Il paradosso della villetta in campagna e i fatti di Rosarno.
post pubblicato in
diario, il 4 aprile 2010
La nevrosi collettiva, il desiderio della fuga dalla città, il fallimento del sogno di una città e una civiltà a misura d'uomo.
Se uno pensa al novecento dopo le due guerre mondiali vede la fuga dalle campagne, l'accorrere delle masse nelle città, l'industrializzazione, la lotta per i diritti dei lavoratori e l'integrazione delle persone a vivere uno sopra l'altro in maniera disumana in appartamenti dormitorio nelle periferie.
Ebbene all'inizio del terzo millennio dopo tutte queste lotte, tutti questi sacrifici, qual è il nostro bilancio come cittadini di questo sistema-paese?
Le statistiche non sono molto amate perchè sono peggio degli aforismi dicono solo mezze verità!
Però pensiamola in modo paradossale e diciamo che in questi 60 anni l'italiano medio ha subito uno sfruttamento tale che se fosse possibile dividere tutta la ricchezza nazionale per 60 milioni di cittadini avremmo questo risultato:
l'ISTAT & Banca d'Italia (Stat. 2008) dicono che ogni italiano ha 137.956 euro in tasca (case, terreni e immobili compresi).
Se togliamo i 30.000 euro pro-capite del debito pubblico rimangono circa 108.000 euro a testa.
Considerato che una famiglia media è composta da 3 persone possiamo dire che con 324.000 euro, adesso che le case costano un pò di meno ci si può comprare una piccola villettina a schiera in periferia in campagna. E questo è il sogno della maggior parte delle famiglie.
Il desiderio di ogni famiglia italiana.
Quindi il sogno della maggior parte delle persone è ritornare in campagna, da dove erano venuti i nonni o i padri dagli anni '50 in poi.
60 anni di storia, di lotte, di rivendicazioni ecc. ecc. sono serviti a capire che è impossibile trovare un sistema di convivenza civile e allo stesso tempo, rispettoso della natura e dell'essere umano.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L'illusione si sta trasferendo nei paesi in via di sviluppo come un morbo pestilenziale: le statistiche ci dicono che il 2010 sarà il primo anno in cui nel mondo vivono più persone in città che in campagna.
Lo schema si ripete: far credere a quelli che stanno in campagna che sono fuori dai giochi e la loro vita è inutile. Creare delle metropoli dove i nuovi schiavi (inconsapevoli) accorrono in massa elemosinando un lavoro per un tozzo di pane. Costruire appartamenti topaie a milioni in modo disordinato intorno alle metropoli caotiche. Agitare quanto basta. Far passare 50 anni. Risultato:
1) Inquinamento pazzesco dell'area metropolitana (e del pianeta);
2) Vita di merda dei presunti cittadini;
3) Arricchimento delle multinazionali che porteranno il morbo dell'industrializzazione da qualche altra parte;
4) Desiderio di ritorno nelle campagne dei figli e dei padri sopravvissuti alla follia collettiva.
In sintesi questa è la storia dal 1950 in poi, e sembra che la follia adesso si stia ripetendo in Messico, Brasile, India e Cina.
Immagine dalla Repubblica del 29/01/2012
Però ultimamente con il peggiorare della crisi si è rivisto l'indice Gini:
- http://www.deiricchi.it/index.php?docnum=34;
- http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficiente_di_Gini;
- http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/ (importante sito che tiene conto di come realizzare maggiore uguaglianza sociale).
In base alle ultime statistiche (05/07/2010) la situazione è ben rappresentata da questo articolo: http://www.repubblica.it/economia/2010/07/05/news/inchiesta_redditi-5392064/?ref=HREC1-1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ma analizziamo in dettaglio la situazione italiana attuale:
In realtà la ricchezza non è equamente distribuita tra i cittadini e segue un andamento "pseudo-gaussiano", con una curva a campana.
Fig. 1: gaussiana classica
In realtà la curva non è una gaussiana perfetta, ma ha questa forma:
Fig. 2: distribuzione dei redditi nel 2004 sopra e 2010 sotto (da notare che sono aumentate le famiglie che dichiarano solo 12194 euro all'anno). I valori effettivi sono rappresentati dall’istogramma mentre i valori normali sono rappresentati dalla curva da: http://www.bancaditalia.it/ (survey di Roberto Fini: Dotazione individuale di capitale umano e condizione economica italiana).
Fig. 3: parte destra della curva a campana per redditi sopra i 12000 euro.
Fig. 4:Partite IVA: con il fenomeno della precarietà molti sono stati costretti ad aprire la partita IVA per lavorare, ma tra il milione di persone che dichiara meno di 4000 euro l'anno ci sarà sicuramente qualche evasore (immagine presa da Repubblica del 20/12/2011).
Fig. 5: Tasse 2011 di tutti i contribuenti - da "la Repubblica".
Dalla curva a campana della Fig. 2 (togliendo ai 2 bordi un 2% di ricchissimi e poverissimi) si interpreta che:
a) rimane ancora un 19% circa dei cittadini senza casa di proprietà, che non ha risparmi e vive in affitto;
b) il 60% circa rientra nella media e abita nella casa di proprietà;
c) esiste un 19% che possiede dal doppio della media in su, ed ha più di 1 casa).
Bisogna dire che in Italia il 10% delle famiglie possiede il 45% della ricchezza.
Questo link è fondamentale: http://www.slideshare.net/guest887357/power-point-piano-casa1.
Principali Indicatori Sistema Italia:
http://fabiomarinelli.ilcannocchiale.it/?id_blogdoc=2487153
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per chi ha modo di guardarsi intorno sta già accadendo (da circa 10 anni) nelle nostre città un processo di sostituzione e di riciclo: partendo dalle periferie più degradate e via via andando verso il centro, alla fuga del cittadino italiano che va ad occupare immobili di maggior prestigio (è un eufemismo, sarebbe meglio dire abitabili), corrisponde l'occupazione dell'extracomunitario che affitta case (inabitabili) che nessuno si sogna di ristrutturare tanto è basso il loro valore.
Gradualmente si assiste ad un fenomeno di sostituzione della classe meno abbiente con degli extracomunitari, che vanno ad occupare la "nicchia ecologica" lasciata libera dagli italiani.
E' chiaro fin da subito che queste persone non avranno gli stessi diritti degli italiani: gli stipendi le rare volte che sono in regola sono più bassi, l'integrazione è impossibile e già ci sono lamentele e classi a numero chiuso alle elementari (soglia del 30% per gli extracomunitari).
Ma allora perchè queste persone vengono in Italia? Sanno già che se va bene, saranno cittadini di serie D senza possibilità di essere promossi alla serie superiore. Molti dicono: "mettiamo da parte un pò di soldi x comprare la casa nel nostro paese", ma non si rendono conto di essere sfruttati e se gli andrà bene avranno un quarto di pensione.
