Lesson 10: Global Migration

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 their 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, "first-generation 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 percent in the United States, 95 percent in the United Kingdom,
and 99 percent in Australia. Once settled, they contribute enormously to raising the
productivity of their host countries.
 Country Contribution Percentage of GDP

United States $2 trillion 11 percent

Germany $550 trillion 17 percent

United Kingdom $390 trillion 14 percent

Australia $330 billion 25 percent

Canada $320 trillion 21 percent

Table 1. Migrant Contribution to Destination Country, in dollars and as percentage of
national GDP, 2015

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 governments must control legal 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
majority-Muslim 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 the
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 immigrants.
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 inflow 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.
Benefits and Detriments for the Sending Countries

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).164 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 migrants, as shown by new or renovated
homes 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 "households out of poverty ... but not in
rebalancing growth, especially in the long run."
More importantly, global migration is "siphoning ... qualified personnel,[and]
removing dynamic young workers. This process has often been referred to as "brain
drain." According again to the Mckinsey Global Institute, countries in sub-Saharan Africa
and Asia have lost one-third of their college graduates. Sixty percent of those who
moved to OECD destinations were college graduates, compared to just 9 percent of the
overall population in the country. Fifty-two percent of Filipinos who leave for work in the
developed world have tertiary education, which is more than double the 23 percent of
the overall Filipino population.
Furthermore, the loss of professionals in certain key roles, such as doctors, has
been detrimental to the migrants' home countries. In 2006, some 15 percent of locally
trained doctors from 21 sub-Saharan African countries had emigrated to the United
States or Canada; the losses were particularly steep in Liberia (where 43 percent of
doctors left), Ghana (30 percent), and Uganda (20 percent).
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."
Governments are thus actively involved in the recruitment and deployment of works,
some of them setting up special departments 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.

The Problem of Human Trafficking

On top of the issue of brain drain, sending states must likewise protect migrant
workers. The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation lists 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 of 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.

Integration

A final issue relates to how migrants interact with their new home countries. They
may contribute significantly to a host nation's GDP, but their access to housing, health
care, and education is not easy. There is, of course, considerable variation in the
economic integration of migrants. Migrants from China, India, and Western Europe often
have more success, while those from the Middle East, North Africa, and sub-Saharan
Africa face greater challenges in securing jobs. In the United States and Singapore,
there are blue-collar as well as white-collar Filipino workers (doctors, engineers, even
corporate executives), and it is the professional, white-collar workers that have
oftentimes been easier to integrate.
Democratic states assimilate immigrants and their children by granting them
citizenship and the rights that go with it (especially public education). However, without
a solid support from their citizens, switching citizenship may just be a formality.
Linguistic difficulties, customs from the "old country," and, of late, differing religions may
create cleavages between migrants and citizens of receiving countries, particularly in
the West. The latter accuse migrants of bringing in the culture from their home countries
and amplifying differences in linguistic and ethnic customs. Crucially, the lack of
integration gives xenophobie and anti-immigrant groups more ammunition to argue that
these "new citizens are often not nationals (in the sense of sharing the dominant
culture)."
 Migrants unwittingly reinforce the tension by "keeping among themselves." The
first-time migrant's anxiety at coming into a new and often "strange" place is mitigated
by "local networks of fellow citizens" that serve as the migrant's safety net from the
dislocation of uprooting oneself. For instance, the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent
Association of California provides initial support for new Chinese migrants, guiding them
in finding work or in setting up their small businesses (restaurants and laundromats) in
the state and elsewhere. The drawback of these networks is that instead of facilitating
integration, they exacerbate differences and discrimination.
Governments and private businesses have made policy changes to address
integration problems, like using multiple languages in state documents (in the case of
the United States, Spanish and English). Training programs complemented with
counseling have also helped migrant integration in Hamburg, Germany, while retail
merchants in Barcelona have brought in migrant shopkeepers to break down language
barriers while introducing Chinese culture to citizens. Whether these initiatives will
succeed or not remains an open question.

Conclusion

Global migration entails the globalization of people. And like the broader
globalization process, it is uneven. Some migrants experience their movement as a
liberating process. A highly educated professional may find moving to another country
financially rewarding. At the other end, a victim of sex trafficking may view the process
of migration as dislocating and disempowering.
Like globalization, moreover, migration produces different and often contradictory
responses. On the one hand, many richer states know that migrant labor will be
beneficial for their economies. With their aging populations, Japan and Germany will
need workers from demographically young countries like the Philippines. Similarly, as
working populations in countries like the United States move to more skilled careers,
their economies will require migrants to work jobs that their local workers are beginning
to reject. And yet, despite these benefits, developed countries continue to excessively
limit and restrict migrant labor. They do so for numerous factors already mentioned.
Some want to preserve what they perceive as local culture by shielding it from
newcomers. Otherstatesusemigrants as scapegoats, blaming them for economic woes
that are, in reality, caused by government policy and not by foreigners.
Yet, despite these various contradictions, it is clear that different forms of global
interdependence will ensure that global migration will continue to be one of the major
issues in the contemporary world. Countries whose economies have become entirely
dependent on globalization and rely on foreign labor to continue growing (e.g .,
Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and even protectionist Japan) will actively court foreign
workers. Likewise, countries like the Philippines with an abundance of labor and a need
for remittances will continue to send these workers.
Hence, it is inevitable that countries will have to open up again to prevent their
economies from stagnating or even collapsing. The various responses to these
movements-xenophobia and extreme nationalism in the receiving countries;
dependency in the sending countries-will continue to be pressing issues.