Blog

Massive migration from China took place starting from the early 19th century right into 1950s, mainly driven by starvation and invasions from foreign countries. After 1980 however, an increasing number of Chinese migrate overseas with the implementation of a liberal migration policies .  The majority of emigrants  are  China’s  richest individuals and its highly educated elites who cite  higher political openness, quality of life, economic stability, and better educational opportunities as the main reasons for moving abroad. According to Pew Research, China has changed from being the 7th largest exporter of immigrants to the 4th largest, with an increase of more than 125 percent in population. In 2015, overseas Chinese has reached over 60 million. US, Canada, Australia, Japan and Singapore are the most popular immigration countries for Chinese. More importantly, over half of the immigrants are affluent individuals with investment immigration becoming one of the most popular migration choices.

Emigrating from China still remains a complicated and lengthy process because of the increase restrictive immigration policy of other countries and their frequent amendments. Nonetheless, wealthy Chinese are still interested in emigration for reasons that range from protection, tax planning, family wealth / succession planning etc., to the growth of their wealth.

Donglin Family Office is dedicated to HNW (high net worth) individuals in the Great China region. A survey conducted by the Donglin among its HNW clients of the past 5 years found that over 80% of them are planning to emigrate for different reasons. The top reasons for moving abroad are better educational and employment opportunities for their children. Meanwhile, concerns about pollution and food safety problems has gained increasing considerations among HNW Chinese. Concerns about their welfare has slightly decreased while tax issue has rapidly increased due to the implementation of stringent tax laws and higher tax rates in traditional immigrant countries such as the US.  Moreover, over 80% of the survey participants expected to receive sufficient information as well as neutral advice when emigrating including education, employment, tax and potentially succession issues overseas.

Donglin is offering diversified and need-based resources and services concerning emigration to our clients. Emigration planning plays a significant role for family firms like Donglin in both the protection of and wealth succession planning. Life-long advice as offered by Donglin helps clients to reduce potential risks and ensure wealth is passed on through generations.

In 2015, Donglin became the Founding Member of the Advisory Committee of the IMC (Investment   Migration   Council)   –   the   worldwide   association   for   investor   immigration and citizenship-by-Investment, bringing together the leading stakeholders in the field and giving the industry a voice. As a leading family company in China, Donglin is speaking for our clients from around the world about the emigration concerns and consolidate cutting-edge information and resources for HNW Chinese. Currently, Donglin is exploring cooperation with the UN, APEC and with philanthropic organizations to boost the healthy flow of world population and wealth succession.

 

Author: Crystal Jiang, Principal, Donglin Family Office, Hong Kong

www.donglinfamily.com

NZ businesses will need more than $420b in capital by 2025 to support export growth to achieve the Government’s ambitious “Growth Agenda”. KPMG analysis suggests there will be a shortfall of around $115b that will need to be funded by foreign investment. There is evidence that start-up and early stage NZ businesses are likely to face the most severe funding constraints, compared to their more established peers. Investor migrants have the potential to provide a vibrant pool of capital, which can be a part contribution to addressing both of these issues.
New Zealand competes for investment capital and business expertise with other countries. Australia and Canada are key competitors due to having similar cultural, lifestyle and economic attributes to New Zealand. However, out of this trio, New Zealand has the smallest economy and is geographically the most distant. Therefore, we need to compete harder and smarter for our share of the global investor migrant pie.
Migrants are an important part of the fabric of New Zealand, contributing valuable knowledge, experience, cultural diversity and significant capital. Most migrants have a strong desire and ability to do more for New Zealand’s prosperity. Conversely, currently almost 80% of investor migrants’ funds go to government and corporate bonds. Whilst these are still beneficial to New Zealand, some simple changes to our immigration policies can bring more diversity and may help better leverage these migrants’ funds and valuable networks to help New Zealand business to grow and expand.

