Migration Talk: Making Sense of a World on the Move

Migration is a major issue in many countries right now -- both rich and poor. With all the hype and controversy, many of us are confused about what to think and do about it. Shouldn't people everywhere have the right to choose where to live? Does there need to be a limit to that freedom? OneWorld has brought together expert panelists to respond to your questions and comments.

To share your own thoughts about migration, click here or scroll to the bottom of this page.

PANELISTS
o Michael Clemens, Center for Global Development
o Esther Nieves, American Friends Service Committee
o Sandip Roy, New America Media

Because of a large interest in U.S. immigration issues, we've sorted the dialogue into two sections:
1. U.S. Immigration: Beyond the Rhetoric
2. Global Migration: Opportunities and Responsibilities

Don't forget to add your thoughts at the bottom!

U.S. IMMIGRATION:
BEYOND THE RHETORIC

Michael: The recent death of the Immigration Bill is a shame. I hope the bill is resurrected in the future, and my favorite part of it is the proposal for a temporary guest worker program. I believe that allowing temporary labor movements embodies a wise and sophisticated compromise between admission with full citizenship in very high numbers (which is politically infeasible) and no admission at all (the oft-heard view that Americans should “do their own construction and farm-work”). Lant Pritchett has eloquently made this point in the most thought-provoking book on migration out there, and in a superb brief.

Sandip: There can always be a better policy. The main criticism of the immigration bill being pushed by the White House from the right is that the bill is tantamount to "amnesty" and we will be in the same situation in another 10 years. On the left the main criticisms are it essentially kills family reunification, forces undocumented folks to "touch back" to their home countries to adjust status, and is just a way for corporations to keep cheap labor through a guest worker program. However this is the only bill currently being seriously considered in the Senate. A poll that my organization New America Media conducted of 1600 undocumented immigrants found that an overwhelming majority (83%) would be willing to pay the hefty fines and fees and go through background checks if it would get them even a temporary Z visa though undoubtedly if there was a friendlier option they would go for it.

However with the Senate unable to muster up the 60 votes needed to push any kind of immigration reform forward there seems to be little momentum currently for anything. What most people are foreseeing right now is that there will be piecemeal immigration related bills coming out of states and cities. The feds have already warned there will be a spike in workplace raids as an enforcement tool. Immigration advocates are bracing for a general increase in enforcement-only activities.

Some are hopeful that this provides an opportunity to galvanize the immigration movement and push for more comprehensive humane reform but it's unclear what political appetite there is on Capitol Hill anymore right now for the issue.

Esther: The recent Senate defeat of the administration's proposed immigration bill reflects a growing wedge between the ultra-right wing of the Republican party, which has refused to consider fair and humane immigration reform and instead has increasingly veered toward onerous and punitive immigration policies. The Bush administration's proposal was already focused on enforcement (and included a $4.4 billion border security carrot to that sector of the president's party). In addition, the bill's shift to a "point-merit" system, where skills and educational attainment are prioritized, ignored the many immigrant families who have been waiting to reunite with their loved ones and undocumented families with multi-status family members.

Several national surveys and public opinion polls continue to show that the public supports a "path to citizenship," opposes more fences, and agrees with keeping families together. Despite these facts, the administration and both political parties continued to focus on increased enforcement and amendments to the proposed bill that created insurmountable roadblocks for undocumented immigrants and their family members.

This issue will not go away, and we clearly need fair and workable solutions. Unfortunately, officials on both sides of the political aisle are now much more concerned with who will be living on Pennsylvania Avenue in the not-too-distant future. Despite this reality, immigration reform will not go away, and we need to support a participatory democracy that pressures legislators to craft humane, constructive and forward-thinking solutions.

Kathleen L.: What do each of you suggest the U.S. do to solve the problem of illegal immigration?

