tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66615033693459346702024-03-14T17:29:41.061+00:00Hein de HaasHein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-59085989308451486452024-03-14T17:11:00.004+00:002024-03-14T17:28:49.422+00:00Politicians need to come clean about immigration <div>We seem to be living in times of unprecedented mass migration. Images of people from Africa crammed into unseaworthy boats desperately trying to cross the Mediterranean, asylum seekers crossing the Channel into Britain, and “caravans” of migrants trying to reach the Mexico-US border all seem to confirm fears that global migration is spinning out of control. </div><div><br /></div><div>A toxic combination of poverty, inequality, violence, oppression, climate breakdown and population growth appear to be pushing growing numbers of people from Africa, Asia and Latin America to embark upon desperate journeys to reach the shores of the wealthy west.
All of this results in the popular idea of a “migration crisis” that will require drastic countermeasures to prevent massive waves of people arriving in the future, apparently exceeding the absorption capacity of Western societies and economies. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivl8PPpmBXA9WLFqgGUR3GPba7nH7CsBEWAnlkvVf-aDut2MSFCC4_9GYM5jsC5RgKbNeOe39QuyvL27s6Qthlpp9LAD51f9ZWpj-tMGi-5RlnxPOYRo88mmhyphenhyphenhhbKlGi6tdLlqPwwxvT4eDJvLioNvl_OXPSBhkf1aEaUGxNKzDdmIIIrxJZOXKaLqGB-/s2380/Screenshot%202024-03-14%20at%2018.26.17.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1678" data-original-width="2380" height="283" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivl8PPpmBXA9WLFqgGUR3GPba7nH7CsBEWAnlkvVf-aDut2MSFCC4_9GYM5jsC5RgKbNeOe39QuyvL27s6Qthlpp9LAD51f9ZWpj-tMGi-5RlnxPOYRo88mmhyphenhyphenhhbKlGi6tdLlqPwwxvT4eDJvLioNvl_OXPSBhkf1aEaUGxNKzDdmIIIrxJZOXKaLqGB-/w400-h283/Screenshot%202024-03-14%20at%2018.26.17.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>Despite this, however, and as I argue in my book <a href="https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/455478/how-migration-really-works-by-haas-hein-de/9780241632208" target="_blank">How Migration Really Works</a>, there is no scientific evidence to sustain the claim that global migration is accelerating. International migrants account for about 3% of the world population, and this percentage has remained remarkably stable over the past half a century. </div><div><br /></div><div>Likewise, refugee migration is much more limited than political rhetoric and media images suggest. About 10% of all international migrants are refugees, representing 0.3 to 0.35% of the world population. While refugee flows fluctuate strongly with levels of conflict, there is no evidence of a long-term increasing trend. About 80-85% of refugees remain in regions of origin, and that share has also remained rather stable over the past decades. </div><div><br /></div><div>And there is no evidence that illegal migration is spinning out of control – in fact, the large majority of migrants who move from the global south to the global north continue to move legally. For instance, nine out of 10 Africans move to Europe legally, with passports and papers in hand.</div><div><br /></div><div>The evidence also turns common understandings of the causes of migration on its head. The conventional view is that south-to-north migration is in essence the outgrowth of poverty, inequality and violence in origin countries – hence the popular idea that poverty reduction and development are the only long-term solutions to migration. </div><div><br /></div><div>However, this assumption is undermined by evidence showing that <a href="https://heindehaas.blogspot.com/2020/02/why-development-will-not-stop-migration.html" target="_blank">migration tends to rise as poor countries become richer</a>. This is because increasing levels of income and education, alongside infrastructure improvements, raise people’s capabilities and aspirations to migrate. Instead of the stereotypical “desperate flight from misery”, in reality migration is generally an investment in the long-term wellbeing of families and requires significant resources. </div><div><br /></div><div>Poverty actually deprives people of the resources required to move over long distances, let alone to cross continents.
This is also one of the many reasons why, contrary to common assumptions, <a href="https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-false-link-between-climate-change" target="_blank">climate change is unlikely to trigger mass movements of “climate refugees”</a>. Research on the effects of droughts and flooding shows that most people will stay close to home. In fact, the most vulnerable people are most likely to get trapped, unable to move out at all. </div><div><br /></div><div>It is no coincidence that most migrants come from middle-income countries such as India and Mexico. The paradox is that any form of development in the poorest countries of the world – such as in sub-Saharan Africa – is therefore likely to increase their future emigration potential. </div><div><br /></div><div>Still, despite global averages remaining stable, it is difficult to deny that legal immigration to the US, Britain and western Europe has been growing over the past decades. The frequent discontent this has caused has gone along with repeated calls for less, more controlled or more selective immigration.
But border crackdowns have clearly failed to achieve these objectives or have even made problems worse because they were not based on an understanding of how migration really works. </div><div><br /></div><div>The main reason is that these policies ignored the most important root cause of migration: persistent labour demand.
The misleading assertion that poverty causes migration conceals the fact that labour demand has been the main driver of growing immigration to western countries since the 1990s. </div><div><br /></div><div>More widespread education, women’s emancipation and population ageing have led to labour shortages; these have fuelled a growing demand for migrant workers in sectors such as agriculture, construction, cleaning, hospitality, transport and food processing, as supplies of local workers willing and able to do such jobs have increasingly run dry. Particularly in post-Covid area, labour shortages have un particularly high across Western countries. Without such chronic demand for workers, most migrants wouldn’t have come. </div><div><br /></div><div>But this hasn’t been a natural process. It is instead one that has been encouraged by decades of policies geared towards economic and labour market liberalisation, which have fuelled the growth of precarious jobs that local workers won’t take. Politicians from left to right know this reality, but they don’t dare admit it out of fear of being seen as “soft on immigration”. </div><div><br /></div><div>They choose instead to talk tough and revert to acts of political showmanship that create an appearance of control, but that in effect function as a smokescreen to conceal the true nature of immigration policy. Under this current arrangement, more and more migrants are allowed in, and the employment of undocumented workers is widely tolerated as they fill in crucial labour shortages. Politicians have turned a blind eye to the employment and exploitation of undocumented migrant workers. </div><div><br /></div><div>The best proof of this organized hypocrisy are the laughably low levels of workplace enforcement. In Britain, for instance, in 2016-17, only three employers were persecuted for employing undocumented workers, and numbers have remained miniscule since then. In the US, too, prosecutions for employers have rarely exceeded 15–20 a year while fines are symbolically at levels of between $583 and $4,667. Workplace enforcement was as much a joke under Trump as it was under previous presidents as it is under the Biden administration. The situation in most other Western countries is not much different. </div><div><br /></div><div>This illustrates the largely symbolic nature of tough immigration rhetoric (and perhaps the occasional workplace raid) which seem mainly geared towards creating an <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/684200?casa_token=4RwW2mXyfTwAAAAA%3AOX_0VfhRCGi83l2XnkDgL6t-hawgK2dwlhNAz8LYmqGdkHeEHCb-3WsUDuC-a6VDE3vxNPNdXbQ&journalCode=ajs" target="_blank">impression of 'being in control'</a> for electoral gain.
To break away from this legacy of failed policies, politicians need to gather the courage to tell an honest story about migration: that it is a phenomenon that benefits some people more than others; that it can have downsides for some, but cannot be thought or wished away; and that there are no simple solutions for complex problems. </div><div><br /></div><div> Fundamental choices have to be made. For example, do we want to live in a society in which more and more work – transport, construction, cleaning, care of elderly people and children, food provision – is outsourced to a new class of servants made up mainly of migrant workers? Do we want a large agricultural sector that partly relies on subsidies and is dependent on migrants for the necessary labour? </div><div><br /></div><div>The present reality shows that we cannot divorce debates about immigration from broader debates about inequality, labour, social justice and, most importantly, the kind of society we want to live in. </div><div><br /></div><div><i>NB. This is a slightly adapted version of an article that was published earlier in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/29/politicians-immigration-wrong-cheap-labour" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>.</i></div>Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-75668255770135937522020-02-07T11:24:00.001+00:002020-02-07T11:24:41.339+00:00Why development will not stop migration<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
Among the many myths perpetuated about migration, one of the most common is that ‘South–North’ migration is essentially driven by poverty and underdevelopment. Consequently, it is often argued that stimulating economic development would reduce migration from developing countries to North America and Europe. However, this ignores evidence that most migration neither occurs from the poorest countries nor from the poorest segments of the population.<br />
<br />
In fact, the paradox is that development and modernization initially leads to <i>more</i> migration. Historical experiences show that societies go through migration transitions as part of broader development processes. In his <i><a href="http://mobilistiek.nl/assets/Zelinsky-1971-The-Hypothesis-of-The-Mobility-Transition.pdf" target="_blank">The Hypothesis of the Mobility Transition</a>, </i>a seminal article published in 1971, the geographer Wilbur Zelinsky argued that all forms of internal and international mobility accelerated when countries start to transition from rural-agrarian to urban-industrial societies.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TfNpGreonz8/Xj08LZ1NcWI/AAAAAAAACbM/MudnF95xxwopQC4AxLvV9TcR3ZrdDagEQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/MIgration%2Btransition%2B2020-02-07%2B11.29.26.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1146" data-original-width="1354" height="337" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TfNpGreonz8/Xj08LZ1NcWI/AAAAAAAACbM/MudnF95xxwopQC4AxLvV9TcR3ZrdDagEQCLcBGAsYHQ/s400/MIgration%2Btransition%2B2020-02-07%2B11.29.26.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"> <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The Migration Transition</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
This has been confirmed by various historical studies. For instance, tn their classic study of large-scale European migration to North America between 1850 and 1913, <i><a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-age-of-mass-migration-9780195116519?cc=nl&lang=en&#" target="_blank">The Age of Mass Migration</a> </i>published in 1998, economic historians Timothy Hatton and Jeffrey Williamson showed that trans-Atlantic migration was driven by the mass arrival of cohorts of young workers on the labour market, increasing incomes and a structural shift of labour out of agriculture towards the urban sector. The rapidly industrializing Northwestern European nations therefore initially dominated migration to North America, with lesser developed Eastern and Southern European nations following suit only later.<br />
<br />
This pattern also applies to contemporary migration. As societies develop, they go through <a href="https://heindehaas.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/de-haas-2010-migration-transitions-imi-wp-24.pdf" target="_blank">migration transitions</a>, leading to a accelerating emigration. This is a long-term, structural relation. Unlike temporary '<a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/011719689300200306" target="_blank">migration humps</a>' generated by economic or political shocks, development-driven increases in emigration linked to the migration transition tend to last for several generations.<br />
<br />
Recent advances in data and analysis have improved insights about the relationship between development and migration. In 2010, newly available global data on migrant populations enabled me to do a <a href="https://heindehaas.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/de-haas-2010-migration-transitions-imi-wp-24.pdf" target="_blank">first global assessment</a> of the relationship between levels of development and migration. The graph below shows how levels of emigration and immigration are related to development levels, as measured by the Human Development Index (HDI).<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><a href="https://heindehaas.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/de-haas-2010-migration-transitions-imi-wp-24.pdf" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="433" data-original-width="720" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7_rqI6AaQKY/Xjqt68DribI/AAAAAAAACas/p0TURq4bFEMN5P4sis3lQEhhZU992gTJACLcBGAsYHQ/s400/Why%2Bdevelopment%2Bleads%2Bto%2Bmore%2Bmigration%2B2.PNG" width="400" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8px;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><a href="https://heindehaas.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/de-haas-2010-migration-transitions-imi-wp-24.pdf" target="_blank">de Haas, H. (2010) <i>Migration Transitions.</i> </a></span><a href="https://heindehaas.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/de-haas-2010-migration-transitions-imi-wp-24.pdf" style="font-size: x-small;" target="_blank">University of Oxford, International Migration Institute</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The pattern for immigration is linear and intuitive: more developed countries attract more migrants. The relation between levels of human development and emigration is non-linear and counter-intuitive: middle-income countries tend to have the highest emigration levels. This pattern also held when using per capita income levels as a measures for development levels.<br />
<br />
This finding has been confirmed by later studies (for instance, see <a href="https://www.migrationinstitute.org/publications/social-transformation-and-migration-an-empirical-inquiry" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="https://www.cgdev.org/publication/does-development-reduce-migration-working-paper-359" target="_blank">here</a>) which replicated and expanded my original analysis using global migration data covering the 1960–2015 period. These all demonstrate that increases in levels of economic and human development are initially associated with higher levels of emigration. It is therefore no coincidence that important emigration countries, such as Mexico, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, the Philippines and Indonesia are typically middle-income countries.<br />
<br />
Only when countries achieve upper-middle to higher income status, such as has recently been the case with Mexico and Turkey, does emigration decrease alongside increasing immigration, leading to their transformation from countries of net emigration to countries of net immigration. In a recent <a href="https://www.cgdev.org/publication/does-development-reduce-migration-working-paper-359" target="_blank">study</a>, Michael Clemens estimated that, on average, emigration starts to decrease if countries cross a wealth-threshold of per-capita GDP income levels of $7,000–8,000 (corrected for purchasing power parity), which is roughly the current GDP level of India, the Philippines and Morocco.<br />
<br />
Development in low-income countries boosts internal and international migration because improvements in income, infrastructure and education typically increase people’s <a href="https://www.migrationinstitute.org/publications/paradoxes-of-migration-and-development" target="_blank">capabilities and aspirations </a>to migrate. Particularly international migration involves significant costs and risks which the poorest generally cannot afford, while education and access to information tends to increases people’s material aspirations.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.migrationinstitute.org/publications/formal-education-and-migration-aspirations-in-ethiopia" target="_blank">Education </a>and media exposure also typically accelerate cultural change which changes people of the ‘good life’ away from rural and agrarian lifestyles towards urban lifestyles and jobs in the industrial and service sectors. The inevitable result is <i>increasing </i>migration to towns, cities and foreign lands.<br />
<br />
Middle-income countries therefore tend to be the most migratory and international migrants predominantly come from relatively better-off sections of origin populations. Although these are averages that cannot be blindly applied to individual countries, it seems therefore very likely that any form of development in low-income countries such as in sub-Saharan Africa, South- and South-East Asia and Central America will lead to more emigration in the foreseeable future.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">* This text partly draws on the sixth edition of <em><a href="https://www.macmillanihe.com/page/detail/the-age-of-migration/?k=9781352007121&loc=uk&priceCode=uk" target="_blank">The Age of Migration</a></em>, a textbook on migration published in 2020, see age-of-migration.com. An earlier version of this blog appeared <a href="https://www.macmillanihe.com/blog/post/why-development-will-not-stop-migration-hein-de-haas/" target="_blank">here</a>.</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="http://age-of-migration.com/" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="1101" data-original-width="770" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fadjiqQs4rk/XjL6clPO5GI/AAAAAAAACWI/l9xsOC056AEVKlaSRnsyR3UPmvBKhF4zgCLcBGAsYHQ/s200/The%2BAge%2Bof%2BMigration%2B-%2Bcover%2B.jpg" width="138" /></a></div>
<br />
<br /></div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-34015941986905574912020-01-31T15:07:00.001+00:002020-01-31T15:36:46.324+00:00Climate refugees: The fabrication of a migration threat<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In recent years, it has become popular to argue that climate change will lead to massive North-South movements of ‘climate refugees’. Concerns about climate change-induced migration have emerged in the context of debates on global warming. Without any doubt, global warming is one of the most pressing issues facing humanity, and the lack of willingness of states and the international community to address it effectively – particularly through reducing of carbon emissions – is a valid source of major public concern and global protest.<br />
<br />
However, to link this issue with the specter of mass migration is a dangerous practice based on myth rather than fact. The use of apocalyptic migration forecasts to support the case for urgent action on climate change is not only intellectually dishonest, but also puts the credibility of those using this argument - as well as the broader case for climate change action - seriously at risk.<br />
<br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
<b><i>The climate migration apocalypse </i></b><br />
<br />
Media, politicians, environmentalists and migration experts have increasingly claimed that the effects of global warming, especially on sea-levels, rainfall patterns, and extreme weather events such as hurricanes will lead to massive population displacements.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-S8TIdWUxb9M/XjQW0xeNnJI/AAAAAAAACWs/SSjqYttwDZYQ9C3CJIO3eOYL8ooxymjHgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/climate%2Bchange%2Bmigration%2Bmap.jpg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="340" data-original-width="728" height="185" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-S8TIdWUxb9M/XjQW0xeNnJI/AAAAAAAACWs/SSjqYttwDZYQ9C3CJIO3eOYL8ooxymjHgCLcBGAsYHQ/s400/climate%2Bchange%2Bmigration%2Bmap.jpg.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Map published on the website of the </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">United Nations </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Environment Programme (UNEP) in 2005.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
This idea is not new. Back in 1995, in a publication entitled ‘<a href="http://climate.org/archive/PDF/Environmental%20Exodus.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Environmental Exodus</em>’</a>
, the influential biodiversity specialist Norman Myers drew a direct, but simplistic, link between environmental change and large-scale migration, arguing that there would already be 25 million ‘environmental refugees’ which would further increase to 200 million by 2050. In 2005, the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) issued a <a href="https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/feared-migration-hasn-t-happened-un-embarrassed-by-forecast-on-climate-refugees-a-757713.html#" target="_blank">warning</a> that a whopping 50 million people could already become environmental refugees by 2010, fleeing the effects of climate change (see the map below). They also published a map of world regions where people were likely to be displaced by the ravages of global warming.<br />
<br />
Since then, scenarios have become increasingly apocalyptic. In 2007, in a report called <em><a href="https://www.christianaid.org.uk/sites/default/files/2017-08/human-tide-the-real-migration-crisis-may-2007.pdf" target="_blank">Human Tide: The Real Migration Crisis</a></em>, Christian Aid, an influential UK-based development NGO, escalated dramatic forecasts of future population displacements up to one billion by 2050. In recent years, more and more organizations, researchers and media have put forward alarmist scenarios of mass displacement as a result of climate change. This includes widely-respected news outlets that are normally not known for unfettered sensationalism. For instance, in 2019 VICE news spread the idea that<a href="https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/59n9qa/climate-change-will-create-15-billion-migrants-by-2050-and-we-have-no-idea-where-theyll-go" target="_blank"> climate change will create 1.5 billion migrants by 2050</a> (see photo), without providing any evidence or source.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><a href="https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/59n9qa/climate-change-will-create-15-billion-migrants-by-2050-and-we-have-no-idea-where-theyll-go" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="895" data-original-width="1085" height="328" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QV-EGoRl2UM/XjQTEHiuy5I/AAAAAAAACWg/AJ8LeXXupS0-OyuKdcWriEUkaMCYFL3MwCLcBGAsYHQ/s400/VICE%2Bnews%2Bclimate%2Brefugees.png" width="400" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">News item on VICE website, published 13 September 2019</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<strong><em>Debunking the climate migration myth </em></strong></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Such forecasts have turned out to be highly speculative because they are <a href="https://orbi.uliege.be/handle/2268/136972" target="_blank">not based on fact and scientific knowledge</a>. They either have no scientific basis at al, or reflect extremely simplistic quasi-scientific reasoning, by assuming that all people impacted by climate-change induced environmental stress will move away from their homes. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The typical approach of apocalyptic climate migration forecasts has been to map climate-change-induced developments (such as sea-level rise, drought or desertification) onto settlement patterns to predict future human displacement. For instance, if climate change models predicted a sea-level rise of (say) 50 centimeters, it would be possible to map all coastal areas affected by this and work out how many people lived in such areas. The assumption then is that all these people would have to move. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Yet research evidence challenges the popular idea that climate change will lead to mass migration. In 2011, a group of prominent researchers conducted a <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/287717/11-1116-migration-and-global-environmental-change.pdf" target="_blank">study</a> for the UK Government of Science on the links between migration and environmental change. They concluded that because migration is driven by many factors, it can rarely be reduced to the effects of just one form of change, such as climate change or other environmental factors. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The environment is but one of the many factors that shape migration, and this effect is indirect rather than direct. This makes it difficult to directly attribute migration to climate change and other environmental factors. In fact, migration is likely to continue regardless of climate and the environment, because it is mainly driven by powerful economic, political and social processes, such as labor demand (in destination areas) and <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.com/2011/05/development-leads-to-more-migration.html" target="_blank">development </a>(in origin areas). </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
For instance, this <a href="https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/en/publications/critical-views-on-the-relationship-between-climate-change-and-mig" target="_blank">challenges</a> the popular idea that much migration within Bangladesh is an ‘obvious example’ of mass displacement due to the sea-level rise. After all, much of this movement would have happened anyway as part of more general processes of urbanization, education and the growth of urban-based industrial and service sectors. In fact, many people voluntarily migrate from rural into urban areas of <i>greater </i>environmental vulnerability, such as fertile deltas and cities partly built on floodplains. They do so because of improved livelihood opportunities they can expect to find there despite high population densities and environmental hazards (particularly flooding) they often encounter there.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YKW2CGSKYKM/XirSLnu25sI/AAAAAAAACVM/2xfVadqJAGgyMGNuCI_I4KwEOyMrsAqAgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Bangladesh.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="896" data-original-width="890" height="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YKW2CGSKYKM/XirSLnu25sI/AAAAAAAACVM/2xfVadqJAGgyMGNuCI_I4KwEOyMrsAqAgCLcBGAsYHQ/s400/Bangladesh.png" width="396" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Areas of erosion and accretion from 1985 to 2015 in coastal Bangladesh.<br />
Source: Ahmed <em>et al. </em>2018. Where is the coast? <em>Ocean & Coastal Management</em>, 151, 10-24. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><i>The environment as dynamic systems </i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Furthermore, we cannot just assume that low-lying areas will simply be submerged through sea level rise. Whether land will come at risk of being submerged and inhabitable (unless dikes are built) does not only depend on sea levels, but also on natural patterns of erosion and sedimentation as well as land subsidence through soil compaction. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
For instance, delta areas have always been highly dynamic and characterized by constantly shifting patterns of land formation and erosion. We should therefore refrain from simplistic analyses. For instance, research on Bangladesh has shown that while in some areas, land is being lost, in other areas land has been gained. A recent <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569117306397" target="_blank">study</a> revealed that, in the period between 1985 and 2015, the rate of land area growth (through sedimentation) in coastal areas of Bangladesh has been slightly higher than the rate of erosion (see map above). </div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
This highlights the danger involved in making a direct link between climate change, environmental stress and large-scale migration. In brief, there are five main reasons to be skeptical on the idea that climate change will lead to mass migration: </div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<ul>
<li style="text-align: left;">First, climate change, however serious, is a slow-onset phenomenon, which gives people time to adapt to resulting environmental stresses, such as to sea level rise. </li>
<li style="text-align: left;">Second, people can use various adaptation strategies, such as flood defense systems (dikes, polders), changes in livelihoods or short-distance mobility to cope with environmental stress.</li>
<li style="text-align: left;">Third, existing studies suggest that in cases of floods and other environmental havoc, the vast majority of people move over short distances, such as to the next neighborhood, village or town. </li>
<li style="text-align: left;">Fourth, most of such displacements tend to be temporary, because most people wish to return home as soon as possible. </li>
<li style="text-align: left;">Fifth, most people living in the poorer countries of the world do not have the resources to move over large distances. </li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
