international migration, Appunti di Relazioni Internazionali

Scarica international migration e più Appunti in PDF di Relazioni Internazionali solo su Docsity! International Migration – The Age of Migration Introduction Over the past half century, the global migration rates have remained stable, but its political salience has increased. For origin countries, the worries are related to brain drain, but it also creates hopes, as migrants may invest in their home countries. For destination countries, the arrival of migrants can change the social, cultural and political fabric of societies. Europe à The saliency of migration is reflected in the rise of far-right parties (anti-immigration and anti-Islam). Migration is a divisive political issue. It is not clear that migrants “steal” jobs. Moreover, the benefits of migration in origin societies are not distributed equally: businesses and high-income groups tend to reap the primary benefits and lower income groups enjoy few, if any, direct economic benefits, while often more confronted with the changes that come with migration. Nowadays, migration has been linked to security concerns. Events such as 9/11 as well as the attacks by Islamist radicals in Europe and elsewhere involved immigrants or their offspring. Societies around the world are deeply affected by the arrival and settlement of large groups of migrants; this phenomenon often leads to a polarization between social and economic groups. Migration is such a politically divisive issue because it is directly linked to issues of national identity and sovereignty. Migrations are not isolated: movements of commodities, capital and ideas almost always give rise to movements of people, and vice versa. Global cultural interchange can also increase migration aspirations by diffusing images and information about life and opportunities in other places. Migration is primarily driven by the search for better opportunities. Only 3% of the world population are international migrants, so 97% stay at home. Internal migration is far higher than international migration, especially in large and populous countries like China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, and Nigeria. Despite that, the impact of international migration is considerably larger. The US is by far the most important migration destination in the world. India, Mexico, and Russia are the most important origin countries of migrants, followed by China, Bangladesh, Syria, Pakistan, and the UK. Some of those who move are forced migrants: people compelled to flee their homes (because of wars, political persecution, natural disasters…) and seek refuge elsewhere. Most forced migrants remain in the poorest areas of the world. The idea of a global “refugee crisis” has no basis in fact, at least not from a Western perspective (refugees only represent 10% of global migration). Trends and patterns of global migration (since 1945) • The globalization of migration à Immigration countries tend to receive migrants from an increasingly diverse array of origin countries. There has been a strong growth in intercontinental migration. • The changing direction of dominant migration flows à Europe was a continent of colonizers but because decolonization, rapid economic growth, and demographic changes, it is now a receiving continent. • The emergence of new migration destination à Particularly since the 1973 Oil Shock, the oil-rich Gulf region emerged as a global magnet for migrant workers from Asia and Africa. The Gulf is now the third most important migration destination. • The proliferation of migration transitions à This occurs when traditional lands of emigration become lands of immigration. For example, Poland, Spain, Turkey and South Korea. • The feminization of labour migration à In the past many labour migration were male- dominated, and women were often dealt with under the category of family reunion, even if they did take up employment. • The politization and securitization of migration à Domestic politics, regional relationships around the world are increasingly affected by international migration. The securitization of migration is the tendency to portray migration as a fundamental threat to the security and cultural integrity of destination societies. On the other hand, as a part of a “global race for talent”, governments around the world have tried to facilitate the immigration of skilled workers, investors, and students. The challenges of international migration The increasing share of non-European, non-white and often non-Christian migrants in fast- growing immigrant populations in Europe and North America has sparked significant unease. Furthermore, communication and travel have become easier enabling migrants to remain in constant touch with their origin countries, and to maintain multiple and transnational identities, which can challenge traditional ideas of national identity. International migration has thus become a central dynamic within globalization. Immigration poses two major challenges for domestic and international politics: 1) The arrival and settlement of migrants and the resulting increase in diversity have challenged dominant concepts of nation states and have sparked intense debate about identity 2) The sovereignty of states and their ability to regulate movements of people across their borders (while more effective regulation of migration would benefit from improved international cooperation, governments are often unwilling to give up national sovereignty) International migration in global governance Efforts to regulate immigration are at an all-time high and involve intensive bilateral, regional and international diplomacy. The majority of migrants move within the law but a significant share of migrants cross borders