While this is a good essay, by today’s standards, the introduction and conclusion are excessively long.
Migration of people has become a collective norm, such that it is an ascendant characteristic of the contemporary society thus regulating international and cross-provincial migration is a prime concern on the policy agendas of developed and Third World states. The term “migration of people” refers to the movement of individuals such as refugees and economic migrants. This phenomenon is chiefly pertinent at present, taking into account the projection of unceasing global and regional migration animated by ageing of First World populations, mounting labour shortages in numerous developed states and urban provinces, as well as chronic disparities in income and standard of living across industrialized and developing civilizations. The modern unparalleled degree of migration incites substantial demographic, ethnical and socio-cultural reforms in many communities. Camps are divided on a myriad of issues and the aftermaths of resettlement. Consequently, there is an emerging consensus that migration of people, supposing appropriate policy measures are implemented, may engender crucial merits for expatriates, host nations and motherlands. However, given that immigration can be perceived as a double-edged sword, it does not emphatically imply propitious outcomes. Hence, migration of people has a positive effect to a large extent.
In a gradually more diverse world, where migration is repeatedly discerned as a menace to national and provincial identities in addition to social cohesion, it is fundamental to stress the positive stimulus migration initiates in host states and regions, with regard to workforce, creation of affluence, ubiquitous poverty decline, innovation and fecundity. On one hand, there is proliferating belief that immigration precipitates growth. Migration tends to boost employment in host societies, draw an influx of foreign capital and investment, beget a cosmopolis, and heighten the capacity for modernism. Several economists claim that the import of cheap labour has trifling bearing on incomes and trade openings for domestic workers since migrant workers are frequently employed in low-wage unskilled practices for which there is a lack of local supply of manpower. Therefore, the migration of people is beneficial for the receipt states and districts.
On the other hand, sceptics assert that immigration would intensify public welfare strain as well as hostility between the migrant population and the locals in host communities. One Centre of Immigration Studies (CIS) repudiated the advantages of immigration, stating the case of Mexican migrants in the United States. The study alleged that Mexican immigrants have spawned a five percent regression in wages for the poorest ten percent of the American households. Furthermore, impecunious immigrants exploit social services at twice the rate of native Americans. Thus the detractors argue that migration is detrimental. Despite the element of legitimacy in their approach of analysis, I consider their deduction to be too sweepingly pessimistic. The Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) elucidated findings such as the majority of immigration trends illustrated modest or zero influence on employment and earnings of residents. Although economic theory suggests that in the short run, and on the assumption that the skill composition of the immigrant inflow diverges from that of locals, migration may be adverse, the net effects of migration are generally positive over the protracted period.
Concurrently, Third World countries and rural provinces may experience the “brain drain” phenomenon which describes the loss of trained and educated individuals to emigration. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), there are more African scientists and engineers in practice in the United States than in their homeland. The United Nations Population Fund, 2010 State of the World Population report determined that Africa merely retains 1.3 percent of the globe’s health care practitioners despite having over a quarter of tuberculosis cases worldwide. Moreover, Chinese farms are observing a scarcity of labour as rural-urban immigration level rise to a prodigious high. With escalating reliance on agricultural imports, China’s food security is increasingly threatened. Nevertheless, source states also reap benefits through remittances, both cash and societal, in the form of declines in fertility, child mortality rates, higher school enrolment rates and the empowerment of women. The exodus of highly skilled workers should be reflected as a symptom instead of a rationale behind failing public systems in those regions. Therefore, migration is advantageous on the whole, for the sending societies.
It is temerarious to form elementary assessments about the benefits of migrant flows from developing to developed states, and from rural to urban provinces. For poverty-stricken countries, the migration of a sizeable fraction of their talents imperils those remaining behind. The underlying reality is that communities necessitate human capital to ensure progress, assemble institutions as well as implement guiding principles which are the strategic pillars of sustained development. The central factors of intercontinental and domestic migration lie in the inequalities which exist in stages of development. Since the significant magnitude, doggedness and flagrancy of the gaps are likely to reinforce the pressures for migration in the imminent future, this migration trend is probable to increase. Given the considerable and multifaceted aftermaths of migration, the global community should seek a more impartial recruitment of less skilled, greater emphasis on provisional employment with incentives to return, and accent on remedying the institutional malfunctions which motivate talents to leave. With these rudiments in place, migration would be more advantageous for development.
