Human migration is movement by humans from one place to another, sometimes over long distances or in large groups. Historically this movement was nomadic, often causing significant conflict with the indigenous population and their displacement or cultural assimilation. Only a few nomadic people have retained this form of lifestyle in modern times. Migration has continued under the form of both voluntary migration within one’s region, country, or beyond and involuntary migration (which includes the slave trade, trafficking in human beings and ethnic cleansing). People who migrate into a territory are called immigrants, while at the departure point they are called emigrants. Small populations migrating to develop a territory considered void of settlement depending on historical setting, circumstances and perspective are referred to as settlers or colonists, while populations displaced by immigration and colonization are called refugees According to International Organization for Migration, man “no universally accepted definition for (migrant) exists.
The term migrant was usually understood to cover all cases where the decision to migrate was taken freely by the individual concerned for reasons of “personal convenience” and without intervention of an external compelling factor; it therefore applied to persons, and family members, moving to another country or region to better their material or social conditions and improve the prospect for themselves or their family. The United Nations defines migrant as an individual who has resided in a foreign country for more than one year irrespective of the causes, voluntary or involuntary, and the means, regular or irregular, used to migrate. Under such a definition, those travelling for shorter periods as tourists and businesspersons would not be considered migrants. However, common usage includes certain kinds of shorter-term migrants, such as seasonal farm-workers who travel for short periods to work planting or harvesting farm products.”  Also, human migration happened when the Paleo-Indians entered America.
According to the International Organization for Migration’s World Migration
Report 2010, the number of international migrants was estimated at 214 million in 2010. If this number continues to grow at the same pace as during the last 20 years, it could reach 405 million by 2050. While some modern migration is a byproduct of wars (for example, emigration from Iraq and Bosnia to the US and UK), political conflicts (for example, some emigration from Zimbabwe to the UK), and natural disasters (for example, emigration from Montserrat to the UK following the eruption of the island’s volcano), contemporary migration is predominantly economically motivated. In particular, there are wide disparities in the incomes that can be earned for similar work in different countries of the world. There are also, at any given time, some jobs in some high-wage countries for which there is a shortage of appropriately skilled or qualified citizens. Some countries (e.g., UK and Australia) operate points systems that give some lawful immigration visas to some non-citizens who are qualified for such shortage jobs. Non-citizens, therefore, have an economic incentive to obtain the necessary skills and qualifications in their own countries and then apply for, and migrate to take up, these job vacancies.
International migration similarly motivated by economic disparities and opportunities occurs within the EU, where legal barriers to migration between member countries have been wholly or partially lifted. Countries with higher prevailing wage levels, such as France, Germany, Italy and the UK are net recipients of immigration from lower-wage member countries such as Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and Romania. Some contemporary economic migration occurs even where the migrant becomes illegally resident in their destination country and therefore at major disadvantage in the employment market. Illegal immigrants are, for example, known to cross in significant numbers, typically at night, from Mexico into the US, from Mozambique into South Africa, from Bulgaria and Turkey into Greece, from north Africa into Spain and Italy and from Bangladesh into India. The pressures of human migrations, whether as outright conquest or by slow cultural infiltration and resettlement, have affected the grand epochs in history and in land (for example, the decline of the Roman Empire); under the form of colonization, migration has transformed the world (such as the prehistoric and historic settlements of Australia and the Americas).
Population genetics studied in traditionally settled modern populations have opened a window into the historical patterns of migrations, a technique pioneered by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. Forced migration has been a means of social control under authoritarian regimes, yet free-initiative migration is a powerful factor in social adjustment and the growth of urban populations. In December 2003, The Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM) was launched with the support of Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan and several countries, with an independent 19-member commission, a threefold mandate and a finite lifespan ending December 2005. Its report, based on regional consultation meetings with stakeholders and scientific reports from leading international migration experts, was published and presented to Kofi Annan on 5 October 2005. International migration challenges at the global level are addressed through the Global Migration Group, established in 2006. Different types of migration include:
• Seasonal human migration mainly related to agriculture and tourism to urban places • Rural to urban, more common in developing countries as industrialization takes effect (urbanization) • Urban to rural, more common in developed countries due to a higher cost of urban living (suburbanization) • International migration
Scheme of Indo-European migrations from ca. 4000 to 1000 BC according to the Kurgan hypothesis.
