| De: |
leiderman@mindspring.com |
| Sujet: |
Leiderman answers to Week 2 questions re: youth migration. thank you.
|
| Envoyé: |
Sep 4th, 2006 - 17:17:00 |
|
| |
1 September 2006
Stuart Leiderman, Environmental Response
Section 4: Policy formation for the benefit of countries and migrants alike
Question 4.a. Who do you feel is best placed to take the initiative on migration policy: the UN or national governments? Is there a need for a common migration policy?
Answer 4.a. I feel that migrants themselves are the best ones to take the initiative on migration policy. They are the ones who need to describe the breadth and depth of the troubles and protections desired for the various categories, flows, origins and destinations of voluntary and involuntary migrants. I believe they should adopt a policy of care research and self-monitoring of voluntary migrants, plus a policy of steadfast resistance among involuntary migrants. In the latter case, there should also be a policy of keeping families and communities together when and if they ever have to move.
After a) reading the Secretary General's report on international migration and development, b) hearing all the criticisms given by NGO representatives during the July 12 hearing in New York, and c) discovering that the current leader of the High-Level Dialogue [HLD] that convenes later this month is a major industrialist and global trade advocate, not a humanitarian specialist, I am skeptical of any worthwhile initiatives coming from the United Nations. While the UN may keep the discussion going in some fashion after the HLD sessions, this will not necessarily translate into good policy. Instead, it may translate into a wasteful diversion of time and attention.
Therefore, I believe the most likely governmental initiative will come from countries who are either major senders of migrants or major receivers of migrants. Looking over the research, in fact, it may be possible to create good bilateral policies among pairs of countries, i.e. a sender and a receiver, who can agree on some mutual interests. These pairs may be within continents or across continents.
Yes, I believe there is a need for some sort of common migration policy, first and formost to respect the International Declaration of Human Rights, fair labor, health and safety protections, and prohibition of trafficking and forced migration without adequate destinations for whole families and communities.
Then, I think there is agreement that a certain amount of exposure to and exchange with foreign citizens is good for every national government. Therefore, a common policy might be concerned with allowing individuals to enter countries at will, in orderly fashion, for limited periods, for the purpose of "learning and earning" and then bringing this all "back home" or to other countries for social and ecomic improvement...and with the right to go abroad again for another cycle of migration.
For this to succeed, I think there would also have to be a common policy of full knowledge about migration, i.e. a policy of monitoring and complete transparency and access to information about the movement of voluntary and involuntary migrants around the world. To accomplish this, we'll need a policy that informs us who is migrating, why they are migrating, are they "pushed" or "pulled" to migrate, if they are successfully migrating or not, what protection and other services they need, and whether they are recognized and granted full rights as any other non-migrating Earth inhabitant. Accompanying this, there needs to be a policy of grievance so that unfair treatment and abuse of migrants can be documented and reversed.
But probably, the innovative policies will come out of special relationships among pairs of sending/receiving countries.
Question 4.b. What kinds of policies should be developed to enhance the economic and social benefits of migration for national governments?
To me, this is a kind of strange question because it seems to put the interests of governments ahead of the interests of the migrants. I believe this is a misplaced priority -- one doesn't enhance the benefits of migration for governments; instead, the benefits, if any, are supposed to be enjoyed by the migrants themselves, and in turn this may benefit governments, or it may not. I believe that everyone has a right to live somewhere in the world; it should not be left to chance or fate, and the conditions should should show respect for individuals and the human race. I believe that this right is more important than the right of sovereignty.
The question also seems to accept that migration is something uniformly good that should be pursued as a norm rather than as an exception to the human condition. I think that this is being contradicted among people who work with migrants and by others who actually are migrants. And, as far as I know, the trend is for more and more migrants in the world; this means more and more people away from home, with extreme difficulties and hardships, both economic and social.
Among nations, I think the most important policy would be that national economic and social development will not be done "on the backs" of migrants and their earnings. Countries who make it impossible for citizens to make a living within their countries of origin should not be permitted to tax migrants earnings when they are outside the country, nor their remittances when they are sent back to families and friends. This means that governments should not view migration, especially mass migration, as an acceptable way to finance internal development or as a way to get rid of poor or "undesirable" citizens. Furthers, government consider migrants' earnings as private property for private purposes, i.e. these earnings should not be considered available for financing large-scale infrastructure projects, military build-ups or programs of ethnic, religious or political persecution. They should also not be used to increase the numbers of migrants. Instead, if for example earnings are taxed, the policy should be that the taxes are only used to improve the condition of migrants' family members "left behind" and of migrants who enter the country.
Question 4.c. What socio-economic safety nets should be provided by national governments in the future to better secure the human rights of young migrants, their families and local communities? How can we ensure that the positive effects of youth migration outweigh the negative impact?
I think this question is too general to adequately answer. It is obvious to me that national governments today are becoming less and less able to identify, respond to and resolve their social and economic problems, especially those that come from outside pressures that force countries to compete with each other rather than cooperate with each other. The result is that countries tend to use whatever resources they can get their hands on to get ahead of their neighbors, even if it includes young migrants. Thus, governments take unfair advantage of migrants whenever they can -- to accumulate wealth, disrupt communities, conduct persecution by proxy, distract the population from governmental corruption, fill their treasuries with taxes on hard-earned remittances, and so on -- but seldom take responsibility for causing migrants, receiving migrants, and satisfying their needs.
Further, the notion of a "safety net" has to emerge from a policy that recognizes migrants as vulnerable and disadvantaged members of society. This means, by definition, that the status of migrant is lower than a non-migrant, and in turn, this contradicts the argument that migration can be a win-win proposition for migrants and countries alike. I think there is a serious flaw in the logic of this question; perhaps we can discover it during the online discussion.
Definitely, any safety net to secure the human rights of vulnerable and disadvantaged young migrants requires that a) the migrant know his/her rights, b) there is an independent legal advocacy of some kind, with the authority and power to correct abusive treatment, and c) there is worldwide scrutiny of the plight of young migrants everywhere so that other people can reach out to them in goodwill or, on the other hand, rescue them in a timely fashion. This is also how to make sure that the benefits of youth migration outweigh the negatives.
Question 4.d. Do you think that young people in your community have enough opportunities to participate in the debates surrounding migration? If not, what could be done to increase their involvement at both the local and the national level?
In America, there is great debate around in-migration, but young people who are permanent citizens are not regularly involved in those discussions or decisions. However, I believe young people who are children of migrants or former immigrants do participate in discussion among their friends and families.
On the other hand, out-migration does not seem to be much of an issue with young people in the United States, whether among actual citizens or migrants. However, if the national government began to forceably recruit youths into the armed forces, then migration would become a very hot topic because a large number of youths will flee the country to avoid conscription.
Thank you again for your good discussion process.
Stuart Leiderman
Environmental Response
New Hampshire, USA
leiderman (at) mindspring.com
|
|
Message
Retour aux messages 