We have over $3.5 billion from Investor Migrants
The current investor immigration policy came into effect in 2009, and has attracted over 1500 applicants, worth almost $3.5 billion to be invested in New Zealand’s economy. Whilst New Zealand’s immigration policies accept a diverse range of investments that would help migrants to qualify for a visa, most migrant investors put their funds in government and corporate bonds, and with only very few investing in businesses directly or venture and angel capital funds to support new Kiwi businesses.
These policies have been well received by migrants. There are over 500 investors’ applications waiting for more than a year before assessment. There are similar numbers of investor migrants coming to New Zealand, compared with Australia. On a per capita basis, New Zealand is in fact more popular and successful in attracting high net worth investors. However, it is unclear whether the current policies are maximising the economic benefit for New Zealand by ensuring that this capital is deployed in the most effective manner. Further, the New Zealand Government has stated that its aspiration is to double the quantum of investment coming from investor migrants, which represents a significant opportunity for New Zealand.
This potentially reflects the current immigration policy settings’ focus on traditional factors such as presence in New Zealand and/or English language requirements (which are more suitable, in our view, for assessing skilled migrants) rather than how best to utilise investor migrants’ capital to grow the New Zealand economy.
KPMG believes the best way to grow the economy is for investor migrants’ capital to be deployed in funding New Zealand businesses, particularly start-ups and early stage businesses, to reduce the funding shortfall for these business face and to support the increasing diversification and geographic spread of the economy and firms in New Zealand.

How do we compare on the international stage?
Canada and Australia also aim to attract high quality migrants who have skills, network and funds to benefit their economies. Both have both recently adjusted their investor immigration policies to require investor migrants to benefit the country “meaningfully”. Meaningful investments are generally defined as at-risk investments into venture capital or local companies, rather than government bonds or securities. These policies are aimed at directing investor migrants’ funds to start up and early stage businesses. New Zealand can look to learn from these efforts.
The Canadian and Australian immigration policies are more prescriptive and onerous for migrants than New Zealand’s policies and require funds to go to in at-risk investments before a permanent residency will be granted. That prescription, however, provides greater capital for domestic businesses and arguably greater benefit to the country. These requirements also help identify desirable migrants speed up their immigration applications and subsequent investments.
Whilst we’d like to believe New Zealand is a special place and that migrants come here because of their passion about the lifestyle we can offer, the reality is that if our immigration policies remain the same, we won’t realise the full potential migrants can bring. Host countries typically compete on being strong economies that are regarded internationally as being good places for doing business while offering a quality lifestyle. If we simply follow Canada or Australia to restrict investments without making adjustments to other criteria, migrants may choose countries with more favourable immigration programs.

Some thoughts on change – bring diversity into investments
We believe policy adjustments will help to achieve the aspirational economic goals outlined above while ensuring that New Zealand remains competitive and appealing for migrants to live, work and invest. New Zealand businesses need more capital, and migrants’ investment funds can be directed to provide for that. From the migrants’ perspective, however, making the right investment decision from the outset may be onerous.
Based on the data collected over the last 6 years on investor profile and investment behaviour, we believe some simple changes can be made to attract significantly greater overseas capital for New Zealand businesses. These changes are:
1. Fast tracking investor visa processing if investments are made into active investments;
2. Require active investments after a one year transitional period; or
3. Compulsory investment making a certain proportion of the investment into at-risk investments, and relax other requirements such as physical presence and English.

The devil is in the detail. How “active investment” is defined will require measured consideration. Ultimately, migrants have options on where to settle and invest, and are sensitive to immigration policy changes. If we desire migrants who are willing to invest significantly and connect New Zealand businesses internationally, perhaps policies should loosen the requirements such as English and time spent in New Zealand.

Detailed policy suggestions
Canada and Australia both have requirements for a portion of investor migrants’ investment funds to be in “at risk” investments, whereas New Zealand does not. This is through investment in venture capital and private equity funds, which invest in start-up businesses in those countries. New Zealand (3 or 4 years), Canada (15 years) and Australia (4 years) also have minimum investment periods, therefore investor migrant capital is a particularly “sticky” form of investment. This makes it ideal for at least some of these funds to be invested in start-up and early stage businesses. The challenge for New Zealand is standing out from the crowd and to be careful in not replicating some of the more restrictive features of the Canadian and Australian policies (e.g. locking in funds for 15 years like Canada seems excessive).
KPMG’s suggested approach is for Government to reconsider the policy settings for the ‘Investor’ and ‘Investor Plus’ categories to require a percentage of investment funds – say 20% – to be invested in venture and angel capital or similar types of investments. This could be through a designated fund which has the same investment profile (portfolio) as the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund (VIF). This would offer some comfort to migrant investors that the portion of their investment capital “at risk” is being invested in early stage companies that the New Zealand Government is happy to support through VIF (i.e. investor migrants would get the benefit of the due diligence carried out by VIF on these companies).
Alternatively, more adventurous investor migrants could be given the option of investing the “at risk” portion of their investment funds in privately managed venture and angel capital funds. One of the concerns is how such an “at risk” investment component may be viewed by potential investor migrants – i.e. would it make New Zealand more or less attractive?