Austronesians expansion map
4th to 6th century Migration Period
Historical migration of human populations begins with the movement of Homo erectus out of Africa across Eurasia about a million years ago. Homo sapiens appear to have occupied all of Africa about 150,000 years ago, moved out of Africa 70,000 years ago, and had spread across Australia, Asia and Europe by 40,000 years BC. Migration to the Americas took place 20,000 to 15,000 years ago, and by 2,000 years ago, most of the Pacific Islands were colonized. Later population movements notably include the Neolithic Revolution, Indo-European expansion, and the Early Medieval Great Migrations including Turkic expansion. In some places, substantial cultural transformation occurred following the migration of relatively small elite populations, Turkey and Azerbaijan being such examples. In Britain, it is considered that the Roman and Norman conquests were similar examples, while “the most hotly debated of all the British cultural transitions is the role of migration in the relatively sudden and drastic change from Romano-Britain to Anglo-Saxon Britain”, which may be explained by a possible “substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes into Central England (contributing 50%–100% to the gene pool at that time.”
Early humans migrated due to many factors such as changing climate and landscape and inadequate food supply. The evidence indicates that the ancestors of the Austronesian peoples spread from the South Chinese mainland to Taiwan at some time around 8,000 years ago. Evidence from historical linguistics suggests that it is from this island that seafaring peoples migrated, perhaps in distinct waves separated by millennia, to the entire region encompassed by the Austronesian languages. It is believed that this migration began around 6,000 years ago. Indo-Aryan migration from the Indus Valley to the plain of the River Ganges in Northern India is presumed to have taken place in the Middle to Late Bronze Age, contemporary to the Late Harappan phase in India (ca. 1700 to 1300 BC). From 180 BC, a series of invasions from Central Asia followed, including those led by the Indo-Greeks, Indo-Scythians, Indo-Parthians and Kushans in the northwestern Indian subcontinent. From 728 BC, the Greeks began 250 years of expansion, settling colonies in several places, including Sicily and Marseille.
In Europe, two waves of migrations dominate demographic distributions, that of the Celtic people and that of the later Migration Period from the North and East, both being possible examples of general cultural change sparked by primarily elite and warrior migration. Other examples are small movements like that of the Magyars into Pannonia (modern-day Hungary). Turkic peoples spread from their homeland in modern Turkestan across most of Central Asia into Europe and the Middle East between the 6th and 11th centuries. Recent research suggests that Madagascar was uninhabited until Austronesian seafarers from Indonesia arrived during the 5th and 6th centuries AD. Subsequent migrations from both the Pacific and Africa further consolidated this original mixture, and Malagasy people emerged. One common hypothesis of the Bantu expansion c. 1000 BC to c. 500 AD Before the expansion of the Bantu languages and their speakers, the southern half of Africa is believed to have been populated by Pygmies and Khoisan-speaking people, today occupying the arid regions around the Kalahari Desert and the forest of Central Africa. By about 1000 AD, Bantu migration had reached modern day Zimbabwe and South Africa.
The Banu Hilal and Banu Ma’qil were a collection of Arab Bedouin tribes from the Arabian Peninsula who migrated westwards via Egypt between the 11th and 13th centuries. Their migration strongly contributed to the Arabization and Islamization of the western Maghreb, which was until then dominated by Berber tribes. Ostsiedlung was the medieval eastward migration and settlement of Germans. The 13th century was the time of the great Mongol and Turkic migrations across Eurasia. Between the 11th and 18th centuries, there were numerous migrations in Asia. The Vatsayan Priests from the eastern Himalaya hills, migrated to Kashmir during the Shan invasion in 1203C. They settled in the lower Shivalik hills in 1206C to sanctify the manifest goddess.