A comprehensive <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a992b27ed915d57d4d0f2dc/Migration-Livelihoods1.pdf" target="_blank">review</a> of research evidence conducted by
the <a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/" target="_blank">Migration Policy Institute</a> for the UK Department for International
Development (DFID) in 2018 confirmed that in situations of environmental degradation people
generally prefer to stay home. Communities strongly prefer <i>not</i> to move
following rapid onset natural shocks, such as tornadoes or earthquakes; and
when government support for rebuilding infrastructure and overcoming hardship exists,
these events are therefore unlikely to increase migration. In situations where agricultural
productivity is affected, households with sufficient assets may adopt migration
as an alternative or supplemental livelihood strategy to reduce income risks. However,
such moves are more likely to be internal than international, as people prefer
to remain close to their communities of origin.<br />
<br />
<strong style="text-align: justify;"><em><br /></em></strong>
<strong style="text-align: justify;"><em>On the move or getting trapped?</em></strong></div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
More in general, the idea that climate change will lead to mass migration is based on outdated push-pull models that assume that migration is the result of poverty, violence and other forms of human misery. However, migration requires considerable resources, particularly long-distance migration from rural areas to cities or abroad. Extreme poverty (whether influenced caused by environmental stresses or not) can actually deprive vulnerable people of the means to travel and migrate over large distances, and they might find themselves therefore trapped where they are, unable to flee. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
The most vulnerable are often deprived of the means to move at all. For instance, a <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-12416-7_3" target="_blank">study</a> by François Gemenne, <span style="text-align: left;">a migration researcher at the University of Liège, </span>showed that when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, many of the car-less poor got trapped in the city, and African Americans were over-represented among those who died.</div>
<br />
In the same vein, when people are impoverished by such factors as drought, they often lack the resources to move, trapping them in situations of extreme vulnerability. Detailed <a href="https://www.migrationinstitute.org/publications/wp-21-10" target="_blank">studies</a> from Africa therefore fail to find a simple causal link between environmental stress (whether linked to climate change or not) and migration. In <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2011.00576.x" target="_blank">Malawi</a>, for instance, droughts decreased rural out-migration. In <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:POEN.0000036928.17696.e8" target="_blank">Burkina Faso</a>, droughts have shown to increase short-distance migration between villages, but reduced international moves to Côte d’Ivoire. <br />
<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><i>Complex links: the case of 'desertification'</i></b><br />
<br />
Another popular ideas is that 'desertification' is a major cause of migration, particularly from African countries. The underlying idea is that deserts are advancing rapidly, and that the resulting increases in the incidence of droughts would be a major cause of migration, for instance from the Sahel zone in Africa. However, also in this case the evidence challenges such simplistic narratives.<br />
<br />
First of all, the idea of an 'advancing' desert is challenged by <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425713003325" target="_blank">evidence</a> from satellite imageries that parts of the Sahel zone have in fact been ‘greening’. This confirms field studies that have shown that ‘desertification’ is generally a local phenomenon largely caused by human intervention, such as the cutting of trees and shrubs or the collapse of traditional institutions for land and water management. While scholars have even <a href="https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783642160134" target="_blank">questioned</a> the very existence of 'desertification', cases of environmental degradation are almost always primarily human-made.<br />
<br />
In the case of North African <a href="https://heindehaas.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/de-haas-1998-1-socio-economic-transformations-and-oasis-agriculture-in-southern-morocco.pdf" target="_blank">oases</a>, this has for instance led to the breakdown of traditional irrigation system. As my own <a href="https://heindehaas.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/de-haas-2001-knag-migration-and-agricultural-transformations-in-the-oasis-of-morocco-and-tunisia.pdf" target="_blank">research</a> has shown, more often than not, such crises in land and water management, are the partial <em>result</em> of the <a href="https://heindehaas.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/de-haas-1998-1-socio-economic-transformations-and-oasis-agriculture-in-southern-morocco.pdf" target="_blank">social changes brought about by migration</a> (such as the emancipation of former serfs and sharecroppers) as well as massive water extraction for urban and industrial use rather than a cause of migration. This highlights the human and political origins of 'desertification'.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cvO-VqwTDaQ/XjQeCgf1U7I/AAAAAAAACW4/1rgMy80OeTwWPul5tD572MhRj0XmC47fgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/oases.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1028" data-original-width="1500" height="273" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cvO-VqwTDaQ/XjQeCgf1U7I/AAAAAAAACW4/1rgMy80OeTwWPul5tD572MhRj0XmC47fgCLcBGAsYHQ/s400/oases.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">In various North African oases, traditional agriculture has suffered from lack of maintenance of collective<br /> irrigation systems and mechanical water pumping for urban use and modern agriculture, leading to declining<br />water tables and the drying up of wells, small rivers and other natural water sources. Photo (Morocco): Hein de Haa</span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">s </span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
So, what may <i>appear</i> to be migration caused by a lack of water resources, is in fact an environmental crisis caused by people. This shows that the links between climate change, environmental factors and migration are complex, defying simplistic reasoning according to which climate-change would 'lead' to migration. In fact, depending on circumstances, environmental stress can lead to more, or less migration.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Recycling the climate migration myth </em></strong><br />
<br />
For all these reasons, it is unlikely that climate change will ‘lead’ to large-scale international migration, let alone on the massive scale predicted. In some cases, this has already embarrassed the organisations putting out such claims. For instance, when the massive climate migrations predicted by UNEP in 2005 <a href="https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/feared-migration-hasn-t-happened-un-embarrassed-by-forecast-on-climate-refugees-a-757713.html#" target="_blank">failed to materialize </a>(in fact, populations turned out to be growing in the regions it identified as environmental danger zones), UNEP <a href="https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/feared-migration-hasn-t-happened-un-embarrassed-by-forecast-on-climate-refugees-a-757713.html#" target="_blank">distanced </a>itself from earlier wild claims and <a href="https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/feared-migration-hasn-t-happened-un-embarrassed-by-forecast-on-climate-refugees-a-757713.html#" target="_blank">deleted</a> their climate refugee map (see above) from their website.<br />
<br />
Although the assumptions and methodologies of studies on which such forecasts are highly problematic, why is this myth being persisted by international organization, researchers, climate activists and various pressure groups? The main explanation seems that doomsday scenarios of climate change leading to mass migration serves powerful political agendas both on the left and right.<br />
<br />
For left-wing groups, it serves to raise attention to the issue of climate change, and the urgency to address this. For right-wing groups, it serves to raise the specter of future mass migration, and the need to step up border to controls to prevent such an imagined deluge. For researchers and international organizations, the climate migration narrative seems to serves fundraising purposes.<br />
<br />
The climate refugee narrative therefore mainly serves to generate media attention. As argued by <a href="https://orbi.uliege.be/handle/2268/141894" target="_blank">Gemenne</a>, they organization recycling these myths abused the topic of climate change and migration to give a ‘human face to climate change’.
Urging governments to ‘do something’, NGOs and international organizations use alarmist rhetoric about impending mass migrations. In this way, they turn climate change into a security topic.<br />
<br />
<strong></strong><br />
<strong><em>Blaming the climate: depoliticizing displacement</em></strong><br />
<br />
By drawing a simplistic, direct causal link between climate change and migration, the ‘climate refugee’ narrative also depoliticizes the migration of vulnerable people. 'Depoliticization' refers to strategies to remove the political dimension from a social issue. Political issues affect the vulnerability of people and their resilience to cope with environmental and other stresses.<br />
<br />
For instance, poverty, poor housing and weak governmental services explain why the damage and the number of people injured and dying is much higher when a hurricane hits a poor country like Haiti compared to the damage inflict by similar hurricanes in a much wealthier countries like the US. And, as shown by the example of hurricane Katrina, poor people are much more likely to lose their homes, to get injured, or to die during such extreme events.<br />
<br />
Politicians often depoliticize social issues by shifting the blame to environmental or climatic factors ‘beyond their control’. For instance, in Morocco politicians and bureaucrats often invoke 'drought' and 'desertification’ to explain a whole range of perceived problems in rural areas, from low agrarian productivity, economic stagnation to rural-to-urban migration.
Crisis narratives of climate change and desertification have been invoked to justify policies that have <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718504001150" target="_blank">marginalized nomadic groups and forced them to settle down</a>.<br />
<br />
It can be convenient for governments to use ‘the climate’ as an excuse to displace people, for instance in the case of discourses around sea level rise in Pacific islands. In a recent <a href="https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/geoj.12032" target="_blank">article</a>, Uma Kothari, a professor of migration studies at the University of Manchester, showed how the government of the Maldives has recycled older, highly controversial, proposals for the resettlement of its population dispersed over 200 islands onto 10–15 islands. The main motive has always been economic, because the government finds it too costly to provide services and resources to dispersed populations. However, in recent years the same ideas are gaining renewed leverage by being couched in environmental and ‘sea level rise’ terms. <br />
<br />
<strong></strong><br />
<strong><em>Rising seas or sinking lands? </em></strong><br />
<br />
In fact, the main immediate cause of increased flooding risk in coastal cities and deltas is land subsidence, which is mainly a consequence of groundwater extraction for cities, irrigation and industry. This highlights the political causes of most environmental hazards, which climate migration narratives try to conceal.<br />
<br />
For instance, a recent <a href="https://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article/6/4/711/786" target="_blank">study</a> indicated that in Jakarta, recent rates of land subsidence in some coastal parts of have estimated at levels up to 15 cm per year, against an average sea level rise of around 2 mm per year. In the same vein, the construction of houses, hotels, industries and roads are generally the most direct cause of coastal erosion in the Pacific and many other areas of the world. This also questions the popular 'sinking islands' narrative.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3Op_pT8zMeA/XiriH6iBrWI/AAAAAAAACVY/jLXtfa3lAcIiw5BhXK2IefkDDTrkruv9ACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Picture1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="478" data-original-width="751" height="252" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3Op_pT8zMeA/XiriH6iBrWI/AAAAAAAACVY/jLXtfa3lAcIiw5BhXK2IefkDDTrkruv9ACLcBGAsYHQ/s400/Picture1.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Estimated rates of land subsidence and sea level rise in Jakarta 1989-2025. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Source: Jeuken et al. (2015) Lessons learnt from adaptation planning in four deltas and coastal cities.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"> <em><em>Journal of Water and Climate Change</em></em> 6 (4): 711–728 </span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<strong><em>The political roots of displacement </em></strong><br />
<br />
There is often a wide gap between dominant media images of 'climate refugees' and the reality on the ground. Political and social issues are the main cause of environmental crises, and a focus on ‘climate’ not only ignores the facts but also diverts the attention away from governments’ responsibility to address these issues and to increase people's resilience to environmental adversity.<br />
<br />
If people are displaced or die as a result of natural disaster, this is not just the direct consequence of the disaster, but also reflects the inability of governments to help people to cope with such stresses, such as by building flood defenses, timely evacuation efforts and building regulations.<br />
<br />
A simplistic view of the relation between environmental factors and migration distracts the attention away from the political causes of much displacement. In fact, apart from conflicts and persecution, development projects (such as dams, mining, airports, industrial areas and middle-class housing complexes) and wildlife conservation are a major cause of displacement. Development-induced displacement is the largest single form of forced migration, leading to the internal displacement of an <a href="https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/0-8213-4444-7" target="_blank">estimated</a> 10–15 million people per year, mainly affecting vulnerable groups such as slum dwellers, the urban poor in general, indigenous peoples, and other ethnic minorities.<br />
<br />
Climate change mitigation can become a cause of displacement in itself. In China, hydropower, irrigation and water transfer projects are an integral part of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies, but also <a href="https://search.alexanderstreet.com/preview/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cbibliographic_details%7C3929227" target="_blank">displace a large number of people</a>. Ironically, wildlife conservation and other environmental protection projects are <a href="https://search.alexanderstreet.com/preview/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cbibliographic_details%7C3929227" target="_blank">estimated </a>to prompt the displacement – or forced settlement in case of herders ('pastoralists') and nomadic people – and the loss of land and property for hundreds of thousand of people each year.
<br />
<br />
Displacees tend to be among the most vulnerable people, unable to defend themselves
and they often get barely compensated for the loss of livelihood. These examples expose the importance to remain aware of the deployment of categories, concepts and discourses by political actors that serve to try to conceal the political causes of environmental hazards and people's vulnerability.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Being right for the wrong reasons</em></strong><br />
<br />
By deploying alarmist rhetoric around future waves of ‘climate refugees’, media, politicians, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), humanitarian organizations and also researchers have turned climate change into an immediate security threat linked to migration. This ignores evidence showing that climate change is unlikely to cause mass migration. It also overlooks the fact that the implications of environmental adversity are most severe for the most vulnerable populations who may even lack the means to move out. It also draws the attention away from the political causes of most environmental hazards and displacement.<br />
<br />
To be sure: the absence of the displaced millions predicted by climate migration fearmongers is by no means a reason for complacency. The forecasted acceleration of climate change is likely to have severe effects on production, livelihoods and human security and the overall stability of planetary ecosystems. Climate change will create serious challenges for humanity.<br />
<br />
However, using the specter of mass migration to make the case for urgent action on reducing CO2 emissions is an example of ‘being right for the wrong reason’, which is not only intellectually dishonest, but can also put the credibility of organizations using this argument seriously at risk.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">* This text partly draws on excerpts from Chapter 2 of the sixth edition of <em><a href="https://www.macmillanihe.com/page/detail/the-age-of-migration/?k=9781352007121&loc=uk&priceCode=uk" target="_blank">The Age of Migration</a></em>, a textbook on migration published with Red Globe Press in 2020, see age-of-migration.com. </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://age-of-migration.com/" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="1101" data-original-width="770" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fadjiqQs4rk/XjL6clPO5GI/AAAAAAAACWI/l9xsOC056AEVKlaSRnsyR3UPmvBKhF4zgCLcBGAsYHQ/s200/The%2BAge%2Bof%2BMigration%2B-%2Bcover%2B.jpg" width="138" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
</div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-70189326589114929222017-03-29T13:10:00.001+01:002017-03-29T13:10:24.516+01:00Myths of migration: Much of what we think we know is wrong<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b>The debate over migration is plagued by a variety of inaccuracies and misunderstandings - on both the right and the left. Here is what the research really shows.</b><br />
<br />
Migration was the issue of the year in 2016 and it will likely remain important in 2017. The topic is, however, just as hotly debated as it is poorly understood. The so-called "refugee crisis" in Europe and the omnipresent images of overfilled boats arriving on Mediterranean shores give the impression that migration is threatening to spin out of control and that radical action is needed to curtail the uncontrollable influx of migrants. The fear of mass migration has fueled the rise of extreme nationalist parties throughout Europe and helped Donald Trump win the presidential election in the U.S.<br />
<br />
This call for tougher migration policies is juxtaposed by another, albeit somewhat weaker, opinion voiced by the business sector, human rights and religious organizations and left-liberal parties. They argue that migration tends to be beneficial for both origin and destination societies, and that we should not see refugees as a burden but as a potential resource.<br />
<br />
But in this polarized debate, the rather more sobering facts unfortunately get lost. Both the left-wing and right-wing narratives on migration are rooted in a series of myths that reveal a striking lack of knowledge about the nature, causes and consequences of migration processes. This text examines eight of the myths that I have often encountered in my research.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>1. No, closed borders do not automatically lead to less migration</b><br />
<br />
It isn't quite as easy as simply slamming the door shut. Migration restrictions can have several unintended side-effects which may undermine their effectiveness. First, restrictions can compel migrants to find other legal or illegal channels - the use of family reunification channels by de facto economic migrants, for example. Second, strict border controls often divert migration flows through other terrestrial and maritime routes, thereby increasing the market for smugglers. Third, restrictions can lead to surges of "now-or-never" migration. When Suriname became independent from the Netherlands in 1975, for example, about 40 percent of its population migrated to Holland before visas were introduced.
<br />
<br />
Finally, restrictions tend to interrupt circulation and push migrants into permanent settlement. This is what happened, for instance, with the so-called "guest-workers" in the 1970s and '80s. Fearful that they would not be able to re-immigrate after a temporary return home, many opted for permanent settlement. Prior to 1991, when movement was free, many Moroccans travelled back-and-forth to Spain as seasonal and temporary workers, but the introduction of visa requirements in 1991, as a consequence of the Schengen Agreement, set in motion the phenomenon of illegal boat migration and triggered permanent settlement of Moroccan laborers in Spain. They, in turn, brought over their families, leading to the rapid growth of the Moroccan population in the country to over 700,000.
<br />
<br />
This does not mean that governments cannot or should not control migration. It rather shows that liberal immigration policies do not necessarily lead to mass migration and that ill-conceived migration policies can be counterproductive. Free migration is often strongly circulatory, as we see with migration within the EU. The more restrictive entry policies are, the more migrants want to stay. Such unintended effects create fundamental dilemmas for policymakers.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>2. No, migration policies have not failed</b><br />
<br />
Significant media attention on persistent boat migration and irregular border crossings have created a distorted and misleading image that migration policies are "broken" and borders are beyond control. The intense focus on the "refugee crisis" has hidden the fact that most migration policies are, in fact, quite effective. After all, the large majority of migrants - according to best available estimates, at least nine out of 10 - enter Europe legally, defying the idea of that migration is "out of control." As such, illegal migration is a relatively limited phenomenon. Periods of extremely high refugee migration, such as in 2015 or in the 1990s during the Balkan conflicts, are more the exception than the rule and tend not to last.<br />
<br />
Immigration is not a flow that can be turned on and off like a tap. Modern immigration policies aim to influence the selection and timing of migration rather than volumes of migration. We do, however, often overestimate what migration policies can achieve. This is because migration is driven by processes of economic development and social change - both in origin and destination societies - that lie beyond the reach of migration policies.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8KJqVSsDOgo/WNuWSGUheAI/AAAAAAAAAjQ/1ta9oNJxiM4p4WzEG24csZDsZl-iH_aggCLcB/s1600/Screenshot%2B2017-03-29%2B13.10.37.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="277" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8KJqVSsDOgo/WNuWSGUheAI/AAAAAAAAAjQ/1ta9oNJxiM4p4WzEG24csZDsZl-iH_aggCLcB/s400/Screenshot%2B2017-03-29%2B13.10.37.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
In most European countries, for instance, immigration levels tend to strongly correlate with business cycles (see the graph for the German case). In times of strong economic growth, more migrants are likely to find jobs and thus obtain work permits. Economic migration is strongly driven by labor demand, defying popular ideas that it is an uncontrolled phenomenon largely driven by poverty and violence in origin countries.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>3. No, migration policies have not become more restrictive</b><br />
<br />
This is what politicians may want us to believe, but the reality is more nuanced. For a recent <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/imre.12288/asset/imre12288.pdf?v=1&t=j0uvltgs&s=18b12add7026004aea181ac966a5ce091c3c21e9">study we conducted at the University of Oxford</a>, we examined 6,500 migration laws in 45 countries between 1945 and 2010. We concluded that immigration policies have become more liberal for most migrant groups over the past decades. In Germany for instance, some 61 percent of all relevant regulations passed since 1945 had an alleviating effect, with 35 percent of a more restrictive nature and 4 percent neutral.
<br />
<br />
The main exception to this rule are the eye-catching border controls and visa policies aimed at preventing asylum seekers and irregular migrants from entering European territory. These groups, however, only represent a minority of all immigrants. If we look at long-term trends in admission policies, most other migrant groups - including labor migrants, families and students - have been increasingly welcomed. Just 20 years ago, German and Dutch politicians frequently claimed that their countries were not "countries of immigration." Today, such voices have become the exception or have been relegated to the right-wing fringe. That too is an indication that migration has become increasingly accepted, despite rhetoric suggesting the contrary.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>4. No, development aid in origin countries does not prevent migration</b><br />
<br />
Many governments as well as development organisations see development aid as a tool to reduce migration. This view is based on the misleading idea that poverty and violence are the main drivers of south-north migration. In reality, however, development initially leads to increasing levels of emigration.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YF3sWe4mkvE/WNuaDHF-UHI/AAAAAAAAAjc/XPafdvEECJ8EjTjih39g2Hthww6ttbZPQCLcB/s1600/170328%2BHuman%2Bdevelopment%2Band%2Bmigration.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="215" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YF3sWe4mkvE/WNuaDHF-UHI/AAAAAAAAAjc/XPafdvEECJ8EjTjih39g2Hthww6ttbZPQCLcB/s400/170328%2BHuman%2Bdevelopment%2Band%2Bmigration.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Confirming this "migration paradox," research has confirmed that the poorest countries exhibit a much lower level of emigration than more developed nations. Migration, after all, requires significant resources. Extreme poverty immobilizes people - they get trapped because they cannot afford to leave their homeland. This is also why the idea that climate change will lead to mass migration to the West is unrealistic. Adverse environmental change <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-global-environmental-change-future-challenges-and-opportunities">can increase aspirations to move, but it can also limit the capacity to do so</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/publications/wp-24-10/@@download/file">Economic growth and improved education typically increase people's capacities and aspirations to migrate.</a> It is therefore no coincidence that prominent emigration countries such as Mexico, Morocco and Turkey are middle-income countries. Development in the poorest countries, for instance in sub-Saharan Africa, will almost inevitably lead to more migration from those countries. Therefore, future immigrants in Europe might increasingly come from sub-Saharan Africa instead of Turkey and North Africa.
<br />
<br />
<b>5. No, migration doesn't lead to "brain drain"</b><br />
<br />
One oft-repeated argument holds that emigration causes "brain drain" - the departure of those with higher levels of education - thus undermining the development potential for origin countries. In this case, too, levels of emigration are generally simply too low to have such an effect. <a href="https://www.cgdev.org/blog/why-its-time-drop-brain-drain-refrain">Research </a>has shown that it would generally be unreasonable to blame migration - the departure of doctors, for example - for structural development problems such as inadequate health-care facilities in rural areas.<br />
<br />
Second, many developing countries face increasing levels of unemployment among university graduates.
<br />
<br />
Third, the "brain drain" argument ignores the fact that migrants often invest significant amounts of money in their countries of origin. In 2015, migrants from developing countries sent some $410 billion back home, and that is just the officially recorded remittances. The amount is well more than 2.5 times the global total of development aid that same year ($161 billion).
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GEUs5BvXd78/WNudz1Ix0DI/AAAAAAAAAjo/BY-5EbQJhP0N-W01XEhUR9xeiGcKs_4RgCLcB/s1600/Screenshot%2B2017-03-29%2B13.42.59.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="233" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GEUs5BvXd78/WNudz1Ix0DI/AAAAAAAAAjo/BY-5EbQJhP0N-W01XEhUR9xeiGcKs_4RgCLcB/s400/Screenshot%2B2017-03-29%2B13.42.59.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Such remittances improve living standards and decrease poverty levels for families and communities in origin countries. At the same time, however, it would be erroneous to believe that migrants can solve fundamental development problems such as corruption and inequality.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>6. No, migrants don't steal jobs, nor do they undermine the welfare state</b><br />
<br />
Research shows that most migrants do jobs that local populations shun or for which they lack the skills. Furthermore, several studies indicate that while migration's effect on economic growth tends to be positive, it is rather small.