Esther: The issue of immigration has always been part and parcel of the nation's history. To consider substantive solutions to this situation, we must consider rebuilding a system that is out-of-date, root causes, and supporting the economic development and stability of sending-countries so that individuals can stay and thrive in their respective countries. Immigration needs to be considered within the context of a shifting global economy, trade agreements which have been detrimental to rural workers and farmers (e.g., as is the case for Mexican nationals who have left their communities in search of employment in the north) and our common humanity. As a starting point, components of comprehensive immigration reform should include the adjustment of immigration status for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants who are here, a reduction in current immigration backlogs and the reunification of families, and ensuring that all international economic policies are consistent with human rights, fair trade and sustainable approaches to the environment and economic development.

Sandip: I don't know that it can be "solved." The walls and fences, the Z-visas are all attempts to react to the problem and manage it rather than solve it. As long as structural and economic inequities make a life in the shadows in the U.S. more desirable than a "legal" life in their country of origin people will take huge risks to come here. It is when the number of people here illegally swells to 10-12 million that the government has to figure out what to do with the elephant in the room. ICE raids, deportations, and splitting families make for good newspaper copy and create a sense of panic, but in the end they do not solve anything any more than a wall does.

Applying for Visas, Green Cards

Kathleen L.: Why not lower the cost of applying for visas and "green" cards, citizenship etc. to more realistic levels? If the I.C.E. did that then there probably wouldn't be so many people trying to enter the country illegally.

Esther: The American Friends Service Committee has repeatedly expressed its strong opposition to the anticipated fee increases for "green" card and citizenship applications. Unfortunately, despite nearly 4,000 public commentaries and letters, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service has opted to move forward with an increase that will create undue economic hardship for many working class immigrants who have been waiting in line, or were planning to submit their applications. Click here for more on AFSC's public commentary.

Sandip: I think the reason people enter the country illegally is not because the cost of visas, green cards, etc are so high. (And ICE is about to raise them even further). The reason is because the immigration system makes it very difficult for people to enter and stay in the U.S. It's very hard to get an H1-B work visa and then a green card -- you need a company to sponsor you. Family reunification can take years and is being severely curtailed in the bill under consideration. Many undocumented people did not enter illegally. They came legally but went out of status because they might have lost their jobs here and were afraid to go back, overstayed tourist visas for some time, etc. I think there is a popular misconception that the 10-12 million undocumented all walked across the Southern border. In fact, 60 percent did not.

Immigrants' Impact on U.S. Economy

Jeffrey Allen: Do undocumented immigrants in the United States really pay taxes? If so, how many pay how much? Does that mean they're not a net "drain" on the U.S. economy as we hear so often in the media? And why do they pay, if they're scared to be found out by the federal government?

Esther: A recently released report by the Executive Office of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, "Immigration's Economic Impact" (June 20, 2007) notes that, "On average, U.S. natives benefit from immigration. Immigrants tend to complement (not substitute for) natives, raising natives' productivity and income." The report also notes that studies looking at the "long-run fiscal effects of immigration conclude that it is likely to have a modest, positive influence." On the subject of immigrants and taxes, the report points to projections of future taxes and government spending observing that a National Research Council study estimates that "immigrants and their descendants would contribute about $80,000 more in taxes (1996 dollars) than they would receive in public services." (Source cited: Smith and Edmonston). A study by the Urban Institute says immigrants in New York State pay over $18 billion a year in taxes, (over 15% of the total), and roughly proportional to their size in the state's population. To read more on this issue, visit the Immigration Forum Web site.

Furthermore, the Cato Institute's economist, Steve Moore has noted that in fact, immigrant households paid an estimated $133 billion in direct taxes (federal, state and local) in 1997.

Sandip: Well they certainly pay sales taxes etc. Actually many undocumented do pay taxes. It's a myth that undocumented only live on a cash economy building decks and mowing lawns for cash. In fact some organizations recommend that people here who are undocumented and have used fake social security numbers keep paying taxes and keep records to demonstrate good faith. Of course they cannot collect on some of the benefits of those taxes such as social security.