On the one hand, such requirements are common place in potential destinations (see Canada and Australia above) so this would not be unexpected. However, if NZ wants to stand-out, an option is to provide investor migrants with a transitional period (of say 12 months) to decide how their “at risk” investment funds should be utilised (i.e. whether invested in a designated fund which invests alongside the VIF, or in other privately managed funds). This would allow investor migrants time to understand the New Zealand economic and business environment and seek appropriate investment advice. In the meantime, funds would need to be deposited in 1 year Government stock or commercial bonds (similar to the situation now with the investor and investor plus categories).
The “at risk” funds would then need to be invested for at least a minimum of 2 to 3 years and ideally more like 5 years (this would reward those investors who are willing to make the decision upfront).
Alongside the changes to how investment funds must be invested by investor migrants, consideration should be given to relaxing some of the other requirements. For this category of migrant, whose main contribution to New Zealand will be investment funds, there appears be little logic for a:
o English language requirement

o Minimum presence in NZ during investment – it is a reality that investor migrants may well have business interests outside of NZ which will need to be managed therefore imposing an arbitrary days count presence test seems counter productive

o Maximum age

The key message must be that New Zealand welcomes investor migrants, and these policies are not to raise the requirements to restrict immigration, but rather to incentivise qualifying investors by fast tracking their journey to be here, or to make it easier for people who genuinely want to be in New Zealand and contribute, to be here. After all, New Zealand need migrants and overseas capital to grow and fill the looming gap that we will have in support of our growing Kiwi firms.

 

Authors: Suzanne de Lint, Partner; John Unger, Director; Yue Wang, Director

www.kpmg.com

 

The Significant Investor Visa (SIV) programme is Australia’s main path to residency for international investors. Investors must invest a minimum of Aus$5 million over 4 years in “approved” investments after which time they receive permanent residency. A Premium Investor Visa (“PIV”) is also available and is aimed at attracting applicants with business and entrepreneurial skills. This requires a capital investment of $15million into innovation and commercialisation of Australian ideas and research and development. The PIV programme will be available at the invitation of the Australian Government only.

The most recent review of the SIV programme in May 2015, refocused it as an initiative to spur innovation in Australia. Certainly in Australia now that the economy is in a post mining boom period the case for innovation is compelling, particularly as Australia’s current world ranking in innovation  (81^st) is well below the global median.

The Government has therefore decided to put an emphasis on Venture Capital Funds for qualifying investments in the SIV programme. This is similar to programmes implemented by Canada and Singapore.

The SIV rules were changed in May 2015 so that “approved” investments were limited to: eligible managed funds or Listed Investment Companies (“LIC”) that invest in emerging companies; eligible Australian Venture Capital or growth Private Equity Funds; LIC’s that invest in eligible assets that include other ASX listed companies, eligible corporate bonds or notes, annuities and real property in Australia (subject to a 10% limit on residential real estate). There is no requirement that these small-cap firms are involved in innovation.

Many commentators fear that the Australian Government has made the SIV programme less competitive internationally by keeping the required investment at AUD$5million and restricting the classes of investment. The required investment is relatively high in comparison to other international schemes.

There are also criticisms around structural issues with the SIV as a means of improving or encouraging innovation. The required investment period of 4 years does not typically suit Venture Capital Funds where at least 8 to 10 years are generally required to allow for investigation and selection of suitable investments, growth of the investment funds and development and execution of a suitable exit strategy. A relatively short 4 year investment period is more attractive to the provision of convertible bond or mezzanine debt financing rather equity capital. This is likely to restrict access to the funds as most start-up companies do not have the cash flow or activities that can support debt funding.

Transparency is another problem for the scheme as currently designed. It is often difficult for potential investors to select funds because fund performance and investment valuations are frequently considered confidential data. Generally only limited aggregated performance data is publicly available. Singapore overcomes this by using independent 3^rd parties to evaluate eligible funds for the investing public

The industry also had a concern that typically cautious Chinese investors (who have formed the majority of Australia’s SIV applicants) prefer safer asset classes, especially property. The low number of applications under these new rules seem to give some credence to this and there seems to be increasing interest in looking at alternative visa options such as business visas or the Investor stream visa.

