus companies that refuse to comply face fines of up to R$100,000.

Federal law has similar protections. Decree 5296 requires theaters, stadiums, concert venues, and conference halls to have special seats for the obese. Now, a bill already approved by the Senate is under consideration in the House of Representatives, which would reserve seats for the obese on public transportation nationwide. Another bill under consideration in the Senate would combine all locations by setting aside special seating for the obese in centers of entertainment, sports, conferences, classrooms, and public transportation throughout Brazil.

Dilma's DC Visit

Leading up to President Dilma Rousseff's Washington visit, there was an odd mixture of hype and a collective shrugging of shoulders. On the one hand, there was much ado about how it wouldn't be an official state visit with the honors and symbolism it entails. Reuters explained how the snub in protocol would have reverberations. "There's a feeling that most people in Washington don't appreciate what's happening in Brazil...Obama could have taken her to dinner, or to the Kennedy Center," an anonymous Brazilian source said.

Some observers anticipated there wouldn't be many concrete results to come out of the trip, and that long-term changes in foreign policy would be key. Others pointed out to ongoing foreign policy problems in not seeing eye to eye. A Financial Times article cited a U.S. government official who called Brazil "the France of Latin America," saying that the country's “obstructionism in global talks is often driven by their need to assert their newfound power...undermining our initiatives in Iran or over trade talks, for example, is their way of forcing us to pay attention to them.”

On the other hand, there was lots of noise from analysts who said there was even more opportunity for Brazil and the United States to forge a closer relationship, and that given Brazil's global rise, there was even more incentive and need to for the U.S. to adapt its stance on Brazil. "Brazil has probably never mattered more to America than it does now. America has probably never mattered less to Brazil," The Economist declared. Several op-eds recommended that both countries work on a free trade deal (though this still seems highly unlikely on either side.) One analyst said there was room to bring the two governments closer, since they maintain a cordial relationship but a safe distance from one another. A Politico op-ed vaguely called for a "bolder partnership."

So what actually happened? Not a lot, really. But the saddest thing was how little interest the whole trip generated.

In the English language press, there was some coverage, but some of the biggest publications--including The Washington Post and The New York Times--initially ignored the visit. (As I was writing this, the New York Times published a very good analysis of the visit which was more helpful post-visit than pre-visit.) Obama and Rousseff gave a very brief press conference after their meeting, which was broadcast live on a Brazilian government website and publicized by Itamaraty, but was not broadcast on the White House website and was nowhere to be found on there later. The White House livestreams today were dedicated to a daily press briefing--which did not include remarks on Dilma's visit--and an Easter concert. In comparison to the North American leaders visit last week, which had a full, livestreamed press conference with Obama and his Canadian and Mexican counterparts, it seemed the administration really didn't give Rousseff's visit much importance at all. On the Brazilian side, there was plenty of press coverage, but as journalist Gabriel Elizondo pointed out, news of Facebook's takeover of Instagram dominated the afternoon news, rather than the visit.

Both leaders released a joint statement, which was full of pretty words like "cooperation" and "partnership" and "welcomed" and "praised" but was pretty low on substance. (Notably, Obama failed to endorse Brazil's bid for a seat on the UN Security Council--again.) Dilma said she hoped to build a relationship "among equals" while Obama said he was "lucky" to have a "partner" like Dilma. Despite the attempts to be cordial, there wasn't much love--it was all very friendly, but it was definitely a cool exchange.

Meanwhile, there was an all-day event surrounding the visit at the Chamber of Commerce, where gung-ho Brazil advocates spoke of "crucial strategic issues" and said promoting Brazil policy was not an option for the U.S. One speaker joked that Brazil had made a terrible mistake for not having Pakistan or Syria on its borders, therefore making the country more relevant to U.S. foreign policy. President Rousseff later spoke at the event, where she talked at length about economic policies and the real focus was discussing monetary policy in developed countries. The night before, she met with representatives from the private sector, half-joking that she had to leave Brazil to meet with Brazilian businessmen.

