Immigration woes: Experiences, challenges of host countries

Donald Trump is back in power.

The reprieve would-be migrants and immigrants got when he was kicked out of power previously has dissipated with his second coming.

Where would you travel now for greener pastures? US, Europe or the dollar-rich Gulf countries?

According to Gallup, 700 million people making up 14 per cent of the world’s adults like to move permanently to a different country, usually the rich ones.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, the figure is 31 per cent.

The rich world clearly could not absorb so many newcomers at once.

One can now understand the backlash against migration in most parts of Western Europe and the US in recent times.

There are only two concepts that guide the movement of people who intend to settle permanently in another country.

International law categorises migrants as refugees, entitled to sanctuary or as economic migrants, with no rights in the countries they migrate to.

In practice, however, countries have adopted different rules on who a refugee is.

Since rich countries virtually admit no economic migrants from poor countries, unless they have exceptional skills or family ties, economic migrants pose as refugees, because they see no other legal way to enter a rich country.

Borders
America once had completely open borders back when the crossing of the Atlantic took weeks and could be fatal. Now, it lets in families of current residents, plus the skilled and those who are already rich.

Unskilled migrants have almost no legal way in, though perhaps eleven million immigrants live in the US illegally.

Babies born on US soil are automatically citizens, so migrant families, even if they arrive illegally, can become Americans in one generation.

America’s flexible labour market makes it easy for migrants to find jobs, which makes up for America’s meagre welfare state.

Sweden, long known as a place of refuge for migrants, surprisingly attracts few highly skilled migrants from other rich countries, thanks to its cold weather and high taxes.

Half of its foreign-born population comes from outside Europe.

While the US limits welfare benefits to migrants, Sweden’s welfare state is generous, showering refugees with benefits while making it hard for them to work.

The oil-rich Gulf states do not have such fear about immigration, because migrants cannot drain their welfare state.

They do not have access to them.

Migrants come in to work and are thrown out if they stop working.

People decry how the Gulf states treat migrants, offering them no chance of citizenship.

But their policy on immigration somehow allows for tolerance of migrant flow.

Working policies
Cultural objection to immigration is harder to overcome.

Added to the belief of local citizens that their governments have lost control of their borders, the fear that migrants put a strain on existing welfare systems and the perception that migrants are undercutting local workers have led Western countries to shirk their obligation towards migrants and refugees.

No country has a perfect system for immigration.

However, it is imperative for the West to overcome their prejudices and find ways to make their immigration policies work for everyone.

As the West struggles with ageing populations and a shrinking workforce, they need more migrants to address such challenges.

Meanwhile, those to whom the doors are closed will be further challenged, unable to escape the poverty, climate change and violence that prompt them to migrate in the first place.

Definitely, there is an opportunity for a win-win situation if immigration policies are set right.

The writer is with the Institute of Current Affairs and Diplomacy (ICAD).

E-mail: Lawmat2014@gmail.com