<br />
<br />
Also, claims that highly developed welfare systems, such as those that exist in Germany and the Netherlands, attract more migrants than countries with a less generous social net like the United Kingdom or the U.S., have likewise never been proven.
<br />
<br />
Studies do show, however, that it is predominantly businesses, the wealthy and the upper-middle classes who benefit from migration - apart from the migrants themselves. Lower income earners have generally much less to gain, or may in some cases lose out while, ironically, ex-migrants have the most to fear from new immigrants in terms of job competition. Advocates of open borders often ignore this potential for migration to increase inequality.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>7. No, migration cannot solve the problems associated with an aging society</b><br />
<br />
The magnitude of migration is far too low to offset the effects of population aging. A <a href="http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/execsum.pdf">United Nations study</a> has shown that, to achieve such a result, levels of migration would have to reach levels that are both undesirable and unrealistic. In order to counter its aging population, this study found that Germany, for example, would require net immigration of 3.5 million people per year - 12 times higher than the annual average of 280,000 from the years 1991 to 2015.
<br />
<br />
Furthermore, this argument ignores that population aging is becoming a worldwide phenomenon, and that aging societies such as China have started to become international migration destinations in their own right. The future question might therefore not be so much how to prevent migrants from coming, but how to attract them.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>8. No, we aren't living in an era of unprecedented migration</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
And finally, a look at the broader picture. For over half a century, the number of migrants as a percentage of the world population has remained <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/imre.12095/abstract">remarkably constant</a> at levels of roughly 3 percent since 1960. Even as the number of international migrants has increased from 93 million in 1960 to 244 million in 2015, the global population has increased at approximately the same rate, from 3 billion to almost 7.3 billion.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WUGunCo98OE/WNufImarMBI/AAAAAAAAAj4/rjDyzoz6rLwEbGTdUjQ7AFSYQKz-R3FMACLcB/s1600/Screenshot%2B2017-03-29%2B13.48.33.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="251" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WUGunCo98OE/WNufImarMBI/AAAAAAAAAj4/rjDyzoz6rLwEbGTdUjQ7AFSYQKz-R3FMACLcB/s400/Screenshot%2B2017-03-29%2B13.48.33.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
The idea of a global "refugee crisis" likewise <a href="https://www.cgdev.org/blog/europes-refugee-crisis-not-big-youve-heard-and-not-without-recent-precedent">has no basis in fact</a>. On a global scale, refugees <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.nl/2016/08/refugees-small-and-relatively-stable.html">represent a relatively small share of all migrants</a>. While the number of refugees decreased from 18.5 million to 16.3 million between 1990 and 2010, the total rebounded to 21.3 million in 2016, primarily as a result of war in Syria. Still, refugees only represent between 7 and 8 percent of the global migrant population, and about 86 percent of all refugees live in developing countries.
<br />
<br />
Countries such as Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, Ethiopia and Jordan currently host the largest refugee populations. Western societies, by contrast, receive a comparatively low number of refugees, and <a href="https://www.cgdev.org/blog/europes-refugee-crisis-not-big-youve-heard-and-not-without-recent-precedent">current numbers are anything but unprecedented</a>. Currently, about 0.4 percent of the total EU population is a refugee. That figure hovered around 0.5 percent between 1992 and 1995.
<br />
<br />
The main change in global migration patterns has been the dominant direction of population movements. Whereas in past centuries, it was mainly Europeans who migrated to foreign territories (or conquered them), this pattern has been reversed since World War II.
<br />
<br />
With its strong economy and aging population, the EU has emerged as a global migration destination, attracting between 1.5 and 2.5 million non-EU migrants per year. Although this sounds significant, it corresponds to between 0.3 and 0.5 percent of the EU's total population of 508 million.
<br />
<br />
Furthermore, between 1 million and 1.5 million people leave the EU every year. Net migration in European countries like France and Germany tends to fluctuate, as illustrated above, in parallel to business cycles, but the long-term trend does not show an increase.
<br />
<br />
There is an urgent need to see migration as an intrinsic part of economic growth and societal change instead of primarily as a problem that must be solved. It is inevitable that open and wealthy societies will experience substantial immigration in the future as well, whether they like it or not.
<br />
<br />
This exposes one of the paradoxes of liberalization: The political desire for less migration is fundamentally incompatible with the trend towards economic liberalization and the desire to maximize economic growth. The erosion of labor rights, the rise of flexible work and the privatization of formerly state-owned companies in recent decades have significantly increased the demand for migrant labor in Europe. The heated migration debates in Britain and the U.S. - both strongly liberalized market economies facing persistently high levels of immigration - are powerful illustrations of this liberalization paradox.
<br />
<br />
As such, the only way to really cut down on immigration seems that of reversing economic liberalization and strictly regulating labor markets. That, though, could also decrease levels of wealth across the board. The question then becomes: Is that really what we want?
<br />
<br />
<i>Hein de Haas is a professor of sociology at the <a href="http://aissr.uva.nl/research/research-groups/content/political-sociology/externally-funded-projects/externally-funded-projects/externally-funded-projects/content/folder/migration-as-development.html">University of Amsterdam</a>. He was a founding member and former co-director of the International Migration Institute (IMI) at the University of Oxford. For more information on research findings underpinning this article, see <a href="http://www.heindehaas.org/">www.heindehaas.org</a> and <a href="http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/">www.imi.ox.ac.uk</a></i><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This article is an edited version of an article originally published in German in Der Spiegel under the title <i><a href="https://heindehaas.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/der_spiegel_essay_migration.pdf">Mythen der Migration</a> </i>and in English under the title <i><a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/eight-myths-about-migration-and-refugees-explained-a-1138053.html">Myths of Migration</a>.</i></span><br />
<br /></div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-51286802936000749572016-12-16T14:33:00.000+00:002016-12-16T14:42:41.157+00:00There is no 'silver bullet' migration policy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
By <b>Katharina Natter</b> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
Intensified border controls and development cooperation have become the pillars of European immigration policy over the last decades. Yet, the consequences of these policies are often wrongly assessed - in part because discussions about migration and ‘how the problem can be solved’ are often disconnected from analyses of wider social changes.<br />
<br />
Recent scientific insights can provide a useful orientation in those debates and explain why development cooperation can only be a long-term strategy to reduce emigration; why more border controls paradoxically lead to more irregular migration; and why migration policies can only be effective if they are coherent with structural developments and wider policy goals in origin and destination countries.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Migration and development - a complex interplay </b></i><br />
<br />
One credo of today’s migration policies is that development cooperation reduces emigration. Yet, this is only partly true. As <a href="http://www.sussex.ac.uk/profiles/117619">Ronald Skeldon</a> (Sussex University) has shown in his studies on Asia and Latin America since the 1990s, development generally boosts emigration. This is because rising incomes, higher education levels, as well as improved transportation and communication infrastructures increase both people’s aspirations to migrate as well as their capabilities to realize them.<br />
<br />
First insights from the <a href="http://aissr.uva.nl/research/externally-funded-projects/content/recent/migration-as-development.html">Migration as Development</a> (MADE) research project at the University of Amsterdam also show that globalization has in the first place accelerated emigration over the past decades, as in the case of migration from Ethiopia to the Gulf States or from Morocco to Europe. This also explains why the countries with the highest emigration rates worldwide are neither the poorest nor the richest countries, but those with intermediate development levels - such as Mexico or the Philippines.<br />
<br />
Only at a relatively high development level does further development reduce emigration. The evolution of Italian and Spanish migration patterns since the 1980s are powerful examples of this transformation from emigration to immigration country. In <a href="http://www.cgdev.org/publication/does-development-reduce-migration-working-paper-359">a 2014 study</a>, the economist Michael Clemens has identified this tipping point at an average income per capita between USD 7000 and USD 8000 per year. But he also highlights that the exact level of this tipping point highly depends on the respective national socio-political context.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless: The fact that average per capita incomes are still well below that threshold in most Asian or African countries, apart from those rich in natural resources, suggests that development cooperation can only be a very long-term strategy to counter emigration, at best taking several decades or generations. In the short run, development is more likely to boost emigration from such countries.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>Intensifying border controls - a dangerous spiral </i></b><br />
<br />
But migration policy decision makers do usually not take into consideration these complex dynamics. The result of this widening gap between the reality of migration patterns and migration regulations is irregular migration. A widespread and in the very short term often successful answer to irregular migration is the intensification of border controls - through the construction of walls, the deployment of police and military, or simply through more red tape. The closure of the ‘Balkan Route’ starting in October 2015 at the border between Hungary and Serbia is only one example of this logic.<br />
<br />
Yet, this does not prevent migrants and especially refugees from countries like Syria, Eritrea or Iraq from trying to reach Europe - they now only choose longer, more expensive, more dangerous and also deadlier routes. One result of this situation is the growing number of deaths in the Mediterranean Sea - the International Organization for Migration counted 2905 deaths between January and June 2016, nearly twice as many as in the first six months of 2015 and four times as many as in 2014 over the same period. By mid-December 2016, this number has further risen to 4742 deaths.<br />
<br />
Paradoxically, rather than achieving its proclaimed aim of ‘combatting’ smuggling networks, increased border controls result in their professionalization. And ironically, the most common response to this result is the further intensification of border controls. This creates a morally and financially counterproductive vicious circle in which border controls, irregular migration and smuggling reinforce each other.<br />
<br />
In his newest <a href="http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/684200">publication</a>, Douglas Massey (Princeton University) and his colleagues have indeed shown that the militarization of the US southern border has paradoxically increased the number of Mexican irregular migrants in the US: Three decades of data from the Mexican Migration Project provide strong evidence that tougher US border controls have pushed Mexican migrants to change their migration patterns - from commuting seasonally between the US and Mexico into permanently settling in the US.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>When is migration policy effective? </i></b><br />
<br />
Given the intrinsic link between migration patterns and the broader social, economic and political context within which they evolve, specific migration policy measures have only very little leverage on their own - especially when they go against structural developments in origin and destination countries or contradict the goals of other policy areas such as trade, labor market or foreign policy.<br />
<br />
Thus, the growing arms exports of European countries over the past years are only difficult to reconcile with the declared aim to reduce the number of asylum seekers or to ‘tackle the root causes of migration’. Also, it is illusory to expect that specific migration policy measures can counter the migration effects of macro processes such as economic liberalization or demographic transitions - be they a result of the continuously high birth rates in sub-Sahara Africa or of the shrinking generations entering labor markets in Europe and elsewhere.<br />
<br />
This does however not mean that states have no room for manoeuvre in shaping international migration. The <a href="https://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/completed-projects/demig">Determinants of International Migration</a> (DEMIG) project (University of Oxford) has shown that migration policy can be effective in achieving its goals if there is a concertation between the goals of migration policy and the goals of other policy areas and if migration is understood as a structural part of the continuous transformations of destination and origin societies. This requires an understanding of migration not as a deviation from the norm, but as intrinsic to humanity.<br />
<br />
In the heated discussion about immigration and the policy measures to ‘solve the problem’, two facts are however often forgotten: First, for a long time, Europe was the continent of emigration par excellence, be it in the context of colonization or as a result of wars, persecution, economic hardship and poverty. Only since the 1960s has Europe become a destination for migrants from all over the world, partly as a consequence of active state recruitment policies, partly as a result of its economic prosperity and attractive socio-political conditions characterized by peace and the rule of law.
<br />
<br />
Second, while public and media attention is almost exclusively directed to irregular border crossings, the most recent, available data from Eurostat show that in 2014, 93 percent of all immigrants have entered the EU through regular channels. Even the important increase in irregular migration in 2015 and to a lesser extent in 2016 has not fundamentally changed this reality. Thus, amidst all the more or less valid criticisms, it seems that European migration policies have not failed to the extent often propagated in political und public debates.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>About the author:
<a href="http://www.uva.nl/en/disciplines/sociology/organisation/scientific-staff/phds/soca/soca/folder/n/a/k.natter/k.natter.html">Katharina Natter</a> has a Master in Comparative Political Science from SciencesPo Paris (2012) and worked on the <a href="https://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/completed-projects/demig">DEMIG</a> project at the <a href="http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/">International Migration Institute</a> (Oxford University) between April 2013 and June 2015. Since September 2015 she is doing her PhD in the framework of the MADE project at the University of Amsterdam, researching Moroccan and Tunisian immigration policies under supervision of Prof. Hein de Haas.
</i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><br /></i>Previously published in German in Der Standard, “<a href="http://derstandard.at/2000043204379/Migrationspolitik-Keine-eierlegende-Wollmilchsau">Migrationspolitik: Keine eierlegende Wollmilchsau</a>”, 25 August 2016
</span><i><br /></i></div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-75027996109794528712016-10-28T17:40:00.000+01:002016-10-29T12:58:07.642+01:00Migration Matters <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
While migration has become a political 'hot topic', public debates about migration have often remained remarkably fact-less. Thanks to the increase in migration research and availability of data, we know much more about the trends, causes and impacts of migration than a few decades ago. However, this knowledge does often not reach the broader public. This is highly unfortunate, since modern migration scholarship has so much to offer in order to facilitate informed debates and better, more effective policies.</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/heindehaas">@heindehaas</a> on his <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/migration?src=hash">#migration</a> journey via Holland & Morocco. Migration 101 launches soon, are you signed up? <a href="https://twitter.com/UvA_Amsterdam">@UvA_Amsterdam</a> <a href="https://t.co/V6Ts0TJjox">pic.twitter.com/V6Ts0TJjox</a></div>
— MigrationMatters (@MigrMatters) <a href="https://twitter.com/MigrMatters/status/791958677368340481">October 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
</div>
</div>
<div>
Part of the blame lies with politicians, who willingly ignore inconvenient evidence that would unveil their demagoguery and unnerve their migration scaremongering and scapegoating of migrants.<br />
<br />
All too often, the news media buy into - and thereby reinforce - the fact-free crisis narrative around migration fed to them by politicians. Many journalists fail in their basic professional duty of fact checking. A case in point is the <a href="https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder-criminologies/blog/2016/09/fact-check-did-eu">false political claim</a> that the EU-Turkey 'deal' on refugees has stopped refugee migration from Syria.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However, part of the blame also lies with migration researchers, who often fail to communicate their findings in clear, jargon-free language to the broader public, while research papers often remain inaccessible behind prohibitive paywalls of scientific journals. Much knowledge about migration therefore never leaves the academic ivory tower. <br />
<br />
This is why we should highly welcome <a href="http://migrationmatters.me/">Migration Matters</a>, a new initiative that aims to bridge the gap between evidence-based research and public debates. Migration Matters was founded in January 2016 by four women who are connected by their distinct backgrounds in journalism and academia yet common experiences of migration: <a href="https://about.me/julia.karmo">Julia Karmo</a>, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/sophia-katharina-burton-2ba75623">Sophia Burton</a>, <a href="https://de.linkedin.com/in/kelmariemiller">Kelly Miller</a>, and <a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/eribakova">Elina Ribakova</a>. It is entirely supported by individual donations and was recently awarded the Advocate Europe grant.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://migrationmatters.me/">Migration Matters</a> aims to address the public’s biggest conundrums and fears surrounding migration. This is to fulfil its ambition to approach the migration debate "as an open and evidence-based conversation, where no concern is ridiculed and no question dismissed".<br />
<div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
Migration Matters does so by offering free, video-based courses that break down commonly held preconceptions about migration and offer nuanced and solution-oriented perspectives from leading thinkers in the field: researchers, practitioners, as well as migrants and refugees themselves.<br />
<br />
Earlier this year, I had the honour of hosting the Migration Matters team at my home in the Amsterdam Bos & Lommer neighbourhood for the recording of a series of 10 short video lectures on various aspects of migration. These have been compiled in a "<a href="http://migrationmatters.me/course/migration-101/">Migration 101</a>" course. This introductory course hopefully gives a fundamental understanding of the realities surrounding today’s debate on migration. Other courses include '<a href="http://migrationmatters.me/course/six-ideas/">Six Impossible Ideas (after Brexit)</a>' by researchers of the London School of Economics (LSE) and '<a href="http://migrationmatters.me/course/migrants-view/">A Migrant's View</a>' by origin country expert <a href="http://samuelhall.org/sh-staff/nassim-majidi/">Nassim Majidi</a>, and many more are to follow.<br />
<br />
Subscribers to courses will receive one email a day over the duration of the course with a link to a 3-5 minute video as well as hand-picked reading lists for further learning.<br />
<br />
Given the political rhetoric about migration, the Migration Matters initiative comes at the best possible time. It is more important than ever that scientific knowledge about migration reaches the public. This is essential to enable more informed debates about migration and to see through the fear-based migration politics and reporting that fan the flames of xenophobia and do not provide any solutions.<br />
<br />
To sign up for Migration 101 with yours truly, click here:<br />
<script src="https://assets.convertkit.com/assets/CKJS4.js?v=21"></script>
<br />
<div class="ck_form_container ck_inline" data-ck-version="6">
<div class="ck_form ck_naked">
<div class="ck_form_fields">
<div id="ck_success_msg" style="display: none;">
Success! You are signed up to Migration 101 with Hein de Haas - a 10-part bite-sized course about why and how migration happens.
Now check your email to confirm your subscription!
</div>
<!-- Form starts here -->
<br />
<form action="https://app.convertkit.com/landing_pages/102798/subscribe" class="ck_subscribe_form" data-remote="true" id="ck_subscribe_form">
<input id="ck_form_options" type="hidden" value="{"form_style":"naked","embed_style":"inline","embed_trigger":"scroll_percentage","scroll_percentage":"70","delay_seconds":"10","display_position":"br","display_devices":"all","days_no_show":"15","converted_behavior":"show"}" />
<input id="landing_page_id" name="id" type="hidden" value="102798" />
<br />
<div class="ck_errorArea">
<div id="ck_error_msg" style="display: none;">
There was an error submitting your subscription. Please try again.</div>
</div>
<div class="ck_control_group ck_email_field_group">
<label class="ck_label" for="ck_emailField" style="display: none;">Email Address</label>
<input class="ck_first_name" id="ck_firstNameField" name="first_name" placeholder="First Name" type="text" />
<input class="ck_email_address" id="ck_emailField" name="email" placeholder="Email Address" required="" type="email" />
</div>
<div class="ck_control_group ck_captcha2_h_field_group ck-captcha2-h" style="left: -999em; position: absolute;">
<input class="ck-captcha2-h" id="ck_captcha2_h" name="captcha2_h" placeholder="We use this field to detect spam bots. If you fill this in, you will be marked as a spammer." type="text" />
</div>
<button class="subscribe_button ck_subscribe_button btn fields" id="ck_subscribe_button">
Subscribe
</button>
</form>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<style type="text/css">/* Layout */
.ck_form.ck_naked {
/* divider image */
background: transparent;
line-height: 1.5em;
overflow: hidden;
color: #666;
font-size: 16px;
border: none;
-webkit-box-shadow: none;
-moz-box-shadow: none;
box-shadow: none;
clear: both;
margin: 20px 0px;
text-align: center;
}
.ck_form.ck_naked p {
padding: 0px;
}
.ck_form, .ck_form * {
-webkit-box-sizing: border-box;
-moz-box-sizing: border-box;
box-sizing: border-box;
}
.ck_form.ck_naked .ck_form_fields {
width: 100%;
float: left;
padding: 5%;
}
/* Form fields */
.ck_errorArea {
display: none; /* temporary */
}
#ck_success_msg {
padding: 10px 10px 0px;
border: solid 1px #ddd;
background: #eee;
}
.ck_form.ck_naked input[type="text"], .ck_form.ck_naked input[type="email"] {
font-size: 18px;
padding: 10px 8px;
width: 34%;
border: 1px solid #d6d6d6; /* stroke */
-moz-border-radius: 0px;
-webkit-border-radius: 0px;
border-radius: 0px; /* border radius */
background-color: #fff; /* layer fill content */
margin-bottom: 5px;
height: auto;
float: left;
margin: 0px;
margin-right: 1%;
height: 42px;
}
.ck_form input[type="text"]:focus, .ck_form input[type="email"]:focus {
outline: none;
border-color: #aaa;
}
.ck_form.ck_naked .ck_subscribe_button {
width: 100%;
color: #fff;
margin: 0px;
padding: 9px 0px;
font-size: 18px;
background: #009999;
-moz-border-radius: 0px;
-webkit-border-radius: 0px;
border-radius: 0px; /* border radius */
cursor: pointer;
border: none;
text-shadow: none;
width: 30%;
float: left;
height: 42px;
}
.ck_converted_content {
display: none;
padding: 5%;
background: #fff;
}
/* max width 500 */
.ck_form.ck_naked.width500 .ck_subscribe_button {
width: 100%;
float: none;
margin-top: 5px;
}
.ck_form.ck_naked.width500 input[type="text"], .ck_form.ck_naked.width500 input[type="email"] {
width: 49%;
}
.ck_form.ck_naked.width500 input[type="email"] {
margin-right: 0px;
width: 50%;
}
/* max width 400 */
.ck_form.ck_naked.width400 .ck_subscribe_button, .ck_form.ck_naked.width400 input[type="text"], .ck_form.ck_naked.width400 input[type="email"] {
width: 100%;
float: none;
margin-top: 5px;
}
.ck_slide_up, .ck_modal, .ck_slide_up .ck_naked, .ck_modal .ck_naked {
min-width: 400px;
}
.page .ck_form.ck_naked {
margin: 50px auto;
max-width: 700px;
}
/* v6 */
.ck_slide_up.ck_form_v6, .ck_modal.ck_form_v6, .ck_slide_up.ck_form_v6 .ck_naked, .ck_modal.ck_form_v6 .ck_naked {
min-width: 0 !important;
}
.ck_form_v6 #ck_success_msg {
padding: 0px 10px;
}
@media all and (max-width: 403px) {
.ck_form_v6.ck_modal .ck_naked {
padding-top: 30px;
}
}
@media all and (max-width: 499px) {
.ck_form_v6.ck_modal .ck_naked + .ck_close_link {
color: #fff;
top: 10px;
}
}
.ck_form_v6.ck_slide_up .ck_naked + .ck_close_link {
right: 10px;
top: -5px;
}
@media all and (min-width: 600px) {
.ck_form_v6.ck_slide_up .ck_naked + .ck_close_link {
right: 35px;
}
}
.ck_first_name_field_group {display:none;}
</style>
<br />
Subscribe to the Migration Matters newsletter to receive more information about courses and opportunities to donate: </div>
</div>
<div class="ck_form_container ck_inline" data-ck-version="6">
<div class="ck_form ck_naked">
<div class="ck_form_fields">
<div id="ck_success_msg" style="display: none;">
Thanks for signing up for our newsletter. We will notify you when we launch new courses, surveys, and quizzes. To take a specific course with us, make sure to sign up through our website.