Speaking English

Kathleen L.: If the U.S. requires people to speak and answer questions in English to receive their citizenship, how come there are so many 'new' citizens who don't speak or understand English? How were they able to pass the exam that I understand we/they are required to take?

My concern here is that the vast majority of government and community services, including health-care and law enforcement, are hampered by these new "citizens'" inability to communicate. As a health-care worker I know first hand how frustrating it is to not be able to understand what exactly my patients are trying to tell me. I mostly deal with Hispanics so I have learned some pertinent Spanish vocabulary but still don't always understand what the patient is trying to convey to me. This can be hazardous both to them and me if one of us misunderstands what the other one is asking/saying.

Esther: I agree that English is a valuable tool for immigrants to have and most immigrants understand that there is a correlation between their ability to survive and thrive in the United States and their ability to speak English. Unfortunately, federal and state funds for English As A Second Language classes have suffered reductions and this has led to long waiting lists at community centers and sites that offer language and civic classes to immigrants. Some interesting data points to the desire immigrants have to become proficient in English. Again, the demand for English classes far outstrips supply. In a Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation study, while 72% of first-generation Latino immigrants used Spanish as their dominant language, only 7% of the second generation was Spanish-dominant. Language -- whether Spanish or any other -- is another useful instrument in an increasingly borderless economic world (i.e., European Union).

Sandip: Healthcare is one area I feel it critical to provide information in the language of the patient wherever possible, not just because of access to healthcare and right to interpreter laws. But this is one situation where I feel you cannot wait for the patient to learn the new language. PBS recently broadcast a film called Holding Your Breath about an elderly Afghan man battling cancer and struggling with the healthcare system, which can lead to tragic misunderstandings despite best intentions on both sides.

Immigrants Changing the U.S.

Gaelyn K.: Why should immigrants change our country. Change their own.

Esther: Immigrants have consistently contributed to this nation's economic, cultural, and social vitality. From Albert Einstein to Irving Berlin to Carlos Santana, the nation is all the richer and better because of the contributions made by them and many others who have followed.

Sandip: I don't think immigrants come to change anyone's country. They come to live here for various reasons from economic to family to fleeing persecution. In the course of coming here they change the country as the original Pilgrims did. I am sure many Native Americans would agree with your comment, Gaelyn. See Joe's comment below.

Michael: My great-great-great grandfather came here from Bavaria in 1854 and settled in Ohio. He didn't come for tourism. He came because he was a poor, unskilled farmer excluded from elite circles and Bavaria was an impoverished backwater racked by revolution and oppression. Within a remarkably short period, his son was a flourishing entrepreneur in downtown Dayton. This would have been completely impossible had he stayed at home -- there was little he or his son could do to quickly fix Bavaria. He helped build Ohio; the same effort would not have helped build Bavaria because at the time circumstances there did not reward his effort.

There is even less, much less, that an individual peasant from Honduras can do today to quickly fix the economy and government that surrounds him or her. Honduras will not hit our level of material and institutional well-being for many generations. If 100 percent of Hondurans were to stay where they are and "change Honduras," it is only their remote descendants that will see the fruits of that labor -- development of poor areas is a very long and hard process. So if we ask 100 percent of Hondurans to stay put, we are asking each of them as people to give up the opportunity for the relatively much, much more comfortable life that almost all of us have here.

I find it difficult to sit face-to-face with a Honduran and inform him or her that I have determined that they must work thanklessly to "change Honduras" and never see even a small fraction of the fruits of their labor during their lifetime that I do. The reason I find it difficult is that if that Honduran asked me why this must be so, the only reason I could offer would be the simple fact that I was born here, and he or she was not. I would go on to explain that this simple fact gives me the moral authority to hire men with guns to ensure that my position as birth-lottery-winner remained unavailable to them, permanently. After saying this I would not be able to look that person in the face.

We Are All Immigrants

Joe T.: Immigrants have always been considered a problem for the citizenry. The thing is that we are all descendents of immigrants -- save the Native Americans.

Esther: I agree. Thank you.

