Embedded Files
Who are these irregular immigrants?
Where do they come from?
What are their basic motivations?
What are the problems that they face before migrating?
What are the problems that they face during the migratory journey and after their arrival?
What is their potential contribution to the host countries?
A few myths about migrants
Are we facing a massive invasion of migrants from developing countries, which we cannot absorb?
Is it possible to stop the massive wave of migrants by adopting rigorous containment measures?
Are the irregular migrants from developing countries a real threat to our national security?
Are irregular migrants in reality persons that pretend to be refugees but in realty are only economic migrants?
Will the arrival of so many workers from the third world cause a reduction of the wage level of national workers and reduce work opportunities for the native workforce?
Does the absorption of migrants from the third world represent a high fiscal burden, often unbearable?
This study attempts to analyze these statements, verify their accuracy and often debunk them or limit the application.
Beyond the trade-off between “Refugees and Economic Migrants”
Thanks to the rhetoric hostility against migration, we are used to seeing irregular migration as a flow of economic migrants, who “steal” jobs and welfare from national workers. Traffickers, organized in criminal networks, are believed to be the promoters of such a flow, with the complicity of transit countries that influence the pace of clandestine movements, whereas humanitarian organizations are accused of favoring them by facilitating the arrival of these irregular migrants.
Authorities make use of a rigid distinction between refugees and economic migrants, which does not show how complex the causes of migration are. Those causes are conceived only as the outcome of economic calculations, even though most migrants from developing countries aim at minimizing the risks for their safety and survival. These migrants’ motivations reflect their vulnerability and the dangers that they face.
The profile of these migrants is a mixture of a typical refugee, as defined by international conventions, and an economic migrant, but it can never be defined by one of these two concepts. This study suggests a hybrid notion of migrant.
Irregular migrants often emphasize the dominant state of unsafety, which is the root of their decision to migrate, and is closely related to the state of fragility of the societies from which they come, devastated by widespread violence, wars, civil strife, abuse of all types, epidemies, natural disasters and other environmental calamities, chronic marginalization, exclusion, and social injustice. These situations define the very notion of fragility. photo by Sabine W.
The notion of fragility of a state, recognized by many international organizations and governments, is however ignored when it is necessary to draw conclusions for its implications on immigration, preferring the mechanical use of the trade-off between “refugees and economic migrants”, whereas behind the motivations of most irregular immigrants there are objective conditions of serious necessities linked to situation of elevated fragility within the society from which the migrants come.
The causes of migration
Migrants from developing countries do not leave their country only to enjoy a higher material welfare, motivated by the prospects of a higher personal income, but often only aim at minimizing the safety and survival risks for themselves and their families.
The deep causes of the big flows of migrants from developing countries are indeed linked to economic and social imbalances of the world society and the non-economic dynamics such as armed conflicts, civil wars, ethno-tribal rivalries, terrorism, organized crime, human trafficking, systematic violation of human rights and rule of law, widespread violence (including private violence), environmental phenomena, natural disasters, climate changes, and epidemies.
The causes of migration are much stronger than the control measures intended to contain it. This explains why immigration is unstoppable, at least in western countries, as the liberal paradox does not allow liberal societies to adopt extreme repressive measures, which only authoritarian regimes can introduce.
Crisis of border controls
Containment policies have not achieved good results. They do not manage to stop the flows of irregular immigrants, at the most they slow them down or reduce their volume, but only temporarily, while the total of irregular migrants that evade controls increases and the number of those who stay in transit countries explodes. This is the crisis of border controls. Migration flows are an autonomous phenomenon and do not depend on containment measures. In most cases, those measures only manage to postpone problems that become increasingly unmanageable and harder with time, generating a series of violations of human rights for migrants, while the host countries do not manage to enjoy the full benefits from migration, because current policies are too busy in repressing it instead of make use of its potentials.
Structural changes of the hosting economies, their post-industrial development, segmentation of their labor market, tertiarization of the advanced economies and their demographic dynamics, are central to assess these benefits. The impact of migration on the occupation and wage levels in host countries is to be seen in light of these phenomena, assessing the complementarity and substitutability of imported and national labor.
