EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Migrants Give More than They Take, Says UN
UNITED NATIONS - Often vilified and mistreated, migrant workers benefit both the countries they move to and the ones they leave behind, says the latest Human Development Report released Monday.
File photo shows migrant workers taking part in a rally against racism and discrimination targeting ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. Governments worldwide should look at changes to their immigration policies with a view to offering a "new deal" to migrant workers whose skills can help spur economic recovery, a UN report said Monday.
(AFP/Philippe Lopez) The perceived negative burden of
migrants on host societies does not correspond to reality, according to
the report, produced annually by the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP).
The key message of the 217-page report is that large gains to human development can be achieved by lowering the barriers to movement and improving the treatment of migrant workers.
The report stresses that many people in developing countries have few other options than moving away from their homes to improve their lives, and migration can be hugely effective in raising a person's income, health and education prospects.
The study estimates that "approximately 740 million people are internal migrants, which is almost four times as many as those who have moved internationally."
And among those who have moved across national borders, "only one third moved from a developing country to a developed country". Nearly half of this group are women.
First published in 1990, the Human Development Report (HDR) puts forth an "agenda-setting analysis" and "calls international attention to issues that put people at the centre of strategies to meet the challenges of development today".
Having focused on climate change and the global water crisis in earlier editions, this year's report highlights the topic of migration for the first time.
Speaking to IPS from Geneva, Jean-Paul Chauzy, head of media at the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) - one of the contributors to the report - welcomed the "essential and extremely timely message in light of the current recession that has led many countries to raise rather than lower barriers to mobility".
Although discussions about migration often focus on people from the developing South who migrate to the developed North, the overwhelming majority of the people who move do so inside their own country.
Interestingly, new destination countries - or urban hubs within countries - have begun to emerge in the South, as migration flows from Central American countries to Costa Rica and from South East Asian countries to Thailand suggest.
The report shows that the poor have the most to gain from migration, but they are also the least mobile - less one percent of Africans have moved to Europe.
The overall evidence, both historical and contemporary, suggests that development and migration go hand in hand.
Director of the HDR division of UNDP, Jeni Klugman, noted that the border between the United States and Mexico does not only divide two states but also marks a significant scale difference on the Human Development Index (HDI): the lowest HDI in a United States border county [Starr County, Texas] is above even the highest on the Mexican side [Mexicali Municipality, Baja California].
The HDI measures the average achievements in a country using three basic indicators: life expectancy, adult literacy and school enrolment, as well as per capita GDP.
The report notes that migrants' gains are often shared with their families and communities at home.
"In many cases this is in the form of cash - remittances - but the families of migrants may benefit in other ways too. These 'social remittances', as they are called, include reductions in fertility, higher school enrolment rates and the empowerment of women," it says.
This year's HDI list of 183 countries is similar to last year - at the top are Norway, Australia and Iceland, while the bottom three are Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Niger. However, the data from 2007 do not include the effects of the financial crisis.
The HDR proposes a "core package" of reforms that aims to turn human mobility into an integral part of national development strategies, including liberalisation and simplification of legal channels for both internal and international migration that allow more people with low skills to seek work in better off places.
Flexible regulations have already been put in place in New Zealand and Canada where well-designed seasonal migrant programmes for the agricultural sector proved successful.
The high and often disproportionate administrative transaction costs associated with migration - to move from Vietnam to Japan is six times the annual income per capita - can have the unintended effect of encouraging illegal border crossings and human trafficking, which poses a particular threat for the security of women and children.
These costs, states the report, need to be reduced and at the same time benefits for both migrants and destination communities need to be improved.
The violation of migrants' human rights, among with limited access to health services and widespread discrimination, remain a problem in many destination countries and need to be dealt with more seriously by governments, civil society and labour unions, the report urges.
Migrants face particular challenges in the current economic climate, the report says.
Just as economies tend to invite migrants in times of labour shortages, they tend to lay off migrants first during recessions, most prominently in the current crisis in the United States, Russia and Germany.
For example, in countries like United States or Thailand, migrants can easily find ad hoc employment, but they lack access to basic services and risk deportation.
So what are the implications of the Human Development Report? A carte blanche for all those who seek to migrate?