Now check your email to confirm your subscription.</div>
<!-- Form starts here -->
<br />
<form action="https://app.convertkit.com/landing_pages/104727/subscribe" class="ck_subscribe_form" data-remote="true" id="ck_subscribe_form">
<input id="ck_form_options" type="hidden" value="{"form_style":"naked","embed_style":"inline","embed_trigger":"scroll_percentage","scroll_percentage":"70","delay_seconds":"10","display_position":"br","display_devices":"all","days_no_show":"15","converted_behavior":"show"}" />
<input id="landing_page_id" name="id" type="hidden" value="104727" />
<br />
<div class="ck_errorArea">
<div id="ck_error_msg" style="display: none;">
There was an error submitting your subscription. Please try again.</div>
</div>
<div class="ck_control_group ck_email_field_group">
<label class="ck_label" for="ck_emailField" style="display: none;">Email Address</label>
<input class="ck_first_name" id="ck_firstNameField" name="first_name" placeholder="First Name" type="text" />
<input class="ck_email_address" id="ck_emailField" name="email" placeholder="Email Address" required="" type="email" />
</div>
<div class="ck_control_group ck_captcha2_h_field_group ck-captcha2-h" style="left: -999em; position: absolute;">
<input class="ck-captcha2-h" id="ck_captcha2_h" name="captcha2_h" placeholder="We use this field to detect spam bots. If you fill this in, you will be marked as a spammer." type="text" />
</div>
<button class="subscribe_button ck_subscribe_button btn fields" id="ck_subscribe_button">
Newsletter
</button>
</form>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<style type="text/css">/* Layout */
.ck_form.ck_naked {
/* divider image */
background: transparent;
line-height: 1.5em;
overflow: hidden;
color: #666;
font-size: 16px;
border: none;
-webkit-box-shadow: none;
-moz-box-shadow: none;
box-shadow: none;
clear: both;
margin: 20px 0px;
text-align: center;
}
.ck_form.ck_naked p {
padding: 0px;
}
.ck_form, .ck_form * {
-webkit-box-sizing: border-box;
-moz-box-sizing: border-box;
box-sizing: border-box;
}
.ck_form.ck_naked .ck_form_fields {
width: 100%;
float: left;
padding: 5%;
}
/* Form fields */
.ck_errorArea {
display: none; /* temporary */
}
#ck_success_msg {
padding: 10px 10px 0px;
border: solid 1px #ddd;
background: #eee;
}
.ck_form.ck_naked input[type="text"], .ck_form.ck_naked input[type="email"] {
font-size: 18px;
padding: 10px 8px;
width: 34%;
border: 1px solid #d6d6d6; /* stroke */
-moz-border-radius: 0px;
-webkit-border-radius: 0px;
border-radius: 0px; /* border radius */
background-color: #fff; /* layer fill content */
margin-bottom: 5px;
height: auto;
float: left;
margin: 0px;
margin-right: 1%;
height: 42px;
}
.ck_form input[type="text"]:focus, .ck_form input[type="email"]:focus {
outline: none;
border-color: #aaa;
}
.ck_form.ck_naked .ck_subscribe_button {
width: 100%;
color: #fff;
margin: 0px;
padding: 9px 0px;
font-size: 18px;
background: #0d6db8;
-moz-border-radius: 0px;
-webkit-border-radius: 0px;
border-radius: 0px; /* border radius */
cursor: pointer;
border: none;
text-shadow: none;
width: 30%;
float: left;
height: 42px;
}
.ck_converted_content {
display: none;
padding: 5%;
background: #fff;
}
/* max width 500 */
.ck_form.ck_naked.width500 .ck_subscribe_button {
width: 100%;
float: none;
margin-top: 5px;
}
.ck_form.ck_naked.width500 input[type="text"], .ck_form.ck_naked.width500 input[type="email"] {
width: 49%;
}
.ck_form.ck_naked.width500 input[type="email"] {
margin-right: 0px;
width: 50%;
}
/* max width 400 */
.ck_form.ck_naked.width400 .ck_subscribe_button, .ck_form.ck_naked.width400 input[type="text"], .ck_form.ck_naked.width400 input[type="email"] {
width: 100%;
float: none;
margin-top: 5px;
}
.ck_slide_up, .ck_modal, .ck_slide_up .ck_naked, .ck_modal .ck_naked {
min-width: 400px;
}
.page .ck_form.ck_naked {
margin: 50px auto;
max-width: 700px;
}
/* v6 */
.ck_slide_up.ck_form_v6, .ck_modal.ck_form_v6, .ck_slide_up.ck_form_v6 .ck_naked, .ck_modal.ck_form_v6 .ck_naked {
min-width: 0 !important;
}
.ck_form_v6 #ck_success_msg {
padding: 0px 10px;
}
@media all and (max-width: 403px) {
.ck_form_v6.ck_modal .ck_naked {
padding-top: 30px;
}
}
@media all and (max-width: 499px) {
.ck_form_v6.ck_modal .ck_naked + .ck_close_link {
color: #fff;
top: 10px;
}
}
.ck_form_v6.ck_slide_up .ck_naked + .ck_close_link {
right: 10px;
top: -5px;
}
@media all and (min-width: 600px) {
.ck_form_v6.ck_slide_up .ck_naked + .ck_close_link {
right: 35px;
}
}
.ck_first_name_field_group {display:none;}
</style>
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-64848880256143100002016-08-29T13:26:00.002+01:002016-09-05T00:08:45.485+01:00The case for border controls<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
Sovereign states have good reasons for controlling their borders. States are political communities with a need to define who is member, and who not. This is important to determine who is eligible to vote, who has to pay taxes, and who has access to public services such as education, health care, social security, and other social services.<br />
<br />
This is usually defined through citizenship, although there is a large grey zone between ‘unwanted foreigners’ and full citizenship. Immigration policies of modern states typically include ‘pathways’ to permanent residency and citizenship, in which permanent residents typically enjoy largely similar rights to citizens, except for the right to vote (at least in national elections).<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xsmIt9TVkbE/Vpz0r1NG0oI/AAAAAAAAAZE/HcZkMM2nBwA/s1600/Screenshot%2B2016-01-18%2B15.19.57.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xsmIt9TVkbE/Vpz0r1NG0oI/AAAAAAAAAZE/HcZkMM2nBwA/s400/Screenshot%2B2016-01-18%2B15.19.57.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div class="page" title="Page 37">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<span style="color: #817f78; font-family: "minionpro"; font-size: 7pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: 600;">Young men near
Mosquée Hassan
II, Casablanca,
Morocco, February
2012 © Dominique
Jolivet </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
It would therefore be foolish to argue that countries should just 'open their borders' by allowing everybody to immigrate and settle. Modern (welfare) states have an inbuilt need to define who is member and, hence, who has the right to work and who can use public amenities and social services. This creates an intrinsic need for immigration policies, which define who has the right to enter, stay, settle and eventually acquire citizenship. There is nothing inherently immoral about this.<br />
<br />
It is thus a legitimate right of sovereign states to control their borders. To achieve this, modern states have designed sophisticated immigration rules that use elaborate criteria such as nationality, age, diplomas, marital status and wealth to grant or refuse people the right to enter and settle.<br />
<br />
Contrary to what many people think, states have generally been rather effective in regulating migration. Although media images of migrants scaling fences or crossing the sea in rickety boats may give the impression that borders are ‘beyond control’, the fact is that the vast majority of migrants abide by the rules. With some exceptions, irregular migrants form a small minority of all immigrants, and research has shown that most undocumented migrants have in fact crossed borders in a legal fashion, but 'overstayed' after their visas expire.<br />
<br />
The ‘open borders’ proposition is clearly naïve, as modern states need to establish rules about entry, stay and citizenship. However, the ‘closed border’ proposition is equally naïve. Total migration control would basically require a totalitarian state in order to effectively control all maritime and land borders. <br />
<br />
Total migration control would require the literal ring-fencing of entire countries, a total disrespect of human rights (such as the right to family life and asylum), and a willingness and practical ability to invest massive resources to round up and deport undocumented migrants. It would also require giving massive powers and resources to police forces for internal surveillance, such as massive random ID checks and the frequent raiding of places where immigrants live work - including people's private houses where many domestic workers stay. In practice, such levels of total migration control are not possible in open, democratic societies, and any politician suggesting this is therefore selling illusions.<br />
<br />
The reality of migration policy making is thus infinitely more nuanced than the false opposition between closed and open borders. In practice, immigration policies are about <em>selecting</em>, and not about ‘closing’ or ‘opening’ borders, neither of which exist in practice. This was confirmed by a recent analysis of 6505 migration policy changes in 45 countries I conducted with my colleagues Katharina Natter and Simona Vezzoli (for more information, see this <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/imre.12288/epdf">free-for-download article</a> which we recently published in <i>International Migration Review</i>).<br />
<br />
Although politicians may have an interest in making people believe that they are 'tough' on migration, our analysis shows that over the past decades governments of most Western countries have <em>liberalized </em>immigration regimes by relaxing or giving up immigration restrictions for many migrant groups. Immigration has generally become easier for high- and even low-skilled workers, students and wealthy people. Also within regional blocks such as the EU, migration policies have been liberalized.<br />
<br />
The main exceptions on this rule are family members of low-skilled workers and, particularly, refugees from developing countries. Refugees in particular have become the target of restrictions and fierce anti-immigrant rhetoric, although in reality <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.nl/2016/08/refugees-small-and-relatively-stable.html">refugees form a small minority of all immigrants</a>. <br />
<br />
The essence of modern migration policies is
thus not about growing restriction or influencing numbers <em>per se</em>, but the <em>selection</em> of migrants; By favoring the entry of some groups, and discouraging the entry of others.
This shows that both 'open' and 'closed' borders are simplistic rhetoric positions, which ignore the complex reality of migration policy making. <br />
<br />
While the desire of political communities to regulate migration is legitimate, it is important to consider the effectiveness of policies, which are often blatantly ignored. As with any form of regulation, immigration rules can be circumvented by migrants. This particularly happens when immigration rules are at odds with the structural causes of migration. Classic examples are structural labour demand for migrant workers in destination countries without legal channels to match this demand (resulting in irregular migration and stay) or the unwillingness of countries to host refugees (resulting in an <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.nl/2013/10/smuggling-is-reaction-to-border.html">increased role of smuggling</a> and boat migration and the risks refugees have to take to reach safe lands). <br />
<br />
It is therefore inevitable that border controls will result in <em>some </em>degree of irregular migration. Also, research has shown that <a href="https://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/pdfs/wp/wp-89-14.pdf">immigration restrictions often interrupt circulation by discouraging return and pushing migrants into permanent settlement</a>, which is the contrary of what these policies intend to do. Such unintended and often unforeseen effects of immigration controls does not mean that the desire to control is illegitimate, or that the policies are totally ineffective, but reveal fundamental policy dilemmas in terms of how and the extent to which the desire to control regulate migration can be translated into concrete results, and against which financial and humanitarian price.</div>
<div>
<br />
This shows that both the 'open' and 'closed' border positions are unrealistic and do not justice to the complex realities of migration policy making, which is primarily about the <i>selection</i> of migrants, and not about numbers, despite muscle-flexing political rhetoric suggesting the contrary. <br />
<br />
States have good reasons to control immigration and it would be an huge exaggeration to say that borders are beyond control, because policies generally work and the majority of migrants abide by the rules. It is more correct to say that there are clear limits to border controls.
</div>
</div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-58483282945112233832016-08-22T17:49:00.000+01:002016-08-24T09:26:38.825+01:00Refugees: A small and relatively stable proportion of world migration <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The recent news coverage about migration, and particularly the 'refugee crisis', often gives the impression that border crossings by asylum seekers and refugees are an important or even the main source of migration in the current world.<br />
<br />
This perception adds to the widespread idea that the world is facing a swelling tide of people leaving war-torn countries that is threatening to run out of hand, and that therefore requires urgent action.<br />
<br />
This crisis narrative is reinforced by international organisations like the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), IOM (International Organization for Migration), and the United Nation's population division, who regularly release press statements - repeated in the news media all over the world - reporting that the number of refugees and migrants has reached an all-time high. This usually goes hand in hand with calls for urgent action to address this pressing issue.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tZkAGMf2hoM/V71aE2aX0jI/AAAAAAAAAdc/zOlfFgTLkh46ME_koGTXwi-gS5CeUfksQCLcB/s1600/160822%2Brefugees%2Band%2Bmigrants%2Bon%2Bworld%2Bpopulation.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tZkAGMf2hoM/V71aE2aX0jI/AAAAAAAAAdc/zOlfFgTLkh46ME_koGTXwi-gS5CeUfksQCLcB/s400/160822%2Brefugees%2Band%2Bmigrants%2Bon%2Bworld%2Bpopulation.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
As so often with migration, the reality is more nuanced. In fact, the total number of refugees as a share of all migrants in the world is rather limited, and has remained remarkably stable if we look at long term trends. According to official <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html">figures</a> compiled by the UNHCR there are currently about 16.1 million refugees under their mandate. This figure would rise to 21.1 million if we include Palestinian refugees, who do not fall under UNHCR's mandate.<br />
<br />
This is less than 0.3 percent of the total world population (7.4 billion people), and about 10 per cent of the total estimated number of international migrants, which currently hovers around 220-230 million (excluding refugees). While the international migrant population counted as a percentage of the world population has remained <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/imre.12095/abstract">remarkably stable</a> on levels of around 3 percent of the world population since 1960, refugee numbers have shown more fluctuations, mainly depending on the level of conflict in origin areas.<br />
<br />
Between 1990 and 2010 the number of refugees showed a declining overall trend. This decrease mainly reflected a decreasing level of violent conflicts in Africa and Latin America. In 2010 the total number of refugees in the world was estimated at 16 million. In recent years these numbers increased again to 21 million, mainly as a result of the Syrian civil war. But on world scale this is a relatively limited increase. This recent increase is not unprecedented, because also other conflicts such as in former Yugoslavia have led to major temporary spikes in refugee numbers.<br />
<br />
Only a minority of the world refugee population end up in wealthy countries. According to UNHCR about 86 per cent of all refugees stays in developing countries, and this share has increased rather than decreased over recent decades. Poor countries such as Kenya, Afghanistan and host huge refugee populations. The large majority of Syrian refugees stay in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan.<br />
<br />
Does that mean that there is no problem? Of course not. The unwillingness of the world community to host sufficient numbers of refugees and their indifference of many governments to plight of refugees, has been one of the most pressing issues of humanitarian concern over the past decades.<br />
<br />
But the problem is fundamentally not one of numbers, but of international cooperation, solidarity and willingness to really address this problem. Particularly since the end of the Cold War, Western countries have shown a decreasing willingness to welcome refugee populations, and have systematically tried to prevent their legal entry.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
It is therefore a misleading - and ultimately self-defeating - strategy to keep on repeating, every year again, that total numbers of refugees (or migrants) have reached another all-time high. This ignores that relative to the total migrant and world population, the the total number of refugees is relatively small, and that, on the longer term, refugee numbers have remained relatively stable.<br />
<br />
There is 1 refugee for every 352 people worldwide. It would therefore be outrageous to suggest that, in numerical terms, the international community would not have the resources to provide refugees with a safe new home and perspective on the future - if only it can get its act together.<br />
<br />
It is therefore a matter of willpower; Not of numbers.<br />
<br />
Understandably, international organizations have an interest in raising public awareness about the plight of refugees. However, their emphasis on 'highest ever' numbers is counterproductive and may ultimately <i>undermine</i> the case for refugee protection, which is the exact opposite of the mandate of these organisations.<br />
<br />
By hugely exaggerating the true scale and increase of refugee migration these organisations reinforce the crisis narrative and extremism that undermines public support for refugee support and that reinforces extremism. In this way, their 'refugee migration is at an all-time high' public statements may well contribute to the same migration panic and xenophobia these organisations simultaneously tend to decry. <br />
<br /></div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-82258465747645744182015-09-23T10:52:00.001+01:002016-05-14T10:12:47.149+01:00Don't blame the smugglers: the real migration industry <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The billions spent on the militarisation of border controls over the past years have been a waste of taxpayers' money. As we are able to witness during the current 'refugee crisis', increasing border controls have not stopped asylum seekers and other migrants from crossing borders. As experience and research has made abundantly clear, they have mainly (1) diverted migration to other crossing points, (2) made migrants more dependent on smuggling, and (3) increased the costs and risks of crossing borders.<br />
<br />
The fact is that 25 years of militarising border controls in Europe have only worsened the problems they proclaim to prevent. As a very useful graph (see below) drawn by the prominent migration researcher <a href="https://www.prio.org/People/Person/?x=5122">Jørgen Carling</a> illustrates, the EU has been caught up in a vicious circle in which increasing number of border deaths lead to calls to 'combat' smuggling and increase border patrolling, which forces refugees and other migrants to use more dangerous routes using smugglers' services. Longer and more dangerous routes means more people who get injured or die while crossing borders, which then leads to public outrage and calls for even more stringent border controls.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-isW3ynDbB2M/VgId_eYg_WI/AAAAAAAAAYA/HD72OuPMeuM/s1600/CNaw74MWUAAWLDy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="197" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-isW3ynDbB2M/VgId_eYg_WI/AAAAAAAAAYA/HD72OuPMeuM/s400/CNaw74MWUAAWLDy.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
Source/author: <a href="https://www.prio.org/People/Person/?x=5122">Jo</a><a href="https://twitter.com/jorgencarling/status/636891226281803776">rgen Carling</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
In the current panic about the issue, it is often forgotten that so-called 'boat migration' across the Mediterranean is a 25-year old phenomenon that started when Spain and Italy introduced (Schengen) visas for North Africans. Before that, Moroccans, Algerians and Tunisians could travel freely back and forth to work or go on holiday. And so they did in significant numbers. However, this migration was largely circular. Most migrants and visitors would go back after a while, to be close to family and friends, because life back home is less expensive, and because they could easily re-migrate. This experience exemplifies that open migration doors tend to be revolving doors.<br />
<br />
With the introduction of Schengen visas in 1991, free entry into Spain and Italy was blocked, and North Africans who could not obtain visas started to cross the Mediterranean illegally in <i>pateras, </i>small fisher boats. This was initially a small-scale, relatively innocent operation run by local fishermen. When Spain started to install sophisticated, quasi-miltary border control systems along the Strait of Gibraltar, smuggling professionalised and migrants started to fan out over an increasingly diverse array of crossing points on the long Mediterranean and Atlantic coastlines. The diversification of crossing points continued over the 2000s, in which migrants started to cross not only from Morocco and Tunisia, but also Algeria, Libya to Italy and Spain, and from the West African coast towards the Canary Islands.<br />
<br />
While in the 1990s most people crossing were young Moroccans, Algerians and Tunisians attracted by employment opportunities in southern Europe, over the 2000s an increasing number of sub-Saharan migrants and refugees have joined this boat migration. The major upsurge in numbers over the last few years is mainly the result of an increasing number of Syrians joining this trans-Mediterranean boat migration. Over 2014 and 2015, increased maritime border patrolling in the Mediterranean is one of the causes (alongside the worsening of conditions in Syria and neighbouring countries) of the reorientation of migration routes towards Turkey, the Balkans and Central Europe. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
So, these policies have been completely self-defeating. While politicians and the media routine blame 'smugglers' for the suffering and dying at Europe's borders, this diverts the attention away from the fact that <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/smuggling-is-reaction-to-border.html">smuggling is a reaction to the militarisation of border controls, not the cause of irregular migration</a>. Ironically, policies to 'combat' smuggling and irregular migration are bound to fail because they are among the very causes of the phenomenon they claim to 'fight'.<br />
<br />
It is therefore nonsense to blame smugglers for irregular migration and the suffering of migrants and refugees. This diverts the attention away from the structural causes of this phenomenon, and the governments' responsibility in creating conditions under which smuggling can thrive in the first place. Smugglers basically run a business, a need for which has been created by the militarisation of border controls, and migrants use their services in order to cross borders without getting caught. Of course, in the media stories abound of smugglers deceiving migrants, and such stories are certainly true, but there is good research (for instance by <a href="http://www.uu.nl/staff/ICvanLiempt/0">Ilse van Liempt</a> and <a href="http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/people/julien-brachet">Julien Brachet</a>) showing that smugglers are basically service providers who have an interest of staying in business and therefore generally care about their reputation and have an interest in delivering.<br />
<br />
Certainly, smugglers can be ruthless and regularly deceive migrants, but it should not be forgotten that smugglers deliver a service asylum seekers and migrants are willing to pay for. Without smugglers, it is likely that many more people would have died crossing borders. For many refugees and migrants, smugglers are a necessary evil. For some, smugglers can be heroes. For instance, Al Jazeera quoted African refugees in Sudan who saw smugglers as <a href="http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/11/30/human-smugglers-exploiters.html">freedom facilitators</a>, because they enabled their escape toward safer countries. The irony is that European countries have created huge market for the smuggling business by multi-billion investments of taxpayers' money in border controls. There is no end to this cat-and-mouse game, in which smugglers constantly adapt their itineraries and smuggling techniques.<br />
<br />
So don't blame the smugglers. Blaming smugglers also diverts the attention away from the vested interests of the military-industrial complex involved in border controls. Under influence of the growing panic about irregular migration and the perception that (supposedly uncontrolled) migration is an imminent threat to Western societies, states have invested massive amounts of taxpayers' money in border surveillance. Border controlling have become a huge industry, and businesses involved in building fences and walls, electronic border surveillance systems, patrolling vessels and vehicles as well as the military have a vested interest in making the public believe that we are facing an impending migration invasion and that we therefore need to 'fight' smugglers, as if we are indeed waging a war.<br />
<div>
<br />
This reveals the contours of the real migration industry. Arms and technology companies have reaped the main windfalls from Europe’s delusional 'fight against illegal migration'. As has been documented by the <a href="http://www.themigrantsfiles.com/">Migrant Files</a>, four leading European arms manufacturers (Airbus (formerly EADS), Thales, Finmeccanica and BAE) and technology firms like Saab, Indra, Siemens and Diehl are among the prime beneficiaries of EU spending on military-grade technology supplied by these privately held companies whose R&D programs have been financed by EU subsidies. The staging of uncontrolled migration as an essential threat to Western society has also served the military, who have been in search of a <i>raison d'être </i>after the (imagined or real) 'Communist Threat' evaporated with the fall of the Berlin Wall. </div>
<div>
<br />
In this way, Europe's immigration policies have created a huge market for the private companies implementing these policies as well as smugglers. The main victims are migrants and refugees themselves, through soaring smuggler fees and an increasing death tolls. But also European taxpayers who have been deceived and lured into a delusional 'fight against illegal migration' by fear-mongering nationalistic politicians. While the same politicians fan the flames of xenophobia by insinuating that refugees will be a huge drain on public funds and a threat to social cohesion, they waste billions of public funds on border controls, which have not stopped irregular migration, but created a market for smuggling and increased the suffering and death toll at Europe's borders - <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/PanelMigration.aspx">at least 30,000 people died</a> in their attempt to reach or stay in Europe since 2000. <br />
<br />
This has created a multi-billion industry, which has huge commercial interest in making the public believe that migration is an essential threat and that border controls will somehow solve this threat. According to a series of investigations by the <a href="http://www.themigrantsfiles.com/">Migrant Files</a>, since 2000 refugees and migrants spend over €1 billion a year to smugglers to reach Europe. European countries pay a similar amount of taxpayer money to keep them out, a few companies and smugglers benefiting in the process. Since 2000, the 28 EU member states plus Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Iceland have deported millions of people, with a price tag of least 11.3 billion euro. A further billion has been spent on coordination efforts to control European borders, mainly through <a href="http://frontex.europa.eu/">Frontex</a>, Europe's border agency. The real costs are much higher, as these figures do not include expenditures on regular border controls by individual member states.<br />
<br />
Across the Atlantic, similar same dynamics can be found on the US-Mexican border, where soaring public expenditure on border controls has fuelled a military-industrial complex consisting of arms manufacturers, technology firms, (privatized) migrant detention centres, the military and state bureaucracies involved in deporting people. In a study entitled <i><a href="http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigration-enforcement-united-states-rise-formidable-machinery">Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a Formidable Machinery</a>, </i>published in 2013, the <a href="http://www.migrationpolicy.org/">Migration Policy Institute</a> (MPI), a Washington-based migration think tank, calculated that the US government spent $187 Billion on Federal Immigration Enforcement between 1986 and 2012.<br />
<br />
To put this in perspective, the same report showed that $18 billion spent in 2012 are 24% higher, then the <i>combined </i>costs on all other principal federal criminal law enforcement agencies (FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Secret Service, U.S. Marshals Service and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives). While these costs are staggering, they have created a huge parallel market for smugglers (<i>coyotes</i>) helping migrants from Mexico and, increasingly, Middle America, to defy border controls.<br />
<br />
So, instead of blaming smugglers, it is important to be aware governments have in many ways created their own monster by pouring massive public funds in the migration control industry.