Incomincio a sospettare che all'origine del fenomeno dell'emigrazione ci sia un indottrinamento nei loro paesi (da parte di un'organizzazione misteriosa che definisco "Spectre dello sfruttamento"), per togliere di mezzo masse di persone scomode che potrebbero sovvertire "l'ordine costituito". Questi vengono dirottati in massa verso il sud-Europa con il sogno che si realizzi quello che vedono nelle cazzate della pubblicità. Nessuno gli spiega che in realtà sono i nuovi schiavi di una filosofia che dice: "portare il nero alla fabbrica o la fabbrica al nero". Se sono fortunati lavoreranno in nero per 20-25 euro al giorno per 10 anni prima di essere assunti in lavori degradanti.
Altri diventeranno manovalanza della tratta delle nere e del contrabbando di stupefacenti. Per loro non ci sarà nemmeno la possibilità del ritorno alla campagna.
Baracche di Rosarno
Quello che succede a Rosarno è un'anteprima di quello che vedremo sempre più spesso in futuro: masse di persone che prendono coscienza dell'essere stati ingannati e di essere schiavi.
Molti italiani dicono: "andate a fare la rivoluzione nel paese vostro!".
Però in questa frase, anche se detta in un momento di guerriglia urbana, c'è del vero: bisogna che i paesi occidentali si affranchino dal volere delle multinazionali del profitto e incomincino a fare una politica di contrasto (una contro-catechesi) alla Spectre dello sfruttamento che fa credere a queste povere persone che qui c'è il miracolo italiano.
Il miracolo italiano non esiste: gli stessi italiani non ci credono più come ho dimostrato con le cifre all'inizio dell'articolo. Sembra che ultimamente i nord-africani abbiano seguito il consiglio: infatti l'incendio della rivoluzione tunisina si sta diffondendo agli altri paesi del Maghreb contagiando anche l'Egitto. Era ora! Speriamo però che la fine della Spectre dei dittatori nord-africani non coincida con il ritorno del fanatismo religioso.
Discussione del tema:
Fabio Marinelli
Il paradosso è che si è fatto un gran casino per cercare alla fine di ritornare da dove si è venuti, alla pari. Non più ricchi ma alla pari. Quindi l'industrializzazione e tutte le lotte di 60 anni, le ideologie ecc. ecc. : tutto è vano.
Anzi se si considera la perdita della famiglia patriarcale, che perlomeno garantiva l'assistenza dei bambini e degli anziani, ci stiamo rimettendo alla grande.
Il nuovo problema con il ritorno alle campagne sarà il pendolarismo per il lavoro e la mancanza cronica degli asili e delle case di riposo per gli anziani.
Anonimo
Platone, molti anni prima di Cristo, diceva: dove andremo a finire? I giovani non hanno più rispetto per gli insegnanti, vestono come gli pare e non ci si capisce più nulla, gli estracomunitari (meteco) vogliono i nostri stessi diritti... Da sempre il futuro è visto come pericoloso, ovvero ci poniamo nella storia rimpiangendo il passato, vivendo male il presente e temendo il futuro. E' la solita storia: vedi Platone. Il progresso per fortuna è inarrestabile e la storia dell'uomo è intrisa di dolore, ma è un cammino costante verso il bene ed il meglio. Ai tempi di mio padre si lavorava una settimana intera per digiunare di domenica, si moriva di appendicite più frequentemente di oggi (malgrado gli ospedali), e le malattie infettive spadroneggiavano. Non parliamo della condizione della donna e delle condizioni igeniche in campagna e dei servi della gleba..... Per questo non sono d'accordo.
Fabio Marinelli
In effetti nella mia nota paradossale avevo omesso il discorso sanitario che è un valore aggiunto inestimabile, non solo perchè la vita media è passata da 40 ad 80 anni, ma anche perchè sapere di poter curarsi dà un "rapporto contrattuale" con la vita statisticamente più confortevole alla persona: chi si metterebbe a studiare fino a 30 anni sapendo che a 40 si muore?
Però in questi casi mi viene in mente sempre il discorso che si fa con Mussolini: "è stato un bravo statista perchè, ha prosciugato le paludi, ha creato degli enti per l'industria e ha reso il paese più moderno". Però queste cose sono accadute in tutti gli stati d'Europa anche senza fascismo. Quindi le scoperte mediche che alla fine si riducono in: vaccinazioni, antibiotici, farmaci per la pressione e miglioramento tecnologico delle tecniche chirurgiche, ci sarebbero state lo stesso.
Anonimo2
Il vantaggio più grosso (dal punto di vista organizzativo) del "progresso" italiano è stato il farmaco anticoncezionale e la paternità responsabile: dato che si è andati ad abitare in topaie dal 1950 fino alla fine degli anni '80, e non c'era nessuno che si occupava dei bambini, i bambini non si sono fatti più. Non avere 15 figli da allevare è un grosso vantaggio organizzativo, però l'effetto benefico durerà poco perchè questa diminuzione virtuale di popolazione si sta trasformando in sostituzione da parte dei figli degli extracomunitari che invece continuano ad essere molto prolifici e portano i loro problemi (della disorganizzazione: diversa mentalità e paternità diversamente responsabile) a casa nostra.
Fabio Marinelli
Come cristiano sensibile ai problemi umanitari mi sento anche di aiutarli, però non sono sicuro che questa volta andiamo verso un nuovo ciclo storico, ho paura che non ci sia più possibilità per fare un altro giro, la natura è satura, il pianeta ci sta dicendo: "è tempo di numero chiuso demografico!". Il mondo è a numero chiuso: http://fabiomarinelli.ilcannocchiale.it/?id_blogdoc=2466807. Non valgono i discorsi religiosi "di mentalità egoistica nel controllo demografico", ho già dimostrato nelle note precedenti che, se si escludono eventi catastrofici (impatto di meteoriti ecc. ecc.), l'obiettivo di far vivere nel mondo (per il tempo che resta all'umanità) più persone possibili si raggiunge solo con la lotta contro l'aumento demografico!
Sotto questa ottica persino le ragioni religiose dell'egoismo del controllo delle nascite, assumono un aspetto non realista: paradossalmente il controllo demografico nel lungo periodo può garantire la vita sul pianeta Terra al maggior numero di persone possibili. Infatti inutile arrivare a 10 miliardi di persone sulla Terra, se piano. piano il consumo irreversibile delle risorse del pianeta porterà ad una riduzione drastica se non all'estinzione dell'umanità entro 3-4 generazioni.
Si sa infatti che finora sono vissuti 60-80 miliardi di persone appartenenti alla specie homo sapiens sapiens sul pianeta Terra nel corso degli ultimi 150.000 anni, e andando avanti così si arriverà al massimo a 100 miliardi totali per il 2100. Poi tutto finirà per il consumo irreversibile delle risorse. Invece se si incominciasse a regolare la popolazione mondiale fin da adesso, nulla impedisce che l'umanità possa esistere per un altro milione di anni.