Michael: Without exception, all people in what's now the U.S. descend from immigrants. Native Americans arrived about 11,500 years ago. They were looking for better places to hunt and fish, which is to say that they were looking for work. The first Europeans visited 1,000 years ago, first made a permanent settlement here 514 years ago. The settlers Columbus brought in 1493 were mostly young men looking for work. The first permanent English-speaking settlement was 400 years ago. All of those people at Jamestown were young men looking for work and opportunity. My ancestors arrived starting in 1854. Last year, about 1.2 million more people came.

Which of these have moral authority over which others? "I was here first" is something kids say to other kids when there is no more room in the back seat of the car. America is not full. Many said we were full back when I was a kid growing up in the Midwest -- since then many millions of new workers have arrived (a large fraction of them undocumented), and we remain the strongest, richest economy on the Earth, and in the history of the Earth.

Rather than one group claiming moral superiority to inform other groups that they can or cannot come to this place, perhaps a better approach is to ask how we can build an economy here that offers opportunities to all. New workers are, have been, and will continue to be a healthy ingredient of that economy.

Befriending the Undocumented

Bruce Johnston: I would like your advice regarding the best way for me to help and to be friends with foreign visitors/residents in the United States -- those with and without visa/legal and undocumented/illegal. At present, I have friends from many countries. The friends that I am most involved with and concerned about at this time are undocumented. They are young men and women from El Salvador.

They are here for several reasons. The economy is very bad in El Salvador. The cost of everything is very high. It is very hard to find work in El Salvador. The war in El Salvador shattered the country in many ways. More than 75,000 people died in the war. El Salvador is a very small country. Yet, these people are not classified as refugees. Very few people seem to get that status. People from Cuba, who might live relatively well, get such a status. I have become very good friends with these people. I have eaten with them and shared in their music and culture. They have come to my home. I have given them some guidance regarding their illegal status. They shared it so openly with me. I told them that if they share it with the wrong person, they could end up deported.

My feeling is this: I just happen to be lucky enough to have been born in the USA. I do not think the whole world should need to come to the USA to live well, but I do hope that the people of the USA will come to realize that as rich as we are, we simply do not do enough to help other countries. Too often our aid is a manipulation.

I would like to work with refugees also. I have many friends from Nepal who are students or who have work visas. They are in the USA legally. Yet, I see that they suffer too. Our culture in America is not nearly as friendly as the Nepalese culture. I have many good friends from Nepal. They have told me they feel so lucky to have found me, because most people are not very friendly with them. I have been able to help and guide them in different ways also.

I am a spiritual person. My basic philosophy is this: I do my very best to love each and every human being that I encounter equally. It is a daily challenge, but it makes my life very beautiful. Living in a loving way fills my heart with absolute joy. I want to do more for others. Almost all of my friends are from foreign lands. It is my personal mission to love them. Sometimes they ask me what they can give to me. They have already given me so much -- their hearts. Yet, I know that I must not become too attached to any one person. To become attached is to get stuck.

Generally, my life flows with many people. I am so lucky. Yet, I know I need all of you to be my mentor, teacher, and guide. I want to do better. Thanks so very much.

Esther: Bruce, first, thanks for your generous spirit and compassion. I would encourage you to consider contacting local community centers in your geography or congregations that may have social or educational programs that provide resources or offer services to immigrant and refugee communities in your area. Given your kindred spirit and desire to help others, you might want to tutor adults who are learning English or consider other efforts undertaken by groups in your local community.

Immigration Then and Now

Gerrie Blum: If our distant ancestors had had the attitude toward migration that too many individuals and governments have today, we never would have left Africa! The growth of xenophobia appears to be primarily a 20-21st Century phenomenon. When my mother arrived as an infant with her mother and brother from (the) Ukraine, there was no quota of how many the USA would admit.

It was before WWI and there were no quotas. As long as you were healthy, and had someone here to vouch for you, you were admitted. And, you could apply for citizenship, learn the language and the "pillars of our society," and be sworn in as a citizen within a reasonable time. That was then.