UNDP acknowledges the controversy posed by the burden that migrants can impose on local workers by filling vacant jobs, and other concerns like the heightened risk of crime and the fear of losing and cultural cohesion.
Other problems include "brain drain" in home countries and a lack of determination to solve domestic problems first.
However, Klugman, in a briefing to reporters last week, said that research has found that "these concerns are often exaggerated by politicians".
The large body of evidence suggests that "negative effects are generally small and may, in some contexts, be entirely absent", she said.
Taking the human perspective, Klugman argued that the HDR aims to analyse how people can maximise their gains.
One the one hand, migrants - low as well as high skilled - make a positive contribution to the host country's economy, and on the other hand, they often become the main investors in their countries of origin, even when it is hit by financial crisis or natural disaster, Klugman said, thereby forming a development buffer that protects national economies.
The IOM believes that the report is "innovative in its approach" by placing human choices and freedoms at the centre of the analysis of human mobility.
Chauzy also considered the report a "powerful reminder that current restrictions to migration can be harmful to human development" while reinforcing the IOM's long-held belief "that migration can and should be managed for the benefit of all".
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
30 Comments so far
Show AllTangentially related, here's a report demonstrating that immigrants to the United States commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens:
www.immigrationpolicy.org/index.php?content=sr20070221
During the depression some 1 million familes lost their farms in the USA. Hundreds of thousands of families took to the roads seeking work.
Rich landowners in California would post handbills advertising work and high wages in order to draw the workers there. These people slept in tents or in their vehicles at the side of the road in Hoovervilles which virtually every town had.
They were labled OKIES by the locals. Papers called them criminals and scum. They were undeducated and dirty. They were a burden on taxpayers. groups would form into vigilante mobs and raid the camps burning them down and beating the occupants.
The wages for workers dropped. The people were so desperate for work in order to feed their families they would work an entire family in a 14 hour shift and spend the entire days wages at the Company store buying overpriced food. For all intents and purposes they were slaves.
Those that could not get jobs went hungry. They resorted to theft to feed themselves, or sneaking into fields at night to plant a garden hoping the landowner would not discover it.
The population of the USA dropped during this time by around 8 million. The US Governments official position is that these people went back to their home countries. Researchers outside the country have found no documentation to support such a claim and suggest that many died of hunger.
While this was going on the farms in California were growing more food then the markets could bear. They took to burning it in the fields or poisoning the crops so no one could eat it, They felt if they GAVE the food to the hungry those paying for it would demand a lower price thus cutting further into profits.
The banks and larger landowners used this opportunity to drive the smaller farmers out of business,
The point of this all?
Peoples of the United States, or Canada or the EU that are blaming Migrant workers for their ills have got it wrong. In 1934 Americans were blaming fellow AMERICANS and turning on them just as they do Latinos today.
It is the corrupt SYSTEM. They are blaming the results of that system rather then the CAUSE of those results.
The CAUSE is Capitalism.
Okies were American citizens and do not enter into this.
Immigrants to our country at least usually bring more than benefits, they bring new energy, new skills and usually look and sound like Amwericans by the third generation at least.
Illegal aliens are quite another story and calling them Migrants is simply dishonest....or combining the statistics of both legal and illegals together to put out a report like this is just as dishonest as it brings the higer rates of illegals in every catagory down to a lower average.
Illegal aliens have a proven cost to American citizens both in money, social damage and educational damage, unlike legal immigrants.
Those that exploit these people and those that help them have their blood on their hands. Advocating illegal immigration rejects the position of Human Rights as they are mutually exclusive.
>>Okies were American citizens and do not enter into this.
As usual , in your rush to attack immigrants, you miss the point.
Okies enter into this becuase they were MIGRANT workers. They enter into this because they were forced into that by the same POLICIES that force Mexican workers off their land in Mexico.
They enter into it because they were attacked and demonized in the same manner that migrant workers are today.
They enter into this because the same arguments were used by peoples against OKIES in 1934 that YOU use today against Illegals in that they are a burden on the society and they were costing taxpayers money and that they were criminals and that they were lowering wages.
