How a Donald Trump Presidency Could Repair Filipino-American Relations

Like Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte, United States President Donald Trump is known as a brash and divisive figure. It is thus somewhat ironic that Trump possesses the unique potential to mend Filipino-American relations, which were fractured under former U.S. President Barack Obama and his Administration. Whether or not Trump accomplishes this could have ramifications regarding everything from international trade partnerships to available immigration opportunities for Filipinos striving to live, work, or study in the U.S.

It is no secret that Obama has had difficulty maintaining his country’s traditionally-close ties to the Philippines since Duterte’s 2016 election. Duterte has notoriously referred to Obama as a “son of a whore” who can “go to hell,” while splitting with his country’s longstanding Western ally by forging a partnership with China. In response, Obama had given credence to the perception that the Filipino leader as a loose-cannon, canceling a significant meeting between the leaders stating, “What I’ve instructed my team to do is to talk to their Philippine counterparts to find out: Is this in fact a time where we can have constructive, productive conversations?”

Whereas Obama had yet to indicate that it would in fact be productive to engage in talks with Duterte—with Filipino-American relationship becoming more distant all the while—Trump has assumed a different approach.

In November, the Filipino President called Trump to congratulate him on his victory. At some point during their seven-minute phone conversation, Trump purportedly invited Duterte to the White House. If true, this invitation underscores the notion that Trump is willing to overlook Duterte’s slights to the U.S. and its former President in order to move forward.

Obama and his administration had taken Duterte’s comments and actions to heart. For example, the Obama Administration had repeatedly condemned Duterte’s “drug war,” and frozen diplomatic relations as a result. By comparison, Trump has purportedly gone so far as to wish Duterte “success” in his effort.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Duterte has expressed much more willingness to work with Trump than Obama. Regarding the U.S. President, Duterte has said, "We don't have any quarrels. I can always be a friend to anybody especially to a president, a chief executive of another country. He has not meddled in the human rights.”

It is not only that Trump has not “meddled” in human rights issues. Trump and Duterte share in common a carefully-constructed strongman image. Both leaders have gone to significant lengths to portray themselves as lone solutions to existential threats. Trump has repeatedly claimed that he will bring about “law and order” in the U.S. even if it means skirting the American Constitution, while Duterte has waged a “drug war” in a country that has reportedly seen drug use fall significantly, and to marginal levels, in the years prior to his Presidency. Both politicians see the primary solutions to these complicated problems as being punitive, which in turn furthers the narrative of them being tough on crime.

Their similar political perspectives seemingly open up the door for solidarity between the leaders, as their aforementioned congratulatory conversation might indicate. If one can possibly cast legit concerns about human rights aside, the implications of such solidarity are vast. Even in the context of withering American-Filipino relations, trends suggest that issues such as Filipino immigration will persist, and even increase. Should Trump manage to bridge gaps between the Duterte-led Philippines and the U.S., there is even more potential for these continuously-growing opportunities.

However, one must remain cautiously optimistic. After all, Trump has offered indications that he might not be the diplomatic statesman and loyal ally he purports himself to be. This is exemplified by his statements and perspective on the Ukraine, an allied member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Despite Russian leader Vladimir Putin and his military (and paramilitary) invading the Ukraine, in direct and obvious violation of its sovereignty, Trump has repeatedly offered admiration for Putin, whose government has also been accused of helping to sway the U.S. election towards Trump. To forsake an established NATO ally such as the Ukraine in favor of an invading, non-allied force that has what can at-best be described as a checkered relationship with the U.S., does not lend itself to trustworthiness on the international stage.

Thus, neutral observers of Filipino-American relations must wonder whether Trump will prove to be a consistent ally, or one who will turn his back on the Philippines if doing so is deemed to be politically expedient. It is after all unclear how Trump would regard the Philippines if it meant altering tenuous relations with China or other larger players in the economically-robust region.

Ultimately, the Obama Administration’s diplomatic difficulties with the Philippines offer clues as to the ramifications of Filipino-American relations turned south. It seems that trade is the biggest casualty of a fraught relationship, whereas Filipino immigration to the U.S. is poised to remain consistent.

There is however reason to believe that Filipino-American relations will improve. While Trump’s relationship with the Philippines remains a considerable question mark, his potential solidarity with Duterte—as evidenced by their similar strongman images and apparent willingness to look past due process as it correlates to human rights—signifies potential willingness to reestablish open and productive relations.

By: Ryan Barshop

http://bridgewayimmigration.com/blog

Article Disclaimer: This article is made available by the lawyer publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Use of this article does not create an Attorney Client Relationship. This article does not offer or dispense legal advice. By using the article, the reader agrees that the information does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created. The article is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The information on the article may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. The opinions expressed at or through the article are the opinions of the individual author. The article should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your jurisdiction.

Filipino-American Relations and Immigration to the United States

Despite the currently tenuous diplomatic relationship between the Philippines and the United States, there is little reason to believe that Filipino immigration to the U.S. will be jeopardized. While many of Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte’s recent comments and actions—such as referring to U.S. President Barack Obama as a “son of a whore” who can “go to hell” and shortly thereafter forging a robust economic partnership with China, to the dismay of the U.S. government—have raised questions about the future of Filipino-American relations, the countries’ bond runs much deeper than that of their current leaders.