Now, the waiting list is prohibitively long, the government takes its own sweet time about going through the list, and it takes even longer to become a voting citizen. No longer do local communities work to acclimate the newcomers. Assimilation has taken on a negative connotation. Multilingualism should be encouraged in our schools for all our children. In my opinion, knowing the languages of newcomers would encourage newbies to learn the patois of their new home. We have accepted new foreign words in to our vocabulary since this country was born. Did you have a croissant for breakfast? A taco for lunch? Or was it just a knish? Will you go out for dinner for coq au vin? Or just a pizza?

We are all the product of immigration in this country, except for those that were here when we arrived. They had migrated much earlier over the land-bridge, or across the ocean. But, now we are all here and we can't just "close the door behind me." We need to find practical ways to deal with migration. It may very well be the wave of the future even more so than it was in the past.

Esther: Thank you for sharing part of your personal story and for calling for practical ways to resolve this current dilemma. I urge you to write or call your Congressional leaders and share your perspective with them.

Michael: Amen, Gerrie. When my great-great-great grandfather came to this country in the mid-19th century, he just showed up. No visa, no passport, no retina scan, no dodging men with guns on the high desert -- none of those barriers existed. He just stepped off the boat and got to work: hard, long work and he gave me everything I have. A very similar story lies in the family histories of most American congressional representatives, governors, etc. I think a very large part of the problem is that the story happened so long ago that the people who would be able tell this story to those policy makers can't tell the story -- they are silent, six feet underground.

Jeffrey Allen: Are there more migrants today than in the past, or is it just more of a public issue today than it was in the past?

Sandip: It is certainly in some sense easier to come here now than before. You don't have to be Columbus and get lost on the way to India. Between 1990-2000 immigration helped the foreign-born population (in the United States) rise by 57.4 percent. But percentage wise, the U.S. has had a higher percentage of its population being foreign-born before. It's more of a public issue now partly because of who is coming and also because immigration is being conflated with national security issues.

Esther: An interesting fact is that 12 million immigrants were processed through Ellis Island; today there are an estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. Migration has always been a concern, and the nation's history is replete with policy actions that were deplorable and shameful (consider the Chinese Exclusion Act; the WWII internment of Japanese, etc.). What is different today is the nature and substance of the discourse, media commentators who have no trouble using divisive language that blames migration on immigrants instead of considering how global economic forces have contributed to this dire reality. Finally, within the context of public policy and the legislative arena, we are seeing a whole lot of political jockeying and horse-trading, ultimately both parties looking ahead at who will be living on Pennsylvania Avenue in the not-too-distant future and how immigration will play out in their respective districts.

GLOBAL MIGRATION:
OPPORTUNITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Sending vs. Receiving

Zoe Sullivan: Although there is certainly a trend from poorer countries to wealthier ones, generally the developed parts of Europe, North America, and Asia, even within other continents people move. Brazil and Argentina, wealthier with respect to other Latin American countries, both have immigrant communities and deal with many of the same issues being addressed in the U.S.

Ultimately, people will go where they believe they have a possibility to create a better life, wherever that is. Regardless of where a person chooses to make her/his home, it should be possible to do that.

Sandip: I agree that the world is on the move. We can look for different reasons for this from globalization to climate change to growing wealth gaps. You are right ultimately people will go where they believe they can create a better life. However it is harder to say that regardless of where a person chooses to make her/his home, it should be possible to do that. Then the topsy-turvy world would just tip over. If polls show 46-7 percent of Mexicans want to move to the U.S., we wonder what that would mean for USA if they did. But on the flip side, if they were able to do so what would that mean for Mexico?

Remittances

Jeffrey Allen: How much do remittances help developing countries develop? Are remittances better than aid for a poor country? Should receiving countries take that into consideration when forming their immigration policies?

