Open Access Research Article
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF GOVERNMENT CONTROLS ON IMMIGRATION
Published Paper
Article Details
AN
ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF GOVERNMENT CONTROLS ON IMMIGRATION
AUTHORED
BY - DR. COOSHALLE WILSON
Research Scholar,
Department of Political
Science,
Desh Bhagat University,
Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab- 147301
Abstract
This paper examines the increasing
concern of governments regarding immigration and the policies, strategies, and
legislations they have explored to control it. The paper begins by defining
immigration as an international movement of people from one country to another
to settle permanently as residents or citizens. With around 281 million
international migrants in the world in 2020, the paper identifies immigration
as a growing concern for governments in this era of globalization. Governments
have made efforts to limit immigration while balancing their liberal values
with the need to keep their borders secure.
The paper is divided into two
sections. The first section frames international immigration as a national
security threat, while the second assesses the status of immigration governance
in the world and debates its effectiveness in controlling the perceived problem
of immigration. The paper finds that immigration control is not failproof, but
it has been relatively successful. However, in the post-pandemic world, there
has been a shift towards multilateral cooperation on immigration controls and
regulation.
Keywords:
immigration, policies, globalization,
national security, multilateral cooperation.
Introduction
Increasing
trajectories of immigration growth
in the twentieth century have made concerned governments look at exploring
various policies, strategies, and legislations to control it. The term
immigration refers to an international movement of people from one country to
another where they are not citizens or natives to settle as permanent residents
or citizens of that country (Refugee Council,
2016). According to recent
global estimates, there were around 281 million international migrants in the
world in 2020, which is almost 3.6 per cent of the entire world population
demographic (IOM, 2020). Due to today's increased economic integration,
international migration has gained renewed prominence in this era of
globalization (Adamson, 2006). Additionally,
this has led to an increase in government efforts to limit immigration, with
many countries grappling to balance their liberal values with the need to keep
their borders secure. The present paper aims to assess the extent to
which governments around the world are attempting to arrest or control
immigration. The present paper is divided into two sections. The first section
frames international immigration as a growing concern for governments in the
context of a national security threat. The concluding section assesses the
status of immigration governance in the world while debating its effectiveness
in controlling the perceived problem of immigration.
Framing the problem: International
Immigration
Migration
is a complex heterogeneous process, that is today a natural, regular and
formative phenomenon of the modern world. This explains why the biggest
challenge of controlling and governing migration lies in its ‘inevitability,
volume, and heterogeneity’ (Sasnal, 2018). In 2020, the
total number of immigrants living in a host country, other than their home
countries, was 128 million more than in 1990. This number is over three times
the estimated number in 1970 (IOM, 2022). These
immigration levels are only predicted to grow as conflicts and hostilities
continue in most of the regions of sub-Saharan Africa and even the Middle East.
Other reasons why immigration levels will rise can be attributed to the
increasing global wealth inequalities, worsening climate change, and
overpopulation in the developing world (Bennett, 2016). Migration
can be of two types depending on the reason, interval, and legality of the
movement. It can either be voluntary in nature or forced. The latter
category includes internally displaced persons due to natural and man-made
disasters and refugees, who could either be regular or irregular.
Immigration
as a process is not innately bad or good. The effects of immigration are
highly contingent on ‘Who, where, how, and when’ (Clemens., et.al, 2018). Its
effects depend entirely on both, the context and the policy choices that choose
to shape it. For example, numerous studies have shown that immigration can
negatively impact employment for natives with the same work experience, skill
set and job preferences as migrants (Gindling, 2009). On the other hand,
numerous studies have also shown that immigration can also create more and
better employment, primarily by encouraging the natives to upgrade their occupations
(Foged & Peri, 2016). Immigration has also helped in raising the number of
natives in labour force participation (Cortes & Tessada, 2011), and in
filling labour shortages to raise short-term immediate productivity (Clemens,
2013). Correspondingly,
it has been seen that immigration can either burden the taxpayers or deliver
them fiscal benefits (Ruist, 2015). These diverse findings prove that
immigration cannot be blanketed under the terms good or bad. If
harnessed and well managed immigrant population bring numerous gains to the
host countries, immigrants themselves and even their home countries.
The
prevailing political climate surrounding immigration presents grave challenges.
Most of the new guidelines aim to stop rather than shape migration (Clemens.,
et.al., 2018). Thus, for any dialogue on immigration to be constructive, it
needs to focus on what works and what does not. Also, it needs to engage with
both, policymakers, and citizens alike about the potential benefits of
pragmatic and realistic approaches to immigration, along with potential costs
and adjustments for specific host groups. This involves understanding that the
continued movement of migrants and refugees, in increasing numbers will
continue and that the serious political implications of whether people
immigrants move regularly or irregularly, will both have practical policy
implications.