The Philippines and the U.S. have endured rocky diplomatic periods in the past. Through these times, Filipino immigration to the U.S. has remained a constant, occurring in various legal forms since the turn of the nineteenth century, and even serving as a tool to mend differences. 

The Philippines was the U.S.’s first colony, purchased in 1898 from the Spanish (for $20 million). Shortly thereafter, violence between the nations struck. For example, in 1899, American troops outside of Manila killed three Filipino dissenters—who were advocating for independence—sparking three years of fighting that ended the lives of at least 20,000 Filipino rebels and 4,000 American soldiers.

At the time, the U.S. wished to avoid the public backlash that arose out of the conflict. It was eager control the narrative of its occupation—to portray itself as a liberator—and in part it saw immigration as a means to do so. In addition to establishing and controlling media, improving healthcare systems, and building public schools—through which the Americans could teach students about its government and principles—it began to sponsor Filipino students, often referred to as “pensionados,” to study in U.S. colleges and universities.

This initiated two trends in Filipino-American relations: 1) immigration occurring even in hard times, and 2) the U.S. responding to diplomatic issues and outright conflict by cultivating goodwill through immigration opportunities.

The U.S. has consistently had various commercial and geopolitical interests—ranging from economic partnerships to strategic military positioning—that has made a relationship with the Philippines practical. One of the ways the U.S. has cultivated and maintained a generally productive relationship with its Eastern ally—and in the process served its interests—is through immigration.

The U.S. has long seen Filipino labor as a necessary and exploitable resource. Beginning in 1906, and for decades to come, Filipino laborers migrated to the U.S. Like today, they mostly headed to California and Hawaii, where they worked on farms and plantations. Life was often difficult for these laborers, with many working for low wages in the agricultural sector, in canneries, and in the especially unenviable job of building railroads. However, they often persisted through hardship, remaining in the U.S. It is perhaps unsurprising that in both California and Hawaii, Filipinos currently make up the largest Asian minority group.

Today, there are roughly four million American citizens of direct Philippine descent in the U.S., with that number rapidly growing. Meanwhile, there are over 300,000 American citizens living in the Philippines.

Attaining work in the U.S. is still a possibility for Filipino immigrants. This can be done through attaining a J-1 Internship Visa or a full-time employment-based visa, of which roughly 140,000 per year are offered.

Of course, education and employment are not the only types of immigration opportunities available to Filipinos. Others involve fiancé and family-based immigration. In the aftermath of World War II, family-based immigration was especially prominent—largely due to U.S. service members stationed in the Philippines meeting their significant others. This led to a boom of Filipino-American families.

By1960, Filipino immigration to the U.S. was especially common, but it would grow even more so. That year, 105,000 Filipinos immigrated to the U.S. By 1980, that number would reach over half a million per year. By 2000, more than a million Filipinos immigrated annually, and since then that number has steadily increased.

The large number of Filipinos in the U.S. has helped to cool diplomatic tensions between the nations, such as those that arose in the 1990s, when growing anti-American sentiment ultimately forced the U.S. to withdraw its military from the Philippines. One of the major reasons for this relates to the amount of money that Filipinos in the U.S. send back to the Philippines. In 2013, global remittances to the Philippines through legal channels totalled a whopping USD $25.4 billion. According to the World Bank, this represented a staggering 9 percent of the Philippines’ gross domestic product (GDP).

This statistic informs why palpably tense American-Filipino relations may not correlate to a decline in immigration, particularly from the Filipino perspective. In the days after his most inflammatory remarks about Obama, Duterte admitted that he could not cut ties with the U.S., as “the Filipinos in the United States will kill me.” But given the amount of money channeled from the U.S. to the Philippines each year, it is highly probable that Filipinos back home would be upset with him as well.

From the American perspective, severing ties with the Philippines would not be beneficial. The U.S. recently signed an Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with its former colony, once again giving it strategic military positioning near its greatest rival, China. Additionally, close diplomatic and business relations with the Philippines enables the U.S. to mitigate China’s economic might.

In effect, dissolving ties serves neither the U.S. nor the Philippines. This is certainly recognized by both nations, even if the rhetoric of their leaders reflects discord.

When one considers this fact, along with the continuously increasing number of Filipinos taking residence in the U.S. and the Philippines’ correlated reliance on remittances, there is little reason to believe that any diplomatic strife between the nations will correlate to diminished opportunities for Filipinos to immigrate. Additionally, recent comments by Duterte and U.S. President-elect Donald Trump suggest more solidarity than the Filipino leader has experienced with Obama. Overall, it is entirely reasonable to believe that regardless of existing tensions, Filipino immigration to the U.S. will remain unscathed.

By: Ryan Barshop

http://bridgewayimmigration.com/blog

Article Disclaimer: This article is made available by the lawyer publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Use of this article does not create an Attorney Client Relationship. This article does not offer or dispense legal advice. By using the article, the reader agrees that the information does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created. The article is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The information on the article may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. The opinions expressed at or through the article are the opinions of the individual author. The article should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your jurisdiction.