In the Ming occupation, the Vietnamese expanded southward in a process known as nam tiến (southward expansion). Manchuria was separated from China proper by the Inner Willow Palisade, which restricted the movement of the Han Chinese into Manchuria during the early Qing Dynasty, as the area was off-limits to the Han until the Qing started colonizing the area with them later on in the dynasty’s rule. The Age of Exploration and European colonialism led to an accelerated pace of migration since Early Modern times. In the 16th century, perhaps 240,000 Europeans entered American ports. In the 19th century, over 50 million people left Europe for the Americas. The local populations or tribes, such as the Aboriginal people in Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Japan and the United States, were usually far overwhelmed numerically by the settlers.
Industrialization and the rise of nationalism/imperialism
While the pace of migration had accelerated since the 18th century already (including the involuntary slave trade), it would increase further in the 19th century. Manning distinguishes three major types of migration: labor migration, refugee migrations, and urbanization. Millions of agricultural workers left the countryside and moved to the cities causing unprecedented levels of urbanization. This phenomenon began in Britain in the late 18th century and spread around the world and continues to this day in many areas. Industrialization encouraged migration wherever it appeared. The increasingly global economy globalized the labor market. The Atlantic slave trade diminished sharply after 1820, which gave rise to self-bound contract labor migration from Europe and Asia to plantations. Overpopulation, open agricultural frontiers, and rising industrial centers attracted voluntary migrants. Moreover, migration was significantly made easier by improved transportation techniques. Romantic nationalism also rose in the 19th century, and, with it, ethnocentrism. The great European industrial empires also rose. Both factors contributed to migration, as some countries favored their own ethnicities over outsiders and other countries appeared to be considerably more welcoming.
For example, the Russian Empire identified with Eastern Orthodoxy, and confined Jews, who were not Eastern Orthodox, to the Pale of Settlement and imposed restrictions. Violence was also a problem. The United States was promoted as a better location, a “golden land” where Jews could live more openly. Another effect of imperialism, colonialism, led to the migration of some colonizing parties from “home countries” to “the colonies”, and eventually the migration of people from “colonies” to “home countries”. Transnational labor migration reached a peak of three million migrants per year in the early twentieth century. Italy, Norway, Ireland and the Guangdong region of China were regions with especially high emigration rates during these years. These large migration flows influenced the process of nation state formation in many ways. Immigration restrictions have been developed, as well as diaspora cultures and myths that reflect the importance of migration to the foundation of certain nations, like the American melting pot. The transnational labor migration fell to a lower level from 1930s to the 1960s and then rebounded.
The United States experienced considerable internal migration related to industrialization, including its African American population. From 1910–1970, approximately 7 million African Americans migrated from the rural Southern United States, where blacks faced both poor economic opportunities and considerable political and social prejudice, to the industrial cities of the Northeast, Midwest and West, where relatively well-paid jobs were available. This phenomenon came to be known in the United States as its own Great Migration. With the demise of legalized segregation in the 1960s and greatly improved economic opportunities in the South in the subsequent decades, millions of blacks have returned to the South from other parts of the country since 1980 in what has been called the New Great Migration. Effect on Country of Origin
It is important to consider in our exploration of human migration the ends served by modern human movement around the world. Just as the decision to migrate involves a cost-benefit analysis for the individual migrant, the experiences of the countries involved can similarly be captured as a calculation of risk to reward. There are three parties involved in every act of international migration – the migrant himself, his country of origin and his country of destination. Each of these parties has its own distinct and often conflicting interests in the process. What is good for the migrant may not be good for his home or host country; the home and host countries gain and lose in different ways. Is migration good for the migrant’s country of origin? The answer lies in an analysis of who the migrant is, where he goes and what he does there.