 

Author: Tony Underhill, Chartered Tax Adviser and Registered Tax Agent

www.underhillcta.com.au

 

The Invest In the USA (IIUSA) Board of Directors has voted unanimously in support of a bipartisan, bicameral agreement among the chairmen and ranking members of both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to reform and reauthorize the EB-5 Regional Center Program (the “Program”). The vote followed a review of draft legislation which is the result of extensive discussions among Congressional leaders and industry stakeholders that began with the last Program reauthorization in 2012 and continued throughout the 113th Congress (2013-2014) in the context of broader immigration reform efforts and current 114th Congress (2015-2016).

 

Under EB-5, a program created by Congress in 1992 with broad bipartisan support, foreign nationals who invest at least $500,000 or $1,000,000 in approved U.S. businesses are eligible for permanent residency if the U.S. government confirms that their investment created at least 10 American jobs within two years of the investment.

Congress has not addressed needed EB-5 program reforms since its inception, despite explosive growth in the Program.  After years of underutilization, EB-5 became an important source of investment capital following the Great Recession.  Since 2008, the Program has generated more than $13 billion in foreign direct investment that created tens of thousands of jobs, and there currently is more than $9 billion in EB-5 capital pending approval at USCIS.

“The EB-5 Program has finally come into its own, and with this tremendous growth comes a need for reform,” said IIUSA Executive Director Peter Joseph.  “We greatly appreciate the hard work that Senator Grassley, Senator Leahy, Congressman Goodlatte, Congressman Conyers, Congressman Issa, Congresswoman Lofgren and the Judiciary Committee staff have devoted to crafting a thoughtful bill that will strengthen needed oversight, national security and securities enforcement activities that the IIUSA has long encouraged and supported. These reforms are important to the program reauthorization and should be enacted now.”

In a letter sent to the House and Senate Judiciary Committee leaders, IIUSA communicated its support for moving ahead with the legislation and outlined the organization’s priorities for re-authorization. The organization believes that, on balance, the bill’s provisions achieve real reform with minimal disruption to ongoing job-creating economic activity and a fair market for attracting investors going forward. A discussion draft of the legislation was issued this morning on behalf of the bipartisan, bicameral judiciary committee leadership managing the bill’s passage. An outline of the proposal can be found here.

“Throughout the negotiation process, IIUSA remained hopeful that our shared commitment to strengthening program integrity and improving the program’s effectiveness as a job creation tool would lead to a long-term reauthorization that addressed concerns expressed by Members of Congress and federal oversight agencies as well as the interests of the industry.  These reforms are urgently needed and the time is now to enact this important bi-partisan agreement so IIUSA’s members can continue their work creating American jobs. We want to thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide input based on the real-world experience of our members,” said Joseph.

Founded in 2005, IIUSA is the national non-profit trade association for the EB-5 Regional Center industry with a mission of advocacy, education, industry development and research. The organization represents more than 280 Regional Center members and 230 associate members, collectively representing big and small projects, urban and rural economic development, and industry sectors ranging from real estate and manufacturing to energy and infrastructure. IIUSA’s members are engines of economic growth and job creation, accounting for over 95 percent of capital flowing through the Program.

 

How can you help the advocacy effort?

Now…as in TODAY…is the time for you to reach out to your representatives in Congress and ask them to contact the congressional majority/minority leadership offices (and Speaker of the House) along with chairs/ranking members of the Appropriations Committees in both the House and Senate.  Urge them to support the bipartisan, bicameral agreement between the House and Senate Judiciary Committee leadership in the omnibus. It is important that Congress not only hear from you, but also the beneficiaries of EB-5 in your communities (such as private businesses, chambers of commerce, municipal governments, economic development partners, employees, etc.) about why EB-5 is such an important job creation tool in the 21st century.

• Click here to download a template letter to use to contact Congress (be sure to send us a copy!)

• Click here to use a web form to deliver a message to Congress in less than 5 minutes

Lastly, we invite you to come to DC next week to visit Capitol Hill to advocate for EB-5 in person!  IIUSA’s offices are steps from Capitol Hill and we are stocked with everything you need to be an empowered and effective advocate for our industry.  We are happy to assist with scheduling meetings with congressional offices and have plenty of space for you to set up in our offices to coordinate our efforts. Please contact us at advocacy@iiusa.org for further information.

 

How did we get to this point?

The Board vote followed a review of draft legislation that is the basis of the agreement among House and Senate Judiciary Committee leadership. The draft is the result of extensive discussions among Congressional leaders and industry stakeholders that began with the last Program reauthorization in 2012 and continued throughout the 113th Congress (2013-2014) – in the  context of broader immigration reform efforts and high profile Congressional oversight scrutiny – and current 114th Congress (2015-2016).  The version of the legislation that we reviewed incorporated a vast majority of IIUSA’s comments on a previous draft that was circulated to membership in early November.  Getting some of those comments incorporated on major issues was extremely difficult, especially the issue of “effective dates” which was the last major hurdle to an agreement, as there is significant support in Congress for some kind of retroactive application of reforms onto investors who filed I-526 petitions before the date of enactment (and as we know, there has been a large spike in filings in the last six months).  The agreement among the Judiciary Committee leadership ensures all investors with pending petitions will be adjudicated under the rules in which they filed.

 

To recap this year, after the introduction of S. 1501 (American Job Creation and Investment Promotion Reform Act of 2015) on June 3, 2015, which was co-sponsored by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, IIUSA responded with comprehensive comments in a letter dated July 17, 2015. Later in the year, IIUSA sent a compromise proposal to Congress on how to approach the four major issues perceived to be impeding progress towards a long term re-authorization of the Program: effective dates, targeted employment areas (“TEAs”), minimum investment amount, and job creation methodologies. The compromise was recommended and supported unanimously by the IIUSA Board of Directors, and also received unanimous support from IIUSA’s Public Policy Committee and the vast majority of our membership in a poll (83%). Most recently, IIUSA provided comments on a bipartisan and bicameral discussion draft in a letter dated November 20, 2015 that sought to address all remaining issues in time for Congress to pass long term re-authorization legislation and was satisfied enough with the resulting draft to move ahead with supporting the effort of judiciary committee leadership.

 

Is there opportunity to offer technical corrections to the legislation before it is enacted?

Yes and we welcome your suggestions. IIUSA remains in daily contact with key congressional offices and will keep this up as the process moves forwards from here and until we get this reauthorization successfully across the finish line. There is likely limited opportunity to offer minor revisions to legislative language that maintain the spirit or intent of the existing provisions.  We believe supporting the judiciary committee leadership agreement will provide the best opportunity to have such suggestions considered by Congress.

There are also other ways to build the record of Congressional intent to clarify certain provisions, such as statements or submissions on the Congressional Record by Members of Congress and the regulatory/rulemaking process that will follow enactment of the law.  Again, we believe supporting the judiciary committee leadership agreement will provide the best opportunity to make the best use of such policymaking tools.

 

What happens next?

Congress must pass legislation to omnibus appropriations funding for the federal government by next Friday. There is no guarantee that they make that deadline and there are reports that they could even extend federal government funding at existing levels for a week while the full package is finalized (that is a discussion for another day, if we have to go there).  The large piece of legislation will include additional program authorization packages that have bipartisan, bicameral support from leadership of the authorizing committees (such as EB-5).  Accordingly, there are internal deadlines within Congress for submission of these additions to the legislation to congressional leadership. The full omnibus appropriations bill will first be considered by the House of Representatives before the Senate, and then be sent to the President to sign into law, all within the next week.

 

What are “omnibus appropriations”?

In the legislative context, “omnibus appropriations” means a government funding bill that appropriates funds according to a budget agreement that is reached outside of the regular order process that Congress is supposed to follow for budget and spending authorizations (and which has not been done to full completion in over ten years).  This particular omnibus legislation is based on a budget deal that was reached at the end of October just before House experienced a change in leadership in the Speaker’s office. The EB-5 Regional Center Program was created as a rider to appropriations legislation in 1992 and has been reauthorized the same way every time except for 2012, the first time it was considered as a stand-alone package with three other non-controversial immigration-related programs: e-verify, CONRAD30, and religious workers. We expect all four programs to be reauthorized on the appropriations legislation for the same period of time.

Hong Kong, 26^th November 2015

The Investment Migration Council (IMC), the worldwide association
for Investor Immigration and Citizenship-by-Investment, head-quartered in Geneva, has opened offices in Hong Kong and is represented by Mandeville & Associates, a well-known Immigration Consultancy firm with over 20 years of experience in the industry.

