Posts
International Migration – A Socio-political perspective
Introduction
Humans have
been on the move since homo sapiens
became nomadic. First, they walked east to Asia and north to Europe
some 65.000 years ago, according to some scientific theory. The reasons for
this movement may have been natural preponderances, like natural disasters,
search for food, or simply some natural instinct. Thereafter, came the era of
mass migrations caused not by the forces of nature but by forces of men, like
the Mongol invasions (man’s brutality in a lawless world), the Crusades (man’s
fascination with spirituality), Colonialism (man’s lust for power), and finally
the labor migration of the industrial revolution (man’s pursuit of
materialism). The history of migration is not the theme of this essay. We may
safely say, however, that migration changed from being a natural event to an
event forced by men, and more recently to a free choice of men. Now we call
migration a freedom protected as a human right.
Already in a
hundred forty year old dictionary of politics (Dictionnaire Général de la Politique, edited by M. Block, published
by O. Lorenz, 1873, p. 833) we see that the modern migration is rightly
distinguished from the forced migration of old times. Modern migration, the beginning of which is
dated back to 1815 Vienna Peace Treaty, was described as a freedom and right
that was beneficial both to countries of origin and lands to be populated. It
was also recognized that migration became a regular fact with the advance in
transport and navigation, with political greed or oppression, and with man’s
adventurism and discoveries. This means that the current understanding of
migration is at least as old as two hundred years.
Is
international migration really a freedom and right? Is it the same thing from
the perspective of the host society? What are the good and bad consequences of
humans’ access to the entire world without any limitation? Was migration called
a freedom after political boundaries were drawn? International agreements determined
free movement to be a human right.[1]
However, when this freedom was enunciated, delimitations of rights accompanying
it were not defined appropriately. International rules regarding migrants’
rights remain unresolved.[2]
Lately, an
upsurge in international migration rekindled interest in its regulation in host
countries because of the social consequences experienced in their societies.
This surge is presumably due to the fall of the Berlin Wall and with it the
Soviet regime, the ensuing rapid EU enlargement, the US policies to spread freedom and
human rights, and the economic and telecommunication boom of 1990s. World Bank
records show that there are 215.8 million migrants in the world. That
constitutes 3.2% of the world population. Reuters reports that migrants
constitute 10 or more percent of the local population in 48 countries.[3]
J. Chamie reported that international migrant population had more than doubled
from 77 million in 1960 to 178 million in 2000, and he predicts, “International
migration is expected to remain high during the 21st century. The
more developed regions are expected to continue being net receivers of
international migrants, with an average gain of more than 2.5 million per year
over the next 40 years.”[4]
The UN reports that the annual rate of change of the migrant stock was 1.3% for
the period 1990-95, and 1.8% for 2005-10 corresponding to 2.9% of total
population in 1990, and 3.1% in 2010[5].
A 2009 Gallup
research shows that 16% of the world’s adults expressed the wish to move permanently
to another country. In some countries, this rate is much higher[6].
Ten or more percent migrants in the population of 48 countries, and constant
increase in migration especially are worrisome figures.
In view of the
strong public reaction in host countries to constant increase in migration, and
the apparent political failure to deal with it [7],
this essay attempts to analyze the most obvious adverse effects of migration,
and policies to remedy those effects. I theorize that popular reactions arise
from social effects of migration on the host society, because migration
policies fail to distinguish between different types of migrants while
regulating the rights of migrants. The global and national data on social
metrics include labor migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, illegal migrants, and
sometimes even naturalized citizens all together. National regulations and
media as well as international instruments on human rights combine all types of
migrants. Yet, not all migrants’ intention to move, thus their legal status, is
the same; nor their rights should be allowed to be the same. Rights should be
matched appropriately with types of migrants*, and the related global policies
need to be revised.
Labor migration (including all named in international instruments under different titles)
The main theme of migration in the scholarly literature is economic, the simple supply and demand theory in the free labor market (the so-called push-pull effect), namely the demand for labor in industrial countries.[8] The consideration of migration as an economic issue started with the European colonialism and industrialism, and today it is big corporations’ widely recognized “business practice”.[9] Hence, migration is considered and studied mostly from the economic point of view, and another variable in business management.[10] As in many other fields, the business community and economists jumped ahead of all others to “manage” migration for their own purposes. More recently, labor migration became part and parcel of globalization policy, which is basically an economic policy.
Labor migrants are defined in ILO Convention concerning Migration for Employment (Revised 1949) Article 11, “1. For the purpose of this Convention the term migrant for employment means a person who migrates from one country to another with a view to being employed otherwise than on his own account and includes any person regularly admitted as a migrant for employment.” It is a fact that labor migrants move on their own volition, but their reason is not as compelling as for refugees. More importantly, their primary intent is employment, not the move of permanent residence. Residence in the host country is secondary to and dependent on their continued employment. Hence, the move is of temporary nature, at least originally.
Refugees
Migration caused by natural
events
Issues with migration
Race, nationality, language
differences
Cultural (religious) differences
Demographics and the exercise of
collective rights
Migration as economics
The Guardian 4 February 2011, David Cameron tells Muslim
Labor migrants are defined in ILO Convention concerning Migration for Employment (Revised 1949) Article 11, “1. For the purpose of this Convention the term migrant for employment means a person who migrates from one country to another with a view to being employed otherwise than on his own account and includes any person regularly admitted as a migrant for employment.” It is a fact that labor migrants move on their own volition, but their reason is not as compelling as for refugees. More importantly, their primary intent is employment, not the move of permanent residence. Residence in the host country is secondary to and dependent on their continued employment. Hence, the move is of temporary nature, at least originally.
Refugees
According to
2003 UN statistics, “About nine per cent of the migrants are refugees”.[11]
It may be a fair assumption that a part of the unease towards migrants are due
to the large number of refugees (in addition to the explosion in the number of
migrant workers) caused by the endless armed conflicts in parts of the world.
International politics led by ideology, and arms industry led by greed keep
alive armed conflicts; but eggs laid by politics and industry in remote areas
hatch disruption in homelands, as if it were the revenge of the dead of those
conflicts.
The definition of refugees in the Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951 is the inability of a person to
re-enter the country of nationality for fear of persecution for “race,
religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political
opinion”. While the Convention grants
refugees equal rights as for nationals in some respects,[12]
it recognizes a “treatment as accorded to aliens”, in others.[13]
“(D)ebates continue regarding the nature of the protection that refugees should
be granted, the role of the international community, and the obligations of
receiving countries towards refugees.”[14]
It is important to note, in considering the status of refugees, that although
the decision to move is theirs there is a compelling reason that inhibits the
refugee’s alternatives, unlike in the case of a labor migrant or a regular
“immigrant”. Their move is not motivated by intent of change of permanent residence;
return to home country is primary. Their relocation is of temporary nature; it
is contingent upon the conditions prevailing in the home country.
