From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec

From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec

12.07.2015 Views

5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TRADINGFor poor people, migration inevitably brings costs as well as benefits,including the personal cost of leaving home and country, and thehigher risk of abuse in the workplace, especially when the migrant is inthe country illegally and lacks recourse to the law.Women make up just over half of all migrants. They face greaterrisks and threats than men, but they also have the chance to gaineconomic independence. Women whose partners migrate are alsomore independent, typically much more likely to open their own bankaccounts, register land or housing in their own names, or look fortheir own sources of income. Women migrants tend to send moremoney back to their families (Bangladeshi women send home anaverage of 72 per cent of their salaries) and, when at the receiving end,tend to spend more of it on health and education. 89Concerns surround the ‘brain drain’ of key workers such as doctorsand nurses: at least 12 per cent of Indian doctors work in the UK, andJamaica and Grenada have to train five doctors for every one thatstays. 90 Teachers and nurses have a right to migrate, like anyone else,but people in poor countries also have a right to expect professionalstrained with public money to stay and work in their home country fora number of years after graduation.Most public debate on migration is over the costs and benefits tothe recipient country, rather than to the country of origin. Here thereis a gulf between evidence and public perception, and betweeneconomics and politics. Studies suggest that, without immigration,the Spanish economy would have stagnated over the past five years,and in 2005 immigrants paid in €5bn more in taxes than they receivedin services: 91 they are most definitely not the parasites of popularprejudice. Spain’s experience is widely shared. Numerous economicstudies show that migrants add to the demand for goods and services,introduce new ideas and skills, and do not drain social service spending.Instead, they are among the most dynamic members of society and areunlikely to live on welfare when they could be earning more by working.Studies in the UK,Australia,and elsewhere show significant net paymentsto the state from migrants. 92Yet popular sentiment in some recipient countries is increasinglyanti-immigrant and constitutes the main barrier to making migrationwork for development. US academic Lant Pritchett has identified a337

FROM POVERTY TO POWERnumber of‘framing’assumptions that influence the debate on migration:that it is morally legitimate to discriminate on the basis of nationality;that development is about countries, not individuals; that our responsibilitytowards others varies with geographical proximity. 93This raises the thorny question of whether there is a ‘right tomigrate’. The UN Declaration of Human Rights states only that‘everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence withinthe borders of each State’(so there is a right to internal migration) andthat ‘everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own,and to return to his country’ (so there is a right to emigrate but noobligation on any country to admit the migrant, excluding asylumcases, which are covered elsewhere). More recently the UN’s SpecialRapporteur on the right to food has argued that the right of asylumshould be expanded to include people fleeing from hunger andfamine, which would certainly include some of those currently classifiedas ‘economic migrants’. 94 In general however, there is little comfort tomigrants from international human rights law: they are on their own.Stopping migration is both wrong and impossible. But for theforeseeable future, arguing for a return to a world of completely freemovement of people is a forlorn task. An approach with moreprospect of success would be to ask, ‘What are the policies towardmigration that would be most beneficial to the world’s currently poorpeople (nearly all of whom reside in poor countries) and yet are (orcould be) still politically acceptable in rich countries?’ 95 Such anapproach would rule out two common proposals: select migrantsbased on a combination of qualifications and wealth, or agree rulesthrough the WTO. The first approach would prevent most poorpeople from migrating, while any agreement in the WTO is likely to beextremely weak and ineffective. Bilateral agreements provide moreprospect of success.Improving the contribution of migration to development requiresaction at a global level, as well as by governments, backed up by publicpressure, both North and South. In the long term, the flow of peopledeserves as much attention as that of capital or goods, perhapsthrough a World Migration Organisation, which would replace thelargely toothless International Organization for Migration. 96 In Europea Common Migration Policy could help by rescuing the issue from the338

FROM POVERTY TO POWERnumber of‘framing’assumptions that influence the debate on migration:that it is morally legitimate <strong>to</strong> discriminate on the basis of nationality;that development is about countries, not individuals; that our responsibility<strong>to</strong>wards others varies with geographical proximity. 93This raises the thorny question of whether there is a ‘right <strong>to</strong>migrate’. The UN Declaration of Human Rights states only that‘everyone has the right <strong>to</strong> freedom of movement and residence withinthe borders of each State’(so there is a right <strong>to</strong> internal migration) andthat ‘everyone has the right <strong>to</strong> leave any country, including his own,and <strong>to</strong> return <strong>to</strong> his country’ (so there is a right <strong>to</strong> emigrate but noobligation on any country <strong>to</strong> admit the migrant, excluding asylumcases, which are covered elsewhere). More recently the UN’s SpecialRapporteur on the right <strong>to</strong> food has argued that the right of asylumshould be expanded <strong>to</strong> include people fleeing from hunger andfamine, which would certainly include some of those currently classifiedas ‘economic migrants’. 94 In general however, there is little comfort <strong>to</strong>migrants from international human rights law: they are on their own.S<strong>to</strong>pping migration is both wrong and impossible. But for theforeseeable future, arguing for a return <strong>to</strong> a world of completely freemovement of people is a forlorn task. An approach with moreprospect of success would be <strong>to</strong> ask, ‘What are the policies <strong>to</strong>wardmigration that would be most beneficial <strong>to</strong> the world’s currently poorpeople (nearly all of whom reside in poor countries) and yet are (orcould be) still politically acceptable in rich countries?’ 95 Such anapproach would rule out two common proposals: select migrantsbased on a combination of qualifications and wealth, or agree rulesthrough the WTO. The first approach would prevent most poorpeople from migrating, while any agreement in the WTO is likely <strong>to</strong> beextremely weak and ineffective. Bilateral agreements provide moreprospect of success.Improving the contribution of migration <strong>to</strong> development requiresaction at a global level, as well as by governments, backed up by publicpressure, both North and South. In the long term, the flow of peopledeserves as much attention as that of capital or goods, perhapsthrough a World Migration Organisation, which would replace thelargely <strong>to</strong>othless International Organization for Migration. 96 In Europea Common Migration Policy could help by rescuing the issue from the338

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!