Open%20borders%20The%20case%20against%20immigration%20controls%20-%20Teresa%20Hayter

Re-open the Borders 169
Subsequently the report of Sami Naïr, adviser to Chévènement, on the theme of
‘the policy of co-development linked to migratory flows’ was revealed to the press. It
proposed ‘the creation of social conditions to help potential migrants stay at home’.
But who can believe that emigration will be reduced by micro-projects? Especially
when we know the devastating effects of IMF structural adjustment programmes.
Sub-Saharan Africa is crushed by foreign debt. ...
In addition, immigrants are human beings, not a currency! And they contribute
much more effectively to the development of their countries of origin than official aid
which is largely absorbed by corruption. Many villages have been equipped with
electricity, or supplied with wells or maternity hospitals – thanks to the funds sent
directly by the immigrants working here.
But is it really a question of co-development? Is it not really more a question of
using fine words to ease the conscience of those who are preparing expulsions? ... The
government is only talking about ‘co-development’ to get itself out of a problem which
it has itself created by refusing to regularise. We prefer to remain mobilised for the
regularisation of all sans-papiers!
The second problem with such arguments is that development, or faster
growth, may increase rather than diminish the likelihood that people will
migrate. One of the largest recent migratory flows was from the so-called
‘Asian tigers’, including South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong, mainly to the
United States, during the period of high growth and increased employment
and incomes in Asia before the 1997 crisis. Various official US studies have
concluded that migration is likely to increase with development, at least in
the short term, as people become more educated, and as the role of women
changes, for example. Globalisation and investment by multinational
companies create links with the metropolitan countries and knowledge of
the opportunities there. Development may break down traditional ways of
making a living, causing movements of people from rural areas into towns.
Higher incomes create the opportunity to move. Many writers have argued
that migration is caused by ‘pull’ factors rather than ‘push’ factors, in other
words by the opportunities available in the immigration countries rather
than by the situation in emigration countries. Although there is no precise
correlation, there is on the whole less emigration from very impoverished
countries than there is from countries where there are more opportunities
and wealth. The biggest exception is forced migration from countries where
there are wars and political conflicts, which include for example some of the
poorest countries in sub-Saharan Africa; and other factors, such as preexisting
community and family links, explain some migration. But in general
official and academic studies seem to concur that the promotion of
development is likely, at least in the short term, to increase rather than
diminish migration. Obviously this is not a reason for opposing development.
Nevertheless it could be that it is skewed and unequal development that
causes people to migrate, and above all the repression and impoverishment
associated with such development. While people should be free to migrate if
they wish to or need to, many people are forced to migrate against their will.