Safety Valve Functions
Migration can serve an important safety valve function for a “sending” country: • Relieving a country of some of its inhabitants can reduce the pressure on resources – from land to water to food — particularly in densely populated and impoverished regions. • If significant ethnic and civil strife are present, migration of certain interest groups in society can also serve as a safety valve. Exiling of dissidents serves the same function. • Migration of certain demographic groups in society can relieve pressure on labor markets and ease intergenerational tensions. Countries with large youth/working age populations experience downward pressure on wages, especially among unskilled laborers, if labor supply significantly exceeds demand. Unemployed youth populations are politically destabilizing as well, and their migration is often welcomed by their home countries.
Migrants perhaps benefit their home countries most when they send home a portion of their wages to family and friends, or make investments in their countries of origin. By some estimates, remittances comprise double the amount of foreign aid that LDCs receive and up to 30% of some poor countries’ total GDP. Remittances that are made through formal banking channels from migrants in MDCs back to LDCs have by some estimates quadrupled over the last two decades, from $60 billion in 1990 to $240 billion in 2007. Other estimates put the current figure closer to $318 billion or nearly 1 billion dollars per day. Millions more in remittances are made through informal channels. • Immigrants living in the US send the most money back home, with $42 billion leaving the country in 2006, $25 billion of it going to Mexico (formal banking channels only). • Remittances can be so significant that origin countries encourage migration. The Times of India reports that 20 million Indians working and living abroad have made India the largest single recipient of remittance flows; India receives $27 billion remitted from various countries, which comprises one-tenth of total global remittances.
As a result, the government has been accused of “pandering” to the growing diaspora by helping to support migrants living abroad with “welfare funds” to purchase health insurance in countries where coverage is compulsory. • Ironically, the poorer the migrant, the more likely he is to send remittances. The majority of remittances to LDCs come in small increments from unskilled laborers. • Remittances are less volatile than foreign aid or investment and tend to actually increase during times of global economic hardship. • The net effect of remittances is complicated. Relying on these cash flows can discourage governments from making needed economic investments and reforms to boost development. Moreover, the lucrative nature of remittances serves as a “reward” or “incentive” for out-migration when what developing countries often need is to keep their most industrious workers home to grow the home economy.
• Remittances can drive up inflation rates in developing economies, leaving those without a remittance source facing higher prices for everyday goods. • Remittances are generally encouraged by both the countries of origin and destination. Destination countries benefit from fees on banking transactions incurred in sending the money home. It has also been shown that remittances nurture ties between immigrants and their home communities that serve as a “safety net.” When immigrants fall on hard times in their host countries, they are often able to depend on relatives and connections back home instead of becoming reliant on public welfare.
When large immigrant communities form in wealthy and influential nations, they form a powerful diaspora which can advocate for the interests of their countries of origin (usually an LDC) in the host country and in the international community. • Benefits negotiated by and made possible through this diaspora can include investment, aid, preferential trade policies and even political pressure for reform in the home country. For instance, the Chinese diaspora in the West has spearheaded business deals and agitated for Communist Party reforms in China. • When migration is temporary or circular, or when migrants maintain close ties to their home countries, valuable exchanges of ideas are facilitated and the country of origin benefits from the immigrant’s experiences in a more modernized society. Advantages and Disadvantages
Impacts on health and education
An important revelation in the study is the mixed effects on health and education of the migrant households. The study observes: “On the one hand, migration leads to greater investments in education and health due to increased wealth and better health knowledge. However, the health and education outcomes of households of migrants are mixed and are dependent on both the characteristics of the migrant and their household. Remittances on the one hand, provide better education and health opportunities to household members. However, migration of parents can leave families of young children with inadequate guidance and an additional burden of household responsibilities which can lead to higher school absenteeism, school drop-outs, poor nutrition and health care of children – especially younger children, and substance abuse – especially older children.’