Still, there were a few small concrete morsels. The biggest thing was that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the United States would open two new consulates in Brazil in order to allow for more access to visas. One will be in Belo Horizonte, in Minas Gerais, and the other in Porto Alegre, in Rio Grande do Sul. It's a necessary step, considering Brazil is the size of the continental U.S. and only has four consulates. It's also quite symbolic that a consulate will open in Minas, the state with one of the largest numbers of migrants to the United States during the 1980s and 90s. Now, the U.S. is courting its rabid consumers--talk about coming full circle. Still, it means that most of the country's consulates are in the south and southeast; the only consulate in the Northeast is in Recife, and the country's third-largest city, Salvador, does not have a consulate. Also, according to one report, the new consulates won't open until 2014. [UPDATE: a 4/10 Globo article interviews a U.S. diplomat who says she doesn't expect Brazil to meet the visa exemption requirements in the short or medium term. It's more than percent of approved visas; the country needs 100% digital passports and government information sharing.]

On the visa front, the leaders discussed the Global Entry program, which the United States recently announced would be open to be Brazilians, allowing screened "safe" travelers to enter 20 U.S. airports without waiting in line at immigration. The Brazilian government needs to approve the program in order for it to go into effect, and the U.S. hopes Brazil will reciprocate by creating a similar program. It would be one of the easier first steps in terms of visas, since the U.S. has already taken the first step. Still, it's not clear when and if the Brazilian government will approve the program.

In the Brazilian press, there was much ado about this line from the joint statement from the two leaders: "They committed to work closely together to satisfy the requirements of the of the US Visa Waiver Program and Brazil’s applicable legislation to enable US and Brazilian citizens visa free travel." As far as I'm concerned, that means the U.S. is still just talking about considering allowing Brazil into the visa waiver program, which is different from saying it is close to eligible or realistically has a chance of this happening by the end of Dilma's administration. Still a lot of talk and very little action. The fact that the big news was more consulates is great, but it also means that there's an expectation for more visa processing, not less.

Finally, both countries agreed to new terms on alcohol imports. The U.S. will officially treat cachaça as separate from Latin American rums and as "exclusively and distinctly Brazilian," while Brazil will label bourbon and Tennessee whiskey as "officially American," in a bid to increase trade of both types of liquor. The agreement should theoretically lower import taxes on cachaça in the U.S. Still...one of the only concrete trade deals was getting both sides to acknowledge semantics? And on liquor, at that? Also, as a gift of goodwill and to celebrate the alcohol deal, Dilma will allegedly give Obama a diamond-encrusted, $116,500 bottle of cachaça. No word on if or what gift Obama will give Dilma. Touché.

All in all, it was a pretty disappointing affair. There's hope yet, though--Rousseff's visit to Boston to promote Science without Borders has the potential to be more promising than her trip to DC.

This Week's Reads

There are a bunch of interesting Brazil stories and interviews from the past few days that are worth reading. Have a read:

• The blonde gang: a gang of young, middle-class, educated blonde women are being hunted by police after a series of express kidnappings to make luxury purchases at malls in São Paulo. English version, from the BBC, and Portuguese, from Último Segundo.

• Gun sales on the rise: Around 4.3 million Brazilian-produced weapons were sold in Brazil in the last five years, says a recent investigation. A Pública has a lengthy report on arms production and sales in Brazil. It's part of a series on weapons in Brazil, which also shows that Brazil exported 4.48 million light weapons from 2005 to 2010.

• President Dilma talks to VEJA: Since taking office, the president has given few lengthy exclusive interviews to the press, so it was especially interesting to see her give a ten-page interview to the popular right-leaning publication that is notoriously critical of the Worker's Party, as well as Lula and Dilma. In the highlights published so far, it seems it's a lot of reassurance about how things are going, defending her economic policies, and denying problems with her congressional coalition. She also said she agreed with business leaders that the country needs to lower taxes in order to help businesses grow. To read highlights, see VEJA and EXAME. The full interview should go up online soon.

• Romário talks to Valor: Former soccer star "bad boy" and Rio federal congressman Romário gave a very interesting interview to Valor, where he talks about his dedication to his new job. He discusses how "around 80 percent" of his fellow deputies don't bother to show up, about his dedication to promoting rights for the disabled, his role as a critic of Brazil's World Cup preparations and its relationship to FIFA (with some interesting observations on overspending on World Cup projects), and his upbringing in favelas in Rio's Zona Norte. He also mentioned a disturbing anecdote about the state of public health in Rio, since his brother had recently discovered his uncle at a public hospital, where he had been lying dead in a hallway for three days. Read the full interview on Romário's website.

• Brazil's pension system: The Economist explains in precise detail about how Brazil's pension system works and why it could be a major budget problem for the country. I also think it's interesting from a productivity perspective, but in general it's the best overview on the topic I've seen recently.