Michael: Remittances are not aid, as I've written about and I'm sure you understand this, Jeffrey. Take a household anywhere in the world in which a spouse who works in the home buys groceries with money earned by a spouse who works outside the home. Now take the working spouse and put him/her in another country -- that, in broad strokes, is what a remittance is. The same money is changing hands for the same reason; it’s just that the earner is further away, earning more.

When a laborer gives money to his or her spouse in Managua, no one expects that act to "develop" Nicaragua, even if the laborer makes a high salary. But put the laborer in Dallas (and leave the spouse in Managua), and now it's expected that the transfer should develop Nicaragua. Why?

To me, economic development is the creation of systems of interaction that make people in a society better off. A system that allows Nicaraguans to work in Dallas and thereby contribute to their families' well-being in Nicaragua is, therefore, development. This remains true even if those families consume the money instead of investing it (which is what most households do with most intra-household transfers, even when the provider lives at home -- but no one questions it when you or I do it).

Now, are remittances better than aid? I don't think there is a single metric of "good" by which to judge this. Most remittances to poor countries go directly into the pockets of families, and thereby raise their incomes unequivocally. The same cannot be said of aid projects, which are inherently risky ventures that sometimes benefit people substantially and sometimes do not. At the same time, certain aid interventions -- like support for vaccination campaigns -- benefit a very broad cross-section of people in a way that a transfer to a single household does not. So you might say that remittances convey a benefit that is often larger and almost always more certain, whereas aid projects convey a benefit that is far more uncertain, diffuse, and often smaller in magnitude. Neither is strictly "better."

Is it good per se for remittances to a poor country to increase? For a remittance flow to occur, several things must be happening. One of those is that some people have been able to access high-paying jobs overseas, and they are supporting their families back home. Sounds like a good thing. But other things must be going on as well: It must be hard for people to get good jobs where they come from, and it must be the case that a large portion of the laborer's family was not able to go where the laborer is living. Both of those are, for many families, undesirable. I say this simply to point out that when people talk about the rising volume of remittances compared to aid flows, and trumpet how wonderful this is, think carefully. Remittances are a sign of people making money and helping out, certainly, but in some cases they are also a sign of economic stagnation in the sending area, and of split families.

Should rich countries take remittances into account in setting their migration policies? Absolutely. If you want families in Ecuador to be better off, and you're not willing to admit every person from Ecuador who wants to come, then a great compromise is to let Ecuadorian breadwinners come here for a short time and send a lot of money home. This unequivocally helps many families in Ecuador. And by the way, although a lot of attention has rightly been paid to making remittances cheaper, a 10% decrease in the cost of sending remittances only makes current-recipient families better off, and only to a small degree. If you want a big increase in the amount of money families in the countries of origin receive, and if you want more families to benefit than currently do, there is no alternative to simply letting in more people. This can be done in a way that imposes little to no cost on the country of destination, and temporary guest workers are a way to do it.

Government Hypocrisies

Prabhat Garg: The country/countries not in favour of migration and/or immigration should not permit the migrants to enter into their boundaries from Day One and if they are allowing the migrants to come in and using their skills or services for some value, knowing fully well that they do not possess the adequate "human capital resources" within and the incoming migrants will be there to help the people and support the economy of that country for getting their survival. Then afterwards, the contribution of migrants cannot be denied in the development of the economy and environment of that country. And that country has no moral, social, human or legal right to throw these migrants out while making excuses and blaming these migrants for one reason or the other.

These migrants be brought in the mainstream of that country and must be treated at par because now it is a global village and every one should have the right to move any where always subject to the well settled principles/ parameters of the Peace, Law & Justice.

Sandip: The U.S. has had a wink-and-nod response to immigration. Essayist Richard Rodriguez discussed those issues in an interview on the UpFront radio show from New America Media. Here's an excerpt of what Richard said: "Mexicans look at the United States and realize that Americans are saying one thing, that they are against illegal immigration, and doing another, they will hire you if you can get across the line." Here's the full interview.