A further observation of significance is that “Given that Sri Lanka has a rapidly ageing population, the breakdown of traditional family support for elderly due to migration is a concern, both for households and policy makers.” The study finds that remittances have increased the demand for health and education services. In communities where there are high concentrations of migrants, better investments in health have increased demand for health and education services thereby increasing investments in high-end private sector health and education facilities. On average investments on health and education are higher for migrant households. However, at the national level, school enrolment and morbidity were not significantly different between migrant and non immigrant households. Employment and unemployment
The country has achieved a low level of unemployment. Three factors account for this: the higher level of economic activities, lower inflows to the labour force owing to the declining population rate and the outmigration of workers. Foreign employment has been a continued source of employment to the country’s labour force and a significant proportion of the labour force is working abroad. This has contributed to reducing the unemployment rate of the country and also increased wages of skilled and unskilled workers. The government actively promotes migration of skilled workers, by promoting tertiary and vocational education with the objective of meeting global job demands.
Given the limited opportunities in the country’s tertiary education sector, there is a high demand for training programmes aimed at foreign employment. There is evidence to show that emigration of workers has helped to lower the unemployment rate and improve wages at the lower levels. The study cautions: “However, given that the Sri Lankan labour force has started to shrink, promotion of foreign employment needs to be done with caution. On the one hand, shrinking labour resources can adversely affect the economy. …. the combined effect of a shrinking labour force and an increasing dependency ratio can reduce annual economic growth rates by up to 1 per cent. On the other hand, despite benefits from low skilled migrations, over-reliance on foreign employment can delay reforms needed for improving job creation within the country.” Social costs
There are also adverse social consequences arising from the migration of persons for employment abroad. There are a number of costs associated with foreign employment. The lack of protection and welfare for workers and the social and psychological costs associated with migration has been of concern for policy makers for long. This is of special concern to housemaids and low skilled migrants with low education attainments. There are numerous instances where these workers have been sexually and physically abused and not properly paid for their services. Although the government has taken several steps to improve the rights and freedom of migrant workers and the welfare of families that are left behind, the effectiveness of these measures in improving the present conditions is yet to be seen. The recently articulated policy on labour migrations seems to assume that migration of all types of workers abroad is beneficial as long as the worker rights and freedom is ensured and the welfare of the families of migrant workers is looked into. Positive and negative outcomes
The outmigrations of Sri Lankans no doubt contribute handsomely to the country’s economy. However there are both benefits and adverse impacts of outmigration. The main positive impacts are that the remittances strengthen the balance of payments and contribute to GDP. They have also contributed to the improvement of living conditions and livelihoods. No doubt one of the ways by which poverty has been alleviated has been these remittances. These have enhanced incomes of the poor especially those in rural areas. No doubt the poor have improved their living conditions owing to remittances from migration. Unemployment in the country has been reduced by migration but availability of skilled labour has decreased and labour costs have increased. However there are several problems encountered by the migrants in foreign countries and has led to serious dislocation of family life and caring for children and parents left behind. Therefore national policy towards migration must consider all these facets, both good and bad, in determining policy.
Brain drain vs. brain gain
Poor material conditions force lots of people to migrate every day. They leave their homes and cross the borders to migrate to new places with higher availability of work and higher wages, necessary to lead a decent and better life. Movements within labour market in the age of globalization are directed mostly abroad. Young people leave their countries of origin and migrate to host countries. These flows of labor result in two phenomena – brain drain and brain gain. The former takes place in country of origin, which experience loss of well-educated labor and intelligence, the latter is very beneficial and happens in host country or in the country of origin, when former migrants come back home. Thus people who gained education in their own countries exploit their skills and knowledge in host countries, contributing to its development. For example (according to European Informer) immigrants from Poland who work in Great Britain produce 1% of its Gross domestic product. It is also expected that some of emigrants will improve their skills and gain experience abroad and in the end they will come back to their home countries, what would be a benefit for economics and development.
