You are on page 1of 5

The economic benefits and position of migrants

The article we are referring to, entitled The magic of diasporas - taken from the reputed journal "The Economist" - tackles the ever-growing phenomenon of migration in the richer countries of the world, while advocating its underlying contribution to their economic development. Yet, the author begins by warning the readers about the unfortunate current state of affairs worldwide which does not favor migration at all; on the contrary, it appears that the wealthiest states, such as the UK or the USA - that have traditionally been appealing to foreigners - are now taking severe measures against this constant population rush. It is an approach the causes of which the writer finds quite understandable under the circumstances, but cannot approve of either, for he sees emigration as a safety valve both for the poorer societies facing the economic crisis and for the targeted ones. The part of the article under the heading 'old networks, new communications' begins with self-speaking statistics regarding the outflow of population in search of a better life elsewhere for various reasons. Further on, we are presented with a thorough analysis of the advantages of immigration for the host countries that, in the author's opinion, heavily outweigh the drawbacks inherently brought about. The last part (metaphorically headed Indian takeaways) is a case study of the Indian and Chinese intelligence emigration for educational purposes, which has contributed enormously to the progress of these two nations. The article ends symmetrically with a similar but more figurative warning compared to the one used at the beginning of the article. The conclusion is that no country can afford to reject or ignore immigration without the risk of a much slower progress rate. Key words: Diaspora, migration, networks, spread, labor market, sea turtle, borders, growth.

Paragraph one represents an emergency signal against the intention of migrating at present by giving the example of two major world powers - Britain and the USA - that are striving to prevent further immigration (by reinforcing border control, restricting the foreigners access to the educational system or sending back home the new foreign graduates). Although the author admits that there are objective reasons to do this, he sees this trend as most detrimental to the host countries and, therefore, advises their governments to also consider the entailed economic benefits the Diaspora usually brings (paragraph two). In my opinion, increasing concern for overpopulation and implicitly for overuse of available resources, be them natural or financial is justified at present. Richer countries of the world are obviously facing an exodus of people coming from poorer states in hope for a better life, which in reality brings along both advantages and drawbacks. While I cannot agree to restricting the immigrants access to education, as education means higher qualification for the labor market and higher chances for social integration, I can find some reasons for the current anti-migration policies, of which a higher rate of delinquency can be regarded as a top priority; it is not easy to find employment as a foreigner especially if you are unskilled, in which case people tend to do illegal things for survival (see the example of multi-ethnic groups in the USA, the UK or that of the North-Africans in Paris). From this perspective, it is hard to understand why highly reputed universities from the new world would invest in educating foreign intelligentsia and send them back home after graduation instead of using their knowledge for the progress of their nation. Paragraph three dwells on official statistics concerning the migration level nowadays, (that is 3% of the world's population) and gives examples of surprising locations for certain migrating ethnic and linguistic groups (Chinese, Indian, Lebanese, etc).

Furthermore, the author identifies the easiness of modern travel as being one of the factors that encourages migration as opposed to the traditional causes such as political and religious persecution (in the case, for example, of Scottish people forced to leave their country during the Highland clearances in the 19th century, as well as that of the French Protestants called Huguenots in the 16th and 17th centuries) or the ethnic one (in the case of Jews during and after