irregularly. Paradoxically, irregular migration is often a consequence of tighter control measures. The experiences with large-scale migration (Mexico to the US and Turkey and Morocco to the EU) have shown that ill-conceived migration restrictions can be counterproductive. The complexity and fragmentation of power require governments to cooperate with other organizations and institutions. An important manifestation of global governance is the expansion of consultative processes within regional unions. The implementation of free travel protocols in such unions has boosted intra-regional mobility and commerce. Forced migration This category is applied to people fleeing violence and oppression. The term refugee is distinct from, but often confused with, asylum seeker. - Refugee à Person who: “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country” (1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees) - Asylum seeker à person who has applied for refugee status and is still awaiting a decision on her or his recognition as a refugee According to the UN Refugee Convention, it is a fundamental right of people to leave their country and cross borders in search of protection. Procedures and recognition rates vary hugely across countries. In more recent decades, a special category of internally displaced persons (IDPs) has gained increasing recognition as a group of ‘internal refugees’ in need of protection. - IDPs àPersons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized state border (These principles are not legally binding) Refugee migration is often cast as forced migration while other forms of migration are generally seen as ‘voluntary’. Another range of categories reflects attempts to characterize the legal status of individual migrants and forms of migration. The most familiar one is the distinction between legal and illegal migration. This category of illegality reflects governmental views and has been criticized on legal and social-scientific grounds. According to classical jurisprudence, a person cannot be illegal. Referring to individual people as ‘illegal’ seems neither accurate, nor desirable, nor analytically useful. However, the term illegal migration can therefore still be used to refer to a migratory phenomenon. To overcome problems with the term ‘illegal’, researchers and journalists have used alternative terms, such as ‘irregular’, ‘undocumented’ and ‘unauthorized’. The categories of unauthorized migration and undocumented migrant seem more objective and, importantly, value-neutral terms. Climate refugee The deliberate or uncritical use of particular categories by politicians and media can have a distorting effect on perceptions of migration phenomena. Often such categories are embedded in discourses that give misleading representation of the magnitude, nature and causes of migration processes. Concerns about climate change-induced migration have emerged in the context of debates on global warming. However, migration is a multi-causal phenomenon, which precludes the drawing of direct links with environmental change. Environmental degradation or natural disasters need to go hand in hand with political instability, poverty, violent conflict and corruption to create conditions for migration. That’s the reason why migration is likely to continue regardless of the environment because it is driven by powerful economic, political and social processes. It is not possible to make a direct link between climate change, environmental stress and large-scale migration. Categories are indispensable to make sense of the complex and inherently “messy” social processes such as migration because they help us to structure thinking, define phenomena and distinguish patterns. On the other hand, we should be very careful in choosing and using categories. Language is not innocent but reflects largely unconscious biases or conscious choices. CHAPTER 3: Theories on the cause of migration Migration and settlements are long-term processes, and so they influence subsequent generations too. Conventional wisdom holds that migration is driven by geographical differences in income, employment, and other opportunities. However, the paradox is that improved access to education and information, social capital and financial resources typically increase people’s aspirations and capabilities to migrate. This explains why most migrants do not move from the poorest to the wealthiest countries, why the poorest countries tend to experience lower levels of long-distance emigration and why industrializing societies have the highest levels of internal and international mobility. The volume of international migration as a share of world population has remained remarkably stable (3%) over the past decades à the relation between migration and broader processes of development is intrinsically complex, and that patterns and trends of real-world migration often defy intuition. Research in migration is interdisciplinary (sociology, anthropology, political science, history, economics, geography, demography…) and distinctions between schools are often artificial (complementary views). Within each discipline a variety of approaches exist based on differences in theory and methods. It is equally debatable whether it is useful to develop separate theories for different categories of migrants, as motives for migrating are often manifold. It is important to see migration: - Macro-level à Migration as an intrinsic part of broader processes of development rather than a problem or a temporary reaction. o Macro-structures refer to large scale institutional factors (political economy of the world market, about market dynamics, interstate relationship, …) - Micro-level à Migration as a function of capabilities and aspirations to migrate