Like the mythological Hydra of Lerna, for which each head lost was replaced by two more, each time a migration route is blocked such as through erecting a fence, it will create an ever expanding market for smugglers helping people to get over, under or around migration barriers. This has led to an unintended increase in the area that countries have to monitor to ‘combat’ irregular migration to span the entire European external border, making the phenomenon less, instead of more, controllable.<br />
<br />
National politicians arguing that border controls can solve the current 'refugee crisis' are thus selling illusions. The current situation in the Balkans and Central Europe makes this abundantly clear. As long as violent conflict persists in countries like Syria, as well as labour demand for undocumented migrant workers, people will keep on coming, in one way or another. There is no easy 'solution' to this problem, but it should be clear that the solutions of the past have been a counterproductive waste of taxpayers' money and have caused unspeakable suffering.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-58038152476490410362015-09-22T05:59:00.002+01:002015-09-23T09:27:02.965+01:00Europe's disgrace<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A general sense of panic is dominating media coverage of what has come to know as Europe's 'refugee crisis'. It conveys the image of a massive exodus going on from the Middle East and Africa to Europe, with European countries struggling to control borders in order to prevent an invasion from happening. To be sure, we are dealing with a grave humanitarian tragedy, that needs urgent addressing. Yet the idea that we are facing a biblical, uncontrollable exodus is sheer nonsense. This idea needs urgent correcting, because the panic and political fear-mongernig around the issue works paralysing on efforts to find a practical solution to deal with the issue.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As I have argued earlier, <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.nl/2015/04/let-their-people-drown-how-eu.html">this crisis is largely self-inflicted</a>. It is not a crisis of migrants or refugees, but a result of entirely counterproductive border controls and Europe's shameful failure to get its act together in sharing sharing responsibility for refugee reception and status determination. As we can now witness on TV screens on a daily basis, the millions of taxpayers' Euros spent on border controls over the past years have been a total waste of money, which mainly resulted in a rising death toll and the geographical diversion of migration routes. For instance, the recent increase in asylum and refugee migration through the Balkan is partly a reaction to increased border patrolling in the Mediterranean, which was in itself a response to increased asylum and refugee migration to Italy and Malta. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OtbYpb5evbo/VgAAVqQZNfI/AAAAAAAAAW4/TI-VyTj7uWE/s1600/20150912_FBM678.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="325" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OtbYpb5evbo/VgAAVqQZNfI/AAAAAAAAAW4/TI-VyTj7uWE/s400/20150912_FBM678.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/econmobile_optimize/images/print-edition/20150912_FBM678.png">The Economist, 12 September 2015</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
Ever since the Schengen visa regime was introduced in southern Europe in 1991, which interrupted relatively free trans-Mediterranean movement, migrants and border patrollers have been involved in a constat cat-and-mouse game leading to a constant shifting and geographical diversification of maritime and overland crossing points. Instead of stopping border crossings, it created new markets for smugglers who help migrants to cross borders without getting caught. To correct a widespread misunderstanding, s<a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/smuggling-is-reaction-to-border.html">muggling is a reaction to border controls, not the cause of migration</a>. Ironically, policies to 'combat' (to refer to a common but inappropriate belligerent term used in this context) smuggling only increased the dependence of migrants and refugees on smugglers, thus making matters worse. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
The current crisis in the Balkan region clearly shows that intensifying border controls at one crossing point (such as between Libya and Italy, or through building a fence along the Hungarian-Serbian border) only leads to a geographical reorientation of crossing points. It is therefore outrageous that politicians still get away with making us believe that border controls can 'solve' refugee crises. The irony is that such policies increase the reliance of refugees and migrants on smugglers as well as the likelihood that people go underground. So, such 'tough' policies make migration less controllable and manageable, while they pretend to do the opposite.<br />
<br />
This is why migration hardliners deceive the public. Unless the European Union turns into a closed police state by literally erecting a new Iron Curtain circumventing the entire Mediterranean coastline and Eastern land borders, ignoring all refugee and human rights conventions, and systematically deporting all people arriving at the borders - which is very unlikely - it is an illusion that refugees can be stopped from arriving.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Does that mean that 'borders are beyond' control or that we should abolish immigration rules? Not at all. There are good reasons for states to regulate mobility by determining who has the right to stay and who not, including the right to asylum. Most European other states have developed quite sophisticated and often rather effective rules and institutions which regulate the entry of workers, family members, students, and asylum seekers. Based on the UN Refugee Convention, most European states have set up clear rules and procedures to determine who has the right to asylum and who not, including provisions for the latter to return. The systems are in place, they just need to be implemented based on a European sharing of responsibilities, which might imply adjusting the so-called <a href="http://ecre.org/topics/areas-of-work/protection-in-europe/10-dublin-regulation.html">Dublin Regulations</a>.</div>
<div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Times; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
</div>
<br />
The current crisis is therefore not one of real numbers but one of an impotence or, rather, and outright refusal of European governments to get their act together in finding a collective reaction to the increase in the numbers of Syrian and other refugees making their way to Europe. In many ways, European national politicians such as Hungary's PM Orban fall on their own sword of fear-mongering around the current refugee situation. While fence building only worsens the problems they pretend to solve, the accompanying rhetorics about massive (Islamic) invasions paralyse any sensible response and debate. Such fear-mongering may serve to rally electoral support and to deflect attention away from more important domestic political issues, but is totally irresponsible in terms of providing effective ways to deal with the current situation.</div>
<br />
<div>
It is worth mentioning here that the numbers of asylum seekers coming to Europe in 2015 are large, but by no means uncontrollable. Refugee hardliners commonly argue that we should seek 'regional solutions' for refugee problems. This may sound sensible but also this argument is deceptive as it totally ignores the fact that the large majority of refugees worldwide already find refuge in their own region. <a href="http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/key-facts-and-figures.html">Developing countries host over 86% of the world’s refugees, compared to 70% ten years ago</a>. This is not only because many refugees lack the resources to travel far, but also because many refugees simply prefer to stay close to home.<br />
<br />
This also applies to Syria. As the above map shows, the overwhelming majority of Syrian refugees have stayed either in Syria, or in neighbouring countries, particularly Syria, Lebanon and Turkey. Of the about 3 million people who have fled the devastating violence in Syria, only about 5 percent (about 150,000) are currently registered in Europe.<br />
<br />
What makes the 'regional solutions' argument not only deceptive but also really hypocritical is the extremely lukewarm support of many governments for providing support to refugees residing in the region. There is an <a href="http://www.unhcr-northerneurope.org/news-detail/funding-shortage-leaves-syrian-refugees-and-host-nations-without-vital-support/">acute shortage</a> of international funds to help refugees in the region, which is hampering humanitarian assistance efforts to meet the needs of Syrian refugees as well as in communities hosting hem in neighbouring countries. Against the about USD 4.5 billion needed for such programmes, only one third has been received. This funding shortfall has led to a reducation in food assistance, school attendance and health services. The deteriorating situation in neighbouring countries is one of the direct causes of the rapidly increasing numbers of Syrians moving to Europe.<br />
<br />
With regards to numbers, the more than 300,000 Syrians and other nationals who have so far crossed into Europe irregularly over 2015, is certainly a big increase compared to earlier years. This increase has been clearly driven by conflict in Syria and origin countries and the increasingly dismal situation for refugees in neighbouring countries. However, to suggest that Europe cannot deal with such numbers is nonsensical. For instance, Lebanon (with 5.8 million inhabitants) alone hosts more than 1.1 million Syrian refugees, or 19% of its population. In this light, the idea that the European Union, which counts over half a billion inhabitants, and is the wealthiest economic block in the world, would lack the resources to host several hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers is simply outrageous. In this context, it is worth reminding that 300,000 asylum seekers is equal to less then 0.06% of the entire EU population, and that legal immigration to the EU alone is about 2.5 million on a yearly basis.<br />
<br />
As long as conflict in Syria and other countries persists, it is likely that a relatively small, but sizeable number of refugees will find their way to Europe. To think it away, or to create illusions that 'regional solutions' will solve this problem, will only make matter worse. Of course Europe can deal with this. Any representation of the current refugee flows as 'massive' is therefore misleading. The current crisis is not one of numbers, but a political crisis, a crisis of the failure of Europe to find a joint response to this issue.<br />
<br />
In their short-sighted attempts to please their constituencies, national politicians create illusions that intensifying border controls on national level can solve this problem, while it only diverts migration routes to other countries, expands the market for smugglers and increases the death toll. In this way, 'hardliner' countries such as Hungary and the United Kingdom shift the burden of refugee reception to more welcoming countries such as Germany and Sweden, who bear a disproportional burden. The only sensible respons to the current situation is a collective one, in which European countries share their responsibility for refugee reception and asylum processing by developing some quota system, largely along the lines proposed by the Angela Merkel and the European Commission.<br />
<br />
The real crisis is therefore political one, not one of hordes of refugees invading Europe, which is a product of conscious political fear-mongering and uncritical, sensationalist journalism. As long as politicians get away with making us believe that 'closing borders' will solve this problem, the problems will only get worse. The real crisis is a crisis the unwillingness of European countries to get their act together and formulate a collective response by agreeing on effective responsibility sharing. Both morally and practically, this is only way to address this crisis. A second element of a more effective response is to dramatically increase support to help refugees in neighbouring countries, so that they are not forced to move on if they prefer to stay close to home.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, so far no agreement has been reached because such proposals have been sabotaged by national politicians eager to show off their 'toughness' on migration and failing to take their responsibility. Sensible responsibility sharing on the European level and genuine support for Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries are the only way forward. There are no quick and simple fixes to this problem, but the least European politicians can do is to stop deceiving the public by going tough on migration, which only fans the flames of xenophobia and does not provide any practical way to stop people suffering and dying at Europe's borders. </div>
</div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-12317496311121988132015-05-16T07:57:00.001+01:002015-05-16T07:57:10.238+01:00How much do we really learn from history? <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
"German Jews Pouring into This Country". This is what the The Daily Mail, a British tabloid newspaper, had to say about German Jews seeking refuge from Nazi brutality in 1938. The article quotes a magistrate stating that "The way stateless Jews from Germany are pouring in from every port of the country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest", <br />
<br />
The reporter continues by reassuring the reader that enforcement is fortunately increasingly effective: "even if aliens manage to break through the defences it is not long before they are caught and deported".<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8_eFbbDl7HM/VT-OJM4-vbI/AAAAAAAAASw/MY2T4-YMAsY/s1600/German%2BJews%2BPouring%2Binto%2Bthis%2Bcountry.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="392" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8_eFbbDl7HM/VT-OJM4-vbI/AAAAAAAAASw/MY2T4-YMAsY/s1600/German%2BJews%2BPouring%2Binto%2Bthis%2Bcountry.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, 'Bitstream Vera Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 10px; line-height: 15.996000289916992px; text-align: start;">1938 Daily Mail article</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
This article did not reflect some extremist, far right-wing sentiment, but a widespread anti-Semitic sentiment in Europe and the concomitant fear of massive immigration of Jewish refugees from Germany, who had been stripped of their German citizenship by the Nazi regime. In the late 1930s, when the situation of Jews in Nazi Germany became increasingly dangerous, European nations and the United States <a href="http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005468">only accepted limited numbers of Jewish refugees</a>. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<i><br /></i></div>
The Nazis initially saw emigration as an important 'solution' to what they called the 'Jewish Problem', including emigration to Palestine. However, European and American countries became increasingly reluctant to host significant numbers of Jewish refugees, while the British closed Palestine to Jewish immigration in 1939. When MS St. Louis, a German ocean liner tried to find a refuge for 915 German Jews, they were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis">denied entry</a> to Cuba, the United States and Canada, before returning to Europe, where many were killed during the Holocaust.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
Also neighbouring countries like the Netherland and <a href="http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%203212.pdf">Switzerland</a> closed their borders out of fear of being inundated with Jewish refugees, and many were sent back to Germany. (Although, thanks to smugglers, thousands were able to get out despite tough border controls). Such immigration restrictions were often defended with the argument that the crisis-stricken European countries could not bear the burden of large-scale Jewish immigration, but widespread anti-Semitic sentiment was generally the real reason. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
For instance, in 1938 the Dutch prime minister Colijn argued that allowing in more refugees would cause economic pressures. Wryly, he explained that the border closure was actually in the <a href="http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht">interest of Dutch Jews themselves</a>, because allowing in more refugees would further fan the flames of anti-Semitism. In an official <a href="http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht">statement</a> the Dutch government proclaimed that "a further intrusion of alien elements will be harmful of the maintenance of the Dutch race. The government finds that, in principe, our limited territory should be reserved for its own people". </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
How much do we really learn from history? </div>
</div>
</div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-53349857704910517192015-05-06T10:00:00.000+01:002015-05-09T06:46:03.622+01:00Expats<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Of course 'expats' are just emigrants. They only don't like to be called that way. These days, in Western Europe, the term 'migrant' is more and more associated to supposedly low-skilled people from less wealthy countries, who often have a darker skin, and/or are of a Muslim background, and who come to work and settle in the countries of the Wealthy, White West, sometimes without asking permission.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Europeans living abroad love to call themselves 'expats', although they are of course migrants. 'Expat' has increasingly become a class marker, a way in which privileged migrants from wealthy countries (and wealthy migrants from poor countries) tend to distinguish themselves from poor, low-skilled and undeserving migrants. Migrants do the dirty, dangerous and demeaning ('3D') and underpaid jobs shunned by many Europeans, but are at the same time often treated as potential job thieves <i>and</i> benefit scroungers or as threats to safety (terrorists!), social cohesion and cultural unity. </div>
<div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aespHUai2SM/VUm6we_FKYI/AAAAAAAAAVc/4p44Afitf5A/s1600/B9GOknzIcAEuGji-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="276" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aespHUai2SM/VUm6we_FKYI/AAAAAAAAAVc/4p44Afitf5A/s1600/B9GOknzIcAEuGji-1.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">UKIP election graphic encouraging 'Expats' to register for 2015 national elections</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
<div>
All of that of course does not apply to Europeans when they themselves move abroad to work and settle in foreign lands. In sheer contrast to the moral outrage about the 'illegal migrant', 'expats' often do not even bother applying for a residence permit in their host countries. Either because they don't need one, or because nobody bothers them if they don't have one.<br />
<br />
Between 1998 and 2000 I lived in Morocco for two years on a string of tourist visas, which I renewed by hopping out and in of Morocco forth and back from the Spanish enclave Ceuta on the same day. It is very unlikely Europeans who overstay their visa in Morocco - and most countries in the world - will end up in migrant detention and get deported. And if they are asked to leave, they are highly unlikely to do so handcuffed. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is called privilege. And many Europeans (as wel as North Americans and citizens of a handful of other lucky nations) are hardly aware of it. They take for granted that it is their right to go anywhere, to impose their presence, while not being bothered about how 'locals' perceive them. They have done so since colonial times. It starts at a young age. Students find it completely normal to have gap years, to travel around the world, or to work or volunteer for a year or so in a far away country. We go on holiday wherever we want, and more and more people retire in lands where the sun shines and care workers are cheap. <br />
<br />
Wherever Europeans find a job, residence and work permits seem to drop magically out of the air, or we simply don't bother getting one, or it is done for us by our employers. Those working for private companies, diplomacy or as development workers in poor countries tend to live luxurious, but highly segregated, lives as 'expats' in gated communities and compounds. When they interact with 'locals', it tends to be the elites, who speak the same languages and have similar manner and levels of education. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Looking at migration, we still live in a colonial world order. Double standards are typically applied to the migrant 'other' and the expat 'us'. While migrants are expected to learn the language and to assimilate into 'our' culture and society - and 'we' complain if they refuse to do so, or not fast enough, or not wholeheartedly enough to our taste - 'expats' are generally exempt from such demands.<br />
<br />
English speaking citizens of wealthy OECD countries set the international standard. Haughtily, 'expats' often do not bother to integrate at all, and nobody would dare to ask them to do so. They can live for years, if not decades, in other countries without speaking one word of the local language. Because they have the power to do so so and to ignore what others think. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Such double standards also become visible in the schizophrenic positioning of politicians on migration issues. During the 2014 municipal elections in the Netherlands, the right-wing liberal VVD party of PM Mark Rutte was campaigning with election posters featuring the text "<a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/in-rotterdam-we-speak-dutch.html">In Rotterdam spreken we Nederlands</a>" ("In Rotterdam, we speak Dutch") to clearly signal the VVD's anti-multicultural credentials. However, the same rules did apparently not apply to 'expat' migrants - overtly shown by another VVD election poster targeting resident foreigners who have the right to vote in local elections, which proudly stated (in English!) "<a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/in-rotterdam-we-speak-dutch.html">Why do expats living in Amsterdam vote VVD</a>?".<br />
<br />
The contrast in attitudes towards expats and migrants was also visible in the graphic (see above) used by the anti-immigration United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) in a <a href="https://twitter.com/UKIP/status/563391801210707968/photo/1">campaign</a> to encourage 'expat' Britons (an estimated <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/brits_abroad/html/default.stm"> 5.5m in total </a> – of which about <a href="https://euobserver.com/social/123066">2.2m</a> live in the EU- almost the same number as the <a href="https://euobserver.com/social/123066">2.3m</a> EU citizens in the UK) to vote in the 2014 national elections. So, ironically, by "<a href="https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/563647926434811904">harnessing that xenophobe expat vote</a>" the UKIP tried encouraging British <i>emigrants</i> to vote them in to keep <i>immigrants</i> out of Britain.<br />
<br />
Such contrasts in attitudes reveals the double standards applied to the expat 'us' and the migrant 'them'; as well as the superiority thinking underlying this distinction. </div>
</div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-16544096857392584212015-05-05T09:37:00.002+01:002015-05-06T10:09:16.780+01:00Will a 'Brexit' curb immigration? <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Leaders of anti-immigration parties such as Nigel Farage of the UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) and Geert Wilders' of the Dutch Freedom Party have often stated that getting out of the EU is the only way to curb immigration. At first sight, this seems logical. After all, as long as countries stay in the EU, they have to respect the free mobility rights of half a billion EU citizens.<br />
<br />
This is also why promises by politicians to cut back migration, such as the earlier pledge by the British PM David Cameron to bring UK net immigration down to <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/decline-in-uk-immigration-is.html"> below to the "tens of thousands</a>" are hollow, since a large share of immigration consists of EU citizens, who are exempt from immigration controls. For instance, in the 12 months preceding September 2014, about 40 per cent of immigrants were non-British EU citizens, while 13 per cent were British citizens, and 47 per cent were non-EU citizens.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1rprym9uarQ/VUd1rd5yh1I/AAAAAAAAAUY/DegHU3qUHSE/s1600/Untitled.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1rprym9uarQ/VUd1rd5yh1I/AAAAAAAAAUY/DegHU3qUHSE/s400/Untitled.png" height="207" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
The whole idea that immigration can be controlled just like we turn on and off a tap is a myth. This is once again shown by the <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration1/migration-statistics-quarterly-report/february-2015/sty-net-migration.html">increase in net immigration to the UK</a> from an estimated 154,000 in (the year preceding September) 2012 to 298,000 in 2014 - showing the hollowness of Cameron's earlier promise to bring net immigration down below the 100,000 mark.<br />
<br />
The recent increase in immigration to the UK is largely the result of a growth in labour immigration, which reflect increasing labour demand and falling unemployment in the UK. In general , levels of <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/migration-its-economy-stupid.html">immigration are primarily driven by economic growth and labour demand</a> rather than by immigration regulations - no matter how much politicians would like voters to believe that they are in control.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
It is therefore unlikely that a 'Brexit' would drastically curb immigration, certainly if the UK wishes to remain an economically open country.<br />
<br />
In this respect it may be interesting to look at migration to European countries that are not member of the European Union. Switzerland, for instance, has always insisted on its independence, and has a long-standing tradition of anti-immigration politics. This has been reinforced by <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/switzerland-votes-on-ending-mass-immigration-9893224.html">the rise of country’s right-wing populist Swiss People’s Party (SVP)</a> since the 1990s, which favours major immigration restrictions.<br />
<br />
However, despite not being member of the EU, migration to Switzerland has soared to unprecedented levels over the last two decades, with yearly net-immigration (immigration minus emigration) of foreign nationals hovering around levels of 1 per cent (see graph).<br />
<br />
This structural increase of migration to Switzerland is linked to economic growth combined with an ageing population, which has generated a continued labour demand in higher and lower skilled jobs, for which there is not sufficient domestic supply. These economic demands have put pressure on successive Swiss governments to continue allowing immigrants in.<br />
<br />
There is little reason to believe that if the UK leaves the EU, such structural labour market demands and economic pressures would not persist, and that governments would not succumb to such pressures, as they have always done in the past.<br />
<br />
As the graph also shows, since the early 1990s there has been a structural increase of net immigration to the UK. This increase can be largely explained by a combination of economic deregulation, renewed economic growth, decreasing unemployment and a decrease of domestic labour supply because of demographic factors and skill shortages.<br />
<br />
It it is therefore inaccurate to link the structural increase of UK immigration since the early 1990s to the decision by the Blair government in 2004 to allow free immigration from new accession states in Eastern Europe. As the graph clearly shows, the increase of new migration to the UK has been a <i>structural</i>, long-term<i> </i>trend which started in the early 1990s. In 2003, net immigration already stood at levels of 0.4 per cent, up from 0.1 per cent in 1992, to jump up to around 0.6 percent in 2004 to consolidate at levels between 0.4 and 0.5 percent in the last decade. The decision to allow free mobility from new EU member states by the Blair government has consolidated, rather than being the most important cause of, pre-existing trends of rising immigration to the UK.<br />
<br />
Assuming that the UK wishes to remain a wealthy and democratic country with an open, deregulated market economy (which all major parties including UKIP seem to wish), it is therefore very unlikely to expect a major decrease of immigration. The immigration of low and high-skilled workers and students (both major sources of immigration) is likely to continue as it is the case in other non-EU countries, and these migrants will inevitably be accompanied by family members. <br />
<br />