The IMC is constituted as a non-profit association under Swiss law which gives the industry a voice. The IMC sets the standards on a global level and helps to improve public understanding of the issues faced by clients and governments in this area and promotes education and high professional standards among its members.

Francois Mandeville, Founder and Partner, Mandeville & Associates states ‘the opening of a regional representative office in Hong Kong will enable members to more easily conduct their business matters in the Asian Pacific region whilst adhering to the high standards set by the council through its Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. We look forward to welcoming new and current members and providing the necessary assistance in order to fulfil the IMC’s mission in this region.’

Mandeville continues, ‘Migration applicants in the Asian Pacific region have increased significantly and therefore the most obvious logical step was to collaborate with the Investment Migration Council in order to ensure that we are providing eligible candidates the most recent resources available in the industry.’

During the opening, IMC CEO Bruno L’ecuyer, explained that the IMC is formed by the leading experts within the immigration and citizenship by investment industry acting as a bridge between governments, practitioners and clients. L’ecuyer commented that ‘Hong Kong is the first of our overseas stations outside of Geneva to open, from here we go to London and New York by the end of 2015’. He went on to add ‘We have and continue to work tirelessly with our board and Advisory Committee to bring about much needed change and a global framework of ethical and high professional conduct to this relatively new industry. Hong Kong is a global financial powerhouse with many important intermediaries in the private client space, where this industry belongs’

 

About Mandeville & Associates

Established in 1996, Mandeville & Associates Ltd. offers counseling services intended for international business people of every continent desiring to settle in the USA and Canada.

With our head office in Hong Kong and professionals permanently based in China and Singapore, our firm offers a wide range of immigration and consultancy services with a team of specialized lawyers and multilingual supporting staff at all locations.

10 November, 2015 – Washington

While the ongoing migration crisis continues to preoccupy Europe’s policymakers and public’s, another important migration trend has almost disappeared from the headlines, although not from policymakers’ list of concerns: the emigration of well-prepared young Europeans to other European states and, more consequentially, to countries around the world.

Even as these outflows have slowed from their post-recession peak, increased levels of mobility have once more become the norm in Europe. And as the phenomenon has grown, both high-income and growing middle-income countries have had to adjust their thinking to address the loss of the well-educated young workers upon whom economies depend for growth, innovation and competitiveness.

At the twelfth plenary meeting of the Migration Policy Institute’s Transatlantic Council on Migration, experts focused on the scale and implications of these trends for countries in Europe and beyond, and posed the question: What concrete actions can governments and societies take to mitigate the costs of emigration and capture more of its potential benefits?

Today, the Transatlantic Council launches the first in a series of reports from the meeting, with the release of the Council Statement. In Rethinking Emigration: Turning Challenges into Opportunities, Transatlantic Council Convenor and MPI President Emeritus Demetrios G. Papademetriou outlines the reality of today’s emigration, which is much more complex than past flows while still being driven primarily by individuals seeking to take account of pronounced opportunity differentials and create better futures for themselves and their families. He also identifies a number of challenges and opportunities for governments looking to address the departure of their residents and set the stage for their continued engagement with their countries of origin.

Papademetriou outlines a series of guiding principles to help governments attenuate some of the adverse effects of emigration, emphasizing the importance of long-term structural reforms that create better opportunities to retain (and attract back) talented workers, and the importance of engaging thoughtfully with nationals while they are abroad.

“Experience makes clear that policymakers can neither prevent their residents from leaving nor entice them to return without structural reforms that improve opportunities at home,” argues Papademetriou. “Governments need to develop long-term strategies that include fundamental labor market and societal reforms that can slow the exodus and create an environment that makes the country attractive to those who might be considering returning as well as would-be immigrants.”

Read the report online here: www.migrationpolicy.org/research/rethinking-emigration-turning-challenges-opportunities-transatlantic-council-statement

Forthcoming reports in the series will examine emigration trends and responses in Australia, China, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, with an eye on how origin and destination country governments can tap into the skills and resources of energetic young workers—no matter where they end up.

On November 24, MPI will hold a webinar in which Papademetriou and Antonio Vitorino, former European Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs and former Deputy Prime Minister of Portugal, will discuss the challenges facing countries with sizable emigration flows and the policy responses in their tool kits. Details and registration instructions for the webinar are available online:https://my.migrationpolicy.org/p/salsa/event/common/public/?event_KEY=80198