Considerando una popolazione fissa stabile sulla Terra di 4 miliardi di persone, con generazioni di 25 anni, in un milione di anni si arriverebbe al numero di 160.000 miliardi di persone. E poi non è detto che finisca lì la storia dell'uomo!
Per tale motivo bisogna ripristinare l'equilibrio della specie umana con la natura del pianeta Terra, e per farlo si deve ritornare alla popolazione che c'era nel 1988.
Chi vuole aggiungere altri commenti?
Vedere link a tema:
http://aspoitalia.blogspot.com/2010/01/quello-che-ho-dimenticato-di-dire-al.html
Fabio Marinelli - 2010
CLIKKA QUI X HOME PAGE - INDICE
Blook: The future of Homo Sapiens (Sapiens?) by Fabio Marinelli - Italia - MRNFBA6.. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at fabiomarinelli.ilcannocchiale.it.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at f.marinelli@alice.it
Esperti sulla diseguaglianza (da "la Repubblica del 29/01/12):
Per gli articoli sottostanti citare i rispettivi autori.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riace, un’altra Calabria. Non lontano da Rosarno un esempio riuscito di integrazione.
Di Chiara Paganuzzi
Mentre in Italia imperversano respingimenti e politiche xenofobe, segnali di resistenza politica e morale giungono dal nostro sud. Riace e dintorni. Terra della Locride. Una regione che nell’immaginario collettivo rimanda alla violenza della ‘ndrangheta, alla gestione collusa delle amministrazioni, ai boss della politica. Eppure non è di questa Locride che ci racconta Issa, afghano, sbarcato otto anni fa sulle coste reggine dello Ionio: “A Riace son tornato a vivere, ho trovato una casa e imparato un lavoro”. Sfinito dalle sofferenze del viaggio e dalla vita clandestina, Issa approda a Riace e trova una realtà che, oggi, ha quasi dell’incredibile. In questo borgo dalle antiche origini magno greche, gli immigrati e i richiedenti asilo non sono respinti né emarginati, ma vengono accolti e integrati nella realtà della vita locale.
Un’utopia? Nient’affatto. Tutto ha inizio nel 1998 quando a Riace, sulle stesse spiagge che restituirono i bronzi, sbarcano 300 profughi curdi. Nasce un’accoglienza spontanea. Un gruppo di giovani del luogo si dà da fare per alloggiare i profughi nelle case abbandonate degli emigrati. Di lì a poco viene fondata l’associazione “Città Futura – Giuseppe Puglisi” per dar seguito a un’esperienza che, quasi per caso, ha rivitalizzato una comunità intera. “Il senso dell’ospitalità è di casa qui a Riace, ha sempre occupato un posto prioritario tra i valori dell’antica comunità rurale calabrese” – ci spiega Cosimo Damiano, presidente dell’associazione. Oggi l’accoglienza di chi scappa dalla fame, dalle persecuzioni e dalle carestie è al centro del progetto di Città Futura e non ultimo dell’amministrazione comunale il cui sindaco, Domenico Lucano, è tra i fondatori.
Il segreto del successo? L’accoglienza dello straniero come motore di sviluppo locale, il recupero degli antichi mestieri artigianali e, non ultimo, virtuose iniziative eco-sostenibili che hanno meritato a Riace l’appellativo di eco-villaggio. Gli sbarchi sulle coste ioniche calabresi sembrano aver sottratto Riace all’inesorabile destino di spopolamento e di abbandono. Oggi il borgo pullula di botteghe artigiane in cui gli immigrati e i giovani del posto lavorano insieme il vetro, la stoffa, la ceramica e la ginestra. Grazie ai contributi della regione vengono finanziate delle “borse – lavoro” destinate sia ai tirocini formativi dei migranti sia alla retribuzione dei giovani artigiani. Le tradizioni di Riace, come l’antichissima lavorazione della Ginestra, si fondono con le tradizioni della cultura araba, eritrea, etiope, somala, curda, irakena, afghana. I manufatti che prendono vita nei laboratori del borgo intrecciano storie di culture lontane e, talvolta, anche di popoli in guerra.
Un’amministrazione determinata, trasforma Riace in un centro di seconda accoglienza riconosciuto e sostenuto dallo SPRAR (Sistema di Protezione e Richiedenti Asilo ). “A Riace – racconta Pina, anima e fondatrice del progetto – un intero paese si è costituito in comunità d’accoglienza. Non vi è spazio per le logiche repressive dei Centri d’Identificazione ed Espulsione o per l’assistenzialismo di alcune realtà che conosciamo bene. Lo straniero che costa ai centri d’identificazione circa 60 euro al giorno, qui ne costa 20 e lavora, aiutando la nostra economia”. Grazie a un prestito di Banca Etica, vengono ristrutturate altre case del centro storico in cui sono alloggiati turisti desiderosi di intraprendere una vacanza eco-solidale, curiosi, ricercatori, fotografi e giornalisti da tutta Europa. Viene aperto un ristorante, “Donna Rosa”, che offre prodotti e piatti tipici della tradizione locale. E’ promossa la raccolta differenziata con gli asini che – nonostante i temporanei impedimenti burocratici, sarà riavviata simbolicamente, a breve, con l’aiuto di un ragazzo immigrato e di un giovane del posto. Ma gli abitanti del borgo sembrano essere grati ai migranti anche per un’altra ragione. “Da quando sono arrivati i rifugiati con i loro bambini, la scuola elementare ha riaperto!” Ci racconta Cosimina con entusiamo, che si occupa dell’alfabetizzazione dei migranti e della scuola estiva dei loro figli – “Oggi su 23 iscritti, 11 sono figli di stranieri !”.
Tutto facile? No. Le difficoltà non sono mancate. A cominciare dalle intimidazioni mafiose: gli spari contro il ristorante Donna Rosa e l’avvelenamento dei cani del sindaco, poco prima delle elezioni del maggio 2009. Obiettivo: fermare la rielezione di Domenico Lucano e della sua coraggiosa lista “L’altra Riace: alla luce del Sole”. Già, perché la lotta alla speculazione edilizia e all’illegalità sono stati protagonisti della prima amministrazione Lucano. Ma il buon governo trionfa, anche se di soli 41 voti, e il visionario sindaco, conosciuto come “Mimmo dei Curdi” viene rieletto per un secondo mandato.
Il caso Riace è contagioso. Nel giro di pochi anni coinvolge numerosi comuni limitrofi, tra cui Stignano e Caulonia. E non finisce qua. La regione Calabria approva nel giugno del 2009 una legge sul diritto d’asilo che propone la trasferibilità del modello d’accoglienza della Locride. La legge porta il nome “Modello Riace”. Utilizzando finanziamenti europei, fornisce incentivi a quei progetti che includono i rifugiati, sviluppano l’edilizia popolare e ristrutturano i borghi. Chissà che questa contagiosa avventura di Riace possa contaminare, prima o poi, una politica sorda e avversa al rispetto della dignità umana.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuovo articolo completo pertinente in lingua inglese:
L'immigrazione e la giustizia viste in maniera globale.