Asylum
The status of
asylum seekers is commonly associated with refugee status. Of the 215.8 million
migrants quoted by World Bank for 2010, 16.3 million are “refugees and asylum
seekers”, 8% of the global total of migrants.[15]
The Executive Committee of the UNHCR uses in its deliberations the term asylum
together with the term refugees[16]. The UN Declaration on Territorial Asylum of
1967 in its attempt to regulate asylum could not go beyond recognizing
territorial asylum as a right, distinct from diplomatic asylum, and that “It
shall rest with the State granting asylum to evaluate the grounds for the grant
of asylum.”[17]
Since then the international community deliberately avoided the consideration
of regulating asylum any further.
One outrageous
aspect of asylum is the requirement of persecution found in the refugee and
asylum definitions to be only by authorities, i.e. political persecution.[18]
Social persecution by the general public or by a segment of it, which is not
all that uncommon, is ignored. Public persecutions practiced as cultural
beliefs and traditions -e.g. female mutilation in Africa or female discrimination
in Saudi Arabia-
do not qualify individuals to seek refuge or asylum. Such persecutions are
condoned as the exercise of cultural and religious freedom.
These facts regarding asylum seekers are proof that there
is no defendable reason to distinguish asylum seekers from refugees.
Accordingly, asylum seekers are considered within the category of refugees for
the purposes of this essay.
Migration caused by natural
events
Natural
disasters and environmental conditions are also counted among the causes for
migration. Advances in technology, however, increasingly diminish the need to
migrate for reasons of natural disasters. This type of migration may be limited
to the most underdeveloped parts of the world, and confined to internal
migration. When it is of an international scale, it falls within the category
of refugees. Therefore, migration for reasons of natural disasters is not
considered in this essay as a distinct category.
Migration for
other reasons
UN Department
of Economic and Social Affairs considers even foreign students as migrants.[19]
Study abroad is a good example of the exercise of individual’s free choice of
movement without any compelling reasons being present. However, a hard search
for studies regarding international standards for rights of migrants who move
their home simply for the sake of moving did not produce any result. This essay
intends to open a debate to fill that lacunae, and more specifically on the
theory that sweeping and casual recognition of social rights for all types of
migrants is the cause of social issues created by migration.
Issues with migration
Anti-immigration
sentiments in host countries and efforts to change migration policies show a
parallelism with the increase in migration of the last few decades.[20]
This parallelism indicates to one thing only: increased migration has an
upsetting effect on host societies, and the existing policies are not fit to
cope with it.
Race, nationality, language
differences
The scholarly
literature on international migration issues indicates that race or nationality
differences do not generally cause conflicts between hosts and migrants.
Inter-marriages between different races or nationalities are quite frequent.
The main sources of discordance between social groups are shown to be language
or cultural (especially religious) differences, or both.[21]
The language
difference may create misunderstandings between the two groups, but not to the
extent of animosity that could lead to conflict. The language difference is
solvable easier than any other cause of clashes, because the parties have to
find a common language to communicate even for asserting the primacy (official
language) of their language or for defending it. Learning and teaching a second
language for colloquial purposes is also beneficial for both sides. A different
language policy appropriate for each type of migrants may be adopted,
specifically for the purpose of integration policy.
If the language
difference becomes a social barrier and a source of conflict, it is only when a
migrant group grows large, refuses to accept the primacy of the host society,
and chooses to make the language difference an instrument of assertion of
cultural difference.
Cultural (religious) differences
Culture is the
reflection of the character, the personality, and the emotions of men. This
reflection can be in the active and creative form like art and literature, or
the passive and intuitive form like tradition and belief. The former does not
cause clashes; conversely, it helps bring people together. The latter element
in culture, namely religion, makes people intransigent. The term culture used
throughout this essay is in the latter meaning.
A migrant’s
baggage invariably includes his/her race, language, nationality, and religion,
irrespective of his/her motivation to move; knowledge and skills are included
only if he/she has any. Furthermore, the technological advance in the
communication and transport industries enabled migrants to maintain
uninterrupted close ties with the home country and home culture.[22]
There are several studies that confirm the fact that even if a migrant’s all
other identifying cultural features may change with the passage of time,
his/her religious conviction would not. His/her religiosity may even intensify,
if he/she falls in the web of his/her isolated community in search of
orientation in the new and unfamiliar environment.[23]
While the effects of race, nationality and language differences on host
societies may be diminishing, culture has been and continues to be an egregious
cause of clashes. The contemporariness of the upsurge in both migration and
religiosity suggests that a study on whether there is a parallelism between the
two would be a very valuable contribution to the present discourse.
While a
discussion here of the effects of religious differences would be too involved
and also futile, it will suffice to say that religions, being the main
component of cultures and being irreconcilable at the same time, are the main
causes of discordance between societies. Religions’ “my way or no way” rigid
attitude (monopolistic, more than monotheistic, philosophy) perennially caused
adversarial relations between peoples. Historical events, like the Crusades,
settlement of Americas by
Europeans escaping religious persecution, Jew’s exodus from Europe ,
caused major migrations, rather than avoid migration. No religion is known to
have achieved peace between societies, unlike what they preach.[24]
Missionizing is their policy. Some groups’ widely publicized activities
(unfortunately also believed by many) under the titles like “interfaith
dialogue”, “co-operation between religions”, etc. are no less than a deliberate
“wool over the eyes” of the rest for concealing their missionizing activities.
No religion achieved equality even among their own adherents; neither at their
beginnings nor in the following thousands of years could they accept the
equality of women with men. How can they be believable to achieve conciliation,
much less cohesion, between culturally different communities?
Demographics and the exercise of
collective rights
There are two other reasons
why migrant populations pose cultural and social problems for host countries, a
proportional increase in the population of migrants of the same cultural
background, and granting them rights equal to citizens without taking into
account the differences between the special statuses of migrants.
The migrant
population increases not only by a constant inflow of migrants but also
substantially by streaming migration of family members for reunion[25].
Migration for family reunion is a trickling migration; it is inconspicuous
because the arrival of spouses means the arrival of new-borns as well. When the
population of a migrant group reaches the “critical mass” it can start putting
pressure on the host society. Wives, in addition to accelerating the population
increase of migrants, are generally more conservative and more attached to
their parental family, thus to their culture. Furthermore, mothers are expected
to inculcate their own culture on their children. For all these reasons, female
migrants have an additional cultural effect on the host society, other than
sheer demographics. This does not mean to say however that the female migrants
should be treated differently than the male migrants.
It is not
unusual that when the population of migrants from the same cultural or national
origin grows they form their own functioning cultural islands, the so-called
“ethnic enclaves”. These groups encourage new migration from the same cultural
background, also serve as shelters for the new arrivals intimidated by the
cultural shock.
Once these
groups are formed, they make a point of identifying themselves differently from
the host society, beyond enjoying the liberty of practicing their own culture.