Although receiving a lot of attention, asylum migration is actually a small component of UK immigration (<a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration1/migration-statistics-quarterly-report/february-2015/index.html">24,914 asylum applications</a> in 2014, which is 4.6% of total foreign immigration). Further curtailing asylum migration would imply serious encroachments on fundamental human rights. And even if UK would really be willing to do that, the effects are likely to be limited. As migration researcher <a href="http://www.essex.ac.uk/economics/staff/profile.aspx?ID=1684">Timothy Hatton</a> has found in a sophisticated statistical <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/6752.html">analysis</a>, fluctuations in asylum migration are mainly driven by levels of violence and terror in origin countries, and restrictiveness of asylum policies only play a secondary role.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-552dkSNKru4/VUhtjJCZ9NI/AAAAAAAAAVA/eLpofIzT2I4/s1600/11altim_tcm77-396721.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-552dkSNKru4/VUhtjJCZ9NI/AAAAAAAAAVA/eLpofIzT2I4/s400/11altim_tcm77-396721.png" height="265" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: start;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Source: <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration1/migration-statistics-quarterly-report/february-2015/sty-net-migration.html">Long-term International Migration</a> - Office for National Statistics</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
As long as future UK governments will not <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/migration-its-economy-stupid.html">wreck the economy</a> (which in many ways is by far the most effective way of bringing down labour demand and, as a consequence, immigration) or will not de-liberalise the economy (such as by drastically increasing labour market regulation and employment protection) it is likely that immigration to the UK will continue at high levels whether the the country leaves the EU or not.<br />
<br />
On top of that, closing the borders to migration of EU citizens is likely to have a number of unintended side effects (so-called '<a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/migration-its-economy-stupid.html">substitution effects</a>') which can make such policies partly if not entirely counterproductive.<br />
<br />
First of all, border closure can lead to a wave of 'now or never migration' by people who try to get in before it before it is too late. Such 'beat the ban rushes' happened in the past, for instance when Britain introduced restrictions for 'West Indian' migration with the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act.<br />
<br />
Second, closing the border will interrupt the free circulation of EU migrants. As we have found from research in the <a href="http://www.migrationdeterminants.eu/">DEMIG</a> (Determinants of International Migration) project at Oxford University, <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/visas-reduce-immigration-and-return.html">immigration restrictions bring down return migration by roughly the same extent as immigration</a>, making the effect of restrictions on <i>net migration</i> very small or insignificant.<br />
<br />
In order words, borders restrictions have the tendency to push migrants into permanent settlement. This has happened at many occasions in the past. For instance, when West European countries closed the borders for Mediterranean 'guest workers' after the 1973 Oil Crisis, many workers who initially intended to return decided to stay. Because they feared not to be able to re-migrate after return, immigration restrictions encouraged their permanent settlement, followed by a (another unanticipated) wave of family migration.<br />
<br />
Because EU citizens can move freely, their migration tends to be highly responsive to economic opportunities. In other words, EU migrants are much more likely to return in case of unemployment than non-EU migrants who have invested considerable effort in obtaining work permits and visas. Closing the borders to free circulation of EU citizens would increase the likelihood of their permanent settlement and make such policies therefore partly or entirely counterproductive.<br />
<div>
<br />
In other words, assuming future economic growth and the continuation of liberal economic policies, continued high immigration to the UK (and other European countries) seems inevitable, whether in- or outside the European Union.<br />
<br />
Therefore, by suggesting that an exit from the EU will bring down immigration, leaders of anti-immigration parties such as Nigel Farage of UKIP or Geert Wilders of the Freedom Party are deceiving the public as much as 'mainstream' politicians such as David Cameron and Ed Milliband with their empty promises to curtail immigration after the next elections.</div>
</div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-69254783116488061532015-05-01T15:32:00.002+01:002015-05-04T09:53:12.519+01:00The myth of invasion <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Many people believe that migration is at an all-time high and accelerating fast. Images of people crossing the Mediterranean in ramshackle boats and rising political panic about immigration all contribute to the image that migration is rising rapidly and that drastic measures are needed to stem the tide.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
These voices are not only coming from anti-immigrant parties and extremist groups. In fact, the idea that migration is rising fast has become mainstream over the past years. Every year again, organisations such as the International Organisation of Migration and the United Nations Population Division hit the news headlines with reports that migration is at an all-time high and will accelerate in the future. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1o8PXo_G_GY/VLAGjg1g3gI/AAAAAAAAARE/5LKoQduNGkI/s1600/2015-01-09%2BMigrants%2Bas%2Bpercentage%2Bof%2Bworld%2Bpopulation.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="255" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1o8PXo_G_GY/VLAGjg1g3gI/AAAAAAAAARE/5LKoQduNGkI/s1600/2015-01-09%2BMigrants%2Bas%2Bpercentage%2Bof%2Bworld%2Bpopulation.gif" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
Some academics sing from the same hymn sheet. For instance, Oxford-based economist <a href="http://users.ox.ac.uk/~econpco/">Paul Collier</a> has recently published a book under the title <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus:_How_Migration_is_Changing_Our_World">Exodus</a>. </i> Underpinning Collier's rather gloomy - albeit surprisingly <a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140354/michael-clemens-and-justin-sandefur/let-the-people-go">uninformed</a> - view is that future migration risks to reach such high levels that it will start to become harmful for both poor (origin) and rich (destination) societies. </div>
</div>
<br />
This all adds to a crisis narrative around migration, with politicians portraying soaring migration as a potential threat not only to the welfare state, but also to the cultural integrity and security of European, North American and other destination societies.<br />
<br />
The frequent sinking of boats transporting migrants and refugees to southern Europe (and Australia) and continuing irregular migration from Mexico to the United States contributes to idea that rich countries are 'under siege' of a rising tide of immigration driven by poverty, warfare and environmental crises in poor countries; and that drastic measures are needed to stop this 'exodus'. This further add to the overriding feeling of an impending migration invasion.<br />
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
However, the best available data defy the whole idea the world migration is accelerating fast. Certainly, in <i>absolute</i> terms, the number of international migrants has increased fast, from an estimated number of 93 million in 1960 to 214 million in 2010. Yet the world population has increased at a similar pace. The number of international migrants as a share of the world population has therefore remained remarkably constant at levels of around 3 percent (see the graph above). </div>
<div>
<br />
So, global migration rates have remained remarkably stable levels. But why do we still think that migration is increasing fast?<br />
<br />
First of all, migration has become a political hot topic and is receiving massive media attention. Interestingly, both conservative and progressive forces have a certain interest in playing into fears of mass immigration. Right-wing politicians routinely scapegoat migrants to win the next election through portraying migrants as a cultural or terrorist threat or potential welfare scroungers while also left-wing politicians and trade unions have often portrayed migrants as people who steal jobs from native workers or undercut their wages. <br />
<br />
Also international organisations dealing with migration have a certain interest in migration being seen as an urgent issue 'in need of management' to justify their own existence, increase their perceived relevance and boost their funding. <br />
<br />
Development and humanitarian organisations regularly play into deep-seated fears of uncontrolled mass migration to advance their own agendas. For instance, you can frequently hear the argument that more development (through aid or trade) is the only way to curb migration. Many politicians and NGOs have often argue that climate change and environmental degradation, if remained unchecked, will cause mass migration.<br />
<br />
While such arguments are based on the deeply <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/development-leads-to-more-migration.html">flawed</a> assumption that underdevelopment, poverty and violence are the main causes of migration (on the contrary, <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/development-leads-to-more-migration.html">development rather leads to <i>more</i> migration</a>), by using such arguments politicians and development NGOs (wittingly or unwittingly) play into and reinforce the idea were are facing an impending migration invasion if nothing is done. This is not to say that their concerns about issues such poverty, conflict and climate change are not valid; but rather that they are 'right for the wrong reasons'. </div>
</div>
<br />
<div>
'Euro-centrism' is the second reason for the misconception that global migration is accelerating fast. While global migration rates have remained remarkably stable, there have been major shifts in the dominant<i> direction</i> of migration.<br />
<br />
Since the 'discovery' and subsequent occupation of the America by Europeans five centuries ago, Europeans have invaded and conquered overseas territories while subjugating, killing or enslaving murdering their native populations - without asking permission. This was arguably the biggest illegal migration in human history.<br />
<br />
European emigration reached unprecedented levels in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Douglas Massey, a prominent migration researcher, has <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/1972195">shown</a> that, only between 1846 and 1924, some 48 million Europeans moved out, which is equal about 12 percent of the European population in 1900. For some countries, emigration was much higher. For instance, in the same period, about 17 million people left the British Isles, which is equal to 41 percent of Britain’s population in 1900.<br />
<br />
Since the end of World War Two, the direction global migration patterns has been reversed. As a consequence of decolonisation, high levels of economic growth and a drop in birth rates, European emigration has plummeted and Europe has evolved into a global migration destination.<br />
<br />
This reversal of European migration has affected the global face of migration. The post-War decline of Europe as a global source of migrants has led to an increasing presence of African, Asian and Latin American migrants in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand. The transformation of Europe from a continent of emigration to a continent of immigration has changed the face of European and European settler societies, often leading to heated debates around 'integration' and national identity.<br />
<br />
So, from a Euro-centric perspective, migration may seem unprecedented in terms of the increasing diversity of immigrant populations. From a global perspective, this view simply does not hold.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">*for more information and data see this study: <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/imre.12095/abstract"><i>The globalization of migration: Has the world become more migratory?</i></a> by Mathias Czaika and Hein de Haas. International Migration Review 48(2): pp. 283-323, 2014</span></div>
</div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-31818546816268737222015-04-27T10:51:00.001+01:002015-06-19T14:12:19.570+01:00Let their people drown: Europe's self-inflicted migration crisis<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In recent months, a record number of refugees and migrants have drowned in their attempts to cross the Mediterranean Sea. According to recent <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/552e603f9.html">UN estimates</a>, in 2014 almost 220,000 migrants crossed the Mediterranean, and at least over 3,500 died during their journey. Over 30,000 have already made the crossing so far this year, with around <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/19/italian-prime-minister-matteo-renzi-emergency-summit-700-drown-mediterranean">1500</a> reported dead or missing – more than 50 times greater than at the same point in the previous record year 2014.<br />
<br />
And, again, we hear the familiar appeals from European politicians to stop this tragedy by 'fighting' or 'combating' smuggling (and trafficking) in order to stop the suffering of migrants on the European borders. Although this all may sound very lofty, blaming the smugglers is a convenient scapegoating strategy that conceals politicians' own responsibility for this humanitarian tragedy.<br />
<br />
Politicians (and the media slavishly copying their rhetorics) ignore that there is a direct relationship between the level of border controls and the number of migrant deaths. As I argued earlier, <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/smuggling-is-reaction-to-border.html">smuggling is a reaction to border controls, <i>not the cause of migration</i></a>. Smugglers are service deliverers who help migrants to cross closed borders. They may be involved in illegal activities, they may be criminals, they may deceive migrants, but smugglers are basically running a business. And there is only a market for this business because of the difficulties to migrate legally in search for work or to apply for asylum. So, the more governments militarise borders, the more they make it difficult to apply for asylum, the more they increase migrants' dependency on smugglers to cross bordes.<br />
<br />
Irregular boat migration across the Mediterranean is anything but a new phenomenon. It has ever existed since the early 1990s and resulted from the introduction of visas for North Africans by the European Union countries in 1991-1992. This interrupted previously free seasonal and circular (back-and-fort) migration flows of workers from countries such as Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, and compelled more and more people to migrate illegally.<br />
<br />
From the 2000s, an increasing number of workers and also refugees from sub-Saharan Africa have joined this boat migration. The number of crossings oscillated between 30,000 and 80,000 per year (roughly 1-3 per cent of total legal immigration - about 2.5 million a year - into the EU), mainly depending on labour demand in Europe. The marked increase in the number of detected crossings since 2013 is mainly the result of the increase in the number of refugees, particularly from Syria, but also countries like Eritrea and Somalia.<br />
<br />
25 years of European border restrictions have not only totally failed to curb immigration but have had counterproductive results through an increase in irregular migration and an increasing dependence of migrants on smugglers to cross borders. They have also <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/borders-beyond-control.html">interrupted the previous circular movement, pushing migrants into permanent settlement</a> and border controls led to a constant diversification, shifting and geographical expansion of crossing points. The toughening of border controls and 'combating smuggling' have also increased the likelihood that smugglers will exploit the vulnerable position of migrants by extorting them increasing amounts of money or abandoning them on sea.<br />
<br />
Recurrent proposals to 'combat irregular migration' by toughening border controls and closing off legal migration routes are bound to fail, as these restrictions are among the very causes of the phenomenon they pretend to combat. Policy making is caught in a vicious circle of more restrictions-more illegality-more restrictions.<br />
<br />
A second reason why European politicians bear direct responsibility for the rising number of deaths is their decision to stop the search and rescue 'Mare Nostrum' programme in November 2014. Many EU governments argued that cutting search and rescue operations would stem migration - as if refugees had no reason to flee their countries. (In October 2014, for instance, Theresa May, the UK Home Secretary, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/28/home-office-defends-uk-migrant-pull-factor">defended</a> her decision to end British support for search-and-rescue operations for migrants in danger of drowning in the Mediterranean (which had so far saved the lives of over 150,000 migrants) were acting as a “pull factor” for irregular migration)<br />
<br />
How wrong could they be? As a direct result of the suspension of Mare Nostrum, the number of border deaths has gone drastically up, while the number of migrants and, particularly, refugees has further increased. So, politicians' have defended their voluntary decision to let people die at sea with the outrageous argument that this would deter people from coming. This shows politicians' <i>de facto</i> disregard for human rights despite their hypocritical public grievances and crocodile tears about migrants' tragic fate. These public displays of grief are nothing more than cynical attempts to appear humane while factually being involved in a political rat race who can appear 'toughest' on migration. Whatever reason politicians have to defend such tragic decisions, by doing so they have lost their credibility for public shows of moral outrage.<br />
<br />
The lack of credibility among European politicians is shown by their unwillingness to save migrants in distress and host significant number of refugees. It would be outrageous to suggest the EU (the worlds' richest economic block with more than half a billion habitants) lacks the resources to host refugees coming from worn-torn countries such as Syria. What we are dealing with here is not an uncontrollable movement of masses of poor and desperate people from Africa and the Middle East to Europe. What we are dealing with is a humanitarian tragedy and a displacement crisis unfolding in the European periphery, in the turmoil of which a sizeable, but comparatively still small proportion of refugees seek protection in Europe. <br />
<br />
Despite all talk about 'regional solutions', it is easily forgotten that the vast majority of refugees stays in their own region. For instance, the vast majority of the 3 million Syrians refugees live in relatively poor neighbouring countries such as Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. Compared to that the numbers of Syrians coming to Europe (a few hundreds of thousands so far) is quite limited. Europe currently hosts 4 percent of all Syrian refugees (see figure). With the exception of a few countries such as Sweden and Germany, most European countries have only accepted tiny numbers of Syrian refugees. As Alexander Betts has argued in a brilliant article "<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/25/war-on-trafficking-wrong-way-to-tackle-crisis-of-migrant-deaths?CMP=share_btn_fb">Forget the ‘war on smuggling’, we need to be helping refugees in need</a>", the recent proposal for a "voluntary" resettlement scheme for 5,000 refugees to emerge at last week’s Brussels meeting "is absurd against the backdrop of three million Syrian refugees".<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3KFYu7JLzhw/VT4FQKwUYEI/AAAAAAAAASc/Py_xx_5s6uM/s1600/Bsz0qq9CEAAQOjh.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3KFYu7JLzhw/VT4FQKwUYEI/AAAAAAAAASc/Py_xx_5s6uM/s1600/Bsz0qq9CEAAQOjh.png" width="266" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
The truth is that there is no 'solution' in the sense of stopping this migration, which is likely to persist at current levels as long as conflicts in countries such as Syria continue, and migrants will inevitably keep on crossing the Mediterranean illegally as long as legal entry channels are blocked. Immigration restrictions and border controls create lucrative markets for smugglers and traffickers.<br />
<br />
The only short- to medium-term 'solution' should be focused on helping refugees in need through (1) a serious scaling up of search and rescue operations; (2) a significant increase in refugee resettlement quota by EU countries and other wealthy nations; and (3) increased support to countries such as Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan to host refugees in the region.<br />
<br />
Any thinking about 'solutions' in terms of a further toughening of borders controls and closing legal routes for migration will not stop migration but will only increase migrants' dependency on smuggling and increase the death toll. The lack of support for serious search and rescue operations and the unwillingness to host significant numbers of refugees shows that the current response of EU countries is tantamount to saying "let their people drown". EU politicians have become tragic actors in a self-inflicted drama which they decry so melodramatically.</div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-71151114052596279952015-01-07T16:05:00.004+00:002015-01-07T17:38:16.854+00:00Borders beyond control?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In my previous blogpost, I argued that politicians are often busy with <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/feigning-immigration-control.html" target="_blank">feigning immigration control</a> while in reality they often can or want to do little about it. Does that mean that <a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/58622/jagdish-n-bhagwati/borders-beyond-control" target="_blank">borders are beyond control</a>, as Jagdish Bhagwati famously argued in 2003? Have governments lost control? What do we actually know about the effects of immigration policies?<br />
<br />
In order to answer this question, I have conducted a research project on the 'Determinants of International Migration' (<a href="http://www.migrationdeterminants.eu/" target="_blank">DEMIG</a>) at the <a href="http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/" target="_blank">International Migration Institute</a> at Oxford University. This 5-year project, which lasted from 2010 to 2014 and received funding from the <a href="http://erc.europa.eu/" target="_blank">European Research Council</a>, allowed a team of researchers to collect new data and conduct analyses on the effectiveness of migration policies. (See this <a href="http://www.migrationdeterminants.eu/" target="_blank">this link</a> for more information on the project, the 4 DEMIG databases, analyses and 28 research papers).<br />
<br />
One of the main insights of the project is that while immigration restrictions often reduce immigration, these effects tend to be rather small. In addition, restrictions often have a four potential side-effects ('substitution effects') which further undermine their effectiveness or can even make them counter-productive.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5YacbJaJYwE/VFuV8KcMxdI/AAAAAAAAAQU/8nWvU7iRcMg/s1600/2014-04-16%2B11.06.01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5YacbJaJYwE/VFuV8KcMxdI/AAAAAAAAAQU/8nWvU7iRcMg/s1600/2014-04-16%2B11.06.01.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Moroccan-Spanish border crossing near Ceuta<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">© Hein de Haas 2014</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
First, restrictions often compel migrants to 'jump categories', by finding other legal or irregular channels to migrate. For instance, when European countries tried to curb immigration from Moroccan and Turkish workers from the 1970s, people continued to migrate as family and irregular migrants.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Second, restrictions can lead to huge surges of 'now or never migration'. This happened when Suriname became independent from the Netherlands in 1975. While the Dutch were keen to make Suriname independent as a way to curb free migration from Dutch nationals living in the Netherlands, the irony is that <a href="http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/news/origin-and-destination-countries-play-important-role-in-migration-shows-new-demig-paper" target="_blank">over 40 percent of the Surinamese population</a> migrated to the Netherlands to beat the impending immigration ban.<br />
<br />
Third, restrictions often compel migrants to explore new geographical routes by migrating to or via other countries. For instance, if one European country toughens its asylum policies, this may divert asylum seekers to neighbouring countries. We also see this with migration controls in the Mediterranean Sea, which do not stop migration but <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/smuggling-is-reaction-to-border.html">rather compel migrants and smugglers to use other geographical routes</a>.<br />
<br />
The fourth and probably strongest side effect of immigration restrictions is that they not only reduce immigration but that they also reduce return migration. In other words: they reduce circulation and push migrants into permanent settlement. Ironically, this is exactly the opposite of what the policies aim to achieve.<br />
<br />
Thus, the effectiveness of immigration restrictions is partly or entirely undermined by such side-effects. Besides that, they have a <a href="http://thomasspijkerboer.eu/migrant-deaths-academic/the-human-costs-of-border-control-2007/">human costs</a> in terms of creating a market for smuggling (which is a <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.it/2013/10/smuggling-is-reaction-to-border.html" target="_blank">reaction to border controls and not the cause of migration</a>) and increased suffering of migrants and a rising death toll.<br />
<br />
Yet this does not necessarily mean that policies always fail or that borders are beyond control. Policies that attract migrants tend to be more successful then policies that restrict immigration. For instance, most Western countries have opened their doors for skilled migrant and students and these policies seem to have worked to a certain extent. The extensive media attention for irregular migration also conceals that illegal border crossings represent a small share of total immigration. The majority of migrants abide by the law and migrate legally.<br />
<br />
It would therefore be an exaggeration to say that borders are beyond control. It is be more correct to say that there are clear limits to border controls. The whole idea that migration can be micro-managed is illusionary. As the example of the Gulf countries shows, even authoritarian states cannot achieve total immigration control.<br />
<br />
This is largely because migration is mainly driven by economic and social processes that lie beyond the reach of migration policies. Another insight of the DEMIG project is therefore that governments mainly influence migration via so-called "non-migration policies". Although economic policies, labour market policies, trade and foreign policies are not designed to affect migration, they have a considerable effect on migration.<br />
<br />
Such policies often undermine the effectiveness of immigration restrictions. The most obvious example is economic policies. While governments typically aim to boost economic growth and reduce unemployment, <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/migration-its-economy-stupid.html">rosy economic prospects also tend to attract a lot of migrants</a>.<br />
<br />
As part of economic liberalisation policies of the past decades, many governments have privatised state enterprises and made it easier for employers to hire temporary workers on low pay. This has converted many relatively secure, respectable jobs into precarious jobs with little status, which native workers often shun and only migrants want to do. So, these policies have increased the demand for low-skilled labour migrants. It is also no coincidence that irregular migration of (predominantly) women working nannies and private care workers is a major phenomenon in countries which have weak public facilities for childcare and elderly care, such as in the United States and southern Europe.<br />
<br />