Dalla rivista di etica dell'Università di Trieste: http://www2.units.it/etica/
Per chi vuole il file pdf di questo articolo: http://www2.units.it/etica/2010_1/BROCK.pdf
----------------------- Page 1-----------------------
Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics, XII, 2010, 1, pp. 362-376
Immigration and Global Justice: What kinds of policies should a Cosmopolitan support?
Gillian Brock
University of Auckland
Department of Philosophy
g.brock@auckland.ac.nz
ABSTRACT (traduzione inglese-italiano di Fabio Marinelli).
Che tipo di ruolo, possono svolgere le politiche di immigrazione a livello di giustizia mondiale? In questa prospettiva, l'eliminazione (o riduzione) delle limitazioni in materia di immigrazione, sembrerebbe costituire un grande progresso nella realizzazione della meta desiderata. Dopo tutto, le persone vogliono poter emigrare, soprattutto se percepiscono che le loro aspettative di una vita migliore abbiano più probabilità di realizzarsi altrove. Non sarebbe considerato un progresso, rimuovere le attuali restrizioni alla loro possibilità di emigrare, verso una vita migliore per sé e per i familiari? Potrebbe sembrare che se uno crede nel cosmopolitismo, dovrebbe impegnarsi per ridurre le restrizioni sull'immigrazione. L’idea comune di cosmopolitismo, è che ogni persona abbia eticamente una posizione giuridica mondiale ed abbia pertanto uguale diritto di rispetto e considerazione, non importa quale sia il suo status di cittadinanza o di altre affiliazioni. Arrivati a questo punto tutti potrebbero pensare che un cosmopolita debba essere impegnato per frontiere più aperte, e che i paesi sviluppati che limitano l'ingresso alle persone provenienti da paesi in via di sviluppo, si comportino in maniera eticamente censurabile. Paradossalmente, se si eliminassero subito le restrizioni in materia di immigrazione, questa liberalizzazione potrebbe costituire un notevole passo indietro per la giustizia globale. Per capire meglio il problema, abbiamo bisogno di rivedere alcuni elementi di prova empirica di cui le nostre raccomandazioni politiche devono tener conto. Come si vede, ci sono notevoli benefici per gli immigrati e per il paese ospite, ma significativi costi devono essere spesso sostenuti dagli stati d'origine. Per esempio, consideriamo gli effetti delle rimesse: spesso si crede che siano estremamente utili per i paesi poveri del mondo. Abbiamo prove indicanti che i modelli associati con le rimesse non sono sempre utili a tutti. Le politiche migratorie devono essere meglio gestite in modo da costituire un beneficio per i soggetti interessati. Nella sezione 4 vengono dati esempi di come questo potrebbe funzionare. In sezione 5 si studiano le raccomandazioni politiche da dare per ottenere i migliori risultati.
What kind of role, if any, can immigration policies play in moving us towards global justice? On one view, the removal (or reduction) of restrictions on immigration might seem to constitute great progress in realizing the desired goal. After all, people want to emigrate mainly because they perceive that their prospects for better lives are more likely to be secured elsewhere. If we remove restrictions on their ability to travel, would this not constitute an advance over the status quo in which people are significantly prevented, through tough immigration restrictions, from seeking a better life for themselves and their dependants? In particular, it might seem that a cosmopolitan must be committed to reducing restrictions on immigration. On one common account of what cosmopolitanism is, the central idea is that every person has global stature as the ultimate unit of moral concern and is therefore entitled to equal respect and consideration no matter what her citizenship status or other affiliations happen to be. It is frequently supposed that a cosmopolitan must be committed to more open borders, and that developed countries restricting entry to people from developing countries is unjust and inconsistent with a commitment to our equal moral worth. However, as I argue, removing restrictions on immigration (in isolation) could constitute a considerable step backward for global justice. In order to Appreciate why this is the case, we need to review some relevant empirical evidence that our policy recommendations must take into account. As we see, considerable benefits accrue to the immigrant and host nation, but significant costs must often be born in states of origin. As one example, we consider the effects of remittances often believed to be highly beneficial to the global poor. I discuss evidence indicating that patterns associated with remittances are not always at all desirable. Migration policies need to be better managed so that they do benefit the relevant stakeholders. In section 4 I give examples of how this might work. In section 5 we investigate what kinds of policy recommendations would be best given our findings.
----------------------- Page 2-----------------------G. BROCK
1. Introduction
What kind of role, if any, can immigration policies play in moving us towards global justice?(1) On one view, the removal (or reduction) of restrictions on immigration might seem to constitute great progress in realizing the desired goal. After all, people want to emigrate mainly because they perceive that their prospects for better lives are more likely to be secured elsewhere. If we remove restrictions on their ability to travel, would this not constitute an advance over the status quo in which people are significantly prevented, through tough immigration restrictions, from seeking a better life for themselves and their dependants? In particular, it might seem that a cosmopolitan must be committed to reducing restrictions on immigration. On one common account of what cosmopolitanism is, the central idea is that every person has global stature as the ultimate unit of moral concern and is therefore entitled to equal respect and consideration no matter what her citizenship status or other affiliations happen to be.(2) It is frequently supposed that a cosmopolitan must be committed to more open borders, at least in ideal theory, and that developed countries restricting entry to people from developing countries is unjust and inconsistent with a commitment to our equal moral worth. Several theorists argue that justice requires (relatively) open borders and that restrictions on immigration(3) are unjust. In a classic piece, Joseph Carens argues that citizenship in Western democracies currently operates the way feudal privilege did in the past. Just as feudal birthright privilege served to determine one’s life chances, citizenship plays a similar role now. The current restrictions on immigration typical of Western democracies protect unjust privilege.(4)
1 By “global justice” I will mean a condition in which all people have the prospects for decent lives. I elaborate at length on what this entails in a recent book. A self-identifying reference goes here.
2 See, for instance, Thomas Pogge, “Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty” Ethics, 103 (1992): 48-75.
3 Bruce Ackerman Social Justice in the Liberal State (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1980); Veit Bader “Citizenship and exclusion: radical democracy, community and justice. Or, what is wrong with communitarianism?” Political Theory 23 (1995): 211-46; and Joseph Carens “Aliens and citizens: the case for open borders” Review of Politics 49 (1987): 251-73. For discussion of more authors who hold such views see Jonathan Seglow “The Ethics of Immigration” Political Studies Review 3 (2005): 317-334, especially pp. 324-329.
4 Though he marshals a defense of this view from libertarian and utilitarian approaches, the argument he finds most illuminating is Rawlsian. He invites us to assume a global view of the original position and he presumes that the two principles of justice Rawls endorses for liberal societies would be chosen. Would freedom of movement between states be endorsed? One has only to consider the importance of the right to migrate freely within a given society to realize that the very same considerations would imply that freedom of movement across state borders is similarly important. The idea is that freedom of move-ment to pursue economic, cultural, or personal projects is central to pursuing one’s life plans. Realising this, behind an appropriate veil of ignorance one would choose open borders, or so Carens argues.