In doing so, they eventually use their rights to assembly and association.
Their activities may develop into objecting migration policies like
integration, under the claim that these are methods of assimilation or
acculturation. Lines between cultures start to be drawn; dichotomy becomes
unavoidable. This separatist, instead of unifying, exercise of rights
exacerbates the cultural divide and social discord. First demographic, then the
economic and cultural, ultimately the political balance in the host country start
tilting, and changing the identity and character of the host country. The
utmost migrant society, the USA ,
is a very good example of this phenomenon. People who know the societal
appearance and attitude in the US
of 1950s and of 2000s may confirm this observation.
There are even
cases where migrants organize to influence the host country’s foreign policy in
favor of their country of origin. Some labor exporting countries try to exploit
this reality. For example, according to media reports, the Turkish PM, in his
official visits to Germany ,
keeps promoting among the Turkish migrant community a three children policy, as
well as pressing the German Government to grant more and more rights to Turkish
migrants.[26]
His alleged objective is to create eventually a large enough public opinion in Germany that will reverse the German opposition
to Turkey ’s
membership in the EU. Another example is the insidious and furtive strategy of
an Islamic group headquartered in the US , called Gulen. This movement
financially helps Turkish migrant communities in many countries, under the
doctrine of “invading the arteries of the society from within”.[27]
Its objective is undoubtedly to increase the population and the economic and
political power of a migrant group with certain ideology to become influential
in the host country policies. The organization’s motto is “Hizmet” defined as
“transnational social movement”. This definition explains openly the objective
of the organization. The organization, other than help founding businesses, schools,
and mosques also established, at least in the US in 1999, a political arm under
the appearance of a think thank, Rumi Forum. Such organizations take advantage
of the US ’
lobbying system for influencing policies for their furtive ulterior motives.
A large group
claiming difference from the main group of society, and empowered with equal
rights can certainly be a competitor to the main group, and a potential threat
to social cohesion in a democratic country. Whereas in a democracy, understood
as self-governance, it is impossible to administer without social cohesion.
Migration as economics
Labor migration
is promoted for its beneficial effects on the host country economy. It may not
be as claimed. Its adverse social effects may cancel out or outweigh the
alleged economic benefits.[28]
Migrant
workers’ wages are lower than the host country workers’ are.[29]
This is in the nature of labor migration. Although laborers migrate to improve
their economic conditions, their economic level remains low compared to their
host peers. This inferior condition also extends into their retirement.[30]
In other words, they simply exchange their low economic condition in their
country of origin with the one in their host country. They become a new lower
level economic and social class in the host society.
It is a historical fact that national
economies fluctuate (rather because of the manipulations of the free market
than due to natural course of events, I surmise). Economic cycles affect
migrant laborers even more than they do indigenous laborers. [31]
Since migrants’ wages are low, they do not have an accumulation of
wealth to cushion adverse economic impacts, and to ride the storm. If they are
entitled to social benefits, they become a drain on the host economy and social
morale, both of which already ebbed in an economic downturn.
Even under the
normal circumstances migrants, being at the low wage level, are more likely to
benefit from the social assistance programmes. In fact, some migrants’ main
consideration for migrating may be the social program benefits in the host
country.[32]
The bottom line of labor migration is that instead of being a social and
economic burden on their country of origin, labor migrants become a social and
economic burden on the host country. These economic burdens must cancel out
some, if not most, of labor migrants’ contribution to the host country economy.
The residual economic benefits may not be significant enough to justify the
lasting social upsets.
In view of the
above arguments, the economic benefits of labor migration to the host country
is questionable, to say the least. Treating migration heavily as an economic
phenomenon causes neglect of social facets of migration. The short-term
economic benefits of labor migration are allowed to have a long-term adverse
effect on the social fabric of the host society. Additional migration caused by family reunions, which do not necessarily add to the labor force, are rather addition to social problems [33]
Labor migration
is also promoted as beneficial for home country economies, as such it
constitutes part of the globalization policy. Globalization’s purpose is to
spread prosperity around the globe. The truth of the claim that the latest
upsurge in labor migration is the consequence of globalization policy is
undeniable.[34]
There is a considerable amount of scholarly reports about the contribution of
labor migrants in the development of their countries of origin by way of
remittances or by returning the know-how and entrepreneurship.
The amount of migrants’
remittances globally is quite large. World Bank’s data available on its website
indicate that “remittances constituted 0.7 % of GDP of home countries in 2010.
Remittances to developing countries in 2010 amounted to $440 billion.”[35]
Accordingly, labor migration is considered an indirect economic development aid
for less developed or developing countries. Although there might certainly be
many cases of improvement of economic level of individuals back in migrant’s
home country, the same cannot be said for the development of that country as a
whole. No correlation has been found between migration and development.[36]
I might add
that there is not a study comparing the ratios of contribution of remittances
to the development of home countries and the migrants’ contribution to the
economy of host countries (increase in tax collection, in production of goods,
in consumption, in exports). If such a study were available, it might show that
the contribution of migrant workers to the economy of the host country may be
much larger than the one made to the economy of the home country. Should this
be the case, the claimed effect of closing the economic development gap between
the two countries may be disproved.
Furthermore,
claims regarding the benefits of remittances seem to overlook the fact that
remittances also mean no savings in the host country, hence no reinvestment of
funds generated by migrants. Yet, this is the same economy claimed to be
enriched by migrant laborers. Instead, in recent years some governments and
international organizations have been promoting and organizing diaspora in
their countries to assist the economic development of the diaspora’s home countries.
The US
has official overseas programs for such purposes, like The Quadrennial
Diplomacy and Development Review, and International Diaspora Engagement
Alliance of the State Department. The Migration Policy Institute and
International Organization for Migration are some of the organizations actively
pursuing such policy.[37]
This approach is an off-shoot of the advanced countries’ undeclared policy of
having migrant workers enrich the host country first, which may in turn help
the migrants’ home countries’ if and as they wish.
As to the claim
that the transfer of know-how by migrants from the host to the home country is
another contribution to the development of the home country[38],
would it not be a more effective help if the businesses were taken to the
migrants’ home countries, instead of taking their laborers away from them?
Because, a migrant receiving business operating in the migrants’ home country
would generate jobs in the course of transferring the know-how, and increase
the domestic purchasing power, tax collection and export income, all of which
otherwise benefit the migrant receiving country. There is no doubt that both
labor and professional migration benefit also migrant sending countries,
because laborers and professionals otherwise would stay idle in an unproductive
country. However, when professionals (as opposed to laborers) migrate from the
lower to higher developed countries, it is called brain-drain indicating a loss
for the country of origin. When laborers migrate in the same direction, it is
not called labor-drain. Yet, where there is no labor, brain alone cannot
deliver the goods, and vice versa.