The primary cost associated with migration for the country of origin is the “brain drain,” or the loss of some of its brightest citizens. • When migrants are skilled and/or highly educated, the sending country experiences not only the loss of that worker and his contribution to society, but also the investment made in his education or training, and the potential for him to mentor and teach others. • Considering that making an international move requires some financial solvency and entrepreneurship from anyone, even unskilled workers who migrate are a loss to their country of origin. • The effect of “brain drain” is acute in many developing nations where doctors and nurses are in short supply locally because they have been so heavily recruited to make up for shortfalls in developed countries such as the United States. • PBS Frontline World’s Barnaby Lo has reported that the US is expected to have a deficit of 800,000 to one million trained nurses by the year 2020, and the American government actively recruits medical personnel all over the world with special visas.
Lo goes on to note that the nursing shortfall is so extreme, and the recruitment so lucrative, that many trained engineers, teachers and even doctors in places like the Philippines, India and South Africa are abandoning their careers to enter nursing school with an eye toward emigration. In the Philippines alone, a study by the country’s former Secretary of Health found that “80% of all government doctors have become nurses or are in nursing schools. There are roughly 9000 doctors-turned-nurses and 5000 of all these medical practitioners are now working abroad.” The public health and economic effects of this trend are potentially devastating to developing countries. • Not only are financial successes and talents transferred to the recipient country, but potentially valuable political assets as well. Most migrants are from poor countries, which often have poor governance as both a cause and symptom of their impoverishment. When the best and brightest leave, they take potential reformist energy and acumen with them.
Flow of money and skills
Migration affects development since migrants generate the flows of capital back to their homelands in the form of remittances. It is very difficult to measure the amount of transferred and available data relate only to the cash transfers done through official channels. It is suspected that much more money is send through many unofficial channels or brought or send back home (also in the form of goods). International remittances are of the greatest importance for economy since internal remittances have no effect on the growth of the money within the country. For example the amount of remittances received per year in Pakistan varies from USD 2 to 3 billion per year (1980s), constituting almost 9% of GDP; in Mexico it is to over USD 2 billion per year.
According to Annelies Zoomers it is estimated that people sending remittances are now reaching a number of 500 million people, what is almost 8% of the world population. Today, over 200 million people reside in a country that is not their birthplace. About 82 percent of migrants originate in developing countries, and their remittances, which amounted to an estimated $305 billion in 2008, represent an essential source of foreign exchange, as well as a major instrument in the fight against poverty. Migrants typically triple their real earnings by working overseas; and every 10 percent increase in per capita official remittances leads to a 3.5 percent decline in the share of people living in poverty. The global financial crisis of 2008 has exposed migrant workers to new vulnerabilities. They are disproportionately young, unskilled, and employed in the worst-hit sectors, such as construction and manufacturing. Flows of skills are also a form of remittances, obviously not possible to be measured but skills still constitute an important part of remittances.
Individual remittances use – advantages and disadvantages
It is important what people individually do with their remittances, since the way they spend the money can have both negative and positive effects. Only consumption purpose can lead to increase in import, decrease in foreign exchange and can be negative for development. Saving remittances and investing money is beneficial for development. The former can turn into positive process, when the considerable consumption intensified by higher income stimulates demand for local production and services, thus generating the employment. Negative thing is that people receiving remittances can easily become dependent on migrants who earn money abroad. It can also happen, that economic flows don’t really lead to investments but more to stagnation (according to AIV document).
Entrepreneurs and Tourism
Some of the emigrants become entrepreneurs in the host countries, what fosters investments in the countries of origin. Keeping businesses abroad contributes to development of homeland. It’s stated that transnational enterprise not only improves development but also affects social and cultural spheres and is often inspired by these purposes. Tourism is also a form of migration, but short-term, also contributing to development. In the country of origin travel agencies prosper, enabling people to travel abroad. Simultaneously countries which people travel to, make money serving tourists, through providing hotels, restaurants and many other attractions. Often prior immigrants start touristic entrepreneurships according to their own culture to attract people from their country.