More generally, the overall trend towards increasing economic openness and regional integration (within the EU, for instance) of the last four decades has also boosted migration. It is unlikely that this can be reversed. This also shows the hypocrisy of politicians who pretend to be immigration fighters, but have backed economic policies that have only increased the demand for regular and irregular migrant labour.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">* For more information on the DEMIG project see <a href="http://www.migrationdeterminants.eu/">www.migrationdeterminants.eu</a></span></div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-68445821158211300372014-11-05T15:59:00.000+00:002014-11-05T16:01:47.430+00:00 Feigning immigration control<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The current attempts by UK politicians to outbid each other in being 'tough' on immigration reminds me of the comment by the well-known migration researcher Douglas Massey and his co-authors that politicians increasingly have turned to symbolic measures to create "an <i>appearance</i> of control"*.<br />
<br />
The reality is that most immigration to the UK is basically uncontrollable since the majority of immigrants coming to the UK are EU citizens or family members of residence permit holders. Little can be done about this, and this is also why David Cameron's earlier pledge to bring annual net immigration down under the 100,000 threshold has proven to be unrealistic. The only hope of that happening is a major economic crisis in the UK, since the main driver of much immigration is labour demand.And this also shows the fundamental dilemma politicians face: Wealthy countries and fast growing economies inevitably attract substantial number of immigrants, although this is anything but an invasion suggested by politicians and the media.<br />
<br />
Immigration is the most concrete manifestation of rather abstract, difficult-to-grasp processes such as globalisation, economic liberalisation, privatization and increasing flexibility of employment policies. The latter are the result of a series of political decisions which have increased economic inequality, dismantled social security, increased job insecurity, and have opened the doors of European nations not only for free trade but also for the free mobility of workers. These policies have brought many benefits for entrepreneurs and the relatively well-off, while less privileged socio-economic groups have often seen their job insecurity growing and their real incomes falling.<br />
<br />
No wonder that politicians are tempted to tap into this discontent by blaming immigrants for problems they have not caused. However, this is turning the causality upside down, as growing feelings of socio-economic insecurity among large sections of the population is the partial result of the neoliberal policies pursued by the same governments that now use migrants as scapegoats to divert the attention away from their own responsibility.<br />
<br />
Because EU immigration cannot be controlled, the current UK government has targeted its policies at those types of immigration it can control to a certain extent, particularly non-EU workers and students. Although these policies have made it more difficult for such groups to obtain a visa, it would be an illusion that this can reverse long-term migration trends and that this can undo Britain's position as a global migration destination. Even leaving the EU as propagated by the UKIP (UK Independence Party) and other politicians is an unlikely 'solution'. For instance, Switzerland has record-high immigration despite not being an EU member. A major long-term reduction of immigration can only be achieved by a return to highly protectionist policies and a UK government that is willing to wreck economy for the sake of stopping foreigners from coming.<br />
<br />
As long as Britain remains an attractive and open country, it will inevitably continue to attract migrants. It is not a matter of being pro- or anti-immigration, which is the usual way the debate is framed. It is about understanding that you cannot have an open and wealthy society without considerable immigration. The current political muscle flexing around immigration therefore primarily serves to give the public the <i>appearance</i> of control.<br />
<br />
Besides potentially damaging for social cohesion, there is also evidence that all the muscle flexing on immigration is rather ineffective. A <a href="http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/21719" target="_blank">study</a> by Amber Jane Davis showed that such strategies are largely ineffective or can even be counter-productive. This is not only because as anti-immigrant voters tend to opt for the 'orginal' instead of the 'copycats' as Jean-Marie Le Pen, former leader of the French Front National, once argued, but also because their zigzagging or flipflopping on immigration issues undermines their credibility in the eyes of many voters.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">*Source: Massey, D. S., et al. (1998). <i>Worlds in motion: Understanding international migration at the end of the millennium</i>. Oxford, Clarendon Press, p.288</span><br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-26484645935502520022014-07-24T22:17:00.000+01:002014-07-24T22:41:58.591+01:00Human Migration: Myths, Hysteria and Facts<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
Migration is a hotly debated but poorly understood issue. Much conventional thinking about migration is
based on myths rather than facts. Migration policies often fail because
they are based on those same myths. It is therefore time
that we learn to see migration as an intrinsic and therefore inevitable part
of the broader processes of societal change and globalisation instead of
a 'problem to be solved'. <br />
<br />
This was the core of my argument of the inaugural lecture 'Human Migration: Myths, Hysteria and Facts' I gave on 27 June to accept the Extraordinary Chair ‘Migration and Development’ at Maastricht University. In this lecture, I discuss seven right- and left-wing migration myths and present recent research findings (particularly from the <a href="http://www.migrationdeterminants.eu/" target="_blank">DEMIG</a> project) to prove them wrong. <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z8x3HIh9Zpo?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
While migration is commonly seen as the result of poverty and violence in origin countries, research shows that growing prosperity in poor countries increases migration and that the level of migration is largely determined by labour demand in destination countries. Because migration research is too focused on answering short-term policy questions, it often fails to adequately map the causes and consequences of migration. A better understanding of the fundamental causes of migration will also enable us to better and more realistically assess what migration policies cannot achieve.<br />
<br />
In the lecture, I discuss the following (right- <i>and </i>left-wing migration myths:<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>We live in times of unprecedented mass-migration </li>
<li>Immigration restrictions reduce the number of immigrants </li>
<li>Immigration policies have become more restrictive </li>
<li>Development in origin countries will reduce emigration </li>
<li>Migration leads to ‘brain drain’ </li>
<li>Migrants steal jobs and threaten the welfare state </li>
<li>Migration can solve the ageing problem</li>
</ol>
The main facts refuting these migration myths include:<br />
<br />
<b>On myth #1</b>: While the number of international migrants has almost doubled between 1960 and 2000, the world population has grown at the same pace. The relative rate of migration <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/imre.12095/abstract" target="_blank">has thus remained stable</a>, and less than three per cent of the world’s population is an international migrant. Yet the nature and direction of migration has changed. For the past centuries, it was mainly Europeans who emigrated and colonized foreign territories. Since WWII, Europe has evolved into the world’s most attractive migration destination. However, particularly since the end of the Cold War politicians have increasingly portrayed migration as a fundamental threat to security and prosperity, inflaming a panic over migration. This contributed to the incorrect idea that migation is accelerating. <br />
<br />
<b>On myth #2</b>: Recent research shows that immigration restrictions are often <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.nl/2014/04/visas-reduce-immigration-and-return.html" target="_blank">counter-productive</a> by interrupting circulation, discouraging return and pushing migrants into permanent settlement.<br />
<br />
<b>On myth #3</b>: Although politicians like to give the impression that immigration policies have become more restrictive, research shows that policies have become less restrictive for most migrant groups over the past decades. Tough talk on migration is therefore mainly rhetoric aimed at winning elections.<br />
<br />
<b>On myth #4</b>: Economic growth, education and infrastructure enable more people to migrate and increase their life aspirations. This is why migration increases as countries develop (see <a href="http://www.cgdev.org/publication/does-development-reduce-migration-working-paper-359" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.nl/2011/05/development-leads-to-more-migration.html" target="_blank">here</a>). Economic growth of the poorest countries will therefore inevitably lead to more migration from those countries.<br />
<br />
<b>On myth #5</b>: It is a misunderstanding that the emigration of skilled people (‘brain drain’) causes underdevelopment in origin countries (see <a href="http://www.cgdev.org/publication/do-visas-kill-health-effects-african-health-professional-emigration-working-paper-114" target="_blank">here</a>). The money migrants send back home (‘remittances’) dwarfs development aid, and many migrants invest in origin countries, although it is also an illusion to think that migrants can solve fundamental development problems such as corruption and inequality.<br />
<br />
<b>On myth #6</b>: Migrants mainly do the jobs that local populations shun or for which they lack the skills. Generally, migration has a positive, but comparatively small, effect on economic growth, although it is predominantly employers, the middle classes and the wealthy who benefit from migration.<br />
<br />
<b>On myth #7</b>: While migration is not a threat to prosperity, it is also not a solution to fundamental socio-economic problems such as ageing. The magnitude of migration is too limited, while ageing is becoming a worldwide phenomenon.<br />
<br />
Open and wealthy societies will inevitably experience substantial migration. The trend towards economic liberalisation in recent decades—which has increased the demand for formal and informal migrant labour—contradicts the political rhetoric in favour of less migration. Both the positive <i>and </i>negative effects of migration tend to be greatly exaggerated.<br />
<br />
Migration is unjustifiably seen as either a fundamental threat or a solution to fundamental societal problems. It is not migration, but rather the xenophobia fuelled by politicians and the media, that is the problem. The related migration panic and the recurrent scapegoating of migrants stands in the way of a nuanced debate about migration. </div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-22990518291498219392014-04-08T16:03:00.003+01:002014-04-09T14:15:30.558+01:00Visas reduce immigration ... and return!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The effectiveness of immigration policies is highly contested. While politicians often claim that visas and border controls are necessary to prevent uncontrolled immigration, many researchers argue that immigration restrictions fail to stop migration as they do not affect the fundamental causes of migration, such as income gaps, labour demand in destination countries, conflict, and paradoxically, <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/development-leads-to-more-migration.html" target="_blank">development</a> in origin countries. Other researchers have argued that immigration restrictions do significantly reduce immigration. <br />
<br />
Yet such discussions are limited as they focus on how immigration controls affect <em>inflows </em>and ignore how they affect return. Politicians are generally concerned with <em>net migration </em>– the number of immigrants minus the number of return migrants from one country, which determines the number of migrants who stay.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vvb0jqhAeyg/Uz1D-hkVioI/AAAAAAAAAOw/nLbuq-m8QMQ/s1600/visa+effects+-+on+circulation.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vvb0jqhAeyg/Uz1D-hkVioI/AAAAAAAAAOw/nLbuq-m8QMQ/s1600/visa+effects+-+on+circulation.png" height="295" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Faced with the large-scale settlement of low-skilled immigrants, politicians have long been interested in stimulating return migration. This has recently led to much talk about <em>circular migration </em>as the ideal way to marry the interests of migrant workers to gain access to legal migration opportunities and governments of destination countries who often feel public pressure to reduce permanent immigration.
<br />
<br />
The pertinent question is therefore how restrictions affect the circulation of migrants. This has remained largely ignored by research to date. A new research paper I have written with my colleague <a href="http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/people/index/mathias-czaika" target="_blank">Mathias Czaika</a> at the <a href="http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/" target="_blank">International Migration Institute</a>, I have just published a <a href="http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/news/visas-reduce-immigration...and-return" target="_blank">research paper</a> that looks at this important issue. This is part of the <a href="http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/projects/demig" target="_blank">DEMIG</a> (Determinants of International Migration) project, which has received funding from the <a href="http://erc.europa.eu/" target="_blank">European Research Council</a> and the <a href="http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/" target="_blank">Oxford Martin School</a>.
<br />
<br />
To study the effect of immigration policies on patterns of circulation, we used two new <a href="http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/news/demig-databases" target="_blank">databases</a> DEMIG compiled over the past four years. The DEMIG C2C database tracks country-to-country migration flows between 38 destination countries and a worldwide selection of origin countries. The DEMIG VISA database details travel visa requirements for every country from 1973-2010. In the paper, we treat visa requirements as an important instrument used by governments to prevent the unlimited immigration of people from 'undesired' countries.
<br />
<br />
Our analysis provides evidence that:<br />
<ul>
<li>Visas reduce immigration <i>and </i>return migration </li>
<li>Visas interrupt circulation and push migrants into permanent settlement </li>
<li>Visas makes migration less responsive to economic opportunities in origin and destination countries</li>
</ul>
Our statistical estimates show that travel visa requirements significantly decrease inflows (estimated at 67 percent on average) but that this effect is undermined by also decreasing outflows (88 percent on average) of the same migrant groups. We estimated that visa requirements reduce overall circulation by 75 percent on average. Although the real effects vary across countries, the results are statistically significant and provide evidence that immigration restrictions interrupt circularity.
<br />
<br />
Importantly, our analysis also shows that visas severely reduce the responsiveness of migration to economic fluctuations in destination and origin societies. This is easy to understand. If migration is free, as is the case between EU countries or US states, people face fewer obstacles to packing their suitcases and moving in search of better opportunities. They will however, also decide to return more easily if they loose their job or if opportunities back home improve. For instance, many Polish migrants in the UK have returned with the rapid improvement of economic conditions in Poland.
<br />
<br />
If you have invested a lot of effort and money in securing a visa and work permit, it is less likely that you will return if you encounter problems. Immigration restrictions makes returning more risky – if the situation back home is not how you imagined there is a risk of not being able to migrate again. So, what we often see is migrants staying put even in economic crisis and choosing to reunify their families, which partly explains why legal migration continues over formally closed borders.
<br />
<br />
The irony seems that policies that officially aim to reduce immigration and stimulate the return of 'less desired' low-skilled migrants often have the <em>opposite </em>effect of interrupting circularity, increasing family migration, and encouraging permanent settlement.</div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-32206274645792575052014-03-20T01:20:00.001+00:002014-03-20T16:21:13.168+00:00Dutch racism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
Geert Wilders, the popular leader of the Dutch PVV (Freedom) Party, is well known for his anti-Islam and anti-immigrant viewpoints. Dutch
Moroccans are his favourite target, who are systematically put down by Wilders as
criminal, extremist, terrorist, and benefit scrounging untermenschen. <br />
<br />
The Dutch have now been debating for years whether Wilders' public
statements are racist or not (see <a href="http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/geert-wilders-racist-or-not" target="_blank">here</a>). To me, this is somehow puzzling, as
what else can you call the stereotyping and scapegoating of entire
population groups?<br />
<br />
Why this hesitance? Part of the explanation is that most
mainstream Dutch politicians have become terrified of Wilders.They have
even been taking over many of his viewpoints on immigration in attempts to win back votes. The right-wing liberal VVD party, in
particular, has done its best to copy PVV's anti-immigration, anti-diversity (see <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/in-rotterdam-we-speak-dutch.html" target="_blank">here</a>) and 'law and
order' viewpoints.These strategies have failed, but have made Wilders' viewpoints respectable. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/CGy-CYhZczo?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
They also avoid very harsh attacks against Wilders because they may need his party to form the next coalition government. After all, the PVV is now the biggest or second biggest party in national polls. <br />
<br />
In other words, politicians are afraid to call Wilders a racist because he has become too powerful. Yesterday, he went one step further during a speech to celebrate his party's victory in local elections in The Hague (see video) <br />
<br />
<br />
- Wilders: "I ask you. Do you want, in this city, and in the Netherlands, more or fewer Moroccans"<br />
- Audience: "Fewer, fewer, fewer.... " (shouting)<br />
- Wilders: "Then we will fix this" (audience and Wilders laugh)<br />
<br />
Innocent: no. Deliberate:yes. Racist: yes. <br />
<br />
Yet once again, PM Rutte of the VVD party stated this week that he does not rule out the possibility of forming a next government with Geert Wilders, who already gave vital support to Rutte's previous government. <br />
<br />
To be honest, this makes me angry and scares the hell out of me. Not so much because of what Wilders says (racism is of all ages after all), but because he gets away with it (not in the legal, but in the moral sense), because mainstream politicians lack the moral compass, courage and self-confidence to go in the counter-attack, show solidarity and identify with fellow Dutch citizens of Moroccan origin or Islamic faith. <br />
<br />
What we need is a Prime Minister who has the guts to say: "I am a Moroccan". That would be real leadership. What we get is cowardice. <br />
<br />
As my colleague Ann Singleton said on Twitter yesterday: "Shocking times across Europe - racist parties are again becoming respectable power brokers". Cynical power politics apparently justify sacrificing <i>any </i>principle. It is a dangerous slippery slope. </div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-80022489399001653942014-03-18T15:37:00.000+00:002014-03-18T15:37:39.891+00:00In Rotterdam we speak Dutch <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Tomorrow, the Dutch will vote in municipal elections. In Rotterdam, the VVD (People's Party for Freedom and Democracy), the right-wing liberal party of Prime Minister Rutte, is campaigning with an election poster featuring the text <i>In Rotterdam we speak Dutch</i> ("In Rotterdam spreken we Nederlands"). </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RghvkSjR3Ws/Uxuf4KQRVvI/AAAAAAAAAKY/nguoqCI1LfI/s1600/BiDbpiLIQAAfnzK.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RghvkSjR3Ws/Uxuf4KQRVvI/AAAAAAAAAKY/nguoqCI1LfI/s1600/BiDbpiLIQAAfnzK.jpg" height="320" width="240" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
This official expression of intolerance in one of Europe's most diverse cities is part of the general backlash against multiculturalism that has swept over the Netherlands since the early 2000s. The new political correctness is that diversity is bad and that immigrants have problems because they refuse to integrate. In the recent past, some Dutch politicians have even proposed to outlaw speaking foreign languages in public spaces. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
However, is it really about speaking foreign languages? Or only particular languages with even more guttural sounds than Dutch, which most Dutch do not understand and which may therefore sound scary in their ears, such as Arabic or Berber? </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
This seems indeed to be the case, if we consider another election poster used in the Amsterdam local campaign by the same party, which proudly states, in English!, <i>Why do expats living in Amsterdam vote VVD?</i> </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rcUh9QwfVVI/UxuhuhXJwYI/AAAAAAAAAKk/zDzpom-Q6Hk/s1600/BiDru9UIcAArNzg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rcUh9QwfVVI/UxuhuhXJwYI/AAAAAAAAAKk/zDzpom-Q6Hk/s1600/BiDru9UIcAArNzg.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
This poster targets resident foreigners who have the right to vote in local elections. The answer to the question seems easy: So-called 'expats' (which is really a euphemism for wealthy immigrants who do not like to see themselves as 'immigrants', a term rather associated to foreigners doing unattractive, low-skilled jobs) tend to support the VVD's political agenda of lower taxation, less regulation and a smaller welfare state. The poster even tries to conveys the message to the native Dutch that 'expats' possess some sort of special political wisdom. They are the super-immigrants.<br />
<br />
This reveals the double standards that apply to different kind of immigrants. British, Americans and other immigrants from English-speaking countries are never expected to 'integrate'. Those who wish learn Dutch are often even discouraged to do so by the Dutch who are eager to speak English.<br />
<br />
Indeed, some languages - as well as the immigrants speaking them - are more equal than others. </div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-73606562604073465662013-12-11T13:32:00.001+00:002015-09-25T08:16:35.649+01:00What drives human migration? <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Why do people migrate? This question is both simple and difficult. On the one hand, it seems reasonable to assume that most people migrate hoping to find better conditions or opportunities elsewhere, such as jobs, higher wages, safety or freedom of expression. This is the implicit assumption underlying ‘push-pull’ models taught at secondary school as well as <a href="http://people.ucsc.edu/~nuclear/econ184/lectures/neoclassical.htm" target="_blank">neo-classical</a> migration theories. Although few researchers would contest that most migrants have good reasons to move however, this does not really help us to understand the complexity and drivers of real-life migration.<br />
<br />
To say that most people migrate to find better opportunities is somehow stating the obvious. Push-pull models usually list factors in origin and destination areas, all of which may contribute to migration, but fail to make clear how the various factors combined together lead to migration. Push-pull models fail to explain why there should be a difference between push areas of and pull areas in the first place, and are therefore “a platitude at best”, as a Ronald Skeldon has aptly stated*.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7TEZMJKuARE/Uqho1XE5OjI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/iSzxYmy1okA/s1600/bus+Todgha.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="310" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7TEZMJKuARE/Uqho1XE5OjI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/iSzxYmy1okA/s400/bus+Todgha.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Advert for bus company, Tineghir, southern Morocco - (c) Hein de Haas </span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Neo-classical migration theories assume that people migrate to maximise their income or wellbeing. They see migration as a (temporary) response to development ‘disequilibria’ between origin and destination countries, and assume that migration will decline through a process of wage convergence. However, this view ignores that migration has been a constant factor in the history of humankind and can therefore not be reduced to a temporary by-product of capitalist development. Furthermore, the wage convergence assumption ignores how power asymmetries actually can sustain economic inequalities between central and peripheral countries and areas.<br />
<br />
Both push-pull and neo-classical models lack explanatory power by failing to provide insight into the social, economic and political <i>processes </i>that have generated the spatial wage and opportunity gaps to which migration is supposedly a response. It is therefore not surprising that the predictions of push-pull models and neo-classical theories are fundamentally at odds with what is seen in real-life migration patterns. For instance, most migrants do not move from the poorest to the wealthiest countries, and the poorest countries tend to have lower levels of emigration than middle-income and wealthier countries. It is often said that the only way to reduce migration from poor countries is to boost development. However, this ignores that the relation between development and levels of emigration is fundamentally non-linear. Important emigration countries such as Mexico, Morocco, Turkey and the Philippines are typically not among the poorest. Going against popular perceptions of a ‘continent on the move’, <a href="http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/publications/imi-working-papers/wp-68-2013-the-globalisation-of-migration" target="_blank">Sub-Saharan Africa is the least migratory region of the world</a>.<br />
<br />
Analyses of historical and contemporary data show that human and economic development is initially associated with <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/development-leads-to-more-migration.html" target="_blank">increasing emigration</a>**. Any form of development in the poorest countries of the world is therefore likely to lead to accelerating emigration. Such findings contradict conventional thinking, and force us to radically change our views on migration. In particular, we need explanations that do not confuse individual factors or motivations to move (which indeed often refer to better opportunities) with macro-structural explanations of migration <i>processes</i>.<br />
<br />
Such rethinking can be achieved by learning to see migration as an <i>intrinsic part of broader development processes rather </i>than as a problem to be solved, or the temporary response to development 'disequilibria'. For instance, in the modern age, much migration within and across borders has been inextricably linked to broader urbanisation processes. It is difficult to imagine urbanisation without migration, and vice-versa. Rather than asking ‘why people migrate’ – which often begs a simple, all-too-obvious and often quite meaningless answer – the more relevant question for understanding migration in the modern age is therefore how processes such as imperialism, nation state formation, the industrial revolution, capitalist development, urbanisation and globalisation change migration patterns and migrants’ experiences.<br />
<br />
For instance, how can we explain why development is often associated to more, instead of less, migration? To understand this, it is important to move beyond sterile views of migrants as entirely predictable ‘respondents’ to geographical opportunity gaps. Seeing migration as a function of people’s <i>capabilities </i>and <i>aspirations </i>to move can help to achieve a richer understanding of migration behaviour. Processes of human and economic development typically expand people’s access to material resources, social networks and knowledge. At the same time, improvements in infrastructure and transportation, which usually accompany development, make travel less costly and risky.<br />
<br />
