Tutorial 3: Border control and unintended consequences Flashcards
Why and in what way do current governments try to regulate and control international migration?
Why? To monitor in and out-migration + Political fear of threat to state sovereignty + keep voters engaged
In what way? Restrictive regulation policies: border enforcement, exit policies, integration policies, legal and stay policies
Border control = not restrictive but might be stimulating
Can we understand the gap between political rhetoric and actual policy outcomes: explanations?
3 gaps: Discursive, implementation & efficacy
4 possible explanations for such gaps:
Neo-Marxists
Client politics perspective
Embedded legal constraint perspective
External legal constraint
What are possible unintended consequences of stricter border controls?
o Categorical substitution
o Spatial substitution
o Reverse flow substitution
o Inter temporal substitution
o Relation between migratory movements and the costs of migration?
Border control: idea if costs = rising => people do not migrate (neoclassical approach) -> however migration = still happens
What are migrant actions and outcomes at the border, with regard to restrictive border enforcement?
H1A: shift in geography of crossing border stems from border enforcement -> decrease crossing at traditional location
H2A: increase in payed guides/coyotes stems from border enforcement
H3A: border enforcement increased costs of migration + increased costs coyotes
H4A: border control only modest effect on likelihood of apprehension + apprehended migrants = free to try again
H5A: more enforcement => more death
Conclusion: border enforcement => modest effect on probability of apprehension and no effect on probability of entry + did effect migrant’s behavior
Does restrictive border enforcement lead to less migration?
No, merely leads to different routes, payed guides, …. ->
What effect does border enforcement have on migrant departure and return decisions, with regard to restrictive border enforcement?
H6A: initiation of undocumented migration = not reduced by greater border enforcement -> contextual factors which increase likelihood:
- employment growth and US
- not related to the availability of visas
- GDP growth
- not related to Mexican wage rates
-> contextual factors which decrease likelihood:
- human capital -> the more years of education and occupational skills
- ownership of land
- towns and cities > rural villages
H7A: rising border enforcement => lower probability of returning to Mexico -> contextual factors which lower likelihood return:
- employment growth & rising wages
- lower homicide rate!
- low wages in Mexico
- human capital
=> from male migration to family migration
H8A: border enforcement => lower likelihood of return migration from an additional trip
What are some migration policies regarding the results of the study by Massey, showing the unintended consequences of border enforcement
- Do nothing
- Accept Mexican migration as a natural component of ongoing economic integration under NAFTA
- Manage migration in ways that benefit both nations while protecting to the degree possible rights and interests of both migrants and natives
- Policies encouraging return migration ->remitting US earnings, paying tax refunds, making legal immigrants eligible for US entitlement for even if they return to
What does control mean related to states?
= ability of states to monitor population movement through administrative tools such as population registers, residence permits and censuses
-> NOT prevention/restriction of migration
Why is migration seen as a ‘safety valve’ to origin countries?
Migration = ‘safety valve’: to reduce discontent and generate remittances
What is the exit revolution?
- industrialization/capitalism => decrease the need for employers to prevent workers from leaving
=> exit revolution: started in Europe => huge transatlantic emigration of Europeans between 1820 and 1920
Demonstrate the ambiguous relationship between origin countries and emigrants?
PRO:
o take active steps to support citizens’ welfare and rights in destination countries Eg. Mexican state: defends rights + helps obtain ID
o diaspora engagement policies -> encourage remittances and investments + political causes
o Expatriate voting
o Eg. India policy: give special status to Indian heritage population
HOWEVER:
o often spy on emigrants out of fear of political activism Eg. authoritarian emigrants to democracies!
Demonstrate the potential clash between expatriate voting and integration policies
The main clash between origin and destination countries:
- an extension of policies through participation in origin country elections -> symbolic + instrumental function
=> tensions w destination countries:
* Infringement on sovereignty
* Fuel xenophobic discourses -> migration fosters double loyalties and unwillingness to integrate
How can migration be a weapon of weak state?
- “migration weapon”: Eg. Turkey: used large-scale refugee migration from territories into Europe as lever to negotiate major financial concessions + promise of future visa free travel for turks into EU
Demonstrate why immigration policies are seen as a tool of state power
- Hard power: Immigration -> boost eco growth -> Eg. Australia’s post WWII policy of ‘populate or perish’
- Soft power: ability of states to achieve foreign policy and security objectives through political and cultural relations Eg. foreign students in USSR and US -> help build long-term linkages I Eg. Morocco: scholarships to sub-Saharan students => “friends of Morocco”
Define migration policies
= laws, regulations and measures that states enact and implement w the explicit objective of affecting the volume, origin, direction and internal composition