Offshoring and outsourcing
Big companies trying to reduce costs relocate their business processes partly or entirely to the countries where costs of operation are lower and low-paid labour is available. More often companies have main factories in Asian countries, where massive production for relatively small money is possible. Recently the main countries of destination for production offshoring is China and India. The new emerging destination is nowadays Philippines. Outsourcing
It is similar process, although it means more relocation of internal production processes to another company, within the same country. Disadvantages Due to the influence of brain drain, the investment in higher education is lost as the highly educated person leaves India and becomes an asset to other country. Also, whatever social capital the individual has been a part of is reduced by his or her departure. With all the college graduates leaving their homelands, it raises the question as to whether their skills are being put to good use in the destination country. The chances of Brain Waste are possible. In a similar way, there is a shortage of skilled and competent people in India. A tremendous increase in wages of high-skill labour can be seen now in India. The emigration has also created innumerous problems in the public sector. Migration is becoming a very important subject for the big cities’ life. The countryside daily life facilities seem unattractive to people when cities include luxury. Educational, social, cultural and financial opportunities of big cities pull very big masses of people to big cities. When there is a big change, there will be related results.
Migration affects cities on any levels such as demography, cultural structure, economic structure, social structure and people’s psychology. Unfortunately, these effects are negative and turn to problems for urban. Migration is an unplanned movement to cities so migration causes economic, social and environmental problems for the cities and citizens. The first negative effect of migration is that it causes economic problems for the cities. To start with, migration brings about economic problems for the government. Most importantly, it leads to a decrease on the quality of workers. The portion of the migrations in U.S. is %12 in the population and %15 in the total labourer population. This worker class forms a layer which is unqualified and the lowest (“Immigrants” section).
The example given above shows that immigrant workers are not of a high quality and this changes the total quality ratio of the country where they have migrated. In addition, the government suffers from unpaid taxes of immigrants, the illegal households. Fitzgerald cite Camarota who is the author of an immigration study in the U.S., as explaining, “Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household”. Objectively speaking, one cannot deny the fact that the attitude of the immigrants on the subject ‘taxes’ causes social injustice economically. It is obvious from the above examples that migration causes economical problems for the government by both decreasing the quality of workers and leaving unpaid taxes behind.
Apart from creating economical problems for the government, it also causes economical problems for the citizens. One of these problems is ‘increasing cost of living’. In U.S. a family can reach average life standards with an eight or nine dollar per hour. Immigrants and other workers gain four or five. When immigrants prefer to have more than one worker for each family, citizens tend to have one worker. Because of immigrant’s double income, householders increase the rents because they already can pay this money and this damages other citizen’s economy.Taking all these fact into account, immigrants produce more labor and gains more so the highly colored rents are unavoidable in their capitalist system. Additionally, immigrants displace the native workers. Not qualified immigrant workers and poor educated native workers are battling for the same jobs. The crowded immigrant masses fulfill the request of lower-skilled workers, also replace some of the least educated native workers. For this reason the job facility that the government creates for the citizens are being used by immigrants. In conclusion, the negative economic impacts of immigrants on the citizens’ lives are undeniable.
The Negative Impact of Diasporas
• Just as immigrants in host countries can act in ways that benefit their countries of origin, they can also act in ways that are destabilizing. Pressure from migrants, exiles and expatriates exerted on incumbent leaders who are resistant to reform often backfires. This can lead to repression and/or retaliation toward citizens back home. • Many civil conflicts are initiated and/or exacerbated by the advocacy and fundraising of emigrants with particular interests. For example, the fragile situation in post-genocide Rwanda is thought to be imperiled by the opposing activities of Hutu and Tutsi exiles abroad. • Interstate conflicts can be aggravated by their opposing champion diasporas living abroad as well. An example is the influence of Chinese and Taiwanese diasporas in the US during moments of tension in the Taiwan Strait. Similarly, foreign nationals who participate in terrorist acts in their host countries strain relations between those nations and their countries of origin, and can discredit their home countries.
Effects of migration
Migration can have positive and negative effects on the areas that “export” people and the areas that “import” people. Below are two tables explaining the positive and negative effects for both the country losing migrants, and the country gaining immigrants.