Policies on migration
Modern era
administrations’ most common practices for maintaining a balance between the
freedom to migrate and the preservation of national cohesion were integration,
diversity (multiculturalism, pluralism) and human rights policies. Persistence
of cultural conflicts, however, proves these policies to be ineffective.
Integration was condemned as a stealthy way of assimilating a guest culture,
diversity deepened the domestic cultural divides, and granting the citizens’
rights to all migrants (for parity in human rights) sparked clashes between
divisions.
Diversity
(including multiculturalism, pluralism)
Diversity
policy has been introduced as a remedy for cultural differences.[39]
Another expression of the diversity policy is the cultural tolerance. The
utmost immigrant country, the U.S, is the most obvious example of preaching
tolerance and diversity on the one hand, identifying the migrant groups with
hyphenated titles on the other, despite Pres. Roosevelt’s admonition that there
are no Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, there are Americans. As J. Habermas quoted from Goethe, tolerance is nothing more than condescension.[40] Whereas tolerance is part of civility.[41]
The chance for
temporary migrants to lose their culture within the limited time of their stay
is minimal, and even if they do lose it, it would occur under their own
responsibility. The host country should not be held responsible for the
protection of a temporary resident’s culture. Such a protection policy is
inconsistent with migrants’ temporary status, thus would serve no purpose.
As regards
migrants with permanent residence, active integration programs are appropriate
and beneficial in their case, but diversity programs for the preservation of
their culture are the reflection of the hypocritical “otherness”, “them and us”
and “equal but different” policies. An active policy of diversity with regard
to permanent residents defeats the purpose of their integration, and their
preparation for citizenship. Integration and diversity cannot go hand-in-hand;
they work in opposite directions.
The worst
active diversity program is to allow, and even to provide public funds, for
schools established and operated by migrant groups to teach their native
language. The real objective of these schools is none other than to inculcate
and perpetuate migrants’ culture in their future generations. Public support
for Gulen Movement charter schools (ironically called Harmony schools)
mushrooming all over the US -not to mention all over the world, except being
banned in Russia and Netherlands- is the most egregious example of this
suicidal policy. Official and formal support with public tax money for an
activity that seeds social problems for the coming generations is, to say the
least, unconscionable.
In pursuit of
multiculturalism and pluralism, the Archbishop of Canterbury went so far as to
unsuccessfully suggesting the adoption of Sharia law for the Muslim community
in England .
In Canada ,
a limited practice of Sharia in family law within the Muslim community is
allowed. Do such measures mean that “honor killing” or “female genital
mutilation” or “underage marriage” practiced by some groups are acceptable to a
society that claims to live by modern principles of freedom, equality and human
rights? Such a dichotomic administration must raise questions about the
principle of equality before the law, and about the unitarian philosophy that
characterizes “the law of the land”. How far can a democracy go with tolerance?
For a discussion of pluralist politics, freedom of religion, and so-called
secularism see the present author’s Secularism
and the Separation of Church and State in
www.sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com. Habermas' discussion of tolerance in depth, especially where tolerance pertains attacks on principle concepts like democracy or constitution, are illuminating.[42]
Active
diversity programs for all types of migrants must be abandoned for their
irrationality. [43]
Experience shows that diversity policies do not guarantee social cohesion,
whereas social cohesion guarantees peace.
Equal rights
While the
demographic issues, including family reunion, should not be interfered with,
migrants’ rights, not only could, but also should be regulated, if social
discontent that leads to anti-immigration sentiments are to be avoided. The
most advanced system of governance, democracy, needs social cohesion more than
any other type of governance. The power required to govern in a democracy is
that of peoples’ (not the ruler’s), but an ingredient is needed between the
people and governance for the two to function smoothly. That is the social
cohesion. The absence or destruction of social cohesion would render people
powerless, and self-governance would be impossible; democracy would be replaced
by chaos.
The
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers
and Members of Their Families, 18 December 1990, grants migrant workers the
same standing as the host country’s workers. Article 40 allows them to form their own trade unions and
associations, and Article 54 entitles them to unemployment benefits. ILO
Convention No. 97 on Migration for Employment, (Revised) 1949, provides in its
“Article 11.1, “… treatment no less than that which it applies to its own
nationals”, including “membership of trade unions and enjoyment of the benefits
of collective bargaining; and “unemployment”. In particular, the granting of
unemployment benefit to labor migrants is outrageous; because unemployment of
the migrant worker means that the employment contract, therefore the original
reason for his/her migration has ended. The recognition of his/her unemployment
benefits unjustifiably changes his/her temporary status. This indiscriminate
extension of rights is the main source of economic and social grievances within
the host society, because it unjustly aggravates the employment, thus economic
condition of the host country workers.
Many host
countries have been implementing active programs of social assistance and
education for the civic integration of migrants for a long time. But, the later
years’ violence show that integration policies failed. In the US the “melting pot” concept and
practice gave way in late 1960s to a “salad bowl” or “pluralist” theory.[44]
Some European countries recently had to admit formally and publicly that their
integration policies failed.[45]
Even the requirement of relinquishing allegiance to home country and swearing
allegiance to the adopted country, for example in France, did not improve
integration.[46]
Earlier in 2012, there were media reports that some Muslim soldiers of the
French Army, which constitutes 13% of the total, refused to fight in Afghanistan
against their coreligionists. Three Muslim soldiers in the Austrian army, of
which 3.5% are Muslim, refused to salute the Austrian flag because to do so,
they claimed, is against their culture. Even disinterest or passivity in civic
duties of naturalized citizens can affect the policies of a largely immigrant
host society. “In 2008 US elections 46
% of naturalized citizens did not
vote, compared to 35.6% of native citizens.”[47]
Integration
must be for the adaptation of migrants into the civic system (economic, social
and legal) of the host country, not into its cultural system.[48]
Civic integration is important as regards migrants with permanent residence
status, because social cohesion is necessary to observe in the case of people
who migrated with the intent to join the host society. Integration policies
should be limited to permanent residents and to civic matters. Cultural
integration is an oxymoron. Cultures are not “integratable”. Nationality and
religion, two cornerstones of an individual’s culture, are unalterable.
Nationality is unalterable because it is a natural, a biological fact.
Religion, although man made, is averse to any alteration due to its historical,
traditional, emotional threads. Any attempt of cultural integration would be
wrong, and would back fire.
Temporary
migrants’, like labor migrants, primary concern is the improvement of their personal
economic condition or, like refugees and asylum seekers, their personal
security. Their original intention and real objective is not civil integration
with their host society. They do not associate with the host country’s history,
culture or interests. They do not identify themselves with the host population.
They do not aim at a long term relation with the host country. Therefore, they
are not motivated to partake in local civic and social activities. Civic
integration programs for temporary migrants are not only contrary to their
status, but also may create the contrary effect.