within a given set of constraints instead of some sort of automated reaction to, or linear function of, ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors o Micro-structures: the practices, family ties and beliefs of migrants themselves For this review of theories, it is useful to make a basic distinction between theories on the (1) causes of migration processes, and theories on the impacts of migration for (2) destination and (3) origin societies. Causes of migration, distinction between: - Macro and micro level theories on the causes - Meso-level theories on the continuation of migration. Focus on feedback mechanisms Any migratory movement can be seen as the result of interacting macro- and micro-structures. These two levels are linked by meso-level social mechanisms and structures (migrant networks, immigrant communities, business sectors catering to migrants…) Explaining the migratory process The concept of the migratory process sums up the complex sets of factors and interactions which shape migration. Migration is a process which affects every dimension of social existence, and which develops its own complex ‘internal’ dynamics. Ravenstein (19th century geographer) à Laws of migration - Migration as an inseparable part of economic development, the major causes of migration were economic - Lee (1966) à migration decisions are determined by ‘plus’ and ‘minus’ factors in areas of origin and destination; intervening obstacles; and personal factors. - Laws of migration: o Every migration flow generates a return or counter-migration o The majority of migrants move a short distance o Migrants who move longer distances tend to choose major sources of economic activity o Urban residents are often less migratory than inhabitants of rural areas o Families are less likely to make international moves than young adults o Most migrants are adults o Large towns grow by migration rather than natural population growth o More long-distance migrants are male o More long-distance migrants are adult individuals rather than families with children - Probably Not suitable for today’s situation à Most migration are adults, short distance, Return or counter-migration, Gender (today its nearly 50/50) Two paradigms of migration theories: - Functionalist social theory à society as a system where there is an inherent tendency toward equilibrium. Migration as a positive phenomenon, optimization mechanism. Mainly promoted by economists. - Historical-structural theories à rooted in Neo-Marxism, migration as an exploitation mechanism. social, economic, cultural and political structures constrain and direct the behaviour of individuals, reinforcing the disequilibria in societies unless the government intervenes. Economic and political power is unequally distributed, and cultural beliefs and social practices tend to reproduce such structural inequalities FUNCTIONALIST THEORIES Less’s Push-Pull Theory 1966 Push–pull models identify economic, environmental and demographic factors which are assumed to push people out of places of origin and pull them into destination places. Push factors in a sending/origin country à Economic (lack of economic opportunities), political, demographic (population growth and poverty) Pull à Demand for labour, political freedom, economic opportunity, availability of land. 70s and 80s, world systems theory à The incorporation of peripheral regions into the capitalist economy and growth of multinational corporations accelerated rural change and deprived peasants and rural workers of their livelihoods, leading to poverty, rural–urban migration, rapid urbanization and the growth of informal economies. From the mid-1970s, as the key role of migrant workers in wealthy economies became more obvious, world systems theorists began to analyse international labour migration as one of the ways in which relations of domination were forged between the core economies of capitalism and its underdeveloped periphery. Globalisation theory Globalization can be defined as ‘the widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life’ à rapid increase in cross-border exchanges of all sorts, ranging from finance and trade to media products and ideas. Globalization is also a political process and some argue that is the result of late stage capitalism. Nowadays, the globalisation paradigm emerged from neoliberal ideologies (80s, Reagan and Thatcher). Therefore, globalization is also an ideology about how the world should be reshaped summed up in the Washington consensus (market liberalization, privatization and deregulation). Institutions like the World Bank or the IMF are key instruments. It is considered as a new form of imperialism designed to reinforce the power of core states. The effects of globalisation on migration are more ambiguous than it may seem. It is often thought that globalization has spurred migration as a consequence of growing inequality and revolutions in transport and communication technology. However, such improvements have also increased the scope for trade and the outsourcing of production and services, which has arguably replaced some forms of migration. The partial relocation of production to low wage economies is often thought to have weakened the political left and trade unions in industrial countries and shored up authoritarian regimes in the ‘South’. Core states support corrupt and authoritarian elites in peripheral countries who play a vital role in ensuring access to export markets and the reproduction of a docile workforce. Control of migration and differential treatment of various categories of migrants have become the basis for a new type of transnational class structure. While immigration restrictions often fail to curb migration as long as labour demand persists, they lead