GLOBAL MIGRATION

Members:
Japeth Ray M. Gargar
Russel Ricablanca
Floyd Lenard Poligrates
Marvin Eguia
Jonas Superio
Joshua Ignacio
INTRODUCTION
 This lesson will look at global migration and its impact on both sending and receiving

countries. Although we will cite numerous challenges relating to migration, migration

should not be considered a problem. There is nothing moral or immoral about moving from

one country to another. Human beings have always been migratory. It is the result of their

movements that that areas get populated, communities experience diversity, and economies

prosper. Thus, rather than looking at migration in terms of simplistic good vs. bad lens,

treat it as a complex social phenomenon that even predates contemporary globalization.

WHAT IS MIGRATION?

In simple terms, it is the movement of people from one place to

another
 Two types

• Internal migration – refers to people moving from one area to another within one
country.

• International migration – people cross borders of one country to another.

International migration can be further broken down
into five groups:

1. Immigrants – those who move permanently to another country.

2. Foreign workers – workers who stay in another country for a fixed period (at least
6 months in a year).
3. Illegal immigrants – people who to another country through illegal means.
4. Migrants petitioned by their families to move to the destination country.
5. Refugees or asylum-seekers – people who are unable or unwilling to return to
their home country because of a well founded fear of persecution on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion.
Demographers estimate that 247 million people are currently living outside the countries

of their birth. Ninety percent of them moved for economic reasons while the remaining

10 percent were refugees and asylum-seekers. The top three regions of origin are Latin

America (18 percent of global total), followed by Eastern Europe and Central Asia (16

percent), and the Middle East and North Africa (14 percent). On a per country basis,

India, Mexico, and China are leading, with the Philippines, together with Afghanistan,

only ranking 6th in the world. The top 10 country destination of these migrants are mainly

in the west and the Middle East, with the United States topping the list.
Fifty percent of global migrants have moved from the developing countries to the developing

countries to the developed zones of the world and contribute anywhere from 40 to 80 percent

of their labor force. Their growth has outstripped the population growth in the developed

countries (3 percent versus only 0.6 percent), such that today, according to the think-tank

Mckinsey Global Institute, “first-generation immigrants constitute 13 percent of the population

in Western Europe, 15 percent in North America, and 48 percent in the GCC countries.” The

majority of migrants remain in cities. The percentages of migrants are 92 percent in the United

States, 95 percent in the United Kingdom, and 99 percent in Australia. Once settled, they

contribute enormously to raising the productivity of their host countries.

Table 1. Migrant Contribution to destination country, in
dollars and as percentage of national GDP, 2015

Country Contribution Percentage of GDP

United States 2 trillion dollars 11 percent
Germany 550 billion dollars 17 percent
United Kingdom 390 billion dollars 14 percent
Australia 330 billion dollars 25 percent
Canada 320 billion dollars 21 percent
The migrant influx has led to a debate in destination countries over the issue of whether

migrants are assets or liabilities to national development. Anti-immigrant groups and

nationalists argue that government must control legal immigration and put a stop to illegal

entry of foreigners. Many of these anti-immigrant groups are gaining influence through

political leaders who share their beliefs. Examples include US President Donald Trump and

UK Prime Minister Theresa May, who have been reversing the existing pro-immigration and

refugee-sympathetic policies of their states. Most recently, trump attempted to ban travel into

the United States for people of majority-Muslim countries even those with proper

documentation. He also speaks about his election promise of building a wall between the

United States and Mexico.

The wisdom of these government actions are belied by the data. A 2011 Harvard

Business School survey on the impact of immigration concluded that the likelihood

and magnitude of adverse labor market effects for native from immigration are

substantially weaker than often perceived. The fiscal impact of immigration on social

welfare was noted to be very small. Furthermore, the 2013 report on government

welfare spending by Organizations for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD) clearly shows that native-born citizens still receive higher support compared

to immigrants.
The massive inflow of refugees from Syria and Iraq has raised alarm bells once

again, but has not prove to be as damaging as expected. The International Monetary

Fund predicted that the flow of refugees fleeing the war in Syria and Iraq would

actually grow Europe’s GDP, albeit “modestly.” In Germany, the inflow of refugees

from the Middle East has not affected social welfare programs, and had very little

impact on wages and employment. In fact, they have brought much needed labor to

the economy instead.

Benefits and Detriments for the sending and
receiving Countries
 Even if 90 percent of the value generated by migrant workers remains in their host

countries, they have sent billions back to their home countries (in 2014 their remittances

totaled 580 billion dollars). In 2014, India held the highest recorded remittance (70 billion

dollars), followed by China (62 billion dollars), the Philippines (28 billion dollars), and

Mexico (25 billion dollars). These remittances make significant contributions to the

development of small and middle-term industries that help generate jobs. Remittances

likewise change the economic and social standing of migrants , as shown by new or

renovated homes and their relatives access to new consumer goods.

 The purchasing power of a migrant’s family doubles and makes it possible for children to start or
continue their schooling.

Yet, there remain serious concerns about economic sustainability of those reliant on
migrant monies. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) observes that in countries like Philippines,
remittances “do not have a significant influence on other key items of consumption or
investment such as spending on education and healthcare.” Remittance, therefore, may help in
lifting households out of poverty but not in rebalancing growth, especially in the long run.