The policy of
not differentiating the legal status and rights of different types of migrants,
and in particular granting them rights equal to those of citizens in the name of
human rights may appear to be just, but it may be a breach of justice for
citizens. It is necessary, in fact imperative, to classify and define
appropriately the legal status and rights of different types of migrants. A
freedom may be for all, but rights under that freedom are not necessarily fit
for all, they may differ.
Another
important note of caution is necessary while regulating migration. There is a
tendency in the media, and in public or private organizations involved with
migration, sometimes to identify migrants as minorities. The term minorities
ought to be limited to peoples who constitute part of original inhabitants of
the land, society, and history. They are citizens by birth, history and land.
Minorities do have citizen’s rights, including collective rights, like forming
their own social and cultural institutions. Minorities may even have political
autonomy, if agreed with the majority. The status of Catalans and Basques of
Spain are examples of such an agreement. Cessation, as in the case of former Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia is also a
probability. Any country that would classify migrants as minorities would have
to face these probabilities, versus social cohesion.
Labor migration and
Globalization
Globalization
policy seemed at first as globalization of trade and economic development.
Accordingly, it could not have been initiated by lower level societies for lack
of necessary knowledge and resources; it was launched by advanced powerful
societies. The unfortunate turn of events was, however, the policy of backing
an international economic policy with power for it to succeed.[49]
Globalization was then associated with colonialism, use of force and
imperialism. Globalization became hubris. Globalization led by the advanced
Western countries in their own style was the death toll for globalization. One
effort to soften this bad image came from Joseph Nye. He introduced the concept
of “soft power”, meaning the use of diplomacy and civil institutions for
achieving globalization but still in the image of the West.[50]
This view, of course, misses the point that globalization cannot succeed if it
is still in the image of the West supported by power, may it be a soft one. S. Huntington put it very succinctly when he contrasted the West's understanding of globalization from the "rest".[51]
The fact is that the Boxing policy of the 19th century could no
longer work, after having seeded the notions of equality, freedom and human
rights in not-so-advanced societies.
Furthermore,
when political globalization (democracy and human rights) was added to the
economic globalization, it became identical with the globalization of the
Western culture. S. Huntington
was of the opinion that the thought of Western culture being universal was wrong.[52]
If the “characteristics of Western society” are as he described them in his
book, we need not wonder why. The “Rest” perceived globalization as a Western
culture globalization, rather than the claimed globalization of prosperity and
democracy. Free movement of capital, labor, and goods became not only more
beneficial for the West, but at the same time opened an avenue to change the
social fabric and the political system of the migrant sending countries in the
Western image.[53]
Globalization and labor migration accompanying it aggravated the adverse
effects of migration.
Globalization
imposed by any foreign power, whether in the Western, Eastern, Northern, or
Southern style, potentially kindles the assertion of identity difference by the
people at the receiving end of globalization. Foreign powers’ triumphalist,
exceptionalist, and condescending policies are not welcome in less developed
societies where the pride of own identity is more important than prosperity or
democracy. Globalization became, in fact, the enemy of globalization itself.
Historian A.J. Basevich wrote in WPost
(December 16, 2011), ”Affirming U.S.
military primacy was key to upholding American ideological and economic
prescriptions. … The beliefs to which the end of the Cold War gave rise –
liberal democracy triumphant, globalization as the next big thing and American
dominion affirmed by a new way of war – have all come to rest in that unmarked
grave reserved for failed ideas.”
Hence, the
focus on labor migration as a domestic economic issue and as part of economic
globalization policy need to be replaced by a new approach.
Regulating nationally
People view
freedoms from their own singular perspective. Yet, the same freedom is also the
freedom of others. A person is a person only in relation to other people, so is
freedom. The freedom of a single person in the world has no point of reference,
no meaning. Hence, individuals need to see freedoms from the perspective of all.
That is when the delineation, delimitation, and regulation of freedom become
necessary. A freedom can be defined and regulated by defining and regulating
the rights that come with that freedom. Freedom of movement is one thing,
rights arising from the exercise of this freedom, is another. In the context of
this essay, it is not the regulation of freedom of movement per se, but the
regulation of rights accompanying it is in question. The reality is that the
current policies of recognition of all rights for all types of migrants is not
legally, socially, practically, and morally justifiable.
The single-source approach, like economics or
demographics, to an important socio-economic-political subject like
international migration, is not conducive to an accurate understanding of an
already complex subject.[54]
Data, analysis, discussion, and regulation of rights and policies become
fruitless in a field where there is confusion even in the definition of
different types of migrants.
The present
essay intends to shift the emphasis from the freedom of movement and economic
benefits thereof, as has been done thus far, to social issues and to rights
appropriate to the status of each category of migrants. The suggestion here is
the regulation of rights has to be designed specific to different types of
migrants if social cohesion in the host country has priority over economic and
cultural considerations.
Rights specific
to types of migrants
The important
and fundamental distinction between the dependence and independence of the
decision to move, and between the consequential temporary residence and
intentional permanent residence should be the determining factors in the
respective rights. In order to emphasize this distinction, the terms
“immigrant” and “immigration” in this essay are reserved for migrants who
independently decide to migrate with the intent of relocating their permanent
residence. Migrants who enter the host country under an employment arrangement
and consequentially take up temporary residence are called “temmigrants” (from
the word temporary).
The points of
reference for determining the civic/social status of migrants may range from
the status of illegal migrants to that of citizens. Illegal migrants will be
illegal, as long as countries recognize boundaries, passports and visa
practices, and migrants circumvent those requirements. Illegality defines their
status; they are not migrants. No rights should be in question for them. At the
other end of the spectrum, there are citizens. Birth right and acquired right
are not the same thing. Indigenous citizens are people who did not exercise
their freedom to migrate. Migrants are those who chose to exercise that
freedom. Indigenous people have historical, traditional and emotional
attachments to their land and their society. Migrants do not. Migrants should
not be equated to citizens. These fundamental distinctions are borne in mind in
defining the rights of different types of migrants, here below.
Within the
extremes of that spectrum, aliens are fleetingly present in a host country for
a very limited period. Their purpose may be visiting, or attending an event
determined in time, like a professional or business event, or education. They
do not have the intention of taking up residence, temporary or permanent.
Hence, like tourists, they do not even qualify to be migrants.
This leaves us
with two types of migrants to regulate, labor migrants and refugees with
temporary status, and migrants who relocate with the intent of establishing
permanent residence. Refugees (including asylum seekers) migrate under duress
and qualify for refugee status so long as duress does; they do not show an
independent and deliberate intent to change residence permanently; their
residency status is automatically discontinued once the circumstances of
persecution in the country of nationality cease to exist.[55]
Refugees, including asylum seekers, have the status of temporary migrants. They
are not “immigrants”. However, in the event of extended stay, for example more
than two years, they may be given the option of changing their status to that
of “immigrant”.
