Contemporary Migrations: General Trends, Essay Example

Important factors that cause international migration flows

There are several factors that cause international migration flows. However, there are two factors that are considered to be the most significant. These factors include economic pressure and immigration policies. Economic pressure in nations from where immigrants come from appear to be one of the distinct drivers of such movement. On the other hand, another source of pressure would be the diversified policies that exist separately from one country to another.
Economic Pressure

Differences that exist in the net economic advantages, mainly the differences in the wages are considered as the major economic pressure that cause international migration flows. Theories formulated by both the demographers and the economists to explain how economic pressure cause the international migration flows. The basic theory explains that the international migration flows are driven by the differences that exist in net present value earnings realized from between the receiving and sending countries (Castles, 2003). This shows that as the living standards in both the receiving and source countries converge, the migrations flows is expected to decline. For this reason, the immigration flows from Western Europe into the North America has been on the decline in the post-war period (Wayne, 2004). The other implication indicates that the immigrants are expected to be young to ensure that they have a longer time horizon of realizing the economic gain expected by migrating.

In the context of the economic pressure as a determinant for international migration flows, the theory predicts relative skills of the migrants. The skilled individuals are more likely to move to another country if the existing differences between the earnings expected in the source and receiving countries exceeds the equivalent gain for the unskilled. In the long run, the relative gains are dependent upon the returns to skills in countries exchanging immigrants. The receiving country that has solid earnings distribution has a less likelihood of attracting the highly skilled immigrants as opposed to the receiving country that has the same average earnings, but with greater inequalities in earnings. For instance, Sweden and German that has narrow earning distribution attracts few skilled immigrants (Wayne, 2004). On the other hand, U.S. that has greater returns to the skills will attract more skilled immigrants (Suarez, 2002).

Nonetheless, there are some factors as opposed to the earnings that influence the international migration flows as opposed to economic pressure. For instance, income uncertainty within the receiving country may hinder the risk-averse individuals from migrating despite the fact that the expected earnings gains could be positive. More significantly, family ties as well as the cultural differences existing between the receiving and source countries could raise the immigration costs (Castles, et al, 2003). Indeed, the immigrant must consider the costs that will be incurred when migrating and the economic benefits that are likely to be achieved.

In a nutshell, the international migration flows occur because individuals are looking for better economic benefits that could help improve their living standards, as well as that of those around them. Hence, economic pressure remains the sole most significant factor leading to the international migration flows. Considerably, how each individual identify himself as somewhat successful and fulfilled in his own life would determine the deciding point of an individual on whether or not he is to migrate; this idealism is expected to go on for the next couple of decades that intend to provide definite patter of direction on how migration is to be handled in developing countries around the globe.

Immigration Policy

Immigration policy is the second most important determinant of the international migration flows (Suarez, 2002). Indeed, the immigration policy should be favorable to the individual intending to migrate. With the growing issues of illegal migrants, the U.S. and other countries globally have come up with policies that are more stringent. Aiming to protect their own resources and their people [including the jobs intended to be filled by the native residents of the country], the administration of these nations often create policies that would make it easier for their own people to protect their fair share of the economy (Castles, et al, 2003).

Moreover, the issue of racism also makes immigration policy a significant tool of attracting immigrants (Wayne, et al, 2004). Different countries have incorporated completely different immigration policies to govern their immigration systems, and this could encourage or discourage those who would want to migrate. For instance, the U.S. has been reviewing immigration policies to make it attractive to the immigrants and those who would like to visit the country (Wayne, et al, 2004). Nevertheless, the policies should be established in such a way that they curb the issue of illegal migrants who would be a threat to the homeland security (Castles, et al, 2003).

The U.S. immigration policy is complex and could be confusing about how it actually works. Immigration and Neutralization Act (INA) is what governs the present U.S. immigration policy (Castles, et al, 2003). The policy provides for annual global limit of an estimated 675,000 permanent immigrants with the exception of the close families. The president and Congress are expected to determine a separate number of the refugee admissions (Wayne, et al, 2004). The migration flows into the U.S. is based on certain principles that include re-uniting families. Further, it includes admitting those individuals who have skills that would be useful to the economy of the U.S. as well as promotion of diversity and protection of refugees (Wayne, et al, 2004). These policies have made individuals who want to migrate to see the U.S. as the best receiving. Indeed, the policies put in place in any country have the potential of attracting immigrants. More so, with the U.S. having a policy on familial reunion, the U.S. has been able to attract several immigrants with family ties with the hope that they will be re-united someday (Wayne, et al, 2004). In a nutshell, immigration policy is a significant determining factor of the international migration flows and is considered to be the second most after economic pressure.