--- Page 3--- Immigration and Global Justice: What kinds of policies should a Cosmopolitan support?
Even if a case could be made that ideal justice requires open borders, this tells us little about what our non-ideal world current policy on immigration should be. The view that the best response to a history of closed borders is to remove restrictions on immigration faces considerable difficulty given some of the effects of immigration I go on to review. In this paper I am concerned with recommending policy that is justified for “here and now”. In this domain of “real world” or “transitional” justice, matters are more complex and our policies should take account of this complexity. Removing restrictions on immigration without taking further steps to improve the prospects for decent lives in countries that people want to leave could constitute a considerable step backward for global justice. In order to appreciate why this is the case, we need to review some relevant empirical evidence that our policy recommendations must take into account. As we see, considerable benefits accrue to the immigrant and host nation, but significant costs must often be born in states of origin. As one example, we consider the effects of remittances often believed to be highly beneficial to the global poor. I discuss evidence indicating that patterns associated with remittances are not always at all desirable. Migration policies need to be better managed so that they do benefit the relevant stakeholders. In section 4 I give examples of how this might work. In section 5 we investigate what kinds of policy recommendations would be best given our findings.
----------------------- Page 4-----------------------G. BROCK
2. A survey of some realistic options for here and now
If all border controls were demolished, how many people would actually(5) move? Though estimates vary, there is interesting evidence to suggest that (6) people would move in fairly limited numbers. Yet, developed countries spend vast amounts to keep borders closed. Despite this enormous cost of trying to keep people out at borders, in a post 9/11 world it would be futile to argue for removing all border controls. People’s interests in security and a peaceful way of life now rule this out. So the relevant questions are ones about what restrictions on entry there should be, not whether there should be any restrictions at all, and in particular, about whether countries should be more generous in the number of immigrants permitted to enter developed countries. Most countries have annual maxima for the number of immigrants they will admit. One option, the one assumed to accord best with cosmopolitan goals, is that these should be raised, but there are other policies we should also entertain. Here are some:
O1. Stay with the status quo: stay with current quotas and levels of immigration admitting current levels of potential citizens.
O2. Increase the number of people who may be permitted as potential citizens.
O3. Decrease the number of people who may be permitted as potential citizens.
O4. Stay with the current status quo for admitting potential citizens, but provide more temporary permits to migrants for work purposes.
O5. Consider the potential for “win-win” arrangements that benefit home and host countries, immigrants, and locals.
Before looking at increasing, decreasing, or staying with the status quo with respect to quotas, we should examine the current situation. Is immigration generally a positive, negative, or neutral phenomenon for those affected? There are three important groups to be considered: the emigrants, those in the host countries (the countries to which the emigrants go), and those in the home countries (the countries they exit). I consider first some of the impacts for those in the host countries, starting with the benefits.
5 United Nations Population Division estimates World Migrant Stock for 2005 at 190 633 564. The chart put out by the UN Population Division in October, 2006 uses the 2005 figures, and can be accessed at: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2006Migration_Chart/2006IttMig_chart.htm. According to Castles and Miller, the United Nations estimated that in 2002 there were 185 million migrants. It is not clear how many of these were immigrants. Presumably, far less. For more estimates see S. Castles and M. J. Miller The Age of Migration, 3rd edition, (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003), p. 4.
6 Teresa Hayter Open Borders: The Case against Immigration Controls (London: Pluto Press, 2000), p. 153. For instance, quite a few countries had open border arrangements with former colonies in the past, which allowed open migration from the Caribbean between 1950 and 1980. In the period, only 0.6% of the Caribbean population moved to the US and England, though there were clear economic attractions for doing so. Citing evidence from Bob Sutcliffe, Teresa Hayter extrapolates that the figure today would be around 24 million per year, which amounts to growth of around 2.4% in the population of industrialized countries. Bob Sutcliffe, Nacido en otra parte: Un ensayo sobre la migracion international, el desarollo y la equidad (Bilbao: Hegoa, 1998).
--- Page 5----Immigration and Global Justice: What kinds of policies should a Cosmopolitan support?
There is much agreement among economists that immigration increases(7) the wealth of host countries. Though the overall economic effect may be very positive, some worry that the distribution of those gains is uneven. In particular, the concern is that some citizens bear heavy costs, such as loss of jobs, lowering of wages, or increased competition. Let us investigate these claims further. Do immigrants take jobs away from local workers? In many cases, the jobs immigrant workers take up are perceived as dangerous, dirty, or demeaning ones that local workers (apparently) prefer not to do (not at prevailing wages, at any rate). Some argue that, far from taking work away from others, immigrants actually create jobs for others. Because immigrants need housing,(8) transportation, food, and so forth, the number of jobs expands. Indeed, immigrants often start new businesses and thereby create jobs.(9) Do immigrants lower wages? Some evidence indicates that wages in certain sectors (such as agriculture, construction, and service industries, especially restaurants) are lowered by the arrival of many immigrants.(10) Some unskilled workers do suffer from the additional competition, because the newcomers are typically willing to work for less. However, this may provide more incentives for citizens to acquire further skills and, thus, be positioned to fill better paying jobs. Immigration may therefore result in more investment in self-education, which leads to increased earning power. Even if immigration results in lower wages for some, this is not necessarily a bad thing.
7 Mark Kleinman “The Economic Impact of Labour Migration” in Sarah Spencer (ed.) The Politics of Migration: Managing Opportunity, Conflict and Change (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003), pp. 59-74; Julian Simon, The Economic Consequences of Immigration (Basil Blackwell, 1989), Appendix C; also Open Letter to US President and Congress, 19 June 2006, with more than 500 signatories (mostly academics), including 5 Nobel Laureates: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1727 and accompanying press release: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=74
8 Peter Stalker The No-Nonsense Guide to International Migration (London: Verso, 2001), pp. 64-65. Those US cities with a higher proportion of immigrants do not have higher rates of unemployment, according to research by Stephen Moore cited in “Making and Remaking America” by Philip Martin and Peter Duignan, Hoover Essays, HE25, www.hoover.org, ISBN 0-8179-4462-1, p. 35. For similar results in Europe, see Stalker, The No-Nonsense Guide to International Migration, p. 78 also Castles and Miller, The Age of Migration, p. 194.
9 Seglow, “The Ethics of Immigration”, p. 326; also Nigel Harris Thinking the Unthinkable: The Immigration Myth Exposed (London: I. B. Tauris, 2002), pp. 57-60.
10 George Borjas, “Immigration and Welfare: A Review of the Evidence” in The Debate in the United States over Immigration, eds. Peter Duignan and Lewis Gann (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1998), pp. 121-44.