to an increase in irregular migration and the increased vulnerability of migrants in labour markets Critiques of historical-structural approaches Historical–structural theories stress structural constraints and the limited extent to which migrants are free to make choices. This has led to the criticism that some historical–structural views largely rule out human agency by depicting migrants as victims of global capitalism. Such extreme views actually do no justice to neo-Marxist theories that have paid ample attention to migrants’ agency by emphasizing the role of migrant workers in trade unions and industrial disputes. Historical–structural views are often based on the ‘myth of the immobile peasant’, which is the implicit assumption that pre-modern societies consisted of isolated, stable, homogeneous and egalitarian peasant communities. This is a romantic and elitist view of peasants. It is also difficult to portray employers unliterally as exploitative capitalists, since many employers value migrants’ contribution and experience. Conceptualizing migratoRy agency Both of the previous paradigms are too one-sided. Neoclassical approaches neglect historical causes of movements and downplay the role of the state and structural constraints, while historical–structural approaches put too much emphasis on political and economic structures. they are top-down perspectives that largely rule out agency by portraying human beings as rather passive ‘reactors’ to macro-forces. Dual labour market This theory helps us to understand how the demand for skilled immigrant labour is structurally embedded in modern capitalist economies while simultaneously explaining why migrants are highly motivated to do jobs that natives shun. Piore (1979) argued that international migration is caused by structural and chronic demand within advanced economies for lower-skilled workers to carry out production tasks (assembly line work or garment manufacture) and to staff service enterprises (catering, cleaning, care, etc.). Changes in the economic and labour market structure of receiving countries drive the demand for particular labour skills. Domestic supply for low-skilled labour that can’t be outsourced or mechanized (service sector, construction…) has dramatically decreased because women have massively entered the formal labour market and youngsters continue education for much longer. Dual labour market theory shows the importance of institutional factors as well as race and gender in bringing about labour market segmentation. A division into primary (high skilled, finance, management, etc) and secondary (more precarious and often informal jobs) labour markets emerges. The growth of the secondary sector and informal employment have been reinforced through neoliberal reforms and the concomitant de-regularization of labour markets, which have put the middle class under pressure and have increased inequalities. The workers in the primary labour market are positively selected on the basis of their degrees and formal skills, but also often through membership of majority ethnic groups, male gender and, in the case of migrants, regular legal status – which is facilitated by selective immigration policies discriminating in favour of the educated and wealthy. The increasing labelling of precarious jobs – also known as 3D jobs (dirty, difficult and dangerous) – as low-status ‘migrant jobs’ further decreases their attractivity for native workers. Politicians’ xenophobic discourses not only fulfil a symbolic function in order to rally voters, but can also serve to legitimize exploitation of migrants on labour markets by providing a moral justification for depriving them of their basic rights. Since migrants are motivated to do jobs that native workers are unwilling or unable to do, employers have increasingly relied on migrant workers to fill such gaps. As long as their migrants’ social frame of reference is in origin communities, these jobs often represent significant progress in terms of salary, status and future prospects. But is there really a chronical demand? Children of immigrants not always follow the job of their parents, as a result, more migrants are needed. New economics and household theory approaches The new economics of labour migration (NELM) emerged as a critical response to neoclassical migration theory. The economist Stark (1978; 1991) argued that, in the context of migration in and from the developing world, migration decisions are often not made by isolated individuals, but usually by families or households. NELM sees migration as: - A risk-sharing behaviour of families or households and an investment by families, who pool resources to enable the migration of one or more household member o The addition of an extra source of income can make peasant households less vulnerable to environmental hazards. This risk-spreading motive is a powerful explanation for the occurrence of internal and international migration even in the absence of wage differentials. - A family or household investment strategy to provide resources for investment in economic activities o ELM examines households in the context of the imperfect credit (capital) and risk (insurance) markets that prevail in most developing countries, which are often non-accessible for non-elite groups. Through remittances households can overcome such market constraints ELM argues that relative deprivation (or poverty), rather than absolute poverty, within origin communities are important migration-motivating factors. Although international inequality can obviously motivate people to migrate, it has limited explanatory power compared to the role of community-level income inequalities. With NELM, economists began to address questions of household composition traditionally