Immigrant – or bird of passage?

Arguments over immigration bring out some of the least edifying aspects of political debate. But they tend to leave two key questions hanging: what can immigration do for sustainable development? And what would a sustainable immigration policy look like? Vidhya Alakeson explores some answers.

With Iraq starting to slide off the front pages, that other contentious ‘I’ word is poised to slip back into the political spotlight. Depending which side of the argument you favour, Britain is either an ageing society in dire need of fresh blood from overseas, or an overcrowded country at risk of serious social unrest from an unfettered flood of incomers. It’s a familiar debate, but it’s one which misses some pretty fundamental points.

There’s a shared assumption that the whole argument should revolve around how we – the rich world – can make immigration work for us. Yet some of the most far-reaching impacts of any immigration policy is on the places where migrants come from. And in this increasingly globalised world, what goes around comes around.

The challenge now is to recognise immigration as a global issue – and manage it in the interests of sustainable development across the planet. Let’s start with what drives people to move in the first place. As EU citizens, we’re free to leave the drizzle of London and head for sunnier climes and lower living costs on the Mediterranean. But most of us prefer to stay put (and put up with the weather), not just because our work is here, but our home ties, too.

And contrary to tabloid myth, few people from the developing world are itching to abandon their homelands, lock stock and barrel, and head across the globe to an unknown, unfriendly land. Leaving aside those in fear of persecution, most people who choose to move from poor countries to richer ones do so in search of work which will, in time, enable them to build a better life back home. Offered the chance to come and go freely, many do just that. Polish women who work as cleaners in Germany, for example, can earn enough in a few months to support their families for the rest of the year.

“In 2002, the daffodil harvest in Cornwall was nearly destroyed because there weren’t enough workers to harvest the flowers.”

Many immigrants to the UK (current or potential) would wish for similar flexibility to come and go. But our policies make them captive. With the exception of highly skilled workers and people joining family members, legal opportunities to come here as an economic migrant are severely limited. Hence many choose either to overstay holiday or student visas, or enter illegally. And once they’ve done so, there’s little incentive to leave, as they’d risk never being able to return.

So the current system actually forces immigrants to become part of the resident, permanent population on the mistaken assumption that what they ultimately want is citizenship. This may have made sense in the far less global, less mobile environment of the 1960s. But today, it’s human traffickers, along with ruthless employers exploiting illegal workers in order to avoid the minimum wage, who benefit most from this rigid system. And there’s a wider failure, too. Since we don’t see immigrants as part of an emerging global labour market, we’re stymieing their potential to build sustainable livelihoods in their countries of origin.

Take Raj. He’s from Punjab, but he’s been working in Washington as a taxi driver for 10 years. From the money he makes, he’s been able to buy three buses in his home country. He plans to work in America for another 10 years, buy himself another four buses and then return home to take up the reins of what by then, fingers crossed, will be a successful transport business.

Raj’s story is not uncommon. Many immigrants maintain strong social and financial ties to family and friends back home. A study by the Institute for International Studies in Denmark reports that, in the decade to 1999, money sent to developing countries by individuals working abroad – what is known as remittances – was approximately 20% higher than official development assistance. This trend held true even in poorer countries, which receive relatively large amounts of official aid. Lesotho, for example, ranks 132nd out of 173 states in the UN’s 2002 Human Development Index. Yet between 1995 and 1999, it received four times more in remittance money than in aid.

That’s not to say this was four times more effective in alleviating poverty. Inevitably, chunks of remittances end up financing status symbols such as flash cars and big houses. But the network linking Mexicans in Chicago with their home communities in Michoacan demonstrates the true potential of money sent home. It encourages expat Mexicans to pool at least part of their remittances, and invest in local infrastructure projects, like building a new school. The Mexican government’s caught onto this, and now offers match funding, while consular representatives encourage new networks by making contact with Mexican associations in other countries, particularly the USA.

Immigration expert Saskia Sassen, at the LSE, argues that remittances ‘work’ most effectively on this highly local basis. In contrast to aid, which can take time to get through, and tends to ‘stick’ along the way, remittances go directly to families. If the success of the Chicago-Michoacan network can be replicated elsewhere, these could offer a lifeline to many rural communities in sending countries, helping people to earn a living from their land, and enjoy education and healthcare locally, rather than join the drift to the cities. Keeping viable rural economies intact is an essential element of a more sustainable future for the South. And it’s not only through their remittances that immigrants can boost development. They can play an important role in democracy building, supporting local initiatives by lobbying for change from abroad.