World War II). I couldnt agree more. With the advent of new technology, relocating for different purposes and communicating instantly with people anywhere in the world have ceased to be luxuries; they are actually an integral part of the modern human beings condition. Paragraph four emphasizes the business networks these foreign communities may create between the country of adoption and their country of origin, which is one gain that the author of the article seems to greatly value, while adding that modern technology is of great help in this respect. I definitely agree with the author on this as, while the public sector has a much more rigid way of creating commercial bonds (based on previously established policies), the private companies rely mostly on expertise and adaptability to various markets for creating new partnerships. Therefore, individual mobility is essential in the world of business. Paragraphs five and six continue to enumerate the advantages of migration for both host and home countries. While the former refers to spreading ideas which is a metaphor for people going abroad to study at reputed universities only to go back home afterwards and use the newly-acquired knowledge for the progress of their own nations, the latter describes the way money circulates much more easily worldwide with the help of migrants (ex. cash sent back home to their families and finding solutions for foreign companies to operate more efficiently in their countries of origin). I definitely share the authors point of view in this respect. The welfare of countries worldwide is interdependent these days, particularly within larger economic communities such as the European Union, which is why migration of the labor force within these borders comes as a natural result. In addition, some of those who temporarily study or work abroad to provide for their families return after a while and set up new businesses or subsidiaries in their country, which is a very healthy thing for the respective economy and GNI (Gross National Income). In the seventh paragraph, the author objectively presents the opposing viewpoints although he indirectly suggests that he cannot agree with them. The widely-held main counterargument is that the employed immigrants would be entitled to ask for benefits from the respective state, which would eat into the national budget intended for the welfare of its citizens. In my opinion, it is in the human nature to fear competition, especially in the economic field (potential job losses, decrease of the national budget, etc), but figures show that these fears are

groundless because immigrants are usually willing to work harder for lower salaries than the local people and not many of them claim benefits from the state. Consequently, in the next two paragraphs (eight and nine) the author brings forth some examples in order to prove that these fears are groundless. To this purpose, he resorts to the findings of recent studies carried out by famous universities. Broadly, they show that migration is benefic to most host countries as foreigners work hard and are creative (the example refers to Americas technology which is to a great extent due to Diaspora). Paragraph ten draws the conclusion to the previous debate: the prospect of immigration favors both the native and the host country by motivating people to develop their skills for the labor market and by allowing money to circulate more freely. Indeed, within the ever increasing trend of globalization, exchanges of all kinds are desirable and encouraged as, in my opinion, they bring new ideas and new action, thus contributing to the growth of economies. Paragraph eleven is a case study in support of the authors positive approach to migration. India and China are referred to in particular here as great personalities from these countries (firstrank politicians and genuine intellectuals) who have played essential roles in all kinds of reforms, completed their higher education abroad only to go back home afterwards and help their nations evolve. To my mind, the opportunity of furthering ones education at famous universities worldwide is one of the most important things for the human society in our century. Education in multicultural environments means broader horizons for the personal development of each student and, later on, the actual use of professional competence for both the host country and the country of origin. In the final paragraph, the author reiterates and reinforces his positive attitude toward migration by referring particularly to Europe this time, seen as the old world. He emphasizes once more the need for a permanent exchange of innovative ideas and for an influx of young forces to countries with a majority of old people. The last sentence seems to hint at the wellknown concept of the American dream to be understood here not in reference to the New World, but as a metaphor for the hopes and expectations people usually have for new beginnings.

It is common knowledge that our old continent from the historic point of view is unfortunately becoming old in the proper meaning of the word. Due both to changing mentalities as to the role of men and women within modern society and to a more and more unstable economic and political climate, adults tend to abandon traditional social values such as the need for a family of their own. What is the consequence? An increasingly lower birth rate that in the long run means fewer active contributors to the national budget and more retired people whose pensions must be paid. Therefore, I see migration in this case as vital for the physical future existence of a nation, all the more because it is usually the young and the more courageous who emigrate. After all, as they say, success in life comes from the risks we take. My personal opinion about migration is the same as the authors, a favorable one. I strongly believe that migration contributes to the economic growth, scientific progress and even to the physical survival of a nation, provided laws and other legal regulations are obeyed.

Conclusions: Taking all these points into consideration, we can conclude that the issue of migration in todays socio-economic international context is obviously a highly-debatable one and, at times, likely to arouse unwanted feuds between once cooperating nations. On the other hand, it is beneficial for the development of any country as it stimulates competition, and competition is known to be the engine of progress especially for free market economies. Therefore, this very balanced article on the human free circulation between borders Xrays the actual situation in a realistic way, weighing both pros and cons. Due to the most sensible arguments and examples it brings, the reader could not but agree with the author that this phenomenon is not only unstoppable, but also desirable while duly controlled. And, ultimately, a fundamental human right, I would add.