posed by anthropologists and sociologists. Household models have been criticized because they can obscure intra-household inequalities and conflicts of interest along the lines of gender, generation and age. Migration transition theories Functionalist and historical–structural theories share an important central assumption: that migration can be significantly curbed by reducing poverty and stimulating development in origin countries. However, as we have seen, this assumption is undermined by empirical observations that development in poor societies often increases emigration. The migration transition These theories see migration as an intrinsic part of broader processes of development and social transformation associated with processes of modernization and industrialization (de Haas 2010b). Transition theories conceptualize how migration patterns tend to change over the course of this development process. They argue that development processes are generally associated with increasing levels of migratory and non-migratory mobility, but they also stress that this relation is complex and fundamentally non-linear. Chapter 11 The Evolution and Effectiveness of Migration Policies Migration policy categories Categorization of immigration policy based on: 2. 2) client politics perspective (Freeman): gap in immigration policy preferences between the political elite and the general public, employers/investors gain (economic) benefits from migrationàlobbying in favour of migration 3. 3) embedded legal constraints perspective (Hollifield): liberal democracies (LD) put legal constraints on the power of the executive to control immigration and democracies are trapped in a liberal paradox: in order to maintain a competitive advantage, states must remain open to trade, investment and migration. 4. 4) External legal constraints: countries need to respect international agreements and conventions protecting human rights and the rights of migrants and refugees (connected with the growing importance of international organizations) àapplies for LD but can also apply to authoritarian states Travel visas and the prevention of unwanted migration Entry and integration policies have become more liberal, while border control policies have become more restrictive. States have increasingly used travel visas as a means to block the entry of potential asylum seekersàlead to the privatization of migration controls through the outsourcing of passport and visa checks to airlines Visas are the rule rather than the exception: 73% of worldwide movement require Visa, visa-free is mostly in regional blocs (EU, ASEAN, ...). some of the most restrictive entry visa regimes of the world are found in sub-Saharan Africa and South and South-East Asia (ßàWestern countries) The enforcement challenge implementation gap refers to the difficulty of enforcing policies on the ground. These obstacles can be practical, financial or moral in nature (ex. unacceptable to raid private homes). Policies are not enforced because of: practical, planning, budgetary constraints, corruption, ignorance or subversion + interpretation of migration laws (policies can become more or less restrictive without any legal change)àregularly creates situations of tolerance of irregular entry, employment and long-term stay Governments’ limited willingness to enforce policies is another important factor behind implementation gaps (ex. sanctioning businesses for hiring undocumented labourers) Legalization: Policy failure or policy tool? Legalizations can be interpreted as evidence of governmental inability to prevent irregular entry of stay or alternatively as evidence that sovereign states are able to adapt to the realities of international population movements Legalization undermines the rule of law VS legalized foreigners generally experience improvements in their overall socioeconomic situation Prior to the 1970s, many national migration policies used ‘back door’ rather than ‘front door’ immigration to address labour shortages Despite the heated debate about irregular migration, numbers should not be exaggerated, certainly not in Europe. It was estimated that in 2008 there were between 1.9 and 3.8 million undocumented migrants in the EU27, representing between 0.4 and 0.8 per cent of the total population and between 7 and 13 per cent of the foreign population Increasingly restrictive immigration policies had encouraged the permanent settlement Latino immigrants in the US (undocumented population in the US stands at about 10.7 million people in 2010) Unintended consequence of migration policies Despite problems enforcing MP, MP are still effective: the majority of migrants travel in possession of required paperwork (“boat migration” is only a small percentage of migration and over- mediatised) migration policies can have unintended side effects that limit their effectiveness. These unintended effects occur because the migration flow reduced by a policy restriction is replaced or ‘substituted’ by another type of migration. Four types of such substitution effects can be identified: 1. Spatial substitution through the diversion of migration via other routes or to destinations 2. Categorical substitution through a reorientation towards other legal or illegal channels (category jumping) 3. Inter-temporal substitution affecting the timing of migration in the expectation or fear of future tightening of policies (“now or never” migration) 4. Reverse flow substitution if immigration restrictions interrupt circulation by discouraging return and encouraging settlement Conclusion I recommend to read this part in the book to have a good overview of the chapter. At the end of the chapter have an appendix with the most important words of “migration policy toolbox” (worth to read thru)