More importantly, global migration is siphoning qualified personnel and removing dynamic
young workers. This process is often referred to as “Brain drain.” According again to Mckinsey
Global Institute, countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia have lost one-third of their college
graduates.
 Sixty of those who moved to OECD destinations were college graduates, compared to just

9 percent of the overall Population in the country. Fifty-two percent of Filipinos who leave

for work in the developed world have tertiary education, which is more than double the 23

percent of the overall Filipino population. Furthermore, the loss of professionals in certain

key roles, such as doctors, has been detrimental to the migrants' home countries. In 2006,

some 15 percent of locally trained doctors from 21 sub-Saharan African countries had

emigrated to the United States or Canada; the losses were particularly steep in Liberia

(where 43 percent of doctors left),Ghana (30 percent), and Uganda (20 percent).
 Government s are aware of this long-term handicap, but have no choice but to continue

promoting migrant work as part of equally concerned with generating jobs for an under-

utilized workforce and in getting the maximum possible inflow of worker remittance.

Government are thus actively involved in the recruitment and deployment of works, some

of them setting up special department like the Bureau of manpower, and Training in

Bangladesh ; the office of the Protector of the protector of Emigrants within the Indian

labor Ministry; and the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA). The

sustainability of migrant-dependent economies will partially depend on the strength of

these institutions.
The Problem of Human Trafficking

 On top of the issue of brain drain, sending states must protect migrant workers. The United

States Federal Bureau of Investigation lists human trafficking, as the third largest criminal

activity worldwide. In 2012, the International Labor Organizations (ILO) identified 21 million

men, women and children as victims of forced labor an appalling three out every 1000 persons

worldwide. Ninety percent of the victims (18.7 million) victims are exploited by private

enterprises and entrepreneurs, 22 percent (4.5 million) are sexually abused , and 68 percent

(14.2 million) work under compulsion in agricultural, manufacturing, infrastructure, and

domestic activities.
 Human trafficking has been a profitable, earning syndicates, smugglers, and

corrupt state officials of as high as 150 billion dollars a year in 2014.

Government, the private sector, and civil society groups have worked together to

combat human trafficking, yet the results remain uneven.

 Integration
 A filial issue relates to how migrants interact with their new home countries. They may contribute
significantly to a host nation's GDP, but their access to housing, health care, and education is not
easy. There is, of course, considerable Variation in the economic integration of migrants. Migrants
from china, India, and Western Europe often have more success, while those from the Middle
East, North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa face great er challenges in securing jobs. In the United
States and Singapore, there are blue-collar as well as white-collar Filipino workers (doctors,
engineers, even corporate executives), and it is the professional, white-collar workers that have
oftentimes been easier to integrate. Democratic states assimilate immigrants and their children by
granting them citizenship and the rights that go with it (especially public education) public
education). However, without a solid support from their citizens, switching citizenship may just
be a formality.
 Linguistic difficulties, customs from the old country, and, of late, differing religions may create

cleavages between migrants and citizens of receiving countries, particularly in the West. The latter

accuse migrants of bringing in the culture from their home countries and amplifying differences in

linguistic and ethnic customs. Crucially, the lack of integration gives xenophobic and anti-immigrant

groups more ammunition to argue that these new citizens are often not nationals (in the sense of

sharing the dominant culture). Migrants unwittingly reinforce the tension by keeping among

themselves. The first-time migrant's anxiety at coming into a new and often strange place is mitigated

by local networks of fellow citizens that serve as the migrant's safety net from the dislocation and

uprooting oneself. For instance, the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association of California

provides initial support for new Chinese migrants, guiding them in finding work or in setting up their

small business (restaurants and laundromats) in the state and elsewhere.

 The drawback of these networks is that instead of facilitating integration, they exacerbate

differences and discrimination Governments and private businesses have made policy

changes to address integration problems, like using multiple languages in state documents

(in the case of the United States, Spanish and English). Training programs complemented

with, counseling have also helped migrant integration in Hamburg, Germany, while retail

merchants in Barcelona have brought in migrant shopkeepers to break down language

barriers while introducing Chinese culture to citizens whether these initiatives will

succeed or not remains an open question.

Conclusions

 Global migration entails the globalization of people. And like the broader globalization

process, it is uneven. Some migrants experience their movement as a liberating process, A

highly educated professional may find moving to another country financially rewarding. At the

other end, a victim of sex trafficking may view the process of migration as dislocating and

disempowering. Like globalization, moreover, migration produces different and often

contradictory responses. On the one hand, many richer states know that migrant labor will be

beneficial for their economies. With their aging populations, Japan and Germany will need

workers from demographically young countries like the Philippines.

 Similarly, as working populations in countries like the United States move to more skilled

careers their economies will require migrants to work jobs that their local workers are

beginning to reject. And yet, despite these benefits, developed countries continue to

excessively limit and restrict migrant labor. They do so for numerous factors already

mentioned. Some want to preserve what they perceive as local culture by shielding it from

newcomers. Other states use migrants as scapegoats, blaming them for economic woes that

are, in reality, caused by government policy and not by foreigners. Yet, despite these various

contradictions, it is clear that different forms of global interdependence will ensure that

global migration will continue to be one of the major issues in the contemporary world.
 Countries whose economies have become entirely dependent on globalization and rely on

foreign labor to continue growing (e. g., Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and even protectionist

Japan) will actively court foreign workers, Likewise, countries like the Philippines with an

abundance of labor and a need for remittances will continue to send these workers. Hence,

it is inevitable that countries will have to open up again to prevent their economies from

stagnating or even collapsing. The various responses to these movements-xenophobia and

extreme nationalism in the receiving countries; dependency in the sending countries-will

continue to be pressing issues.  

That’s all thank you…….