Refugees in South Africa

Miriam Mannak: This is not a question, but more a piece of my mind with regards to migration, as no one seems to be interested in this topic -- except for Perspectives. In 2004, I moved from Holland to South Africa to work here as a freelance journalist. Over the past years I have often come across issues that are related to refugees and asylum seekers.

South Africa is the prime country African refugees turn to when escaping the problems in their home country, whether they are political, social, or of economic nature. There are so many reasons to flee your home country. Malawians flee a life of absolute poverty and hunger. Zimbabweans escape their country because of political oppression and lack of chances. The Congolese are leaving the country because of the ongoing instability and political unrest, etc.

There are no exact figures of how many refugees and asylum seekers reside in South Africa, but estimates vary from 2 to 4 million. This puts tremendous strain on South Africa, which itself struggles with high unemployment rates, poverty, lack of housing, health problems, etc.

In the recent past, there have been quite a few riots by locals against migrants. Shops owned by refugees were demolished and they themselves were chased away from the townships. In Cape Town, in the past 12 months 36 Somalis were killed -- allegedly by angry locals.

The authorities don't make it easy on refugees either. I have written a series of articles for a Cape Town-based newspaper on the way asylum seekers are treated, and it is not pretty.

The point is that migration is a complicated issue, which has more than one side to it. But it needs to be addressed, but not just by shoving migrants aside and treating them as semi-criminals or numbers. Unlike what many people in the West tend to think: most migrants are not trying to take advantage of welfare or social programs, they don’t want to abuse the system. They are people who desperately want a life of dignity, stability and some form of prosperity for which they are willing to work hard. They are people, like you and I.

Esther: Thank you for humanizing this difficult issue.

Migration as Poverty Reduction

Mohammad Ahsan: If all people who have migrated are given the right to live as a citizen anywhere in the world, then countries would be more economically sustainable. Freedom is poverty reduction and having the right to move freely.

Michael: Thanks, Mohammad. Your point is deep and many people miss it. Nobel-winning economist Amartya Sen has gone as far as to say that development is freedom, "the process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy." International migration is not, like international flows of goods and capital, a means to increasing freedom, i.e. a means to development that may or may not work. International migration is a form of freedom, and therefore a form of development.

Esther: Thank you for your perspective.

Migrants and Language

Janet McCullow: What is your view on whether migrants should learn and use the language of their adopted (new) country? Shall governments provide verbal and written translation aid to migrants? Should documents be available to migrants in their language of origin? Should migrants be required to work in the dominant language of the country they migrate to?

Sandip: I think few migrants will NOT want to learn the language of their adopted country since it will make life easier. I think the problem is people who feel that they need to give up one language in order to obtain facility in another. Instead documents should be available to migrants in their language of origin to help the process of adjustment and acculturation happen faster. Keep in mind that for an older person coming to the U.S. for the first time, it's not that easy to pick up a brand new language.

Migration Worldwide

Jeffrey Allen: In recent years, what has been the impact of migration (both immigration and emigration) on Africa? Asia? Latin America? Europe?

Michael: Jeffrey, this is a big question and I will only address a small sliver of it. I study the impact of health worker emigration on Africa. Many people simply assume that this must be a bad thing, since Africa needs doctors and nurses, so we should do what we can to stop these movements. I think this view embodies an oversimplified view of the complex forces that determine how many health workers a country has, what those people do, and how their work eventually translates into better health for ordinary Africans.

The first thing we have to keep in mind when thinking about any skilled-worker movements out of poor countries is that skilled workers are human beings. Not only do they make decisions, and do so for a reason, but they also have rights, ambitions, and dreams. So my starting point in thinking about these issues is that we should be very, very hesitant to take policy steps to make sure people live where 'we' want them to, if those people are demonstrating a clear desire to live somewhere else. Who am I to stand in Heathrow airport and inform a beleaguered Zimbabwean nurse that she must go live under Robert Mugabe, simply because she was born there (and I wasn't)? The benefits of that act to ordinary Africans, if we can contemplate such an act, should be extremely clear.