THE BENEFITS OF MIGRATION
Overcoming the viewpoint of the containment approach requires focusing on the productive contribution from migrant workers to the development and economic performance of host countries, which allows for higher growth rates otherwise unattainable.
Most studies on this theme conclude that there is sufficient empirical evidence that confirms that immigration produces a greater prosperity in host countries, stimulating the growth of national income expressed both in aggregate and per capita terms, improving the welfare of national workers, diversifying the manpower structure of the country and the intellectual and cultural components of the society. These benefits are real, whereas the costs of immigration are limited and often linked to perceptions, emotions and a priori preventions. Sometimes the impact of immigration on the poorer layers of national workers has been stressed. The presumed opposition between immigrants and the most vulnerable national social groups is often presented as a “war between poor”, using immigrants as escape goats, but the difficulties met by marginalized national groups often depend on the inadequacies of social and distributional policies, and their inability to deal with structural problems, and not on the arrival of immigrants.
Sometimes the impact of immigration on the poorer layers of national workers has been stressed. The presumed opposition between immigrants and the most vulnerable national social groups is often presented as a “war between poor”, using immigrants as escape goats, but the difficulties met by marginalized national groups often depend on the inadequacies of social and distributional policies, and their inability to deal with structural problems, and not on the arrival of immigrants.
Major obstacles to welcoming irregular immigrants
To benefit from immigration, it is necessary to launch policies that welcome immigrants, including those that so far have been excluded as they are considered irregular immigrants. However, the widespread prejudices towards the irregular immigrants, which reflect dislike or fear for them represent a real obstacle to launching this type of policies.
The mistrust towards those that are different and the uneasiness for the presumed inconveniences that the very presence of irregular immigrants may genetrate are accentuated by political approaches of the "sovereignist" type, and reflect communication strategies that encourage a cultural provincialism that imagines insurmountable barriers between national cultures. This fuels the need to protect the society from the influence of any “cultural contamination” from immigrants that come from developing countries and establishes the basis for a “fear culture”. This is the major obstacle to any opening in migration policies.
Search for an interactive culture and
a dialogue on migration and human rights
There are signals of solidarity and hope to support a policy open to immigration, which replace the defensive approach that intends primarily to contain immigration with an interactive and dialogue culture. These symptoms are shown in the international processes to defend human rights, which generated the 1990 convention for the protection of the rights of migrant workers , and an expansion of the international debate on migration.
These efforts produced the High-level Dialogue on Migration and International Development at the UN General Assembly, and the 2016 New York Summit on migration and refugees, which ended in 2018 with the adoption of two Global Compacts, respectively on migration and refugees. This can be the foundation for a new migration policy. Il Global Compact on Migration pursues the achievement of a safe, orderly and regular migration, but its framework does not manage to achieve this objective for the absence of an operational strategy and its fragmentary approach.
The only personality of high international profile that has unequivocally supported a policy that welcomes all immigrants is Pope Francis. He summarized his message to the whole world in four lines of action: to welcome, protect, promote and integrate all immigrants. So far, we cannot find any other eminent political personality at the level of heads of government or state or head of any major international organizations, who has expressed support to a policy that welcomes immigrants with the same level of clarity, with no ambiguity, hesitation, and reservations. However, many more persons - representing different denominations or religions, lay secular movements, NGOs, or individuals such as politicians, trade-unionists, columnists, journalists, scholars, and in general intellectuals, have expressed a similar message of solidarity in support to a policy aimed at welcoming immigrants. They include all those that fight for the protection of human rights and are committed to supporting the weakest members of our society. In this group we should also include those officers from international and national organizations and officials of national public and private structures that are fully involved in working with immigrants and activities that favor their integration in the host countries.
Looking for a policy to welcome immigrants
This study analyses all these signals, identifying paths to make further progress and suggests a reflection on the next steps in the following areas: (a) transition from irregular to regular migration; (b) admission of irregular immigrants from fragile states; (c) reduction of personal safety risks for immigrants; (d) immigrants’ access to the labor market within a participatory programming approach; (e) dialogue with the immigrants; (f) centrality of safety of irregular migrants during their journey.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse