| |
Contributions from
the Column
Focus
Migration demands a
coherent approach
Lawlessness according
to mode 4
“No problem fo us...”
Second-class citizens
From talk to action
04/2006
|
|
From talk to action
In a report published last year, the Global Commission on International Migration has concisely analysed the
opportunities and challenges migration presents. Although the recommendations do not go far enough, they do offer a
starting point for meaningful action.
[ By Hans Werner Mundt ]
Turmoil on the southern borders of the EU is making it clear, even to those who are relatively indifferent to issues of development, that
it is in everybody’s interests for Africa to make progress in both political and economic terms. This awareness should make people more
inclined to consider the interests of the countries of origin when discussing – and deciding on – policy.
Even at first glance, purely “domestic” decisions can have an important bearing on migration. In Germany, the low-wage
sector is currently the subject of hot debate. However, in such discussions, it is usually overlooked that the current regulations of the
labour market directly relate to the vast number of illegal immigrants. In fact, strict regulations tend to make Europe an attractive
destination for illegal immigrants. Work migrants come here in the knowledge that they will soon be able to find jobs, because there is
a high demand for cheap labour, which the regular job market does not satisfy.
Migration is an issue influenced by decisions made in many different policy fields. Nonetheless, it is normally the home ministers who are
formally in charge. They tend to use the tools typically available to their departments when dealing with the problems that arise. Accordingly,
a core recommendation of the Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM) is that other departments should be involved in decision-making
on migration, too. In addition, the GCIM advocates the participation of representatives from business and other sectors.
Cooperating with the countries of origin
Defending “Fortress Europe” bares a high price. Not only are border installations becoming increasingly complex and
expensive, the humanitarian costs are soaring, too. Not long ago, Europeans looked down their noses at the catastrophic humanitarian
situation on the US-Mexican border. Today they face a similar situation on Europe’s southern border. Even when refugees are caught,
it is almost impossible to return them to their native countries. These countries are not particularly cooperative about fetching illegal
migrants home. If border controls are to be effective, it is vital that countries of origin and transit countries play their part in containing
illegal migration. On the other hand, they must respect human rights and prevent humanitarian disasters.
The question, however, is whether the countries of origin and the transit countries are prepared to cooperate. What do they expect in return?
Escape has become a lucrative business. According to recent reports from Morocco, smuggling migrants to Spain is now even more profitable
than drug trafficking. Aggravating the situation, remittances even from illegal migrants have become an important source of funds for
the countries of origin.
It would probably be counterproductive to punish countries for lack of cooperation by withholding development assistance. Doing so might
contribute to a further deterioration of the economic situation of the countries concerned, with the result of migration pressure growing.
The GCIM therefore correctly suggests offering more legal migration to those countries of origin which help to stem the flow of irregular
migrants. The EU Commission has advanced similar ideas. Unfortunately, however, it is unlikely that these will be endorsed by the major
destination countries in the EU. Currently, there is too much resentment, particularly towards the Muslim communities, for their perceived
unwillingness to integrate.
Efforts to reshape cooperation between states, however, must also ensure that the right to asylum is not undermined. This would be the case, for
instance, if legitimate asylum seekers could no longer apply in any European country, simply because they do not manage to get here at all.
Reception centres outside Europe, as were promoted by the former German Interior Minister, Otto Schily, and others, will hardly solve the
problem. We must bare in mind that 50% of legitimate asylum applications are only accepted after judicial intervention. Such data cast doubt
on the feasibility of a largely informal process outside Europe.
Legally-acceptable solutions are needed. The supposedly pragmatic approach, according to which “everyone benefits from irregular
migration”, does not add up. Yes, migrants do indeed find paid work. And their home countries can expect easing pressure on their job
markets and foreign currency, thanks to remittances. It is also true that the citizens of the host country can employ cheap labour. However,
it is unacceptable that an estimated five million irregular migrants are now living in Europe without any legal protection. After all, Europeans
constantly stress the importance of human rights.
Opportunities of migration
As a consequence of growing social and economic disparities, public debate revolves around undesired migration. However, development agencies
have in the past few years discovered the potential of migration. The information technology (IT) sector in California typically serves as an
example. Analysis of its rapid growth has shown that it would never have occurred without the hundreds of thousands of skilled people who
migrated from Asia. Moreover, US-based Indian professionals played a key role in setting up the successful IT sector in their old homeland.
This example clearly shows that the migration of certain groups of qualified professionals can make sound business sense, not only for the destination
country but also for the country of origin.
In the meantime, almost all OECD-countries have opened their borders to highly qualified migrants. They have done so more in an effort to duplicate
the success of the Silicon Valley near San Francisco than to help build more Silicon Plateaus like the one near Bangalore. Germany, too, has passed a
new immigration law, which provides more generous rules for highly-skilled migrants.
On top of technology transfer, financial remittances to developing countries are another argument in favour of migration. The World Bank estimates
the volume of remittances during 2005 at $ 167 billion. For most developing countries, such funds constitute the most important external source of
foreign exchange. Therefore, many countries of origin promote the migration of their citizens, hoping to benefit financially from the remittances and
in other terms from their cooperation.
Does that mean that it is always in the interest of the poor countries when their best minds leave home? That conclusion would be an unfair exaggeration.
It is true that an active diaspora can enhance the dynamics of an economy back home. But the crucial question is whether the advantages really outweigh
the disadvantages. That was certainly the case for India, a huge country, which can not only cope with, but even benefit from the emigration of about a
million university-trained people. After all, we are talking of only about 4.3% of all Indians with a university degree. But when almost 50% of all
Ghanaians with higher education leave the country, the country loses lifeblood, for which no advantages from a qualified diaspora can compensate.
The migration of health professionals from Africa makes this point very clear. This phenomenon alone can be expected to cancel out all efforts made
by the countries concerned as well as the donor community to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, at least in the health sector. It is therefore
totally inconsistent for the donor community to commit itself to these goals, to provide funds, and, at the same time, to poach health professionals
from poor countries.
The GCIM has been far from convincing in handling these questions. Bans on recruitment for ethical reasons are dismissed as inadvisable or impractical,
without any further explanation. On the other hand, compensation appears to be a feasible option. Why shouldn’t the migrants themselves pay compensation,
when capitalising on the free education they enjoyed in many developing countries? The GCIM opposes such recommendations.
Most likely, the elites in the countries of origin do not want to see rules on compensation put in place, as such rules might affect their families.
Nonetheless, poor countries should require graduates to serve their country for a specified period of time in return for receiving a free university
education. This is particularly important in view of the high migration rates.
Meaningful activities
Questions of migration and development are interrelated closely. The most important links are clear. In the first place, economic disparities must
be reduced. Close cooperation with the countries of origin is essential, in order to set acceptable limits to illegal migration – without jeopardising
its humanitarian aspects – and to limit the brain drain so harmful to development. After all, the key issue is to make better use of the potentials
of migration than we have done in the past.
In bilateral terms, France deserves to be mentioned. The Foreign Office in Paris has an area of operations known as Codéveloppement,
for which the 2006 budget is to be increased to Û 10 million Euro. It is mainly concerned with setting up secure and affordable remittance transfers,
assisting and advising migrants with investments in their home countries, as well as mobilising the elites of the diaspora for development tasks in
their countries of origin. The British DfID (Department for International Development) also has a similar work unit, but with a much lower level
of funding.
In Germany, the Development Ministry (BMZ) has for a long time been co-funding a reintegration programme run by the Federal Labour Agency,
which supports resettling migrants their home country. A sector project scheduled to start soon will expand this approach in the light of new experience.
German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) has already carried out two international conferences, on professional migration and on cooperation with
the diaspora. It is currently working on a new study to prepare the new sector project.
The European Commission has begun several notable activities. Its handling of the subject is impressive for its high level of development sensibility,
although the commissioner for freedom, security and justice has taken the lead. The Commission dealt with various different questions in a series of
communications. They discussed the possibilities of improving border controls, closer cooperation with countries of origin and transit countries, the
question of granting asylum to people outside Europe, the option of allowing limited, legal migration, limiting the brain drain by combating its root
causes, and in particular, improving the economic situation of the people in the major countries of origin.
Moreover, migration is still on the UN agenda. It is to be hoped that future documents and declarations will be even more stringent that the CGIM
report was last year.
Dr. Hans Werner Mundt
advises the Migration and Development project of German Technical Cooperation (GTZ).
hans-werner.mundt@gtz.de
|