----------------------- Page 6----------------------- G. BROCK
The lower wages may cause firms to expand in a particular area, creating more jobs. Prices of consumer goods may also fall. Immigrants can also contribute to rising wages if they open up new markets and opportunities. There are several other ways immigrants can benefit developed countries. Demographic changes are challenging the continued viability of the social security arrangements in many parts of the Western World.(11) For instance, in 1960 there were about 5 workers for every social security recipient, but when the baby boomers retire it is predicted there will be approximately 2.5 workers to support each social security recipient.(12) Such a situation would inevitably mean either higher taxes or cuts in social security, unless more young adult workers are admitted.(13) Immigrants can provide benefits. Do they pose costs, such as increased welfare dependency and crime, environmental damage, or undesirable cultural change? Immigrants do not use welfare services or contribute more to crime in significantly greater proportions than the general population.(14) The more difficult accusation to rebut conclusively may be that immigrants pose cultural costs.
11 Steven Camarota “Immigration in an Aging Society: Workers, Birth Rates, and Social Security”, Center for Immigration Studies, Backgrounder, April 2005, available at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back505.html; and Ronald Lee and Timothy Miller “Immigration, Social Security, and Broader Fiscal Impacts” AEA Papers and Proceedings: New Issues in Immigration 90/2 (2000): 350-354.
12 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds (2007), p. 48, accessible at this site: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR07/.
13 Some dispute that the US needs large numbers of immigrants for this purpose; for instance, Roy Howard Beck, The Case Against Immigration: The Moral, Economic, Social, and Environmental Reasons for Reducing U.S. Immigration back to Traditional Levels (New York: W.W. Norton, 1996). Indeed, it is not easy to find arguments that increased immigration will substantially help with this problem. Lee and Miller “Immigration, Social Security, and Broader Fiscal Impacts” acknowledge that increased immigration would have a positive affect on Social Security, but not a large one. For arguments that immigration would not help the social security problem (in the US, EU, and Japan), see Hans Fehr, Sabine Jokisch, Laurence Kotlikoff, “The role of immigration in dealing with the developed world’s demographic transition,” Finanzarchiv, 60:3 (2004), 296-324. A version is available at: http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:yRjFjJu3n6MJ:www.wifak.uniwuerzburg.de/wilan/wifak/vwl/fiwi/forschung/ig.pdf
14 See for instance, Stalker, The No-Nonsense guide to International Migration, p. 82. See also Harris, Thinking the Unthinkable, for claims that this issue is a ‘red herring’ contrary to popular prejudices.
--- Page 7----Immigration and Global Justice: What kinds of policies should a Cosmopolitan support?
One concern is that immigrants threaten the nation to which they move by undermining the host culture or the sense of solidarity citizens feel toward each other. Is this fear warranted? There are nations that would be hypocritical to make very much of this (assuming for the moment that it is true), namely, all the nations comprised largely of immigrants, notably the USA, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Nevertheless, concerns of this kind weighed heavily with many throughout the histories of those nations, leading to exclusionary policies that aimed to prevent immigration by people thought to be “unassimilatable”. As we see over time, however, all nations are “works-in-progress”, and their characters change. The contribution of newer groups to this process is as likely to be positive as negative. I assume that immigrants, all things considered, perceive themselves to benefit from immigration, or they would not remain in the host country. Much more problematic is whether immigration benefits those who remain in the countries of origin. The focus in this short paper will be on effects of remittances often thought to be a considerable net benefit to the global poor.
3. The advantages and disadvantages of remittances
Remittances, the money that foreign nationals send to individuals within their countries of origin, are an enormous source of assistance for those in developing countries. In many countries, the money received through remittances exceeds official foreign aid, all foreign direct investment, and revenue from tourism, revenue from the largest export for that country, and accounts for at least 10% of GDP.(15) Migrants send money back to their country of origin through formal channels (such as banks or money transfer services), and sometimes through more informal methods (such as carrying it home themselves or via friends). This makes the value of remittances difficult to measure, but reliable estimates put the amount at around $111 billion in 2001, with a tendency to increase substantially every year.(16) About 65% of remittances go to developing countries. The Philippines’ most lucrative export is their expatriate workers, who provide skilled cheap labor all over the world. Around 7 million (about 10% of the population) work in about 149 countries. Mexicans working in the US send approximately $10 billion back to Mexico every year, an amount that is twice the value of agricultural exports and much more than tourist revenue.(17) In Mexico, more than one out of every 10 families rely on remittances as their primary source of income. In El Salvador, 28% of adults receive remittances.
15 See the Inter-American Development Bank web-site at http://www.iadb.org for the most current estimates. The figures cited were retrieved in 2005 and were found in a document “Remittances as a Development Tool” at http://www.iadb.org/mif/v2/remittances.html#top.
16 This is the World Bank estimate for 2001 cited at http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?id=138 .
17 Devesh Kapur and John McHale, “Migration’s New Payoff,” Foreign Policy, Nov/Dec (2003), Issue 139: 48-57, p. 50.
----------------------- Page 8----------------------- G. BROCK
As a percentage of GDP (PIL), remittances can also be extremely important; for instance, remittances to Haiti make up 24.2% of GDP, in Jordan, 22.8%, in Tonga 39%, in Bangladesh 18.9%, and in Nicaragua 16.2%.18 Unlike foreign aid, which typically goes to governments rather than poor citizens, remittances put money directly in the pockets of poor citizens. This can be an advantage, especially when governments are corrupt. However, it often proves less advantageous when the money is spent mostly on private consumption, such as clothing, consumer goods, and improving housing. Some argue that private consumption need not conflict with socially useful ends. Arguably, increased consumption of local goods promotes opportunities for further jobs and new markets. When remittances are spent on consumption of domestically produced goods or services there can be multiplier effects and additional tax receipts.(19) However, private remittances do not tend to go on public goods, such as infrastructural projects, schools, roads, health care, and sanitation facilities, which have a more significant impact on tackling structural poverty. Do remittances really go to poor people, or rather to the better-off families of migrants, hence increasing local inequality? Migrants are typically drawn not from the poorest households in feeder countries, but from the better off as measured in terms of education and income level.(20) This selection means that direct effects on the very poor through remittances may be limited.(21) The effects on structural poverty are likely to be only indirect, through increased demand for labor-intensive services, such as construction.
18 International Monetary Fund, Balance of Payments Yearbook 2002; World Bank, World Development Indicators 2002 cited at http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?id+138.
19 Mihir Desai, Devesh Kapur and John McHale. “The Fiscal Impact of High Skilled Emigration: Flows of Indians to the U.S.,” WCFIA Working Paper No. 03-01, Harvard University (2003); also Edward Taylor “International Migration and National Development,” Population Index 62: 2 (1996): 181-212.
20 Devesh Kapur “Remittances: The New Development Mantra?” Paper prepared for the G-24 Technical Meeting, available at: www.unctad.org/en/docs/gdsmdpbg2420045_en.pdf , pp.16-17.
21 Ibid.
--- Page 9--- Immigration and Global Justice: What kinds of policies should a Cosmopolitan support?