The next thing to keep in mind is that the degree to which the mere presence of a very highly-trained health professional within the borders of an African country translates into better health for ordinary Africans is very, very complicated. In most African countries, physicians are highly concentrated in urban areas. Where there is any form of private sector, a large fraction of the physician workforce -- even many of those with public-sector jobs -- spends as large a fraction of its time as possible working in that much more profitable arena. In many African countries, large fractions of the best-educated nurses do not work in the health sector at all because conditions are so bad there. Common things like diarrhea and respiratory infections are still some of the top killers in Africa, and most physicians in most African countries simply do not spend a large fraction of their time out in remote, destitute villages or slums taking care of very poor children with diarrhea.

This is not to claim, by any stretch, that physicians and highly educated professional nurses (the ones who get recruited to work abroad) have no public health impact. Certainly they have some. But it is severely limited by several intervening factors, and conditions vary enormously from country to country (Kenya has thousands of unemployed Registered Nurses, Ghana does not). But focusing on the aggregate quantity of highly trained health workers, or counting up how many of them cross borders, ignores vast continents of possibility for how to improve health systems and health outcomes. What about the skill mix of the health workforce -- are the most elite highly-trained health professionals acquiring the skills that are relevant and necessary for the basic health needs of the large majority of the population? How much should a health system be devoted to primary health care, and how much to preventive, public health efforts that can often save far more people? How can incentives in the health workforce be structured to get people out into rural areas and slums at least a fraction of the time? How can we help parents get their sick children to the clinics, and see the clear need to do so? How should medical education be financed, and why should the state maintain a monopoly on it? Hermetically sealing borders does not even touch any of these issues, yet they are all crucial to developing a health system that helps Africans.

Focusing on who's crossing the border is like counting the leaves that are falling off a tree, and not noticing the chainsaw that's cutting the trunk. It distracts attention from the chainsaw, and to that degree it's harmful. I've only touched superficially on some of these issues here; if you're interested in this area I have a paper you might find thought-provoking.

Sandip: According to various sources less than 1 percent of the world's immigrants come to the U.S. 1,063,732 documented immigrants were admitted to the U.S. in 2002. Undocumented immigrants added another 300-400,000 per year. There are approximately 175 million migrants in the world. We have heard a fair amount about the impact of immigrants from North Africa in Europe but many other countries are also grappling with immigration-related problems caused by war, famine, economies -- for example Bangladeshis resettling in India have become political hot potatoes.

PANELISTS

Michael Clemens joined the Center for Global Development in 2002 after completing his PhD in Economics at Harvard, where he studied Development, Economic History, and Public Finance. His central research interest is in what the past experience of today's rich countries can teach about the future of today's poor countries. He has written on the sending-country impacts of skilled-worker migration; the determinants of capital flows and the effects of tariff policy in the 19th century; the historical determinants of school system expansion; and the impact of foreign aid. Clemens has served as a consultant for the World Bank, Bain & Co., the Environmental Defense Fund, and the United Nations Development Program, and currently teaches at the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute. He has lived and worked in Brazil, Colombia, and Turkey. For more on Michael's work, click here or read a Q & A he did last year on migration's impact on developing countries.

Esther Nieves serves as the director of American Friends Service Committee's national immigrant rights initiative, Project Voice (pdf). Together with immigrant-led organizations in the United States, Project Voice works to influence and help shape the national agenda for immigration policy and immigrant rights. Through organizing, public education, and outreach campaigns, this nationwide initiative lifts up the voices of immigrant and refugee communities in local, state, and national policy debates. Esther has held several leadership positions in the public sector, most recently serving as the executive director of Erie Neighborhood House (Chicago), a settlement house responding to the educational and social service needs of Chicago's Latino population. She has also served as the director of a municipal agency and as a program officer for a private family foundation. Esther's civic involvement has included service on several boards including as a trustee of the Wieboldt Foundation (Chicago) and the Crossroads Fund (Chicago), board member of the Funding Exchange (New York), Leadership for Quality Education (Chicago), and others.