The article with keywords: Migration-patterns-wealthy-liberal-democracy in one sentence
This article with the keywords, Migration-patterns-wealthy-liberal-democracy briefly discusses the reasons and seasons of migration towards Europe and North America and in the shortest term, advocates the need to regulate migration to benefit both the home and host countries being still within the scope of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Disclosure of this article with keywords: Migration-patterns-wealthy-liberal-democracy
I wrote this article based on request. Hence, the length and breadth of the article was determined by the parameters that the requester provided. Specifically, the requester noted that there was no need for any kind of references including citations. Therefore, this article is void of same.
Despite the lack of citations and references, this article contains empirical data from secondary sources. This is because the article is based on research from books and other websites or blogs along with the author’s prior knowledge/experience. Neither the author nor LeadinGuides claims ownership of neither the secondary data nor the cited works (though not referenced).
Contemporary Migration Patterns towards Wealthy Liberal Democracy like Europe and North America
With a GDP per capita of $57, 436, the United States of America is the wealthiest country in Northern America. Canada is the runner up having a GDP per capita of $46, 437. In comparison, Luxembourg is the wealthiest European country as at 2018, trailed by Norway and Ireland each with GDP per capita of $104, 003; $69, 249 and $69, 231 respectively. Also top on the list of European fortunes are Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, United Kingdom and France.
Each of the wealth capitals believes in, and adopts liberal democracy. Hence, all but Luxembourg which had implicit policy centred on accepting mainly white, Catholic, and European from Italy and Portugal, have open migration policy – US being the freest. Accordingly, these wealthy liberal democracies of the Northern America and Europe have had the largest number of migrants in the aforementioned years and in recent times. For example, majority of the number of international migrants in 2017, about 50 million representing over 19%, resided in the United States of America alone; Germany was among the second largest resident countries followed by the United Kingdom.
Majority of American immigrants are of Asian and South American origin and European immigrants mostly are of African descent. Without doubt, there is in general term, an expansionary bias in the politics of migration in liberal democracy such that official policies tend to be more liberal than public opinion thereby enhancing the continuous growth and growth of a region while the other swings in the pendulum of increase and decrease. Consequently, migration pattern towards wealthy democracy must be regulated, however little it may be necessary, not only towards benefitting the migrants and destination country but also the home for a holistic attainment of the objectives of liberal democracy– equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people.
Factors influencing Migrations
The push and pull factors
Migrations generally follow push and pull factors. Middle-of-the-road of the migration route depicted above is as a result of push factors – which may be economic such as unemployment; political such as civil war; social such as over population and lack of quality education; or natural such as drought and other natural disaster – driving migrants towards greener pastures with the corresponding pull factors in the foreign land. This means that anytime there is a mishap in Asia, Africa and South America, the wealthy democratic nations of Europe and North America should expect higher immigrants. This includes even political inefficiency of these regions.
Category of migrants and the big question
And as in most cases, the immigrants due to this reason are permanent migrants. Hence, though headlines and research papers indicate increasing value of remittance, the home country of the migrants usually losses the contributions they would have made to the development of their country – which should have benefitted more of their countrymen and aided in closing the inequality gap. And since there will always be push and pull factors, should this chain of imbalance loop forever?
Another major common migration pattern towards Northern American and European lands of affluence is the concept of family migration. In 2016, nearly a million migrants acquired European citizenship. This means these migrants become full Europeans with equal rights and privileges of the indigenous – erecting their permanent homes, building their European families. With European citizenship, members of family in their country of origin are permitted by law to join them thus engineering another round of migration. This also implies that more migrant citizenship equals more migration. For instance in 2016, family data reveals that due to the about 995, 000 that acquired European citizenship; more than 1.8 million new migrants moved to OECD (European) countries for family reasons – representing 1.6 million family formation and reunification and 270,000 accompanying family. Data also reveals that 38% of all permanent migration to OECD countries is family migration.
Invariably, it cannot be argued that migration has contributed and will continue to contribute to migrant’s home countries if reversed and through remittance. However, in furtherance of the objectives of liberal democracy for which the wealthy (destination) North American and European countries stand to represent, a change must be introduced – no matter how little it may be. We have observed and seen this unregulated migration since 1948 when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was made. We know and affirm that it has been a worthwhile mission. However, for the sake of better efficiency, for the sake of universal equality in the standard of living through uniform national growth of all nations; let there be a little regulation – that ensure migrants contribute to the growth of their host countries and are also reversed to contribute to the growth of their home countries – for the only constant thing is change and there is no place like home.
Read similar article: Comparative Study of EU and US border policies and protocols.