Yet instead of encouraging such a flow of largesse, present UK policy – and that of much of the rest of the developed world – tends to cut it short. Studies show that immigrants who become permanent residents are much less likely to send money home than those who go back and forth. In contrast, those like Raj who eventually return home take back new knowledge and skills, which can play a part in helping narrow the inequality ‘gap’ which drives migration in the first place. As with Italy and Ireland, it’s only when this gap begins to close that migration starts to dry up.

But it’s not just the ‘sending’ countries which can benefit from freer movement. There’s a powerful economic – and sustainability – case closer to home, too. Nigel Harris, Emeritus Professor at University College London, insists that we need more unskilled as well as skilled immigrants to keep the economy ticking over as society gets older.

In 2002, the daffodil harvest in Cornwall was nearly destroyed because there weren’t enough workers to harvest the flowers. With the harvest lost, we would have had to fly the flowers in to meet demand: bad for the environment, bad for the Cornish economy. Low skilled workers are in short supply elsewhere too. The building trade needs 200,000 basic tradesmen and labourers, and the NHS is short of 1,000 lab technicians.

There’s little chance of filling many of these jobs without immigrants. They’re relatively poorly paid, physically exhausting and demand antisocial hours. But for someone keen to work here for a few months or years, allowing them to send enough money home to make a real difference when they return, such jobs can be a godsend.

And filling them is key to improving the quality of life of the less well- off in the UK, says Harris. “We’re not talking about maids for rich families in Kensington and Knightsbridge. The majority of work permits go to healthcare workers. It’s the poor without much of a pension to speak of who will be cared for by immigrants working in our hospitals and old people’s homes. The rich can buy themselves other options”.

At the launch of the government’s Energy White Paper in March, the Prime Minister rounded off his speech by saying: “Ultimately, this is about our world as a global community... Interdependence is the defining characteristic of the modern world. What we lack at present is the common agenda that is broad and just, and global institutions to execute it”. He was talking about climate change, but it could equally well have been immigration. And if we’re to exploit its full potential to improve the quality of life of some of the world’s poorer communities, we need a new approach that has sustainable development at its core.

What could this look like? Nigel Harris advocates temporary work permits lasting between three months and five years. These would provide a flexible, legal way for immigrants to come to developed countries for work, whilst encouraging them to maintain strong links with their communities of origin in the expectation of returning home. The permit system would have to be flexible enough to respond quickly to changes in the economy, allowing employers to take on additional immigrants as new vacancies arise. It’s inevitable that some would overstay their permits, but the prospect of being able to return means there would be substantially less incentive to remain illegally (particularly since doing so would jeopardise any chance of coming back in the future).

By providing a relatively simple, legal doorway for economic migrants to pass through, we could put a stop to much human trafficking – and cut out the exploitation which illegal immigrants frequently suffer at the hands of unscrupulous employers. It would make it easier to differentiate between economic migrants and asylum seekers fleeing conflict and persecution, and so leave us better placed to deal with the latter humanely, rather than perpetuating a system that treats them as human waste. And we could work with the governments of sending countries to encourage the establishment of networks such as that set up by the Mexicans of Chicago.

“We need to rethink the rights and responsibilities attached to residency and citizenship in these more mobile times”

There are, of course, adjustments to be made to national systems and institutions. We would need to rethink the rights and responsibilities attached to residency and citizenship in these more mobile times. Decisions would have to be made over the extent to which short-stay migrants had rights to free or subsidised health, education and other welfare services; and over fiscal issues such as tax and national insurance. But none of these are insurmountable, given sufficient political will. And it’s worth pointing out that most immigrants of working age tend in any case to contribute more to the national coffers than they receive. If we get the adjustments right, a more open system can be a more prosperous, rather than problematic one.

It won’t in itself cure the ills of the developing world, of course. We need to rebalance the world trade system in favour of poorer countries, and persuade richer nations to renew their commitment to initiatives such as the Millennium Development Goals. But the creation of a more sustainable immigration policy is a neglected, yet vital, part of the mix.

Vidhya Alakeson is principal policy adviser, Forum for the Future.

21 May 2003

Vidhya Alakeson