Labor migrants
for the purpose of this essay are workers recruited by host country businesses
from abroad or from among refugees. Labor migrants’ intent is to improve their
own economic condition, it is not to call the host country home. Even the
generous 1990 Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers recognizes, right
at the outset in its Article 1, the temporary status of laborers. They take up residence in the host country as
a consequence of their employment. They maintain close ties with the country of
origin and the intent to return, during their entire period of residence. Their
residency status is tied to the term of their employment contract.
On the other
hand, real “immigrants” initiate their own move, independently from any “push/pull”
factor. They take that decision for whatever dissatisfaction they may have in
their home country or whatever attraction they may find in the host country.
They migrate as a result of an educated and well planned personal decision
taken independently from any compelling circumstance, with the intent of
establishing permanent residence in the host country, and ultimately of
citizenship. This is effectively the change of home country.
These
differences in the nature and scope of “temmigrants” and “immigrants” justify
the recognition of different rights appropriate for each.
The rights of
“temmigrants” should include access to social, health and education services of
the host country, but at the full responsibility and cost of the employer of
the labor migrant, who caused their migration as part of his/her business
decision. Employers must bear responsibility for all the consequences of
importing foreign labor, including insurance for their health and safety. They
are in no different position than an importer of goods, who is held responsible
for the safety and quality of goods he imports. “Temmigrants” should not be
subject to any public integration or diversity programs for reasons explained
above. They should not be a financial burden on public funds in any shape or
form. But, most importantly, “temmigrants” should not have the right to
assembly and association as this right, in particular, easily crosses over to
collective rights, causing the confusion with the legal status of other
migrants and citizens. Although UN Declaration on Human Rights in its Article
20 includes the freedom of assembly and association, the Declaration was
adopted for the delineation of individual rights, not collective rights. In
other words, “temmigrants” may exercise this right by joining an association
existing in the host country, but may not form an association for their own
objectives. And, while The Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers of
1990 specifies this point clearly in Article 26.1(a), “the right of migrant
workers and members of their families to take part in meetings and activities
of trade unions and of any other associations”, it extends this right for
documented workers to “form associations and trade unions in the State of
employment for the protection of their economic, social, cultural and other
interests”, in its Article 40. A course correction would be very appropriate in
this respect.
In the case of
migrants who acquire permanent residence, “immigrants”, the same social
assistance responsibilities rest with the government. “Immigrants” should be
entitled to all the active civic and social integration programs in preparation
for their potential citizenship. Diversity programs, on the other hand, should
be abolished, for their opposite effects as explained above. “Immigrants”
should have all the rights and responsibilities of citizens, including the
responsibility to preserve the social unity of the host society. They immigrate
to join a society knowingly different from their own, not with the intention of
disrupting that society. If their original intent were in fact to upset the
established ways of the host society, their migration would be an incursion, a
stealthy invasion, not “immigration”. “Immigrants”, like citizens, while
exercising their right to assembly and association, should not be allowed to be
active in anything disruptive of social unity, cohesion, interests and peace of
the host society. In the event of “immigrants” economic, political, or cultural
activity that may be found disruptive of social unity, their permanent
residency status may be revoked, as a civil judicial action, not as a criminal
action. Their status would change to undesirable alien status. The revocability
of their “immigrant” status may be the only difference from citizens, who are
subject to criminal prosecution for the same offenses.
It may be
argued that since citizens, on occasion, also resort to such undesirable
activities, “immigrants” should not be subject to different treatment than
citizens. We need to recall at this point the difference between the types of
social contracts of citizens with the Constitution, and that of “immigrants”.
The social contract of citizens is established naturally by birth, as a
birthright without a conscientious choice; on the other hand, the social
contract of “immigrants” is a matter of their conscientious choice. In other
words, while the contract for the former is an opt-out type, it is opt-in type
for the latter.
The recognition
of family reunion for migrants is natural, it is human, although some
politicians think otherwise.[56]
The late arrivals of the family should fall in the same status as the
migrant’s, they should enjoy the same rights. Families of “temmigrants” and
refugees would have temporary status, those of “immigrants” would enjoy
permanent resident status.
Regulating
issues arising from cultural differences
There is not
much to be done to overcome this obstacle to social cohesion. Although the
reintroduction of a strong humanistic education along the science education may
help strengthen the power of reasoning and reduce somewhat the effect of
religions, the education methods of the last five hundred years do not give us
hope for the near future. The earlier humanistic education gradually
disappeared instead of developing hand in hand with the science education.[57]
The disappearance of humanistic education and the synchronic upsurge of
ethereal religiosity prove that beliefs and traditions are much more strongly
imbedded in humans than reasoning and intellect do. There is no point therefore
in theorizing about regulations that may help avoid effects of cultural
differences. The only reasonable and practical, and may be possible, position
to be taken in this respect may be to exclude all religion and religious
consideration from any policy decision on migration. This course would be in
perfect conformity with the principle of separation of Church and state in
politics.
Regulating internationally
International migration cannot
be regulated solely by actions of individual states. Being an international
phenomenon, it must be addressed also internationally. Yet, the international
community never adopted general principles for migrants’ conditions other than
recognizing migration as freedom of movement in 1948 UN Declaration on Human
Rights, and in 1976 Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. More specifically,
labor migration and refugee migration were regulated in the 1949 ILO Convention
on Migration for Employment (Revised), and the 1951 Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees, respectively. A Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) was established as late as
in 2007 as a voluntary, non-binding and informal consultative body to study,[58]
once again, ways
to improve migration for economic development, like to “Engage diaspora
organisations in development planning, or Support the capacity of diaspora
organisations and institutions working for development, Encourage measures to
promote the exercise of political rights and political participation, Consider
issuing diaspora bonds to tap diaspora wealth for Development”. This last
action by the international community demonstrates that it is satisfied with
looking at migration only as an economic and refugee question. The
international community seems to insist on finding ways to further strengthen
the current policies despite the fact
that host countries experience difficulty in balancing their social cohesion
with their international commitments to human rights and freedoms. No efforts are
made for finding new ways to address the social issues created by the upsurge
of international migration.[59]
It may be
useful to look briefly into the current concept of internationalism.
Internationalism that emerged at the end of the 19th and the
beginning of the 20th century was intergovernmental, and was formed
basically to suppress nationalism seen as the cause of international conflicts
and a threat to states. Conflicts, of course, have many other causes, and
nationalism has many variations. This kind of internationalism conceived for bridling
nationalism could not eliminate conflicts.
Nationalism survived, conflicts continued. “Nationalism is a natural and
historical fact arising from the social need for solidarity. Nationalism gave
life to many countries in the world, and it continues to do so in many
countries under more politically correct names, like patriotism, national
interests, etc. Nationalism is the natural binding element in a society, if
removed it has to be replaced by some kind of social binding element.”[60]
Many political ideologies developed thereafter, e.g. communism, capitalism,
democracy and human rights, could not help social cohesion either. The
political vacuum was once again recently filled in with the other element
dearest to the heart of men, religion, which is also proven historically not
being conducive to social cohesion.