Immigration
as a Security Dilemma
The current
political climate surrounding immigration presents us with significant
challenges. For example, there are concerns that most new policies aim to
discourage rather than shape immigration (Clemens., et.al., 2018). Governments
in countries hosting immigration flows are under strain to show they can
control immigration. Most countries have introduced new laws and stricter
regulations to enable governments to control international migration in an era
of increasing populace mobility (Amersfoort, 1996). Policymakers around the
world must balance two persistent and complex imperatives to managing
immigration (Colette, 2016). This involves maintaining safe and credible
borders and isolating unauthorized migrants from the most vulnerable people in
need of humanitarian protection, especially those at risk of conflict and
seeking refuge from persecution.
The varied channels
through which immigration can pose security dilemmas have been extensively
discussed in the wider security literature (Alexseev & Hofstetter, 2006).
First, international migration flows can convey an image of weakness and call
into question the determination and ability of a state to maintain territorial
legitimacy (Weiner, 1992). Routine border control activities such as checking
travel documents, checking cargo and luggage, patrolling beaches and airports,
arresting illegal immigrants, etc., are part of what gives a nation an image of
authority and power (Andreas, 2003). The perception that governments
cannot defend their borders increases the security concerns of people in host
countries. Secondly, demographic changes favouring immigrants make host
countries economically vulnerable. This implies that societies may also react
negatively to immigration if it is perceived as a social or economic burden.
Immigration can
burden the ability of a state to provide adequate housing, education, and
transportation services to the general public, which can lead to local
antipathy and backlash against immigration. A good example is the United
States where the prevailing perception of immigrants is of 'nonworking
beneficiaries, or even abusers, of a generous welfare system’ fuelling
anti-immigrant attitudes against them (Demleitner, 1998, p.9). Third, in the
face of immigration, host countries receiving immigrants may find it difficult
to maintain their language, values, norms and customs. For example, the European
security debate regularly discusses the threat to European culture posed by the
influx of Muslim immigrants unwilling or unable to integrate into society.
The security
predicament facing host countries becomes especially strong when there is
suspected offensive posturing attributed to the intention of immigrants. For
example, immigrant actions such as failing to return to their home countries
and inviting over family to build a stronger lobby for a larger share of local
resources can be dubbed as ‘offensive’ (Alexseev & Hofstetter, 2006). These
suspicions are made worse when the very intent of the home country is suspected
of encouraging immigration to deliberately destabilise the sovereignty of the
host country. A case in point is the strong apprehension and suspicion around
the immigration of the Chinese to the Russian Far East over the past two
decades (Alexseev & Hofstetter, 2006). This has largely been perceived as a
deliberate attempt by China to reclaim its lost territories.
Migration
Governance: Regulations and Controls
Migration policies
impact immigration flows. A recent definition describes migration policies as,
‘a government’s statements of what it intends to do or not do (including laws,
regulations, decisions or orders) in regard to the selection, admission,
settlement and deportation of foreign citizens residing in the country’ (Bjerre
et al., 2015). Migration policy is integral to international migration
governance and is sadly widely used without it being clearly stated or even
defined. Other terms commonly related to it include migration control,
restrictions, and regulation. A 2019 study comparing migration flows and
immigration policies for 33 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) destination countries for the period 1982–2010, found that
migration policies do indeed have a detrimental effect on the pattern of
immigration flows (Helbling & Leblang, 2019). This study found that states
are able to successfully control their borders and that their ‘control
capacities’ play a big role in ‘attracting or deterring immigrants’. The study
noted that the preventive effect of restrictive immigration policies rises when
unemployment rates in host countries are high.
Trends in immigration policy cannot be readily tracked, as the accessible indicators cover distinct aspects of immigration, such as
distant time periods and regions. The OECD data sourced from the International Migration Policy and Legal Analysis (IMPALA) database shows a trend ‘toward more complex and often more restrictive regulations since the 1990s’ (Beine et
al., 2015). Other studies (de Haas, et.al., 2016) have
found that while policies aimed specifically at irregular migrants and their
families have become more restrictive over time, other policies for students,
and high and low-skilled workers have become less restrictive since the end of
the Second World. These and many other investigations have sparked a booming
interest in comparative migration analysis.
