Social Issues – Page 14

The massive rate at which the world population is ageing will give rise to unimaginable problems. How far do you agree?

The world population is ageing very fast owing to the blessings of longevity and improved health facilities. In 2006 the world’s elders were estimated to be 500 million which is predicted to reach 1 billion by 2030. On a global level, the increase in octogenarians is projected to increase by 151% between 2005 and 2030; the increase in 65 and above population is projected to grow by 104% and an increase of 21% for the population under age 65. This increase in the ageing population coupled with a decrease in the number of young people is creating a kind of social imbalance. This demo graph is evolving problems which are predicted to grow severe with passing time. Nations and governments have started developing strategies to minimize the effects of this demographic transition, but how successful these strategies will be, and at what cost, is a serious point of contemplation. The excessive increase in the ageing population of the world will create severe problems for the government, for the young generation as well as for the seniors themselves.

Today the number of elderly is increasing at a vast rate and the governments are finding it difficult to provide financial security and health care to them for the extended years of their lives. The first major necessity of the elders is of health services and long term care. Second, is to extend financial support through pension plans and the next is to arrange for other facilities like transport, roads, recreation centres and community centres for them. All this requires strong economic growth which is not possible in the shrinking young population scenario.

As the workforce in all nations has fallen low, the development programs are under stress, the revenue generation is inadequate. It is becoming tough for governments to mobilize and allocate resources in various schemes. In order to satisfy the essential requirements of the growing number of old people for a growing number of years, other development programs have to be compromised with. It may be quite possible that caring for the elderly will be like ignoring the children and investing in nursing homes will slash the budget meant for schools and teachers. A number of health workers and nursing staff will be migrating from low-income areas to high-income areas. The required revenue cannot be generated from the shrinking workforce and the governments have to cut down the pensions and increase the retirement age. Even then it is uncertain that the situation will be under control.

Today there is a fewer number of people in the workforce, who on one hand, have to bear the burden of supporting the nation’s finance through revenue generation, and on the other hand, support the elderly in every way. Earlier there were a number of children, siblings and young members in a family and it was easier to take care of the few elders in it. But today such families have disappeared. Longevity has developed the trend of a four-generation family with a single young member or a couple at the most. These young people have to undertake dual responsibility in the family, of taking care of the children as well as of parents and grandparents; at the same time, they cannot ignore their professional workload and demands of society. These members of the younger generation also have to cut down expenses to invest in the security insurance plans. They also bear some liability towards other veterans in the community. Many times the young member can be compelled to move abroad or to another place for jobs and face moral pressure of leaving the elders uncared. This clearly implies that the ageing population is imposing every kind of -physical, mental, financial, social and moral -burden on the young.

The ageing population will have innumerable challenging issues for themselves. They will suffer in many ways, in health, finance and social security. Senility and debility hold the elders by hand. Most of the elderly are found ailing with chronic diseases like diabetes, cancer and cardiac problems. The recent development of geriatrics offers cure from these but in most cases, the patient falls into some kind of disability making long term care essential. The cost of treatment and long term care is not within everybody’s reach and government-aided facilities will become insufficient in the coming times. Growing in age makes them lose their spouses and having fewer children or remaining childless leaves them devoid of family care. Even if some of them would be fortunate enough to have children, yet the children would stay near and care for them is doubtful. Most of the baby boomers are also found deficient in education and skills as demanded by modern technical professions. Hence it is unlikely that they will be able to continue in the labour force despite good health and fitness. They will have to bear the insult of working under younger bosses. Slashing of pensions as imposed by many governments will leave them in clutches of poverty. Senescent and lonely, the elderly will have to compromise with circumstances.

Ageing of the world is, after all, not a big problem, as the communities are growing conscious and supportive even as the governments are developing plans for comfortable ageing. The situation has come before all and everyone from individuals to communities and governments are moving in the direction to enhance the quality of life for the senior citizens.