Do remittances enhance people’s abilities to seek a livelihood? About 10 percent of remittances go on saving or investment; the rest tends to go on consumer goods and daily living expenses.(22) More problematic is the cycle of dependency that too often is set up: “The easy money of remittances tends to create a cycle in which people have to leave to find work, and no economic development occurs. The brightest and most energetic young people move away, depleting human capital. In Pozorrubio, there is apparently little trickle-down effect for families who do not have a remittance sender, thereby creating a growing income divide of remittance haves and have-nots”.(23) As an example, consider how about $1 million per day flows into the Mexican state of Zacatecas from former residents, an amount that is more than that received from the Mexican government.(24) But this has also produced moral hazards. Many young men prefer to remain unemployed and wait for a chance to migrate rather than take up jobs at local wage levels.(25) Several scholars argue that remittances reduce incentives to work and depress economic activity.(26) Remittance receivers are also more likely to want to emigrate than the general population.(27) This process is called “cumulative causation” and can make both source and destination areas more dependent on continuing such arrangements.(28) Businesses in the host countries come to rely on the availability of migrant workers, and the countries from which they depart may neglect areas with high concentrations of migrant laborers on the grounds that, since so many earn income elsewhere, regional needs are adequately satisfied.
22 Brenda Walker “Remittances Becoming More Entrenched: The Worldwide Cash Flow Continues to Grow” at http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/remittances.html.
23 Ibid.
24 Brenda Walker “Remittances Becoming More Entrenched: The Worldwide Cash Flow Continues to Grow” at http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/remittances.html.
25 Kapur, “Remittances”, p.20.
26 See Deborah Waller Meyers “Migrant Remittances to Latin America: Reviewing the Literature” Working Paper: Inter-American Dialogue/The Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, 1998, available at: http://www.microfinancegateway.org/files/21608-Meyers_Migrant.htm, p. 8; also Els de Graauw “Government Courtship of Migradollars: International Migrants’ Remittances and Policy Intervention in the Case of Contemporary Mexico” paper presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association – Chicago, April 9th, p. 22.
27 Edwin Rubenstein “Remittances Are Good for Them and Us...Up To a Point” at http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/remittance.htm.
28 Douglas S. Massey, Joaquin Arango, Grame Hugo, Ali Kouaouci, Adela Pelligrino, and J. Edward Taylor, “Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal,” Population and Development Review 19, no. 3 (September 1993): 431-66.
----------------------- Page 10-----------------------G. BROCK
Less government money flows into such regions, thus forcing more people to become migrant workers. In Mexico, emigration to the US often has the effect of encouraging more people to emigrate, consequently crippling the region’s ability to develop its own economy.(29) However, there are positive signs that remittances can be better harnessed to help those in the feeder state.(30) For instance, in Mexico, some public works, such as roads and schools, are funded via remittances sent to hometowns. In some cases, matching funds have been offered for financing public works that are in part sponsored from remittance money.(31) Indeed, in some cases every dollar remitted to hometown associations is matched with a dollar each from the Mexican federal, state, and local authorities. This has translated into some local success stories.(32) Remittances can be a mixed blessing in further ways. For instance, if this source of revenue is not available, citizens may turn to their governments and expect more of them. According to some, the easy flow of money that remittances provide allows Mexico’s ‘kleptocratic elite’ to avoid reform.(33) Were it not so forthcoming, Mexicans would expect more from their government to provide the services and investment necessary for a flourishing economy. Some argue that governments are therefore exploiting their migrant workers.(34) Time spent away can dramatically affect the willingness to remit.(35) As migrants become more committed to their host country, remittances decline over time. Remittance flows are at their strongest between three and five years after departure. Once permanent residency is granted, remittances often fall off considerably.(36) Policies endorsing migration for work purposes with a duration of no more than 5 years are optimal for those back home.
29 Stalker, The No-Nonsense Guide to International Migration, p. 113. Communities that have high rates of emigration create a culture of emigration.
30 Meyers, “Migrant Remittances to Latin America”, p. 12.
31 Walker, “Remittances Becoming More Entrenched”.
32 Stalker, The No-Nonsense Guide to International Migration, p. 117. Also, Rafael Alarcon, “The Development of Home Town Associations in the United States and the Use of Social Remittances in Mexico,” mimeo.
33 See Rubenstein “Remittances Are Good for Them and Us...Up To a Point”.
34 Ibid.
35 Fernando Lozano-Ascencio “Bringing It Back Home: Remittances to Mexico from Migrant workers in the United States”(San Diego: Center for U.S. Mexican Studies, 1993); also Meyers, “Migrant Remittances to Latin American”, pp. 14-15.
36 Richard Black “Soaring Remittances Raise New Issues”at http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=127
--- Page 11--Immigration and Global Justice: What kinds of policies should a Cosmopolitan support?
Such policies might also change expenditure of remittances, channeling them into opportunities that would generate employment on the migrants’ return.(37) Some of the main negative effects observed for home countries, then, are these: (1) the inflow of funds can create dependence for recipients; (2) dependence encourages further migration, especially among the working age, productive adults; (3) both home and host countries become dependent on continuing the arrangements; (4) economic activity can become depressed in countries of origin, which encourages more emigration; (5) needed economic reforms are neglected, as is the creation of rewarding opportunities in the home country; and (6) remittances decline over time. Furthermore, remittances may have a positive effect on transient poverty, but do not by themselves reduce structural poverty.(38) To address structural poverty, wide-ranging economic changes are needed and these may “still require external financial resources in the form of budgetary support to governments in many poor countries”.(39) Clearly, also there is much more that can be done to improve the situation in the home country, to move more desirable jobs to the people rather than moving the people to more desirable jobs. For instance, facilitating investment coupled with better trading arrangements might well bring more jobs, higher wages, and less incentive for people to emigrate, (40) as I discuss elsewhere.(41)
37 There also needs also to be some government and community-based help to encourage and reward investment and development in the home country, rather than assuming individual migrants can manage this by themselves. Notable among the needed measures is improvement in the availability of credit to locals in developing countries, especially to start small businesses and to get help with training.
38 Kapur “Remittances”, p. 2. See also, Nancy Birdsall, Dani Rodrik and Arvind Subramanian “How to Help Poor Countries” Foreign Affairs 84/4 (July-August 2005): 136-153.
39 Ibid., pp. 30-31.
40 U.S. Commission for the Study of International Migration and Co-operative Economic Development, 1990, p. xv. Further support can be found in other places, such as: Carbaugh, “Is International Trade a Substitute for Migration?”
41 A self-identifying reference goes here. A qualification of the view worth noting is that some countries may simply be unviable economic entities, such as small island economies like Cape Verde, where over 65% of households receive remittances and this is their only real source of income. (Kapur, “Remittances”, p. 10). For such places, there is no viable economic activity of the kind necessary to sustain all citizens. Perhaps remittances really are their only hope. Exemptions from term restrictions on migrant labor from such places may be permissible. Few countries are like this, however.