They enter into this because just as it was true in 1934 it remains true today. The people who attack MIGRANT workers (which the okies were) attack the results rather then the cause.
They enter into this because the "Okies" would have preferred to remain on the farms as their fathers before them but were turned off by the system we call capitalism, profits over people.
They enter into this because this the same reason that migrant workers leave their lands today and if we truly want to address this we HAVE TO change the system.
They enter into this because when it comes to chosing between starving to death and breaking the law MOST people, be they black , brown, white or your EXCEPTIONAL god blessed AMERICAN will break the law in order to feed a family.
They enter into this because as long as there are people such as yourself blaming the poorest of the poor for being poor, this issue will occur again and again.
Sigh, and here's where the disagreeing begins. First, calling them aliens is totally offensive. They are not from out of this planet ! They are the result of "free" trade policies and oppressive leaders supported by both the US and corrupt Mexican officials in the first place. I'm sorry but these immigrants have been pushed off their farmlands into the cities and finally when the cities' economies worsened they were left crossing the border. Hell, I'm surprised they even survived this kind of dramatic being pushed around. I went through so much fear and tears when I first moved from the rurals into the city even though I was ready to do so. We would be better off getting those policies fixed rather than persecuting those folks. Yes, some of them can be annoying but I completely understand what made them what they are. Please open your heart ! This isn't 1965 when my older friend JWVerez and his family could enter the country legally without being likely dumped. Most of what you call "illegal aliens" didn't want to come but were pushed into this land. Please don't tell me Lou Dobbs has brainwashed you on this !
Henry8: "Illegal aliens have a proven cost to American citizens both in money, social damage and educational damage, unlike legal immigrants."
You and I have agreed on many things but I part ways with you on this one. In the first place your "proven cost" carries no indication of such proof, and it doesn't make much obvious sense that they would be more "costly" than the "legal" ones.
This easy condemnation of the "illegal" immigrants is shown most disturbingly today in the debate over health care reform in which opponents have shown dismay at the asserted fact that illegals would be covered under the proposed law, while the defenders of the law rush to assure, citing verse and passage, that illegals would be excluded from coverage. This is just one more indication that the "reform" measure will be anything but universal in its coverage, as it will make moral distinctions between those who would and who would not be covered. It wouldn't surprise me, for example, if sex offenders would be denied coverage, as the upright people of this God-fearing country would act as judge and executioner for benefits available for the lepers among them. With this kind of attitude, anyone who ever calls this country a "Christian" one should be condemned to reading the New Testament for 20 hours.
Jerry D Rose (October 5th, 2009 3:15 pm) -- you put your finger on a very important point that was obscured by the media (mainstream media, that is) hoopla about Joe Wilson's outcry to the president during his congressional address. What really got Wilson and his Republican colleagues' blood boiling was the idea that persons in this country illegally, at the invitation of employers who set up jobs for them, might be allowed to enjoy a modicum of human dignity when they have medical problems. And the "progressives" in congress questioned how Wilson expressed himself, not what he said.
We'll never have universal health care if millions of people in this country continue to be treated like vassals after the much-anticipated reforms go into effect. Would any (other?) civilized nation tolerate such discrimination?
manning120: Thanks for the reference to the "Wilson outcry" incident which I largely missed for probably the reason you cited: that neither the mainstream nor "progressive" press seemed to deal with the substance of xenophobia contained in the timing of Wilson's outburst. Very telling commentary.
"Illegal aliens are quite another story and calling them Migrants is simply dishonest...."
Actually what is dishonest is pretending that illegal immigrants aren't immigrants. You might want to check up what the word "migrate" means in a dictionary.
"or combining the statistics of both legal and illegals together to put out a report like this is just as dishonest as it brings the higer rates of illegals in every catagory down to a lower average."
It isn't dishonest, since it is meant to address the fear-mongering of immigrants, including legal immigrants.
"Those that exploit these people and those that help them have their blood on their hands. Advocating illegal immigration rejects the position of Human Rights as they are mutually exclusive."