For the country losing people:
|Advantages |Disadvantages | |Fewer people to be fed and housed |Loss of young and most able | |Income sent home e.g. by Turkish “guestworkers” (gastarbeiter) in the German car industry |Loss of young men creates an unbalanced population structure | |Reduces pressure on jobs and resources |Loss of working age people | | |Loss of those most likely to have education and skills | | |Division of families | | |Elderly population remains, so there’s a higher death rate |
For the country gaining people:
|Advantages |Disadvantages | |Cheap labour |Language problems | |Helps overcome labour shortages |Racial / ethnic tensions | |Immigrants are often prepared to do unskilled|Jobs lost to incoming workers | |jobs | | |Some immigrants are highly skilled |Loss of those most likely to have education and skills | |Cultural diversity |Pressure on housing and services. Immigrants tend to be less healthy, placing strain on the health service, and they | | |tend to live in low quality housing | | |Limited skills/education in immigrant population | | | |
| Advantages | Disadvantages | |1. Cultural and
linguistic diversity: |Racial conflict: | |Considered a valuable resource |There are those whose this as a | |Over 200 languages spoken here |threat to Australia’s Anglo-Celtic | |A rich mix of traditions, cultures, |background. | |languages and beliefs: |Some groups are discriminated | |multiculturalism is now considered |against eg. Sudanese people in | |a defining characteristic of Aust’s |Tamworth. | |identity. | | |Food, music, customs enrich our | | |lifestyle. | | |2. Economic benefits: |Economic costs: | |Generate wealth and employment |A drain on the economy because they | |for all Australians + invest in |need support services. | |economy. (29% small businesses |Take jobs from Australians. | |owned/operated by overseas born. |Harm our Balance of Payments (Trade dealings dealings with the | |Generate extra tax revenue for govt. |rest of the world). | |This is especially important in aging | | |Society.
Important language skills and understanding of other cultures | | |boosts our links/ | | |Business opportunities overseas. | | |As a migrant’s length of stay | | |increases, their incomes rises and | | |they are less dependent on services. | | |3. Geopolitical advantages: |Geopolitical disadvantages | |Migration policy is a sensitive topic |Australia’s hard line on people | |and accepting refugees improves our |smuggling out of SE Asia has | |foreign relations and standing in the international community. |created some friction with our | |Australia’s |close neighbours | |abandonment of the White Australia |The Pacific Solution (processing/ | |Policy and more open migration policy |detaining asylum seekers on islands | |has enabled it to build bilateral and |outside the migration zone) has | |multilateral links such as APEC and |drawn criticism from the United | |ASEAN. |Nations. | |Australia is bound by the Refugee | | |Convention to accept refugees | |
• Not enough jobs
• Few opportunities
• Primitive conditions
• Famine or drought
• Political fear or persecution
• Slavery or forced labour
• Poor medical care
• Loss of wealth
• Natural disasters
• Death threats
• Lack of political or religious freedom
• Poor housing
• Landlord/tenant issues
• Poor chances of marrying
• Condemned housing (radon gas, etc.)
• Job opportunities
• Better living conditions
• Political and/or religious freedom
• Better medical care
• Attractive climates
• Family links
• Better chances of marrying
The Balance Sheet
Whether a migrant’s decision to relocate hurts or helps his country of origin is highly subjective and situational. Countries of origin usually have little say over the matter, unlike the migrant (if he is acting voluntarily) or the recipient country (to the extent that it can enforce its legal restrictions on immigration). Rarely, and only in highly repressive regimes, are people prevented from voluntarily leaving their country. The country of origin is thus largely a passive actor in the migration equation. Some LDCs have experimented with tying financial assistance for in-country education to promises by students to stay at home for a period of years after graduation; others have tied financial grants to study abroad with promises of return. These measures are difficult to enforce and have met with limited success. Sadly, some experts have noted that one possible recourse would be for LDCs to offer subsidies and grants for only K-12 education in-country so that when talent flees, the investment in more expensive higher education doesn’t go with it.