Nevertheless,
internationalism developed after WWII, while still suppressing nationalism,
established some intergovernmental and regional institutions to provide fora to
debate and find some minimum common denominators in specialized areas. These
Specialized Agencies are good for developing international standards in fields
of intense human interaction, although at times they are bogged down with
indefensible and trivial national traditions or power play between great
powers.[61]
They could achieve their objectives in a more professional manner, if they
could be led more by professional associations and specialists than by
governmental politics. On the other hand, the UN itself and some organizations
within the UN constellation are inter-governmental political bodies
appropriately reserved for dealing with political issues, like security,
disarmament, and legal matters (e.g. Law of the Sea, Int. Court of Justice).
Neither the specialized agencies nor political institutions, however, are
designed to work on universal social matters, except to provide the fertile
environment for them.
The two
important social matters, human rights and status of women, were deliberated by
a political body, the UN. International actions with governmental involvement
unavoidably become politicized. This fact created the perception that human
rights are political leverages in the hands of great powers, and matters
concerning women’s status did not go yet anywhere. International migration
deserves to be debated as a social matter, on its own merit, not as a side
issue of economics or globalization. It also needs to be debated in a
non-governmental, non-interest-group, apolitical and acultural universal forum.
“We need a humanist moral system to replace the system of life after life that
makes no sense. As people globally live closer than ever before, social
institutions that divide rather than unite, like nationalism and religions,
will be obsolete. Differences must be complementary instead of divisive.”[62]
We need not my way or your way to settle the social issues, but a third neutral
way, an elevated common way designed by reason, not by traditions, beliefs and
emotions.
Conclusion
Admittedly, changing the focus
from the economic causes and effects of international migration to its social
causes and effects will be very difficult. Cleansing the migration policies of
the falsehood of diversity, revising rights appropriate for each migrant
category, and regulating international migration as a social issue on its own
merit in an apolitical forum, not within the economic globalization, will fall
on deaf ears of businesses, politicians and religious establishments. However,
if men were ingenious enough to have created cultures and religions that divide
them, they must be creative enough to define universal principles and standards
on important social matters like migration that may unify them. The enunciation
of human rights in 1948 was one such creativeness in universal social matters,
but the only one in modern times. Where there are no ideas, visions, and goals
for the future, the future will continue to be dominated by the past, namely by
traditions and superstitions, as it is happening in the current stage of
civilization. [63]
January 2013
*Migration within the same country (from rural to urban areas) also has political, economic, or occasionally environmental reasons - such as natural disasters-, and has cultural effects; however, this essay is limited to views on international migration. The term migrant is used generically in order to emphasize distinctions in terms; the terms “immigrant” and “immigration” are deliberately reserved for persons who migrate with a deliberate individual free choice, without exigencies, and with the intent to change permanent residence from one country to another.
Notes
[1] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Article
13 (2), “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to
return to his country.”
International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, 1966, Article 12, “2. Everyone shall be free to leave any
country, including his own. 3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject
to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to
protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals
or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights
recognized in the present Covenant.”
The UN Human Rights Committee,
General Comment No. 27 (67), 18 Oct. 1999, Regarding Article 12 of Human Right,
“12.1. Liberty
[2] Antoine Pécoud and Paul de Guchteneire, Migration
Without Borders, UNESCO, 2007
“There are various categories of rights that
are now enshrined, to varying degrees, in laws, international conventions and
agreements. Rights of relevance to migrants, both forced and voluntary, include
civil and political rights, access to justice and redress to courts, the right
of association and assembly, the right to work, education and health, freedom
from arbitrary detention, and the right to return. However, despite increasing
acceptance of the notion that migrants either do have, or should have, rights,
access to rights remains highly varied. Most obviously, the International
Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members
of their Families adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1990 is still only
ratified by 33 states worldwide, almost all of them primarily sending countries
of migrant workers “
[3] Council of Europe, Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, 12th
Edition 2011, reports that twelve of
those are in Europe alone. See also Eurostat
Issue number 34/2011, “6.5% of the EU population are foreigners and 9.4% are
born abroad”.
[4] Joseph Chamie, Demography,
Migration and Population Policies, Globalization and Migration Panel,
International Social Science Council, 10-12 May 2009.
[5] UN DESA Population Division (2009), The Trends in International Migrant Stock:
The 2008 Revision, UN database POP/DB/MIG/Stock/Rev. 2008.
[6] P. Fargues, International
Migration and the Demographic Transition: A Two-Way Interaction, International
Migration Review Vol. 45 Number 3 (Fall 2011) pp. 588-614, footnote 13
[7] International Organization for Migration, World Migration Report, p.20.
“According to the Pew Survey, only in Canada
States of America
the country. Immigrants are particularly unpopular
across Europe . In every European country
except Bulgaria
Europe, strong negative sentiments towards immigrants
were registered in Germany
and Italy
(60% and 67%, respectively). Negative sentiment is
even higher in Eastern Europe , where
strong majorities in the Czech
Republic (79%) and Slovak Republic
immigration, as do the
majority of Russians (59%).
[8] Douglas Massey et.al. Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal
Population and Development Review, Vol. 19, No. 3
(Sep., 1993), pp. 431-466
[9] Massey, idem
[10] Alex Balch,
Managing Labour Migration in Europe:
ideas knowledge and policy change, University of Sheffield, Working
Paper 184, January 2010
[11]UN International Migration Report 2002, International Migration : A Global
Issue for the 21st Century, POP/849, 6 February 2003.
[12] Convention
relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951. Articles 1
A (1), 1 C (5), 4, 14, 16.2,
17.3, 20, 22.1, 23, 24.1.
[13] Idem.. Articles 7, 17.1,
18, 19, 21, 22.2, 26
[14] Elisa Mason, Guide to International Refugee Law Resources
on the Web, March 5, 2009 , http://www.llrx.com/features/refugee.htm
[15] World Bank, Migration
& Remittances Factbook 2011, Second edition.
[16] Elisa Mason, supra.
[17] Declaration on Territorial Asylum, adopted by the
General Assembly under resolution 2312 (XXII) of 14 December 1967.
[18] UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14.
[19] United Nations Department of Economic and Social
Affairs Population Division,
International Migration in a Globalizing World: The Role of Youth,
Technical Paper No. 2011/1, “Responding
to the forces of globalization, increasing numbers of young people are
migrating in order to study abroad.”
UN International
Migration Report of 2002 also reports “In 2001, almost a quarter of all
countries viewed immigration levels as too high; 44 per cent of developed
countries had policies aiming to lower immigration levels, as did 39 per cent
of developing countries.”