That the families have fewer young members is a positive trait. These members are strong and dutiful and accept their liability towards their elders. Emotions and morals attach them to their parents and grandparents. The communities are making special spaces for elders; libraries, recreation centres, parks, fitness, physiotherapy and yoga centres are mushrooming in societies. Organisations like the World Bank and UNESCO; the programs of MDG’s and SDG’s will not let the veterans to starve or to die aidless. There are practical solutions to this over-emphasized problem of an ageing world. The elderly themselves are becoming more and more responsible day by day making self-esteemed and self-earned status for themselves. The elders themselves are beginning to take responsibilities, working for more years and making arrangements for their retirement. They are reducing the impact of compressed workforce and pressure on the government.

Despite the emotional and moral strengths, it will not be possible for the young members to look after the elderly. They have their own pressing priorities of jobs, personal health and social issues. However much the old people may want, they will not be able to remain productive and self-dependent. The government will also increase revenues, decrease pension amounts and increase the retirement age. Communicable and non-communicable diseases will show their impact and leave the elderly in the lap of loneliness and poor health. Migration and increasing fertility rates are solutions no doubt but do not appear practical

The ageing of the world is going to develop problematic issues for the nation, for the young and for the elderly. But an overall awareness and active participation of all in solving this crucial problem will soon bring about a positive change in the situation. But so far as strategies have not been implemented it has to be accepted that population ageing will develop unimaginable problems.

There are hardly any worthwhile role models for young people nowadays. Discuss.

Written using an unconventional structure.

The idea that there are fewer positive role models in our contemporary society is based on a fallacy. There are actually more positive role models today than ever before, and it is very easy to get to know them through the new media. We live in an age where people from opposite sides of the planet can easily communicate and share information in real time, and thus greatly influence each other.

This means that young people do not have to limit their popular culture needs to the place where they live. There are thousands of other places that they can find about on the internet, and they can access the internet anywhere, anytime, even on mobile devices. However, the same technologies that can help them in this regard is also the main roadblock in their path to finding positive role models, because the new media mainly promotes negative models, since positive ones have a smaller public impact, while negative attitudes sell better.

This is the reason why many people consider that there are fewer role models for young people nowadays: because they only look at what is promoted on popular TV stations, magazines and websites. However, there are still a great number of publications that focus their attention on educational aspects, which follow a strict deontological ethic and do not care only about their budgets.

Also, individuals can search for role models on their own, without the help of large publications. Of course, parents can also guide their children and teach them where and how to find useful and positive information, without forcing them to learn about things they do not care, but encouraging them to find good models on their own.

Magnus Carlsen, aged 24, is a child prodigy and the world’s chess champion. Unlike other chess prodigies in the past (Bobby Fischer being the best example), he is a very optimistic, cheerful and charismatic person. He lives a healthy life, engaging in various other sport activities. He always smiles and loves what he is doing. Carlsen is the living proof that people can succeed if they work hard, love what they are doing, remain focus and have a healthy lifestyle. It is now easier than ever to follow Carlsen’s work and his personal life, through most of the popular social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, and even on his Youtube channel.

Unlike in the past, there are no major media publications that mediate this relationship between Carlsen and his fans, which means that admirers can have direct and immediate access to Carlsen’s determination and words of wisdom. There are thousands of other positive role models who can be found in sports, music or films, although they are not as promoted as the negative ones are. Adolescents can easily reach them if they balance mainstream media with traditional and independent media sources. Just as always, it is just a matter of knowing where and how to search for good information and role models.

While it is true that the media has changed, and that this change brings about a bad influence to young people nowadays, it is also true that, with a little effort, young people can use the same media to their advantage. Although there are more negative than positive role models nowadays, there are still more than enough positive ones to choose from. The new media, the process of globalization and instant access to information worldwide makes it easier for adolescents to find people who have succeeded in domains that interest them. It also makes it easier for them to understand how and why these people have succeeded, and thus to learn from their successes. Most people are however blind to these immense opportunities and this blindness is a form of ignorance, the same ignorance that makes other people blame technology for their own failures. Violence, sexism and hate are a major theme of our contemporary world. It is however up to each and every one of us to choose our goals and ideals in life. Everyone will choose the thing that best fits their own character and desires. Neither schools nor parents can impose positive role models on young people. They can however guide adolescents and help them make the right decisions. This decision has to ultimately come natural to them.