----------------------- Page 12---------------------G. BROCK
4. Option (O5): Exploring beneficial opportunities three relevant stakeholders: migrants, host, and feeder countries
As we have seen, there can be considerable disadvantages in developed countries permitting more immigrants from developing countries. However, this is not to say that in all cases developing countries must end up as losers when migrants work elsewhere. We should be open to any creative possibilities that might arise that will yield net benefits to home and host countries, to locals and immigrants.(42) Here are some examples:
1. For recruiting (say) health care workers trained in a developing country (“Developing”), the developed country (“Developed”) pays compensation to Developing at a rate of (say) five times what it costs to train that worker in Developing. If there is a limit set on how many such workers Developed may recruit, there may be considerable advantages to Developing in allowing such a scheme, because with the proceeds they can train many more health care workers. Developed might be interested in this scheme if the amount they pay to Developing is still less than the cost of training the needed workers in Developed (or they simply cannot manage to attract enough locals to train in Developed). The locals in Developed also benefit in gaining more trained staff.However Developing is also better off since it can train more healthcare workers with the additional revenue.
2. Developed can recruit migrants from Developing for training purposes for instance, -to learn sustainable forestry or mining skills- and then, once trained, part of their new job would be to go back to the feeder country to teach the newly acquired skills to locals so that a successful operation is set up in Developing. Schemes of this kind could benefit the locals from Developing who receive training, who in turn train others and create job opportunities with the base activities in Developing. This could benefit locals in Developed because it creates new markets for those who do the training and those who subsidize the training also get access to further opportunities (or perhaps new sources of raw materials) in Developing.(43)
3. Migrants could help create opportunities in more depressed parts of countries. Migrants need accommodation, transport, food, and a host of other goods and services. Migrants’ needs could stimulate local provision for those needs, thereby helping struggling regional economies. Admitting more people into these struggling parts of the country may be of considerable benefit to the region, especially when there is no longer the critical mass of people necessary for provision of certain crucial services, such as, schools or hospitals. If a severely overpopulated developing country, such as China, were to send some of its low or averagely skilled workers to an area struggling to survive in a developed country, such as parts of the South Island in New Zealand, there may be important gains all around. In particular, the citizens who live in such regions are made better off because otherwise, in the long run, they would have no option but to move to more economically active areas. And if China loses some low to averagely skilled workers, there are no important losses that those left behind in the country of origin must bear.
42 These suggestions are all very small-scale. They would not amount to a sizable percentage of the population, and clear benefits accrue for both host and home countries and their inhabitants. Most importantly, they are carefully managed and monitored to ensure benefits do accrue to feeder nations.
43 A variant on this second option is this: an immigrant from Developing proposes to set up a business in Developed that employs local people and migrants. Migrants learn skills from locals that they then take back to the developing country. The business also paves the way for locals to go to the migrants’ country of origin and train others, or fosters other productive links. Building these kinds of partnerships could be profitable to all. This case sets up “circular flows of people”, which could have good consequences for all. But we need to think also about why we should not prefer to set up circular flows of goods just as easily.
--- Page 13---Immigration and Global Justice: What kinds of policies should a Cosmopolitan support?
To conclude this section, there may be immigration programs that enhance everyone’s prospects for decent lives. In particular, if they increase opportunities for people back in the country of origin, they should be investigated and encouraged provided they would not detract from more fundamental changes necessary to enhance the prospects for decent lives for residents of developing countries.
5. Analysis and Conclusions
As we have seen, there are a number of benefits that could potentially accrue to the host and home countries from immigration policies, but considerable drawbacks that must be acknowledged as well, including bad incentive effects, cycles of dependency, neglect, and lack of needed development. Policies encouraging migrant labor and remittances can be a way to help developing countries, but can also serve to exacerbate the problems. If fixed term contracts (with term limits) are imposed on migrant workers’ period of work in other countries, migrant labor policies can be more positively harnessed. Because remittances tend to drop off to home countries after a certain period (of roughly 5 years), fixed term contracts with term limits might be best for the remittees. They also allow a new crop of workers to set off for another country just as the old crop would be starting to make more permanent homes for themselves elsewhere, which would disincline them to send money home. Furthermore, fixed term contracts with term limits provide incentives to think about how to use the money more effectively, especially in terms of investing in opportunities that will provide returning migrants and their families with better prospects on repatriation. It also forces governments not to ignore areas that have heavy migrant flows. Such migration policies, could constitute a positive step for developing countries, provided remittances are well spent on addressing the structural causes of poverty. All this suggests we can marshal a qualified defense of option (O4), outlined in section 2. (44)
44 For even further gains, consideration should be given to taxing remittances or requiring migrants to pay taxes on wages earned abroad.
----------------------- Page 14---------------------G. BROCK
What should we do about policies (O1), (O2), and (O3), which endorse developed countries increasing, decreasing, or staying with the current quotas on immigration? In the absence of more compelling research results about the effects of either generally increasing or decreasing quota levels, perhaps we should not advocate any of (O1), (O2), or (O3), if we are not more confident that it will help in the long run. From the evidence surveyed so far, immigration, on balance, does more for host countries and immigrants, (for instance, as we saw, they contribute to economic growth and their taxes can help support ageing populations) but it is not clear that it does enough for those remaining in the feeder country, even taking into account the net effects of remittances. Some may argue that, since host countries and immigrants gain, the host country or the immigrants should be required to pay compensation to the feeder country equal at least to the size of the benefits received from the country of origin. Perhaps increased immigration can be endorsed if poor countries get adequately compensated for any relevant losses. If the compensation is sufficiently great, this alternative should be considered. But now we have entered the realm of the fifth set of policy options (O5); namely, searching for win-win possibilities. I suggested there are opportunities worth exploring. Here we will want to see whether there are ways to further the interests of citizens in both destination countries and countries of origin. In section 4, I outlined several ways policies might contribute positively to all affected. But notice what is going on when we pursue this strategy: we are checking that benefits accrue to the feeder country and trying to ensure they match the benefits the host country and emigrant receive. And this is what has been missing in some of the cosmopolitan analyses of immigration so far. If everyone has global stature as an ultimate unit of moral concern, then those left behind deserve more consideration than they have currently received. (45)
45 For some examples that do not give sufficient attention to the interests of those in feeder countries see Darrel Moellendorf Cosmopolitan Justice (Boulder, CO: Westveiw Press, 2002): 61-67.
--- Page 15---Immigration and Global Justice: What kinds of policies should a Cosmopolitan support?
(Arguably, since they are typically amongst the worst off of the three relevant stakeholders, their interests should receive much more weight.) What I am recommending is that migration processes are better managed so that they take account of the interests of migrants, but do not also neglect relevant other stakeholders such as those to whom the migrants also have responsibilities. Any real world immigration policies we endorse for here and now will require a level of attention to the details, especially concerning proposed and likely impacts of any cross border movements for non-departing citizens in feeder countries.
END
CLIKKA QUI X HOME PAGE - INDICE