[20] IpsosGlobal@dvisory, “A survey conducted by global research company Ipsos finds that nearly one half (45%) of global citizens believe ‘immigration has generally had a negative impact on their country’ compared to just one in five (21%) who believe the impact has been positive; all others (29%) are on the fence. Against a backdrop where eight in ten (80%) global citizens in the 23 countries polled believe that over the last five years the amount of migrants in their country has increased, half (52%) of all respondents also believe there are too many immigrants in their country, have made it more difficult for their country’s people get jobs (48%) and place too much pressure on their country’s public services (51%).”
[21] C. Joppke in The
Role of the State in Cultural Integration, Migration Policy Institute,
February 2012, finds that the main cultural differences that impede integration
are the language and religion.
[22] P. Fargue, supra, p.595
[23] Saba Senses Ozyurt, Living Islam in Non-Muslim Spaces: How Religiosity of Muslim Immigrant
Women Affect Their Cultural and Civic Integration in Western Host Societies,
Working Paper 179, June 2009, CCIS,
[24] For a good discussion of this subject see Peter
O’Brien, Islamic Civilization and (Western) Modernity, Comparative Civilizations Review Number 65, Fall 2011.
[25] UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Population Division, International
Migration in a Globalizing World: The
Role of Youth, Technical Paper No.
2011/1, “In most countries, the spouses
of citizens are allowed to immigrate and are granted the right to residence.
Spouses constitute a sizable proportion of the migrants admitted by major
receiving countries. In 2003, 45 per cent of all long-term immigrants to France United
States , spouses of U.S. Australia and Canada Italy
and Sweden
[26] During a visit to Germany two years ago, Turkish Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan angered many with statements made in a speech given to the
Turkish community in Cologne in which he warned
against assimilation in Germany
[27] Turkey’s Turning Point, Michael Rubin,
National Review Online, April 14, 2008 ; Gulen
Movement: Turkey’s Third Power, jiaa.janes.com, February 2009; The Fethullah Gulen Movement, Bill Park,
MERIA, January 5,
2009 ; Fethullah Gulen’s Grand
Ambition, R. Sharon-Krespin, MEQ, Winter 2009; The Gulen Movement: A New Islamic World Order?, AIRA, July 1, 2011 ; Inspiring
or insidious, Delphine Strauss, Financial Times, April 29, 2011 .
[28] Douglas S. Massey et.al. supra.
[29] Pia M. Orrenius, Madeline Zavodny, Tied
to the Business Cycle: How Immigrants Fare in Good and Bad Economic Times, November 2009, Migration Policy
Institute, P.14;
Douglas S. Massey et
al., supra
[30] Derek Hum and
Wayne Simpson, Immigrant Retirement
Prospects: From Bad to Worse?
Department of Economics,
University of Manitoba
[31] Orrenius and Zavodny, supra p.25
[32] Derek Hum and
Wayne Simpson, supra
[33] Saskia Bonjour, The
Power and Morals of Policy Makers:Reassessing the Control Gap,
International Migration Review, Spring 2011
[34] Douglas S. Massey et. al., supra
[35] Some developed countries are as much the recipients
of remittances as they are senders. In 2009, Germany Spain
[36] For a good analysis of this subject see A. Terrazas, Migration and Development: Policy
Perspectives from the US, Migration Policy Institute, June 2011, p. 11
[37] See D.R.
Agunias, et.al. “Closing the Distance:
How governments strengthen ties with Diaspora”, MPI Report, 2012, and K. Newland, et. al. “ Diasporas: New Partners in Global Development Policy”, MPI 2010.
[38]
For a discussion of interrelations between
migrants and their home country, see P. Fargues, supra.
[39] For a defense of multiculturalism see Kymlicka.
[40] J. Habermas, Between
Naturalism and Religion Polity 2008, p. 253
[41] Idem, p. 260
[42] Idem, pp. 255, 260, 270.
[43] Zana Vathi, Migration and Settlement of Albanian-Origin
Immigrants in London, Sussex Centre for Migration Research, Working Paper
No 57
[44]T.R. Jimenez, Immigrants
in the United States, Migration Policy Institute, p.2
See also A.
Bisin and T. Verdier, Beyond
the Melting Pot: Cultural Transmission, Marriage, and the Evolution of Ethnic
and Religious Traits, The Quarterly Journal Of Economics, August 2000, p.
955.
[45] Der Spiegel 18 October 2010 , The World from Berlin, Merkel's
Rhetoric in Integration Debate is 'Inexcusable', “In an unusually
pointed interjection, German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Sunday declared that
multiculturalism in Germany was a failure and said it was an illusion to think
that Germans and foreign workers could "live happily side by side."
"We
kidded ourselves for a while that they wouldn't stay, but that's not the
reality," she told members of the youth group of her Christian Democratic
Union party, referring to the influx of workers, known as guest workers, who
helped fuel the country's postwar economic boom.”
"Of course the tendency
had been to say, 'let's adopt the multicultural concept and live happily side
by side, and be happy to be living with each other'. But this concept has
failed, and failed utterly," she said.
Her comments fanned Germany
The Guardian 4 February 2011, David Cameron tells Muslim Britain
“In a major
speech to a security conference in Munich
[46] Will Kymlicka, Multiculturalsim:
Succes, failure, and the Future, Migration Policy Institute, February 2012,
p.18
See also Yasemin Soysal’s The Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and
Postnational Membership in Europe, 1994.
[47] T.R. Jimenez, supra,
Chart on p. 13.
[48] See C. Joppke for a discussion on integration.
Susan Gordon
Integrating Immigrants: Morality and
Loyalty in U.S. Naturalization Practice, The Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, Working Paper 160,
January 2008
[49] S. Huntington , The Clash of Civilizations, Touchstone
1997, p. 310
See also F. Fukuyama, State Building, Profile Books 2005, pp.131-134
[50] Joseph Nye, Soft
Power, Public Affairs 2004.
[51] S. Huntington ,
supra, p. 184
[52] S. Huntington ,
supra, p. 310
[53] Douglas S. Massey et.al., supra
[54] Douglas S. Massey et al., supra
[55] Refugee Convention of 1951, Article 1.C (5)
[56] S. Bonjour ,
supra
[57] See an excellent study by Anthony Kronman, Education’s End, Yale University Press,
2007.
[58] J. Chamie, supra
[60] The present author, Nationalism a la Turca”, www.sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com, November 2012.
[61] For a history and failure of international
organizations see a recent publication by Mark Mazower, Governing the World, Penguin Press, 2012.
[62] Leslie Lipson, Moral Decadence of Civilization, 1998.
[63] The present author, “Illusion of Self-governance“, Blog supra, February 2010, “After having realized self-consciousness and
self-worth more than four hundred years ago, men should finally be able to
identify themselves more and more with their community and human kind as a
whole, instead with state, nation, religion, or groups as they did thus far.
They can do this only by thinking outside the envelope: to stand at the edge of
the frontier of knowledge and think beyond, and most importantly to have the
courage to put in practice new ideas that run against but arising from
traditions.”