Is negative public opinion towards immigrants justified?

The negative opinion in America towards immigrants is not justified. This paper will look some of the arguments noted as reasons for the negative opinion with a view of demystifying the incoming immigrants in the nation. The most popular justification of the negative public opinion is the protection of the American works (Wayne, et al, 2004). The argument is that the American workers need protection from poverty. However, this can never be justified since without the laws the labor supply is likely to drop, and the American wages would plunge to third of the developing countries.

Indeed, it can never be assumed that the American workers owe their living standards to the immigration restrictions. With increased migration into the U.S., the wages paid to the unskilled individuals will fall, but it is also significant to note that majority of Americans are not unskilled. According to the U.S. Census Bureau report of 2011 estimated 87 percent Americans who are over the age of 25 are reported to be high school graduates (Wayne, et al, 2004).

The argument also has several flaws on the standard estimate that the natives and immigrants who have the same kind of education credentials have the same skills. This is because, in reality, the skills of the two groups are different since the natives have the ability of speaking better English as opposed to the immigrants. There is a clear distinction between language and physical skills. With the increase in immigration, the natives are expected to move to the occupations that are language based that have higher wages hence escaping the lower paid physical skills occupied by the immigrants.

The negative public opinion is also not justified since immigration has the ability of benefiting the American workers. This can be done through increasing the value of non-labor assets of workers such as real estate and pensions. It is reported that in the U.S., the housing prices as well as rent rises by an estimated 1 percent whenever immigration population rises to at least 1 percent (Suarez, 2002). This is beneficial to the Americans since they own majority of the residential real estate in America. Consequently, protection the American workers can never a rationale for the negative public opinion. Indeed, immigration is likely to make the immigrants worse off in the case where they rent the residential houses and consequently make natives gain.

Furthermore, the other popular justification of the negative public opinion is the protection of the American taxpayers. The American welfare has been paying more for the idleness as compared to what the other countries pay for their work. Those who hold the negative public opinions argue that restricting or simply stopping immigrations is the natural way of ensuring protection of the American taxpayers from the billions of potential immigrant parasites. However, this argument is extremely weak than it actually looks. Contrary to the argument, the welfare states are more focused on the older individuals as opposed to the poor. Therefore, since the immigrants are in most cases younger individuals, they end up supporting the elderly American natives as opposed to milking the welfare system. Another reason is that the high share of the government spending is always non-viral in that the government can be able to support a larger population with little or totally no extra cost. For instance, the current military of the U.S. could still defend it even if the population increased (Wayne, et al, 2004).

Another popular justification of the negative public opinion is that of protecting the American culture. Those who justify the native public opinions argue that immigration harms the American culture. The argument is that many of the immigrants fail to learn the English language and subsequently clinging to their backwards ways (Suarez, 2002). However, it is difficult to evaluate the vaguer cultural complainants. Nonetheless, if culture could be equated to popular culture or high culture, then there is a curious pattern in America. This is because the top cultural centers in America are New York and California having the largest population of foreign immigrants (Castles, et al, 2003). On the other hand, the other states that have fewer immigrants like Montana, Alabama, and West Virginia, among others would not be painted by their tourism bureaus s being cultural meccas (Suarez, 2002).

Furthermore, if culture could be equated to social capital or trust, then the real estate market would be most suitable in measuring this. In case social capital is increasingly significant, and the immigrants have negative effects on the social capital, then the immigration flow would make rent and housing prices to fall. The immigrants will increase the demand for the houses through buying homes as well as renting them. These reasons prove that the negative public opinions on immigration can never be justified in any country or economy including America.

References

Castles, S. and Miller, M. (2003). Contemporary Migrations: General Trends. The Age of Migration.

Suarez, M.M. (2002). Latinos: Remaking American. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Wayne, C. (et al). (2004). Controlling Migration: A global perspective.