Global Migration: Learning Objectives
Global Migration: Learning Objectives
___________________________________________________________
Learning Objectives
This lesson will look at global migration and its impact on both the sending and receiving
countries. Although we will cite numerous challenges relating to migration, migration should not
be considered a “problem.” There is nothing moral or immoral about moving from one country to
another. Human beings have always been migratory. It is the result of their movements that
areas get populated, communities experience diversity, and economic prosper. Thus, rather than
looking at migration in terms of a simplistic good vs. bad lens, treat it as a complex social
phenomenon that even predates contemporary globalization.
What is Migration?
There are two types of migration: internal migration, which refers to people moving from
one area to another within one country; and international migration, in which people cross borders
of one country to another. The latter can be further broken down into five groups. First are those
who move permanently to another country (immigrants). The second refers to workers who stay
in another country for a fixed period (at least 6 months in a year). Illegal migrants comprise the
third group, while the fourth are migrants whose families have “petitioned” them to move to the
destination country. The fifth group are refugees (also known as asylum-seekers), i.e., those
“unable or unwilling to return because of a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
Demographers estimate that 247 million people are currently living outside the countries
of birth. Ninety percent of them moved for economic reasons while the remaining 10 percent were
refugees and asylum-seekers. The top three regions of origin are Latin America (18 percent of
global total), followed by Eastern Europe and Central Asia (16 percent), and the Middle East and
North Africa (14 percent). On a per country basis, India, Mexico, and China are leading, with the
Philippines, together with Afghanistan, only ranking 6th in the world. The top 10 country
destinations of these migrants are mainly in the West and the Middle East, with the United States
topping the list.
Fifty percent of global migrants have moved from the developing countries to the
developed zones of the world and contribute anywhere from 40 to 80 percent of their labor force.
Their growth has outstripped the population growth in the developed countries (3 percent versus
only 0.6 percent), such that today, according to the think-tank McKinsey Global Institute
“firstgeneration immigrants constitute 13 percent of the population in Western Europe, 15 percent
in North America, and 48 percent in the GCC countries. The majority of migrants remain in the
cities. The percentages of migrants in cities are 92 and 99 percent in Australia. Once settled,
they contribute enormously to raising the productivity of their host countries.
The migrant influx has led to a debate in destination countries over the issue of whether
migrants are assets or liabilities to national development. Anti-immigrant groups and nationalists
argue that government must control immigration and put a stop to illegal entry of foreigners. Many
of these anti-immigrant groups are gaining influence through political leaders who share their
beliefs. Examples include US President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Theresa May, who
have been reversing the existing pro-immigration and refugee-sympathetic policies of their states.
Most recently, Trump attempted to ban travel into the United States of people from majorityMuslim
countries, even those with proper documentation. He also continues to speak about his election
promise of building a wall between the United States and Mexico.
The wisdom of these government actions has been consistently belied by data. A 2011
Harvard Business School survey on the impact of immigration concluded that the “likelihood and
magnitude of adverse labor market effects for native from immigration are substantially weaker
than often perceived.” The fiscal impact of immigration on social welfare was noted to be “very
small.” Furthermore, the 2013 report on government welfare spending by Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) clearly shows that native-born citizens still
receive higher support compared to immigrations.
The massive inflow of refugees from Syria and Iraq has raised alarm bells once again, but
has not proved to be as damaging as expected. The International Monetary Fund predicted that
the flow of refugees fleeing the war in Syria and Iraq would actually grow Europe’s GDP, albeit
“modestly.” In Germany, the influx of refugees from the Middle East has not affected social
welfare programs, and had very little impact on wages and employment. In fact, they have brought
much-needed labor to the economy instead.
Even if 90 percent of the value generated by migrant workers remains in their host
countries, they have sent billions back to their home countries (in 2014, their remittances totaled
$580 billion). In 2014, India held the highest recorded remittance ($70 billion), followed by China
($62 billion), the Philippines ($28 billion), and Mexico ($25 billion). These remittances make
significant contributions to the development of small and medium-term industries that help
generate jobs. Remittances likewise change the economic and social standing of immigrants, as
shown by new or renovated home and their relatives’ access to new consumer goods. The
purchasing power of a migrant’s family doubles and makes it possible for children to start or
continue their schooling.
Yet, there remain serious concerns about the economic sustainability of those reliant on
migrant monies. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) observes that in countries like the
Philippines, remittances “do not have a significant influence on other key items of consumption or
investment such as spending on education and health care.” Remittances, therefore, may help
in lifting “household out of poverty…but not in rebalancing growth especially in the long run.”
Governments are aware of this long-term handicap, but have no choice but to continue
promoting migrant work as part of state policy because of the remittances’ impact on GDP. They
are equally “concerned with generating jobs for an under-utilized workforce and in getting the
maximum possible inflow of worker remittances.” Government are thus actively involved in the
recruitment and development of works, some of them setting up special department like the
Bureau of Manpower, Employment and Training in Bangladesh; the Office of the Protector of
Emigrants within the Indian Labor Ministry; and the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency
(POEA). The sustainability of migrant-dependent economies will partially depend on the strength
of these institutions.
On top of the issue of brain drain, sending states must likewise protect migrant workers.
The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation list human trafficking as the third largest
criminal activity worldwide. In 2012, the International Labour Organization (ILO) identified 21
million men, women, and children as victims of “forced labor,” an appalling three out every 1,000
persons worldwide. Ninety percent of the victims (18.7 million) are exploited by private enterprises
and entrepreneurs; 22 percent (4.5 million) are sexually abused; and 68 percent (14.2 million)
work under compulsion in agricultural, manufacturing, infrastructure, and domestic activities.
Human trafficking has been very profitable, earning syndicates, smugglers, and corrupt state
officials profits as high as $150 billion a year in 2014. Governments, the private sector, and civil
society groups have worked together to combat human trafficking, yet the results remain uneven.
Activity 1 CONDUCTING AN INTERVIEW WITH AN OFW
This activity will provide you with a first-hand knowledge of the experience of Overseas
Filipino Workers (OFWs). Their stories could provide a clear understanding of how globalization
affects themselves, their families and the country.
Find a former or a current OFW to be interviewed. Your respondent’s name is optional.
Ask the following questions to your respondent.
1. Respondents Name:
______________________________________________________________________
2. What prompted you to work abroad?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
8. What are some unforgettable job-related experiences you have encountered as an OFW?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________