Terrorism should be condemned no matter the cause. Do you agree?

Since the turn of the century, the postmodern world has seen increasing levels of political, cultural, military and socio-economic tumult, much of this due to a series of terrorist attacks on American soil and the resultant waging of Washington’s “War on Terror”. Consequently, the nature of terrorism has come under intense media focus and is subject to immense debate, especially on its justification. Before engaging in such a debate one must first identify terrorism as an act of widespread violence, whether on the part of a state or individual, against another state or society, with the ultimate goal of forcing the latter party to cede to the demands of the former – be they political or socio-economic. With such a definition in place we find that terrorism is indeed unacceptable in a vast majority of occurrences. But we cannot be entirely certain that that is the case for a few but highly controversial situations. In its entirety, though I would tend to agree with the statement I must also state that it is too complex to be offered a clear-cut response.

From the perspective of a humanitarian, terrorism is completely abhorrent and totally unacceptable no matter the opinion of the terrorists themselves. All areas of terrorism in recent years have been manifested in the form of the taking of innocent lives – lives that had little to do with the terrorist’s main cause. From the attacks on New York City in 2001 to the spate of car bombings in Moscow to the insurrections of the Southern Philippines, almost all terror attacks have caused the death of thousands of innocent bystanders, wanton destruction of private property, and incredible distress and pressure brought upon those who had the misfortune of seeing their loved ones being threatened with decapitation on news channels. It is through this argument that we as a “moral” global people condemn terrorism and its perpetrators no matter what their cause is. They as human beings are simply barred by the laws of humanity from inflicting such atrocities upon the lives of those who had nothing to do with their past hurts and grievances.

Indeed, terrorism is essentially a magnification of previous injustice. While terrorists such as the impoverished minions of Al Qaeda or Abu Sayaff feel that their lives have been cheated by the big American Satan, what they do to take the lives of civilians elsewhere is, in fact, even more, satanic than the policymakers in the White House refusing to end economic aid to developing countries.

Apart from criticizing terrorism by measuring it according to the standard of universal human values of justice, we as a community of nations must also condemn it according to international law. State-sponsored terrorism is no different from the terrorism of a fanatical private individual and hence must also be stopped. And this is extremely important because state-sponsored terrorism is easier to identify and curb, it also makes the nation-perpetrator extremely illegitimate because it violates international law in the most despicable of manners, the show’s the leaders of their nation as callous brutes, and thus degrades the international reputation of that country. For example, Muammar Gaddafi’s sanctioning of civilian aeroplane bombings over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1986 gave him the international image of a madman and turned Libya into a pariah nation even until today. For the sake of protecting national dignity, each and every member of the international community must never see terrorism as acceptable.

Finally, terrorism as a solution to one party’s problems must be rejected because it is extremely ineffective in the long run. Though seemingly inhumane for its lack of human rights consideration, this argument is built on unshakable logic and is exemplified by recent events. Palestinians regularly don bomb-jackets and detonate themselves in Israeli cafes and buses in order to secure a future for their Palestinian homeland. What they have succeeded in achieving to date is an ever-increasing rate of Israeli military incursions into refugee camps, helicopter muscle strikes on their key leaders such as the Yassin assassination earlier this year, and increasing international unwillingness to broker a peace deal that may well guarantee the very Palestinian security which they died for in the first place. In short, violence only begets more violence, nothing else, hence making terror totally unreliable as a means to an end.

But, as with all controversies, the issue of terrorism has spawned a large number of devil’s advocates, and hence a member of arguments that terror is “acceptable” because it is “a natural consequence” of the actions of one nation upon others. Though highly repugnant to the humanitarians, these arguments do make for a convincing, if controversial, case.