A Stately Visit

Brazil's president will visit the United States in a few weeks, and the Brazil mediasphere is all abuzz with news that the U.S. government will not receive her as a "state visit," meaning the highest honors given to a visiting head of state. Does it really matter if Dilma gets a black tie dinner, a week of cultural events, and a chance to address Congress? In theory, no, not really. But the symbolism behind denying her an official state visit does matter--not just for Brazil, but for Latin America, too.

The problem was that the U.S. told Brazil that it would not be a state visit because it wasn't allowed during an election year. The big mistake there was that it was obviously untrue: just last week, UK Prime Minister David Cameron visited Washington on an official state visit. To add insult to injury, three other major developing country leaders had state visits during Obama's administration so far: China's President Hu Jintao in 2011, Mexico's President Felipe Calderón in 2010, and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2009. Meanwhile, Itamaraty wants the visit to be "reciprocal" and to be a "mirrored" agenda from Obama's visit to Brazil. While Brazil rolled out the red carpet for Obama in a visit fit for a king, it doesn't seem that will quite be the case for Dilma in Washington.

Truthiness does not bode well to try to fortify what is arguably the United States' most important relationship in Latin America, nor does it promise to get the visit off on the right foot. Brazil is already on the defense after the U.S. suspended a big fighter jet purchase from Embraer (though there's a possibility it could still happen), throwing the Brazilians off guard. On Cartas de Washington, Denise Chrispim explains that with few "impactful" topics to discuss, Dilma will likely push her Science without Borders program, working on establishing more ties with the U.S. to send Brazilian students to study here.

There's been some theorizing about why the U.S. decided not to give Dilma a state visit. In TIME, Tim Padgett hypothesized that the Obama administration was irritated with Brazil's foreign policy, a combination of Lula's Iran (mis)adventures, Dilma's failure to criticize human rights in Cuba (she instead discussed Guantanamo), and abstentions at the UN on Syria and human rights issues.

There's also been some discussion about whether the semantics of a state or official visit really matter. Boz of Bloggings by Boz wrote in a blog post that he doesn't think it matters, and that practical, concrete results matter more:

I'd rather know the details to the next space and technology cooperation agreement than what was served with each dinner course. I'd rather know how Brazil and the US are going to cooperate on anti-hunger programs in Haiti and Africa than which chefs made the amuse-bouche and caipirinhas. I'd rather know how we're going to resolve our differences over military procurement and Iranian sanctions than argue over which dresses looked best and worst.

While symbolism matters, he argued, the U.S. should save symbolic events for China, which really appreciates them.

But Brazil really does appreciate symbolism, and takes diplomatic cues very seriously, not to mention its incredible sensitivity to how the country is perceived abroad. By not telling the truth about why it wouldn't be a state visit, the U.S. gave Brazil even less reason to create a basis of trust between its leaders, and established that the playing field between the two countries is in fact uneven.

This is another issue that Brazilians are sensitive to, even at the diplomatic level: as the country's power has grown and its international role has expanded, Brazil sees itself not only as a regional power, but now, as a world power too. It expects to command more respect and desperately craves to be viewed as an equal partner, rather than the stigma of a "poor" developing country on a lower tier. With the news that the UK, but not Brazil would get a state visit, the U.S. sent a clear message: Brazil is simply not as important a partner.

Sadly, that seems to be the reality of it from the administration's perspective. While Brazil is a critical regional partner for the United States, it's not a global strategic priority. In an op-ed for the Miami Herald, Andres Oppenheimer outlines some of the reasons why this is, and why the U.S. considers China and India as more strategic partners (he argues that Brazil should be treated more like India). Maybe this will change, particularly as Brazil becomes an even bigger oil power, but not yet.

In the end, the diplomatic saia justa sends a message not only to Brazil, but to the region, too: if Brazil isn't considered important enough for a state visit and the level of dialogue and respect it affords, what can other Latin American countries expect? On the eve of the Summit of the Americas, it's especially telling about U.S.-Latin American ties.

In the end, Dilma is the ultimate pragmatist, and she'll do what she has to do to cover her agenda. It also seems likely she'll travel outside of Washington to work on Science without Borders, possibly going to Boston to visit Harvard and MIT. But there doesn't seem to be much to expect in terms of game-changing policy announcements or really new developments in the bilateral relationship. It will hopefully be a constructive visit, with more commitments to education exchange, which is always exciting. But Itamaraty won't forget about the diplomatic snub, and if other Latin American leaders are paying attention, they won't either.

Photo: Blog do Planalto