Those that make these people illegal have their blood on their hands. Advocating designating certain groups of immigrants as illegal rejects the position of Human Rights, as they are mutually exclusive.
illegal aliens?
did they arrive on a spaceship?
no human being is illegal, they are undocumented.
and yes they do contribute to the economy.
www.ime.gob.mx/investigaciones/aportaciones/arizona.pdf
My corner drug dealer is an "undocumented" pharmacist. He's a human, so therefor he can't be illegal. And, he contributes to the economy . . . if GDP is your bottom line.
They sure do give more than they take -- way more babies than the Earth can handle!
Do you have a citation for your assertion that migrant workers have more children than any other group?
The link isn't migrant workers, it is class. Poorer migrants have more children, as they get more wealthy, they have fewer children.
it has nothing to do with "poor migrants" or poor people.
and everything to do with education.
just because you are wealthy doesn't mean you have more education.
point in case.... the financial crisis.
I think you have your logic a little mixed up. The ivy-league educated made out quite well during the financial crisis. Their assets were pretty much protected by their fellow alma mater-Bernanke, Paulson, et al.
Greed has nothing to do with education, race or class. This stereo-typical image of the immigrant as victim, honest, hardworking, humble, family-oriented, generous, etc is pure BS. They’re just as greedy, violent and corrupt as their willing and unwilling hosts. They exploit and victimize one another and unfortunately it spills over and effects decent people of all races.
Google the local news in any SW city or (any city) most-wanted.
Some of us in the SW have been sick of their crap for a lifetime. The influx of the newly poor and uneducated means we’ll have to endure more of their stupid and irresponsible behavior.
On the other hand, if you’re educated, professional and apply for citizenship then - WELCOME!
Let's be clear who profits from harvesting slave labor -
whether Mexicans or Okies or Chinese -- and that's the elite.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
Let's be clear who profits from harvesting slave labor -
whether Mexicans or Okies or Chinese -- and that's the elite.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
This article presents a weak defense to claims making the rounds on the Internet. Here's an example of something that recently came to my in-box:
"1. 40% of all workers in L. A. County (L. A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.
"2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
"3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
"4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on [Medi-Cal], whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
"5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally
"6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
"7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border...
"8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
"9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.
"10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish. (There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County)
"(All 10 of the above are from the Los Angeles Times)
"Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare.. Over 70% of the United States' annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.
"We are a bunch of fools for letting this continue."
These are disturbing, highly questionable claims. As a resident of South Texas, where both legal and illegal immigrants from south of the United States appear to contribute positively to the economy, I find the above claims outlandish and racially offensive. However, I'm unable to definitively refute them. The claims don't appear to be addressed by Suzanne Hoeksema's article.
Can anyone help me out?
Here's a start:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp
actually (October 5th, 2009 6:23 pm) -- Fantastic! Thanks! [Please see my 9:40 p.m. comment.]
actually (October 5th, 2009 6:23 pm) -- I checked the article you cited. It's dated 2006. Obviously, what was emailed to me has been around for several years. Seems like it's time for an update, on both sides.
I also checked Wikipedia, which has several relevant articles with some more recent information. This one is probably the most pertinent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States.
The email that I found so offensive turns out to have some half-truths, some distortions, and some arguably true claims. My biggest problem with it isn't the factual errors and distortions, but rather its focus on demonizing illegal immigrants.
The immigrants who take the jobs that U.S. employers entice them with aren't criminals. They're pro-family. They're young, ambitious, and productive. Thanks to these values, their children, if they stay here, will prosper and become huge assets to this country outside of the bottom rung employment arena their parents are often trapped in.
To build walls to keep such people out of the U.S. is highly insulting and counterproductive. If any walls should be built, put them around the businesses that attract illegal immigrants.
The problems call for multi-faceted solutions. But the first step is to stop demonizing people for coming to the U.S. in an attempt not just to survive, but to live out ideals of hard work and devotion to family.
Migrants Give More than They Take, Says US
So what.
Some kid that sneaks into my house might do chores better than my kids, might play baseball better, might be more appreciative of dinner.
But he's NOT PART OF THE FAMILY.
There are rules as to who becomes part of the family, by birth or adoption or marriage.
Sneaking in an open window is not allowed.