Terror must be accepted as the inevitable outcome of the damning legacy of colonialism that the First World has left on the Third, which was further exacerbated by Cold War machinations and power plans. Since the last century, the vast majority of African, Arab, and Asian states have suffered under periods of debilitating colonial rule, and we find that the majority of terrorists have come from such impoverished nations. But their plight was forged into a cause for violence because of the First world ‘s action In the Cold War. When we examine the methodology, tactics and weaponry of the international terror organizations, we find that they in fact had their origins in the First world! American and Soviet Cold War-era weapons are the mainstays of Al Qaeda’s and Abu Sayaff’s arsenals, and CIA training doctrines in Afghanistan have had a massive impact in shaping the methods of infiltration carried out by Al-Qaeda’s cells. But more importantly, it was the actions of the United States in leaving Afghanistan to languish in poverty in 1987 after the Soviet Union withdrew that brought an incredible sense of bitterness and resentment upon many a mujaheddin fighter, most notably a certain Osama bin Laden. By taking the macro point of view we find that the terrorism of today is but a natural consequence of the plans that were set in motion a couple of decades ago by the world’s most powerful countries.

In addition, we must accept terror even though we do not condone it because it is also a natural outcome of severe desperation and bitterness of the world’s impoverished majority. By examining the root causes of terror in the terrorists’ own homelands, we find that their suffering in poverty and that their perceptions of the “unfairness” and moral decadence of Western capitalism have resulted in terror because they have no other room to make their opinions heard. All the Arab states save one or two exceptions are run by autocracies without the slightest hint of free media. This has given rise to entire societies that have no room to voice their opposition to American policy in Israel or Russian occupations of Chechnya. And this is not limited to Arabian monarchies or theocracies. In Southern Thailand, the Muslim peoples became increasingly bitter about their situation because of the lack of national focus on their plight. When two such powerful forces, one of government repression and the other of a people’s bitterness and envy and need to be seen and heard, collide, the resultant outcome can only be violence in the form of terrorism. One has only to look at the societies from which Al Qaeda’s operatives, Abu Sayaff’s guerillas, Palestinian suicide-bombers, and even the Spanish Basque Separatists come from to see the ongoing trend of desperation and need to be heard being put down by government repression and international indifference. Terror must be an acceptable outcome if we do not give ear to the needs of the poor.

Finally, we cannot immediately condemn all violent actions in society as a form of terror. Terror to one is not a terror to another; this is clearly seen in the split of world opinion over the mounting Israeli-Palestinian crisis. The American government, heavily pressured by a powerful Zionist lobby, sees the Palestinian suicide bombers as callous terrorists whilst the Muslim world, as evidenced by Malaysia’s Prime Minister Doctor Mahathir’s speeches, views them in the light of martyrs, sacrificing themselves for Allah and Palestine. In such a situation it is virtually impossible to objectively define what constitutes a terrorist and what does not. And even if we do say with conviction that such suicide bombers are terrorists, who are we to say they are unjustified in fighting they only way they know? The weight of suffering and mistreatment of the Palestinians by the Tel Aviv coalitions has grown almost unbearable over recent years. If the immense injustice the Palestinians have borne is not just enough for their taking of innocent Israeli lives, then surely we can argue that the USA ‘s refusal to listen with unbiased hearing to their cause is. It is plausible that the Palestinian suicide bomber does what he does because violence is the only thing that would make the rich Jewish businessmen in America sit up and take note of CNN’s coverage of the burdens the Palestinians have to bear because of the biased American support of Israel or whoever’s in power. In this scenario, the case for terror is stronger than the case against.

In summary, I would not condone terror nor deem it acceptable under any circumstances. But I also have sympathy for the societies in which these terrorists are born and raised for it is the sense of injustice that they feel there that causes even more injustice around the world. As much as I condemn terror as an act of taking innocent lives, I sympathize with the demands of terrorists because that which drives a human to take the lives of others must be an unbearable force indeed. In the final analysis, a clear-cut response to the scourge as terror is illusory and cannot be found.

“Discuss the impact of the mass media on society today.”

In this current age, the mass media has played an integral part in the lives of both the young and old. The mass media, which comes in the form of publications, television programmes, the Internet, music and others, has had both positive and negative impacts on the society today, influencing their mindsets and beliefs. In my opinion, mass media has resulted in more negative effects than positive.

