Log In  |  Register Now  
 Home | Syndication Services | Media Features | Research Center | Archive | Contributors | About Us

To receive our weekly e-newsletter containing headlines and highlights from The Globalist, sign up here.



Topic

Companies

Culture

Development

Diplomacy

Economy

Environment

Finance

Health

History

Markets

Media

Music

Politics

Religion

Security

Sports

Technology

Women

Youth


Region

Africa

Asia-Pacific

Europe

Latin America

Middle East

North America


Globalist Bookshelf

Best Books of 2009

Best Books of 2008


Editorial Staff

Contributors

Jobs & Internships


Subscribers to The Globalist's premium services can log in here:

Username:

Password:

Forgot your password?




 

Headed elsewhere.

Globalist Perspective > Global Culture
Darwinian Migration
 

By Joseph Chamie | Tuesday, September 12, 2006
 

If you can get in, then you can stay in. This, a type of Darwinian migration, is the de facto message to potential migrants in poorer sending countries as well as the implicit principle guiding policies towards migrants illegally residing in richer receiving countries, argues Joseph Chamie, director of research at the Center for Migration Studies.


ncreasing numbers of young men and women wish to move to wealthier countries, especially in Europe and North America. While it is a well-recognized human right to leave and return to one's country, there is no comparable right to enter another country.

While it is a well-recognized human right to leave and return to one's country, there is no comparable right to enter another country.

This apparent contradiction is exacerbated by the fact that the supply of potential migrants in poorer countries greatly exceeds the demand in the wealthier countries.

Given the considerable obstacles and difficulties in obtaining legal entry, millions of people in poorer countries are choosing to enter richer countries illegally. And among the fortunate few entering legally for a short visit, many are deciding to stay on illegally.

Security risk

A cursory look at the daily news provides a glimpse of the illegal flows. Thousands of exhausted Africans, for example, are arriving in overcrowded wooden boats on the shores of Italy, Malta and Spain. The U.S. Border Patrol has caught more than 900,000 people this year along the United States-Mexico border.

Official government policies in receiving countries aim to stop or discourage illegal migration and return illegal migrants to their home countries. However, this is generally not the policy on the ground. Once in the country, jobs, housing, health care and other critical support services are often available to illegal migrants.

Inside support

In addition to possible friends and family members, illegal migrants may find assistance and support from a variety of sources.

Among the criteria for granting amnesty or legalization are three critical factors: employment, duration of stay and children.
These include employers, labor unions, business groups, social service agencies, schools, clinics, churches, community organizations and ethnic associations.

Moreover, unless the illegal migrant commits a crime or is considered a security risk, authorities usually take little noticeable action. This accommodating behavior on the part of law-enforcement agencies does not escape the attention of the general public.

Political programming

Faced with the growing presence of illegal migrants, many governments are struggling with solutions. Repatriation is often ruled out on grounds of practicality — it is simply too difficult to carry out, given the enormous financial costs involved in identifying and sending illegal migrants home, as well as possible disruptions to the economy.

In addition, the political will needed to implement repatriation programs is normally lacking or weak at best. Human rights and humanitarian concerns also give rise to legal and ethical questions regarding the repatriation of illegal migrants.

Solid ground

Among the criteria for granting amnesty or legalization are three critical factors:
Repeatedly offering "last chance" amnesty or legalization programs is encouraging others to come and reside in the country illegally.
employment, duration of stay and children.

Gainful employment is considered a strong argument in favor of legalization — as it demonstrates that the illegal migrant is not dependent and contributes to the economic well-being of the society.

A lengthy duration of stay in the country and children are viewed as compelling reasons for legalization showing the desire, commitment and investment to become members of the host community.

Poor policy

Does this process of gaining additional workers and future citizens make for sound migration policy? Certainly, governments will say it is not good policy. Indeed, many governments are increasing their efforts to deter illegal migration.

As a result of their inability or unwillingness to return illegal migrants to their home countries, many governments are deciding to offer amnesty, legalization or regularization programs, including public information campaigns to discourage illegal migration and increased border enforcement.

Mixed messages

At the same time, however, governments readily acknowledge that repeatedly offering "last chance" amnesty
Achieving a global consensus on how best to address the many complex facets of international migration seems unlikely in the near term.
or legalization programs is encouraging others to come and reside in the country illegally, as well as keeping pressure on the borders.

The international community, regional groups and individual nations are all struggling with the question of how best to manage international migration, especially illegal flows.

Little agreement exists, however, as to what should be done or, indeed, whether this is even an appropriate topic for discussion at the international level.

Lacking solutions

At the United Nations, for example, migration has not been on the agenda in the form of a global intergovernmental conference similar to those on the environment, urbanization and women’s issues, among others.

Given its controversial nature, especially among receiving countries, achieving a global consensus on how best to address the many complex facets of international migration seems unlikely in the near term.

Global consequences

Although the United Nations General Assembly has decided to convene a “high-level” dialogue on international migration and development on September 14-15, 2006, the only agreed-upon outcome is to be a chairman’s summary of the two-day gathering.

All of which is why, at least for the time being, the de facto message for many men and women in poorer sending countries and the implicit principle guiding many governments of richer receiving countries will remain in essence Darwinian migration: If you can get in, then you can stay in.


Let us know what you think ...
 

 

 

 

You must be a registered user of our site to send us your comments. If you have already registered, please log in. If you a new user of our site, please register now. Registration is quick, easy and completely free.

   

Complete the below to send a letter to the editor about this article.

   
Name  
 
Email Address  
 
City and State  
 
Country  
 
Comments  
 

 
Please note: If we publish your comment on The Globalist, we will identify only your name, city and country. We do not publish anonymous comments. Your email address will not be published.

We regret that we cannot publish every comment we receive. Furthermore, because we review each comment before it is published, there may be a delay between the time you send your comment and its appearance on our site. The Globalist reserves the right to edit comments for style and length.

Copyright © 2000-2010 by The Globalist. Reproduction of content on this site without The Globalist's written permission is strictly prohibited. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

The Globalist claims full trademark rights to The Globalist name and logos.

McPherson Square, 927 15th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20005
The Globalist