It therefore seems safe to assume that development generally increases people’s capabilities to migrate over larger distances. However, this does not necessarily lead to migration. People will generally only migrate if they have the aspirations to do so. Migration aspirations depend on people’s more general life aspirations, as well as their perceptions of life ‘here’ and ‘there’. Both are subjective and likely to change under the influence of broader processes of structural change. Improved access to information, images and lifestyles conveyed through education and media tend to broaden people’s mental horizons, change their perceptions of the ‘good life’, and typically increase material aspirations. Development processes tend to initially increase both people’s capabilities and aspirations to move, explaining why development often boosts migration. Once sizeable migrant communities have settled, social networks tend to reduce the costs and risks of migrating, with settled migrants frequently functioning as ‘bridgeheads’.<br />
<br />
If societies get wealthier, overall emigration aspirations are likely to decrease because more people can imagine a future within their own country, while immigration is likely to increase. Although it is often assumed that technological progress increases migration, easier transportation and communication may enable people to commute or work from home, while outsourcing and trade may also partly reduce the need to migrate. In fact, from a long-term historical perspective, technology has facilitated humankind to settle down. Ever since the Agricultural (‘Neolithic’) Revolution began some 12,000 years ago, technology has enabled people to shift away from hunting and gathering to more sedentary lifestyles. In modern times, technological progress has certainly boosted non-migratory mobility – such as commuting, tourism and business travel – but its impact on migration is rather ambiguous. This may partly explain why the number of international migrants as a share of the world population has remained remarkably stable at levels of around three per cent over recent decades.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, wealthy societies remain characterized by substantial levels of migration. We see significant migration even between societies with roughly equal levels of development and wages. In this short essay, it is impossible to do justice to the full set theories explaining this phenomenon. However, a major factor is growing social and economic complexity. Economic and human development typically goes along with increasing educational and occupational specialization. This often requires people to move within and across borders to fulfill the desire to match qualifications and preferences with labour market and social opportunities. The higher skilled therefore tend to migrate more and over larger distances.<br />
<br />
This shows that it is illusionary to think that large-scale migration is somehow a temporary phenomenon that will disappear once – an equally illusionary – equilibrium is achieved. More generally, such ideas reflect a flawed, ahistorical view on the history of humankind. It is development itself that drives migration. Migration has therefore always been – and will remain – an inevitable part of the human experience.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> *Skeldon, Ronald (1990) <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Population-Mobility-Developing-Countries-Reinterpretation/dp/0471947717" target="_blank">Population Mobility in Developing Countries: A Reinterpretation</a></i>. London: Belhaven press. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">**de Haas, Hein. 2010. <a href="http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/news/wp24-published-migration-transitions-a-theoretical-and-empirical-inquiry-into-the-developmental-drivers-of-international-migration" target="_blank"><i>Migration transitions: a theoretical and empirical inquiry into the developmental drivers of international migration</i>. </a>IMI Working Paper No 24, International Migration Institute, University of Oxford.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">*** For a seminal overview of migration theories, see <a href="http://cis.uchicago.edu/outreach/summerinstitute/2011/documents/sti2011-parks-theories_of_international_migration.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> the classic paper by Massey et al. (1993). </span></div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-17478343779698813562013-10-08T13:12:00.003+01:002013-10-08T21:21:07.183+01:00Lampedusa: Only the dead can stay<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
While the hundreds of people who died off the coast of Lampedusa are granted <i>post mortem </i>Italian citizenship, public prosecutors are planning to charge the survivors with ‘illegal migration’. In an excellent <a href="http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/10/05/actualidad/1380999528_613934.html" target="_blank">article</a> published in El País on 5 October entitled “Only the Dead Can Stay", Pablo Ordaz explains how this absurd situation was made possible by the criminalization of illegal migration in Italian law.<br />
<br />
Last Friday, Enrico Letta, Italian Prime Minister, announced that all who died will receive Italian citizenship. At the same time, the public prosecutor accused 114 rescued adults of illegal migration, which is punishable with 5,000 Euros and expulsion. As Pablo Ordaz stated in his article: “The dead, however, will remain. Unabled to be identified, they have been awarded a coffin, a number and a piece of land in cemeteries of Sicily to rest, now with the European nationality for which they risked their lives.”<br />
<br />
Can irony get any more bitter than this? In a recent <a href="http://www.globecartoon.com/" target="_blank">cartoon</a> by Patrick Chappatte, two border guards are standing on a beach next to the European flag, looking out on a half-sunken shipwreck surrounded by floating corpses. They just pulled a dead man ashore, who is lying on the beach. While they look at him, one border guard says to the other “He drowned before we could do anything to expel him”.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-X3JiiqG9xaM/UlRndzmOg_I/AAAAAAAAAJM/NecXX_MAghc/s1600/drowned+in+lampedusa.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="290" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-X3JiiqG9xaM/UlRndzmOg_I/AAAAAAAAAJM/NecXX_MAghc/s400/drowned+in+lampedusa.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">© <a href="http://www.globecartoon.com/" target="_blank">Chappatte</a></span></span><br />
<br />
In his article, Pablo Ordaz exposes the hypocrisy of the proposal by Angelino Alfano, the Italian deputy Prime Minister, to award the Nobel Peace Price to (the inhabitants of) Lampedusa, while many inhabitants and rescuers have become traumatized by the consequences of legislation that criminalizes helping migrants in distress. Several deaths could probably have been prevented. Ordaz wonders why it took Italian Coast Guard longer than two hours to find out that a ship carrying more than 500 people was burning and sinking just half a mile from the island, and why it took so long (one hour) to actually come to the rescue after they had been alerted by local fishermen.<br />
<br />
To make matters worse, Ordaz reported that the authorities initially refused to help local fishermen in their efforts to rescue people. A local fisherman, who arrived first at the site of the accident, said that coastguard officers wasted time filming the rescue operation. He told reporters that "They refused to take on board some people we'd already saved because they said protocol forbade it" (see <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2448753/Lampedusa-migrant-boat-tragedy-death-toll-reaches-211-bodies-recovered.html" target="_blank">here</a>). As Ordaz points out, Italian authorities actually have the right to stop people who want to rescue migrants at sea since ‘complicity with illegal migration’ was criminalized in 2002 by the Berlusconi government thanks to the pressure by the xenophobic Lega Nord party.<br />
<br />
More generally, this shows the dangers of criminalizing migration, which has been a trend in several European countries. Instead of solving a problem, criminalizing migration has made matters worse, as it increased the risks that migrants and refugees have to take and their dependence on smuggling, and it decreases the chances of getting rescued if they find themselves in perilous situations because people are afraid to get prosecuted for assisting 'illegal migrants'.<br />
<br />
Deeply embarrassed by the Lampedusa tragedy and the concomitant media attention, Italian lawmakers announced they want to amend immigration laws by withdrawing elements that criminalize irregular migration. However, given their past track record, it remains to be seen how long Italian and other European politicians will be able to resist the perverse temptation to be ‘tough on immigration'.<br />
<br />
In fact, we can already see the first signs that the Lampedusa disaster will be cynically abused as an argument to further reinforce border controls and thus to further boosting the budgets of the relevant ministries and international agencies and organisations such as Frontex (the European border agency) that are often asked to carry out such policies.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Over the past few days, several European politicians professed their their profound sadness about what happened and the Lampedusa deaths were officially mourned by observing a moment of silence in the European Parliament on 8 October. However, in the same breath several politicians added that this tragedy showed that the ‘fight against illegal migration’ should be intensified’.<br />
<br />
Also IOM (International Organisation for Migration) joined the chorus of governments calling for 'combating people smuggling' in reaction to the Lampedusa tragedy.
In an official <a href="http://www.iom.int/cms/render/live/en/sites/iom/home/news-and-views/press-briefing-notes/pbn-2013/pbn-listing/iom-mourns-lampedusa-shipwreck-v.html" target="_blank">statement</a> on 4 October 2013, William Lacy Swing, Director General of the IOM stated that “Despite the excellent work of the Italian coast guard and port authorities, who have saved thousands of lives in the Mediterranean over the past two decades, at least 20,000 people have died since 1993. Much more must be done to prevent this humanitarian crisis and IOM stands ready to work with its European Union, North African and other partners to improve migration management and combat people smuggling.”<br />
<br />
Such statements ignores the criticism on the initially rather lax attitude of Italian authorities, who, by several accounts, could have saved more lives if they had reacted much faster and more efficiently. It is not the authorities, but the fishermen, divers and inhabitants of Lampedusa who deserve the praise. However, what is particularly worrying is the constant recycling of the myth that an intensification of ‘combating people smuggling’ is a solution to the problem, while it is in fact <i>part of the problem.</i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/smuggling-is-reaction-to-border.html" target="_blank">People smuggling is a reaction to border controls, not the cause of migration</a>. Lampedusa shows us the sad state of affairs after 20 years of 'fighting' a delusional migrant 'invasion'. Several studies have shown that increasing border controls have not stopped but rather <i>diverted </i>trans-Saharan and trans-Mediterranean migration routes, as they have done elsewhere in the world. Border controls have forced migrants and refugees to travel along more dangerous routes and have made them dependent on smugglers, who facilitate border crossings. Even stricter border controls will boost the profits smugglers can make and will cause more migrants and refugees to risk their lives on perilous, long crossings on unseaworthy boats.<br />
<br />
European leaders should therefore stop shedding crocodile tears on the Lampedusa disaster as long as they keep on pumping ever more money in border repression. If the concerns of European leaders and international organisation are genuine, they can show this by respecting their obligation to uphold international humanitarian and refugee law.<br />
<br />
First, this means that government should do everything to rescue migrants at risk, which requires the withdrawal of current legislation that criminalizes helping migrants in distress and may actually lead to injury and death. Criminalizing irregular migration also means that refugees, who often have no choice but to travel without passports and visas are often blocked access to refugee status determination procedures,<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Second, this implies that governments should give asylum seekers full access to refugee status determination processes and, during this procedure, give them access to proper shelter and protection instead of locking them up in prison-like border camps or detention centres under appalling conditions.<br />
<br />
Third, with regards to irregular labour migration: If European governments are genuinely concerned about the exploitation of irregular migrant workers in European workplaces, they should create more legal channels for lower skilled migrant labour for which a real demand exists (as recently argued by EU Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malström), to regulate labour markets and target employers who abuse migrants' irregular status instead of criminalizing migrants.<br />
<br />
Fourth, this means that European governments should stop encouraging North African countries such as Morocco and Libya to flagrantly abuse migrant and refugee rights, as they have done over the past two decades. This includes suspending most programs for so-called 'assisted voluntary return' which may be well-intended but often serve to justify the violation of migrant rights by North African governments. These policies have not only caused widespread suffering, but have only encourage migrants and refugees who initially considered these countries as destinations, to move on to Europe.<br />
<br />
Such a policy shift can only happen if European leaders have the courage to explain to European citizens that they are not dealing with a migration flood or plague of biblical proportions, but with a humanitarian issue of considerable, but manageable size.<br />
<br />
This would signify a radical break with the past years, in which European leaders have done their very best to abuse 'migrant tragedies' such as in Lampedusa to create a 'myth of invasion'. For instance, in 2011, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini <a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/8701-italys-frattini-if-ghadafi-falls-refugees-will-overwhelm-europe" target="_blank">warned</a> that Europe may suffer an influx of many as 800,000 refugees if the Ghaddafi regime would fall. Some politicians even predicted that up to 1.5 million Africa migrants would come to Europe as a consequence of the Libyan conflict. Eventually, <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/europes-tiny-refugee-burden-putting.html" target="_blank">only a few thousands</a> of refugees arrived in Europe as a consequence of the Libyan conflict, as most preferred to return home.<br />
<br />
While organisations such as Frontex have a clear material interest in inflating the 'invasion' myth, for national politicians creating such an 'external enemy' can be an effective strategy to deflect attention away from thorny domestic issues. Recycling of this misleading ‘myth of invasion’ may be politically convenient but undermines popular support for sensible policy reforms that will guarantee the protection of migrant and refugee rights on the European borders. European policy making on this issue is caught up in a vicious circle of 'tougher border controls -> higher risks of migrating -> more dependence on smuggling -> more deaths --> tougher border controls, and so on. This is a dead end.<br />
<br />
However, as with any crisis, the Lampedusa disaster can also be used as an opportunity to change for the better, as an opportunity for European politicians to show leadership and gather up the courage to explain citizens that we are not dealing with an invasion, that the repressive policies of the past have failed (or, at the very least, that they have reached their limits), that they have the obligation to give protection to those fleeing conflict and persecution and that they can no longer allow to let people die at the border.</div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-86155984682977456452013-10-05T22:00:00.003+01:002014-04-09T10:16:51.272+01:00Smuggling is a reaction to border controls, not the cause of migration<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The disaster of the sinking of a boat on 3 October 2013 off the coast of Lampedusa, which cost the life to hundreds of refugees and migrants, has already led to calls for a '<a href="http://www.voanews.com/content/calls-for-crackdown-on-smugglers-grow-following-lampedusa-boat-tragedy/1763062.html" target="_blank">smuggling crackdown</a>' among governments and international organisations. Over the past decade, this has been the usual reaction when such tragedies happen on the southern coasts of Europe.<br />
<br />
However, such reasoning is turning the causality of things upside down. It is the border controls that have forced migrants to take more dangerous routes and that have made them more and more dependent on smugglers to cross borders. Smuggling is a reaction to border controls rather than a cause of migration in itself. Ironically, further toughening of border controls will therefore force migrants and refugees to take more risks and only <i>increase </i>their reliance on smugglers.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iE1jGZ9rchI/UlBlHxGuKeI/AAAAAAAAAIo/-wfBmGAWFlg/s1600/trans-Saharan+migration+routes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iE1jGZ9rchI/UlBlHxGuKeI/AAAAAAAAAIo/-wfBmGAWFlg/s1600/trans-Saharan+migration+routes.jpg" height="325" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
The phenomenon of irregular boat migration across the Mediterranean is anything but new. It has existed ever since Spain and Italy introduced visa requirements for Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisians and other African nationals around 1991. This forced many people, who previously could migrate and circulate to Europe freely, to cross borders irregularly. Over the past decades, an increasing number of sub-Saharan African migrants and refugees have joined North Africans in their efforts to cross the Mediterranean (see <a href="http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=484" target="_blank">here</a> for a brief historical overview).<br />
<br />
While sustained demand for cheap labour in agriculture, services and other informal sectors has been the main driver of this migration, a significant, but substantial minority is fleeing conflict in their origin countries. As long as no more legal channels for immigration are created and as long as refugees are denied access to asylum procedures, it is likely that a substantial proportion of this migration will remain irregular.<br />
<br />
It seems practically impossible to seal off the long Mediterranean coastlines. To a large extent, border controls have been self-defeating. Increasing controls at the Strait of Gibraltar in the 1990s have not stopped migration but led to an eastward and southward diversification of African overland migration routes and maritime crossing points over the 2000s.<br />
<br />
This has led to an unintended increase in the area that EU countries have to monitor to ‘combat’ irregular migration. This area now included the entire North African coast and various crossing points on the West African coast towards the Canary Islands (see <i><a href="http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/pdfs/Irregular%20migration%20from%20West%20Africa%20-%20Hein%20de%20Haas.pdf" target="_blank">The Myth of Invasion</a> </i>report I wrote in 2007 and the map above, which should be updated to include maritime crossings from the Egyptian coast and increasing migration through Israel and Turkey).<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
As a consequence of the increasing length and dangerous nature of journeys, migrants have become more dependent on smugglers. Over two decades of costly, mounting investment into border controls and rapidly increased funding for Frontex (EU's border agency) have not stopped migration, but increased the vulnerability of migrants, their reliance on smuggling and caused the deaths of an <a href="http://www.news24.com/World/News/300-feared-dead-in-migrant-boat-disaster-20131004" target="_blank">estimated</a> number of at least 17,000 people over the past two decades. It is particularly worrying that the so-called 'fight against illegal migration' has blocked access to asylum for people fleeing conflict and persecution in countries such as Syria, Ethiopia and Eritrea.<br />
<br />
There is a strong parallel between the so-called 'fight against illegal migration' in the Mediterranean and the situation on the US-Mexican border. Research (see for instance <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/2695182" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://ann.sagepub.com/content/630/1/294.short" target="_blank">here</a>) has shown that the toughening of border controls and the erection of walls between the US and Mexico has not stopped migration, but has led to a deflection of migration flows towards longer, more dangerous routes across the desert, an increasing reliance on smugglers (<i>coyotes</i>), a rising death toll, and a reduction of circularity.<br />
<br />
As I argued <a href="http://www.heindehaas.com/Publications/de%20Haas%202008%20-%20inconvenient%20realities.pdf" target="_blank">earlier</a>, the actual magnitude of cross-Mediterranean migration (several tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands per year) is more limited than is often believed. Most irregular migrants living in Europe enter legally and then overstay their visas. Yet ‘harsh’ political discourse on immigration accompanying such policies is likely to reinforce the same xenophobia and the concomitant apocalyptic representations
of a ‘massive’ influx of migrants to which they seem a political–electoral
response. Policy making on this issue is therefore caught in a
vicious circle of 'more restrictions - more illegality - more restrictions'.<br />
<br />
Policies to ‘combat illegal migration’ are bound to fail because they are among the very causes of the phenomenon
they claim to 'fight'. It is very disturbing to see how governments casually deploy belligerent terms such as 'combating' and 'fighting' to describe their attempts to stop migrants and refugees from reaching European territory. However, the real scandal is that governments and migration agencies such as Frontex shamelessly abuse tragedies such as the Lampedusa disaster to spend more money on 'combating illegal migration', which is only going to increase reliance on smuggling, block access of refugees to protection, and cause even more deaths at the border.</div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6661503369345934670.post-81363007557500562562013-09-18T16:27:00.000+01:002013-09-18T16:27:02.112+01:00Migrant rights: The pot calling the kettle black <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In my previous <a href="http://heindehaas.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/more-of-same-high-level-dialogue-on.html" target="_blank">blogpost</a>, I expressed skepticism on the question whether the upcoming High Level Dialogue (HLD) on Migration and Development will yield any concrete result, mainly because governments of wealthy countries are unwilling to protect the rights of the lower skilled and refugees and to commit to more liberal immigration policies.<br />
<br />
In a reaction, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Harrell-Bond" target="_blank">Barbara Harrell-Bond</a>, the founder of Oxford's <a href="http://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/" target="_blank">Refugee Studies Centre</a>, wrote to me that it is equally important to remind governments of developing countries that they <i>also </i>receive migrants and refugees.<br />
<br />
She pointed out that major emigration countries such as Egypt and Morocco ratified the International <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnitedThis%20criticism%20may%20explain%20the%20recent%20immigration%20reforms%20that%20have%20recently%20been%20announced%20by%20the%20Moroccan%20king,%20following%20a%20report%20submitted%20by%20the%20National%20Human%20Rights%20Council%20(CNDH).%20Although%20details%20still%20have%20to%20be%20worked%20out,%20measures%20may%20include%20an%20easier%20access%20to%20legal%20residence%20and%20other%20rights.%20_Nations_Convention_on_the_Protection_of_the_Rights_of_All_Migrant_Workers_and_Members_of_Their_Families" target="_blank">Convention</a> on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families "for very self-interested reasons, because they were concerned with their emigrants, not because they ever expected to deal properly with their immigrants". Governments of emigration countries should therefore be challenged to behave themselves.<br />
<br />
Harrell-Bond's argument is based on her experience living in Egypt for eight years, where she established the Refugee Legal Aid Project (now known as <a href="http://www.amera-egypt.org/" target="_blank">AMERA-Egypt</a>), and also through her work with NGOs in Morocco on legal aid for refugees.<br />
<br />
I could not agree more. Countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia often have an appalling record when it comes to dealing with immigrants and refugees on their own territory. In Morocco and Egypt, for instance, migrants and refugees often lack access to protection, residency, basic health care, education, and often suffer from racist violence, discrimination and exploitation on the labour market.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nXq70K59HzY/UjjKUAYNFoI/AAAAAAAAAIU/dUBCK6e4eWI/s1600/le+peril+noir-+maroc+hebdo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nXq70K59HzY/UjjKUAYNFoI/AAAAAAAAAIU/dUBCK6e4eWI/s1600/le+peril+noir-+maroc+hebdo.jpg" height="400" width="308" /></a></div>
<br />
In Egypt, refugees from Syria (and elsewhere) meet with open <a href="http://www.france24.com/en/20130917-syrian-refugees-meet-with-hostility-in-Egypt" target="_blank">hostility</a>. In Morocco, over the past years police has regularly raided immigrant neighbourhoods, irregular migrants have been arbitrarily imprisoned and deported to the Algerian border. Even recognized refugees have difficulties to obtain residence permits.<br />
<br />
In November 2012, the Moroccan weekly <i>Maroc Hebdo </i>ran a cover story representing the few tens of thousands of sub-Saharan immigrants in Morocco as the 'Black Danger' (<i>Péril Noir</i>, see image above), portraying them as a major security threat. Some Moroccan politicians have also started to play the race card by blaming immigrants for problems such as crime and unemployment.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Such harsh treatment, open racism and abuse of the migrant rights in countries such as Morocco and Egypt obviously undermines the case for protection of their own emigrants living in Europe and the Gulf. This is exactly the argument that human rights activists in Morocco have used: It is hypocritical to blame European governments for racism and discrimination as long as we treat our own immigrants so badly.<br />
<br />
Perhaps such criticism have inspired the <a href="http://magharebia.com/en_GB/articles/awi/features/2013/09/13/feature-03" target="_blank">immigration reforms</a> that have recently been announced by the Moroccan king Mohammed VI, following from a <a href="http://www.ccdh.org.ma/IMG/pdf/Conclusions_et_recommandations_def-2.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> submitted by the National Human Rights Council (<a href="http://www.ccdh.org.ma/?lang=en" target="_blank">CNDH</a>). Although it remains to be seen whether this will result in any concrete policies, the proposed measures include the <a href="http://www.toutsurlemaroc.com/le-roi-mohammed-vi-decide-la-regularisation-de-la-situation-de-tous-les-immigres/" target="_blank">regularisation</a> of sub-Saharan and European immigrants.<br />
<br />
If Morocco really embarks upon these immigration reforms, this would signify a significant breach away from the past decade, during which Morocco was put under pressure by the European governments to take on the role of the EU's 'border guard'. As part of their self-proclaimed 'fight against illegal migration', European governments have been all too happy to turn a blind eye to the bad treatment of migrants and refugees on Moroccan territory.<br />
<br />
In the same vein, the EU has not only tolerated but actively encouraged severe violations of migrant rights in other countries in Africa and the Middle East like Senegal, Libya, Egypt and Turkey - through the supply of 'aid', border patrolling equipment and 'technical assistance' on how to best detect, round up, imprison and deport migrants.<br />
<br />
It is time to go beyond the false distinction between 'immigration' and 'emigration' countries. Most countries are both. This implies that it is difficult to separate the protection of the rights of emigrants from the rights of immigrants, and from the protection of human rights more generally. Such attempts are ultimately self-defeating, as they undermine the credibility of governments calling for the protection of 'their' emigrants while violating the most basic human rights of migrants on their own territory.<br />
<br />
It would therefore be a major step forward if governments of major emigration countries start to recognize that their calls for the protection of their citizens abroad can only be legitimate if they also behave themselves. </div>
Hein de Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04431782094676290011noreply@blogger.com0