The mass media influences the mindsets of the young and impressionable; leading to a blurring of the distinction between right and wrong. One has to be discerning in what he believes, which is presented by the mass media. Without the knowledge of being able to differentiate between good and evil, it is easy for one to be easily swayed by the messages conveyed by the media. Take, for instance, violent television programmes such as WWF wrestling, which advocates violence. The programme depicts scenes of wrestlers beating each other up to a bloody pulp and hurling verbal abuses at each other. Youths and children who cannot differentiate between right and wrong are eventually influenced into having the misconception that violence and verbal abuse is a solution to problems or disputes. This may lead to insidious effects over time, such as imitable behaviour. A significant example to note is that the teenage gunmen behind the Columbine High School massacre were avid fans of certain violent video games. Although there is no concrete evidence that playing such games led them to commit their heinous deed, there is the possibility that they were influenced into thinking that killing is a solution to rid them of people they disliked. Hence it is evident that the mass media has influenced the beliefs of the young, and has resulted in an inability to tell right from wrong.

The mass media knows no boundaries, and thus certain messages conveyed may be offensive or inappropriate. While mediums of mass media such as the television and publications may be restricted by censorship or bans, the Internet is one medium that cannot be controlled. Anyone can easily make information available and accessible on the Internet, through websites, blogs and the like. In some cases, racial slurs or discriminatory messages against certain religions may even make their way onto the World Wide Web. An example is the controversial, anti-Islamic video, “Fitna”.“Fitna”, a short film by Geert Wilders, made its debut online and was even posted on Youtube, a video sharing website open to the public. The film linked the religion to terrorism and resulted in an uproar in the Islamic world. Supporters and followers of Islam were furious, and there were even protests against the film. The furore over“Fitna” is evidence the mass media has no limits, as there is no control over what is on the Internet. In“Fitna”’s case, there is clearly discrimination against Islam, resulting in many Muslims feeling angry and offended. Despite calls to ban the video, it is still available on various websites for public viewing. Thus it is clear that there are no boundaries in the mass media, regardless of the content of the messages conveyed.

The mass media may lead to bias in the beliefs of society, as there might be control imposed on the information conveyed, thus preventing the people from seeing the big picture. In several countries, the mass media has become a powerful medium of conveying messages of propaganda. Only selected information is made available to the public, with bans imposed on information deemed as inappropriate. An example is China. The people are fed with pro-government information, as the government has banned Blogger, a blog hosting website, and any form of publication or websites that are anti-government. 50 journalists and bloggers were arrested early this year, for posting anti-political party comments online. By disallowing opinions against the government to be made accessible to the public, the citizens in China are not provided with the big picture of their government. While some of the people are aware of the propaganda presented to them via the mass media in their country, many others are not as discerning, and pro-government values are inculcated in them. Even in other countries, it is only natural for the governments to use the mass media to present themselves in a positive light, as they want the support of the people. However, imposing restrictions on the messages spread by the mass media leads to a one-sided view of matters, and people will be unable to see the other side of the coin. Therefore the mass media has resulted in influencing society into having narrow mindsets.

On the other hand, the mass media has had beneficial impacts on the society in this age, as it is an efficient medium of spreading information. Forms of the mass media, such as the Internet, have made information easily accessible by the public. With a few clicks of the computer mouse, the public is exposed to a wide range of current affairs in the world. For instance, when cyclone Nargis in Myanmar occurred, blogs, websites and forums were flooded with news about it. Another form of the mass media, publications such as newspapers, also informed the public of the news. Regardless of country, it was only a short while before nearly everyone knew about the natural disaster. The governments of countries did not need to formally inform the whole country of the news, as the various forms of mass media had already done that. Hence it is evident that the mass media has impacted society positively, as it is a convenient and effective means of relaying information.

While the mass media has its benefits in society, its negative impacts outweigh the positive impacts. The mass media is able to influence the mindsets of the young, is without boundaries and plays a huge role in shaping the beliefs of a country’s citizens. Thus, I conclude that the mass media has had a negative impact on the society of today.

Terrorism can be justified. How far do you agree?

The introduction is overly long but the essay has a mature quality about it.