The past ten years
have witnessed numerous attempts by policy researchers to evaluate and compare
policies and government regulations across countries on immigration and
integration. These efforts have been boosted by the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs). As per the SDG target 10.7., all Member States of the United
Nations (UN) are to ensure 'orderly, safe and responsible migration and
movement of people, including through the implementation of planned and
well-managed migration policies by 2030' (UN, 2015). According to available
2019 data on the implementation of this SDG indicator 10.7.2, more than half
(54 per cent) of all governments support 'orderly, safe, regular and
responsible migration' and promote human mobility. Additionally, 91 per cent of
governments have established inter-agency coordination mechanisms for
immigration and 90 per cent have bilateral immigration agreements with other
countries. This ensured cooperation between countries and stakeholder
engagement in the difficult task of regulating safe migration (UN DESA, IOM and
OECD, 2019). Meanwhile, the UN notes that immigration policy implementation
still needs urgent improvement. This is largely because policies are often
inconsistent with other equally relevant policies such as climate change,
disaster management, and sustainable development.
In the past few
decades, immigration studies have slowly settled into the mainstream of
political science (Holyfield & Wong, 2013). Systematic comparative research
on immigration policy has been conducted over the past few decades, quantifying
data and creating policy indicators. To further distinguish different aspects
of migration policy, we first distinguish between regulatory and governance
mechanisms (Bjerre et al., 2013). Regulation is understood as a mandatory legal
provision that establishes or limits rights. Restricting access to very few
people is an important aspect of it. However, without mechanisms to control the
flow of migrants and the status of migrants within the country, such regulation
will not be sufficient. Control mechanisms include, for example, information
exchange systems between countries, liability rules for carriers that transport
illegal immigrants, monitoring of asylum seekers, and sanctions against
employers who employ illegal immigrants (Dreher, 2002). Most laws on irregular
immigration fall under the control mechanisms subcategory. Because some of
these mechanisms are aimed at controlling regular immigration, primarily to
prevent regular immigration from becoming irregular. For example, reporting
requirements and identity documents represent control mechanisms aimed at
ensuring that regular immigrants do not exceed their work and residence
permits.
Immigration can create
conflicts and security dilemmas that can disrupt the established social order
and lead to political instability on the ground. Immigration can
affect political stability when conflicts between disparate groups of people
living nearby become endemic during the migration process. If so, the
government can respond with pre-emptive militarization. The results of the two-stage
least-squares estimation show that higher immigration rates significantly
reduce political stability (De Soysa & Numayer, 2008).
Moreover, through the channel of political stability, higher immigration rates
increase government military spending. The negative impact of immigration rates
on political stability is stronger where there are assimilating citizenship
laws (Gebremedhin & Mavisakalyan, 2013). Therefore, in such cases the
military costs are seen to be much higher than before.
Assessing Effectiveness of Government Control
Western democracies
have evolved complex strategies for managing immigration flows. Much of the
academic literature and policy debate assumes that countries are becoming increasingly
selective, prioritizing economic inclusion. Despite explicit efforts by
policymakers to differentiate between refugees and migrant workers, how
countries combine different policy aspects and what specific factors influence
the relative There is little research on what shapes openness. As a result, it
is often argued that the public and academic controversy concerning the
effectiveness of immigration policies is spurious (Czaika & De Haas, 2013).
This is largely because of unclear definitions of policy effectiveness,
stemming from confusion between policy narratives, policies on paper, their
implementation and lastly their impact on the ground. Politically, host
countries face two challenges with regard to immigration. These are the balance
between security and liberty and the harmonization of international obligations
and national law (Sasnal, 218). This explains why immigration
control practices are more or less the same around the world.
Government officials
and agents guard borders, identify migrant populations, arrest illegal
immigrants, and detain and deport those who have no right to stay. As a result,
many people are discovered, arrested, detained and deported each year. Quite a
few people die trying to reach their goals. Many other groups live in transit
states or camps, in virtual purgatory. Many other groups simply stand still,
fully aware that attempts to emigrate abroad will be futile. States usually go
for a mix of different strategies and legislative policies to stem irregular
migration. For example, a comparative analysis of 33 OECD countries from 1980
to 2010 examines the patterns and drivers behind the mix of immigration
policies of these countries (Schultz, et.al., 2021). The results show that
overall immigration policies across countries have strongly converged towards
more liberal policies, despite shifting political compassion from asylum to
labour migration. The policy mix of immigration policies largely reflects
competitive political pressures that limit the government's room for
manipulation.
