Integrated policies and dialogue needed to tackle migration crisis

As Donald Trump cuts off aid to El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala and as Pope Francis, during a visit to Morocco states that physical barriers won’t solve the migration issue, it is perhaps time to probe into the nature of migration, especially into the West, its causes and tease out a potential solution to it.

The reasons behind migration are multiple. The salient of these are economic, political and security ones. Often times, those who migrate seek a better life for themselves and their families. Some flee their respective domiciles or countries of origin to escape persecution, harassment and, at times, there are security reasons for the phenomenon.

The general trend and direction of migration has been toward the West. While economists and their analyses thereof have suggested that, on balance, migration benefits host societies, there has been a reaction in the societies of the West against it. The reasons are, in the main cultural and, to some extent, social. Till the advent of the wave of globalisation that roughly began in the fourth quarter of the 20th century, Western societies were, by and large, homogenous.

Add WION as a Preferred Source

Yes, there were waves of migration in the Western world but these were usually intra-western. But, as globalisation gained impetus and momentum, with the concomitant impact on the nation-state, wherein borders became somewhat porous, migration into the West gathered steam. The somewhat homogenous character of Western societies frazzled and the idea and practice of multiculturalism came into being.

This development was complemented by a structural economic shift within the West that, among other things, upended various paradigms, causing a massive churn in labor markets and even capital. One egregious effect was the migration of manufacturing jobs to low wage labor countries like China. In the absence of robust welfare mechanisms say, in a country like the United States, the hollowing out of manufacturing, causes deep angst and issues there. In Europe, because there was a robust welfare state in operation, it was welfare dependency of migrants, among other things, that led to a jaundiced view of migration.

The increase in the quantum of migration also caused a degree of cultural angst in Western societies. The dominant superstructure of these societies felt threatened by the “onslaught” of immigrants who they felt were “ different”. The attendant anxiety begat what is called “ identity politics” and presaged populism in the West. This, in turn, led to the “Othering” of migrants and its corollaries, like Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to build a wall that would keep migrants and refugees away, tightening of borders and immigration policies and the rise of far-right political parties.

All said and done though, these stringent measures are neither in the nature of a palliative nor would these deter migration, a phenomenon that is as hoary as history itself. Migrants in and within the West are there to stay and migrant flows, which might gyrate to an ebb and flow will never cease. What then is the solution to the issue?

While there can be no definitive answers to the “ problem” posed by migration, some tentative ones can be posited. Consider the economic aspect first. By and large, most people would like to remain rooted to their locales and places of origin, but economic conditions, sometimes, compel them to move. If, however, these conditions, are significantly and substantially improved and ameliorated, then an incentive to remain “rooted” would be generated. Perhaps the only way that economic growth and development thereof can be generated is through freer trade and its various mechanisms. While it is no panacea to migration but a significant pull to remain and not migrate can ensue.

But, there remains the factor of insecurity and political volatility in places blighted by these which propel migration. To obviate this, global governance institutions like the United Nations and countries of import like the United States need to stay engaged and develop robust conflict resolution paradigms to deal with and resolve conflicts. These policy measures need to be complementary.

Last but not least, the onus also lies on the host societies of the West to actually take a more sanguine view of migrants and migration. People are people: they are the same everywhere. It is cultural configurations that make them “different” and there is nothing organic about identity. Migration, in this sense, causes psychic and other changes in people which makes them, over time, acceptable of the mores and values of host societies.

This is not to suggest that migrants must become clones (or mimic men, in V S Naipaul’s formulation) of the members of their host societies but is a reference to a synthesis of their “original” cultures and identities and that of their host societies. The synthesis in contention would create the much-required template and platform for dialogue between migrants and host societies. It is this dialogue along with allied policy grids that can undercut the “Othering” of migrants, and identity politics thereby leading to societies that are at peace within and without.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)