Maximilien Robespierre, an influential and instrumental figure in the period of the French Revolution generally branded as the Reign of Terror, formerly affirmed that, “subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic. The government of the revolution is liberty’s repression against tyranny.” In the present day, contemporary terrorists impute Robespierre’s perception that aggression is mandatory to protect and emancipate a population. Given that the number of global inhabitants is projected to multiply to 8 billion by 2025, state and international conflicts will propagate as a root of concern for the human race. The perpetual discussion for an explicit definition of what constitutes terrorism by the United Nations appears to be infinite since member countries are ineffectual to form a bilaterally accepted definition. Although the general public condemns terrorism, there remains a double standard of “us versus them” involved in such beliefs. Terrorism can be justified on one hand as there is an element of actuality to the remark “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter”. On the other hand, terrorism is intrinsically corrupt therefore the rationale is to oppose terrorism in the name of ethics.

Terrorism can be accounted for as a reaction of the perpetrator due to subjugation and individuals’ political principles. Those labelled “terrorists” seldom identify themselves per se, and conventionally resort to euphemistic terms or titles specific to their condition such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, militant, guerrilla, and rebel. It can hence be construed that the perpetrators consider their actions to be righteous, perhaps even obligatory. Terrorists launch wars, claiming for just causes such as self-defence as well as aegis of innocents from threats from despotic governments, civil disorder, and external assaults. Due to a disintegration of law and stability, terrorists bear arms in retaliation to suppression of fundamental constitutional rights. By and large, the sense of duty to defend a society is vested in sovereignty clout but the administration may fail. Under these circumstances, a climate of alarm emerges thus the genesis of guerrillas. The case in point, insurgents validate Islamic terrorism as resistance to American policies in the Middle East or Israeli occupation of Palestine. Terror campaigns are also implemented in an attempt to advocate the customary system. Take for instance, Protestant extremist communities in Northern Ireland have exerted terrorism against those supporting a cohesive Ireland. Therefore, terrorism can be substantiated from the rebel’s stance, in response to contravention of one’s societal, parliamentary, spiritual and ethical dogmas.

However, religion is an inexcusable pretext for acts of terror. The Islamic faith does not condone terrorism. Suicide bombers’ actions mainly stem from political conflict, not religion. Terrorist organizations have illustrated their grounds in spiritual and cultural expressions. Nonetheless, this is frequently a blatant strategy premeditated to conceal political goals, spawn widespread fear and silence disagreement. It is fallacious to presuppose religion would typically result in carnage although religion is not totally above suspicion either.

In reality, ostensible religious terrorism transpires only under the coalescence of idiosyncratic political, social and ideological conditions. Religion becomes fused with vehement expressions of communal objectives, personal egotism, and movements for governmental reform. Thus, such heinous acts cannot be justified on tenets of religious beliefs.

Explanations for terrorism are further complicated by the ethical ambiguity that encircles terrorism. Pragmatic theorists and non-utilitarian philosophers hold contradictory opinions on whether particular acts of terrorism can be vindicated as the lesser evil in a specific circumstance. Utilitarian logicians can hypothetically formulate instances in which sin of terrorism is outweighed by significant commodities that cannot be secured with less moral loss. In practice, pragmatists repeatedly rebuff terrorism since it is extremely questionable that acts of terrorism achieve imperative goods in an efficient conduct or that the detrimental outcomes of undermining the pact of non-combatant immunity is considered to prevail over the success of terrorism. On the contrary, Don Quixotes stress that terrorism is constantly amoral unless the society faces the acute peril of absolute annihilation and the sole means of self-preservation is through deliberately targeting non-combatants. Due to ethical inconclusiveness, it is challenging to realize an accord on the settings in which terrorism can be justified.

Terrorism can be justified through the communal, constitutional, religious and moral creeds of the insurgents because in the modern world, there is no absolute right or wrong concept and there is no standard of doctrines. Moreover, terrorism is a pejorative term with intrinsically negative insinuations which are broadly relevant to one’s dissidents. To a large extent, the application of the term is exceedingly prejudiced such that its use implies a moral assessment. If a person empathizes with the victim of antagonism on one hand, then the act is considered terrorism. On the other hand, assuming one identifies with the freedom fighter, the brutal act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not encouraging or at least ambivalent light.

To what extent does the migration of people have a positive effect?

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.