It's a myth that illegals do a better job. Here in the SW the once diverse construction crews of cowboys, college students and generally interesting characters have long been replaced by the Latino monoculture. You don't see the artisan/craftsmen anymore just beer-drinking, mariachi-listening, uninsured mojados. The stucco work is generally pretty lumpy and cracks fairly quickly, on close inspection most work is, well, very Mexican. Take a drive thru Mexico to get an idea then drive thru New England, compare architecture.
Funny, here in the SW they've been referred to as "takers" for years.
Yes, the cowboys, college students etc, are diverse and generally interesting artisan / craftsmen. Whereas the Latino cultures are a "monoculture" and they are all beer-drinking mariachi listening uninsured mojados.
Talk about racist myths.
"UNDP acknowledges . . . the burden that migrants can impose on local workers by filling VACANT jobs."
There's your first clue that this report twists reality beyond recognition. Corporate slavers smuggle migrants across borders to REPLACE their citizen employees with low-wage/no-benefits wage slaves; not to fill "vacant" jobs. In the U.S., employers could easily fill all their vacant jobs by simply contacting state unemployment agencies, or by putting help-wanted ads in newspapers. But, they don't want citizen employees because they aren't as easily exploited, and profitable, as wage slaves.
And how in the hell are "reductions in fertility" considered a "benefit" to migrant families? Wage slaves don't impregnate their wives as often when they are thousands of miles away? Exposures to toxic chemicals at work (and no OSHA enforcement) increases birth defects? Wage slaves die younger, and thus have fewer children? How brutally cynical to call infertility a "benefit!"
Consider that all of the claims in this report could be used equally well to justify classic plantation slavery, not just modern wage-slavery. And they call it "human development?" Twisted!
"Migrants Give More than They Take, Says UN"
---------------
UN forgot to say TO WHOM do they give more? For sure none of the unprivileged US population is getting anything from migrants or anybody else. We all give more than we take, we know that very well. We have been giving more and more every year, inflation, interest, bailouts, taxes, mandatory insurance, condemned properties and what not. We gave away our industry, our freedoms and our human image... The real question is to whom do we give all that to? Who are these people who want more and more to be given to them? Their own citizens can't manage to fill their bellies fast enough, so they want more "donors", or how they call them "migrants"? UN turns out to be a front of some very hungry elite. Obviously giving them more only increases their appetite... then the only way to satisfy them is to give them less... Less "migrants", and less everything else. If the diet is not administered immediately they might blow up from overeating and cause severe damage to the environment...
If they really gave more than they take, there'd be no need to say so, because people would understand it from their own experience.
The reality is that the ones to whom these "studies" are addressed --the ones who get all the benefits-- are the elites, not us. Our role is to feel guilty for opposing migration and sacrifice our own wellbeing without complaint in the name of "humanitarianism".
actually, don't confuse this thread with facts, please. You can answer all their objections and conclusions and the next person who comes along will have to do it again. The anti-immigrant zealots are not acting out of logic, but out of what they perceive is their best interest; subtracting the racists of course, which indefragably cut a large swath of them.
Does anyone really advocate apprending, breaking up families, jailing, deporting someone because they thought similar people are criminal? Have large families? Take too many & too much resources? Take jobs you wouldn't like your own kid to do? No,it is dysfunctional, besides being untrue, but that is beside the point; it is fear and vengeance. And it's nothing new. Since the founding of our country, our nation has had a rancorous debate about keeping out the outsider. Just remember those anti-s are a distinct minority, in spite of their hysteria and noise.of their tea party The USA has finally almost always come down on the side of liberty and freedom for the immigrant, just as this UN report makes a very powerful and sensible case.
--mo
"Take jobs you wouldn't like your own kid to do?"
There's the racist underpinning of the pro-slavery argument. Not only is opposition to wage-slave exploitation by illegal employers cast as "anti-immigrant" (ala Karl Rove), but now we know that these are jobs no self-respecting white person would take . . . and THAT'S why we should allow slavery and close our eyes to it.
The real racists are the slavers and their apologists and PR hacks.
And, by the way, construction, meat-packing, janitorial, landscaping, restaurant, and other blue-collar jobs are NOT beneath Americans . . . you racist @#$$!