Economic and social implications of migration

A comprehensive approach to the issues raised by increased migratory flows is the need of the hour. This is a situation which is slowly transcending the abilities of national governments who in most cases are unable to adequately deal with such informal immigration. Probably, the difficult scenario is being played out most in the EU with its open internal borders. This geographical region is witnessing for the last two decades a population movement, most likely, the largest seen in modern times.

We in Bangladesh are directly concerned with this phenomenon as nearly one hundred thousand persons have migrated through informal channels into Europe in the recent past. They are now scattered all over the EU alongwith hundreds of thousands of others from different countries in Eastern Europe, West Asia, South Asia and South East Asia. They have all voted with their feet in their pursuit of a better future.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

It is this sudden movement of population that is being a source of concern for the European Union. They are worried because illegal migrants are not moving to Africa, North America or Australia. There is also very little flow towards the Far East.

This is now being seen as not solely a demographic and employment challenge. It is also being understood that zero immigration is not a feasible option. The complexity of the process has also made it clear that immigration policy has to become a 'win-win' situation for countries and immigrants simultaneously.

Analysts are pointing out that the question of choice and the criteria for selecting people to enter EU territory to work and live as citizens has many latent intricate issues. There is also the realisation that there exists a risk in 'choosing' migrants to fit national needs. Under this concept, there is very possibility that one might end up depleting the sending countries of their most valuable resource: human capital. Some are suggesting that such a scenario could be overcome through the payment of some form of compensation. This is hardly a solution.

Added to this is the open worry about integration efforts toward those immigrants already living in developed countries. There is a feeling that action in this regard has to be stepped up so that the tension between cultural otherness and complete integration into the host culture can be resolved in a pragmatic way. This, it is expressed, would ensure multi-culturalism being anchored within the European values and rule of law.

The European Commission has been trying to deal with this issue at a European level in a comprehensive manner.

Immigration was one of the big five issues at the EU Thessaloniki Council meeting at the end of June. Members, keeping in mind existing legal provisions, sought to address the relationship with countries of origin as part of the Union's external policy. The ensuing debate tried to highlight that Europe should not become a continent of reinforced borders and policy persecution of immigrants. There was public relations at play as to whether Europe should be seen as a fortress or as a fortress of values.

It is in this context that in the recent past there has been focus on the economic effects of increased labour migration. Illegal labour movements are now being considered as not only ungovernable because of the interdependence of markets and economies but also because countries are no longer self-sufficient in capital, trade and labour. Some economists have suggested that the current situation of migratory flows in Europe was largely transitory and circulatory. Immigration, they contend, imply settlement. According to them, it was not going to happen in the long run. They feel that as people become more aware of the potential for short-term labour migration, they will no longer aim at full settlement. This view is however not universally accepted. The Bangladesh experience as well as in the case of others from South Asia indicates that migrants end up uprooting their original links and settling down with their family members in the their new country of residence.

It is at this point that one needs to address the question of illegal migration as opposed to availing of employment opportunities through a formal manner. There is currently some criticism with regard to developed countries building their policies around recruiting the 'best and brightest' from third countries. It is being questioned by social programmers that such an approach was inherently fraught with problems as it excluded low-to mid-skilled workers. It is quite correctly being pointed out that the European public has to understand the co-dependence of low-skilled and high-skilled labour.

Any serious discussion on this subject would require developed countries to appreciate the injurious effects of irresponsible recruitment policies on the sending countries. It has to be understood that just targeting skilled labour will be most damaging to poorer economies. What is required is enhancing labour skill. This way, low-skilled labour could be trained both in the countries of origin and also be given orderly employment in the developed countries. These guest workers could then practice their skill and later, on the conclusion of their contract, return to the country of origin. This would also assist in capital formation and the flow of remittances. Skill changes could then become an educational tool and part of a wider development policy.

In this regard it would also be vital for Governments to publicise their practice with respect to the extension of work permits, so that the national population understands the benefit of migrant workers. Only then can comprehensive policies find approval and take hold in the host society.

It would be equally important here to refer to the questions underlying the selection processes with respect to work visas worldwide. Governments not only need to decide who should be allowed entry, but also which government body or agency should set the parameters within which such a choice is made. While Canada and Australia employs a system based on points, in which the government sets the framework, the US often lets large firms micromanage immigration for work purposes. There, the Department of Labour is brought in as a second instance, deciding on a case-by-case basis if the employer and the employee had fulfilled the bargain, which guarantees entry and permission to work. These work visas are essentially bought retroactively, with the company who has selected the foreign worker, charged a certain fee, which in many instances work as a disincentive to hire migrant labour.

The American system is unique in more ways than one. While the point-system is a pre-entry tool for managing migration, the American system of requiring legal attestations from employers is a post-entry tool. Both forms of selection offer a certain malleability of conditions. Under this approach, points can be attributed for specific levels of education, specific languages spoken, particular training, etc. With the 'attestation system', an American invention, the legal conditions under which a work visa is retroactively attributed can also be altered. This ensures flexibility.

Temporary work programmes can also fulfil an immediate need for certain countries to combat illegal migration. This, I believe can stop unnecessary exploitation. Unfortunately, not all countries have an interest in ending illegal migration, because "it is the ultimate work programme: you pay them little and they have no enforceable rights."

The question that arises is what could be the steps for a workable integration policy. We should understand that several factors are inter-linked and need to be dovetailed together. Host countries need to conceptualise integration policies that the functional in their specific environment. Immigrant communities are different in each host State and this aspect should also be respected in context with the situation at hand. It must also be remembered that full integration is more than mere adaptation.

Integration requires change from the host economies as much as from the immigrants, with respect to education, training and other areas. The host country should also realize that modern societies are no longer 'monochromatic'. Cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity add to the vibrancy of communities. The power allocation in countries must reflect this reality.

There also needs to be also a sensitivity that immigration is an asset, rather than a liability for the host communities. This fact can be highlighted partially through an open public debate and by giving immigrants and asylum seekers the right to work and become productive members of the host society. Managing immigration will require a holistic and multi-dimensional approach.

A comprehensive solution to illegal immigration has to be found in the developed countries. Amnesty and regularisation are but first step approaches but do not provide for a long-term perspective. This issue has to be addressed without delay. What is needed is a horizontal approach bringing all societal actors confronted by immigration challenges together. The pertinence of finding comprehensive solutions to easing the tensions that exist in today's labour markets (in developed countries) through migrants must be clearly understood by governments.

Different national initiatives could be envisaged, including a key role for non-governmental organisations. NGOs could provide non-partisan information and education about the benefits of migration to a fearful public and ease preconceived notions through an honest, open debate. The local and the global dimension of the necessity for migratory flows could then be explained together.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador.