UAEG OFFICIALS OFFER PERSPECTIVES ON WHY THE

C O N F I D E N T I A L ABU DHABI 001946

SIPDIS

STATE FOR NEA/ARP, NEA/RA, DRL AND EB/CBA
STATE PASS OPIC/OPIC INTERNATIONAL POLICY DEPARTMENT
FOR VIRGINIA GREEN AND CONSTANCE SHINN
AMEMBASSY TUNIS HOLD FOR FSI: OLIVER JOHN
USDOC FOR 4530/ITA/MAC/ONE/DGUGLIELMI,
4520/ITA/MAC/ONE/CLOUSTAUNAU,
4500/ITA/MAC/DAS/WILLIAMSON,
3131/CS/OIO/ANESA

E.O. 12958: DECL 04/21/2008
TAGS: ELAB PREL PHUM PGOV SOCI CVIS TC
SUBJECT: UAEG OFFICIALS OFFER PERSPECTIVES ON WHY THE
AMNESTY FAILED

REF: ABU DHABI 1634


1. (U) Classified by DCM Richard A. Albright reasons
1.5 (B) and (D).


2. (C) In a conversation with the DCM on April 21, UAE
Labor Minister Matar Humaid Al-Tayer noted that the
final number of amnesty seekers would be approximately
50,000 -- significantly lower than the expected
200,000-250,000. (See reftel). Al-Tayer said the fact
that so few illegal workers were seeking to leave
without penalty reflected well on labor conditions in
the UAE. (Note: In a separate conversation, Labor
Undersecretary Dr. Khalid Al-Khazraji, told Econoff
that he never expected the amnesty to succeed. After
the first amnesty ended in 1996, expatriates realized
that the UAEG was not serious about enforcing labor
and immigration laws. Many workers who took the
amnesty regularized their status and returned to the
UAE while those who did nothing suffered no penalties.
Expatriate workers understand they will suffer no
adverse consequences by not applying -- if they apply,
they will have to leave. If they don't apply and are
caught by law enforcement (an unlikely event),they
will not have the resources to pay the penalties
anyway and they will get a free ticket home via
deportation. Pursuing a criminal case is difficult
because the Ministry lacks the resources to prosecute
each violator. End note.)


3. (SBU) Al-Tayer explained that the amnesty was
implemented to assist workers who had been deceptively
brought to the UAE under false pretenses to return
home. He described a common scenario where an Emirati
national would establish what appeared to be a
legitimate business receiving Ministry of Labor
approval to recruit foreign workers. The national
would then hire a recruiter to find expatriates who
would be required to pay 5,000-15,000 dirhams for a
work visa depending on the length of the contract and
how much the worker expected to earn in the UAE. These
fees are split between the (usually South Asian)
recruiters and the Emirati employer. If the Emirati
company failed -- or was bogus -- the Emirati had
already made his money; if employees here were not
paid or lost their jobs, he would not be overly
concerned. The workers, however, who often had
borrowed heavily to pay recruitment fees, could not
afford to leave the country, and would thus seek
whatever employment -- legal or otherwise -- that they
could find. The amnesty was enacted to aid these
types of workers in returning home, but Al-Tayer
stated that once workers arrived, most "liked it
here," found other employment and did not want to
leave.


4. (C) Comment: Al Tayer's and Al Khazraji's remarks
essentially mirror each other in their explanation for
why the amnesty has failed -- Al Tayer notes that
expatriates "like it here" though it would be more
accurate to state that they have more opportunities
here than at home (especially for laborers); Al
Khazraji points out that expatriates have nothing to
gain by applying for amnesty. Since workers have
greater job opportunities in the UAE than their native
land, and no fear of law enforcement, there is no
reason to apply for amnesty. End comment.

Wahba