Debating Effectiveness of Immigration Control
Migration controls are not failproof, but they have been proven to
work relatively well. As a result, most
migrants travel with the required paperwork and legally enter their host
countries. For instance, recent studies have shown that in the specific case of
African migration to Europe, nine in ten Africans migrate within the law (de
Haas et al., 2019). Nevertheless, the debate over the efficiency of immigration
policies persists, with many scholars asserting that state efforts to check and
confine immigration are often unsuccessful (eg, Düvell, 2005). They argue that
international migration is primarily driven by structural variables like
inequalities in wealth, labour market imbalances and political conflicts in
origin countries, that immigrants themselves have no control over. Therefore,
putting in place restrictive immigration policies would not affect the overall
volumes of migrant inflows, rather they would essentially change the ways and
means by which these people migrate. These irregular means of entry would
include the use of family migration. Once immigration reaches a captious
entry-level, immigration networks and the immigration industry, which includes
recruiters, brokers, and all the middlemen involved, ensure immigration
continues (Castles & Miller, 2009). This largely explains why immigration
is not going to stop anytime soon, no matter how restrictive the entry-level
policies become. Migration thus becomes ‘self-perpetuating’ (de Haas, 2010).
Another argument about why states find it difficult to control immigration is
that they are bound to preserve human rights. Human rights of immigrants
include the right to ‘family unification, protection of asylum-seekers,
children, and other such vulnerable groups’ (Hollifield, 1992, p. 577). This explains why
most modern states that are democracies face entrenched ethical constraints
that hinder their power and authority over the treatment of immigrants.
Globally, in the last five years alone there has been a shift in
cooperation on immigration controls and regulation. This has been bought on by
the historic adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular
Migration (GCM) and the unforeseen COVID-19 pandemic (Demetrios, et.al, 2022). The
pandemic has done three things in the context of the ongoing migration crises.
One, it has accelerated it. Second, it has revealed once and for all the
obvious limitations of unilateral migrant control policies and strategies.
Lastly, the pandemic has exposed the lacune in the existing state frameworks to
govern migration, and thereby strengthened the calls for coordinated action in
this field. Positive changes on the ground are already visible. For example,
Thailand has become one of the first governments to comply with its commitments
under the GCM and change its laws to stop holding children in immigration
detention. Countries have also largely understood that irrespective of their
restrictive immigration policies, they cannot stop it. Thus, some countries
have chosen to harness the potential of immigrants headed their way. Lithuania
is one such country. The government here has piloted a temporary legal labour
migration program with Nigerian information and communications technology
workers to bridge their labour shortages in the sector (Stefanescu, 2020).
Portugal is another example that has granted all migrants with pending
residence permit applications as of March 18, 2020, legal status and allowed
them access to health care in light of the pandemic (Raposo & Violante
2021). Zambia is another country taking proactive actions (Darwin,
2022). By choosing to scale up its use of report orders that allow migrants
to check in with immigration officers for further determinations, without being
detained. This has also helped avoid overcrowding in detention facilities.
Conclusion
Immigration control has emerged
as one of the toughest challenges of the twenty-first century. This influx of
people looking for a new home will only increase in the coming years due to a
shrinking world, increased economic integration, climate, and man-made
disasters. Concerned governments have explored various policies and strategies
to control it while trying to balance their liberal democratic values. The
paper finds immigration controls are not failproof, but they have been proven
to work relatively well. However, in the post-pandemic world of today, there
has been a shift from unilateral to multi-lateral cooperation on immigration
controls and regulation. Encouraged by their commitments to the GCM, more
countries are putting in place more progressive and humane processes to cope
with their immigration inflows.
References
Adamson, F.
(2006). International immigration in a globalising world: Assessing impacts on
national security. In K. Jonathan (Ed.), Globalization and National Security.
Routledge. New York. 35-73.
Alexseev
M., & Hofstetter, R. (2006). Russia, China and the immigration security
dilemma. Political science quarterly, 121(1).
Amersfoort,
V. (1996). Migration: The limits of governmental control. Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies, 22 (2), 243-257.
Andreas, P.
(2003). Redrawing the line. Borders and security in the 21st century.
International security, 28 (2), 78-111.
Beine, M.
et al. (2016). Comparing immigration policies: An overview from the IMPALA
database. International Migration Review, 50 (4), 827-833.
Bennett, C.
(2016). Time to Let
Go: A Three-Point Proposal to Change the Humanitarian System. ODI
Humanitarian Policy Group. London, UK.
Bjerre, L.,
Helbling, M., Römer, F., & Zobel, M. (2014). Conceptualizing and Measuring
Immigration Policies. A Comparative Perspective. Econometric Modeling:
Macroeconomics eJournal. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Conceptualizing-and-Measuring-Immigration-Policies%3A-Bjerre-Helbling/5dbf4400648be0ecc516a93b70ff91c93ff7406a
Castles,
S., & Miller, M. (2009). The Age of Migration: International Population
Movements in the Modern World. MacMillan Pres Ltd.
Clemens, M.
(2013). International
Harvest: A Case Study of How Foreign Workers Help American Farms Grow Crops –
and the Economy, Partnership for a New American Economy and the Center
for Global Development.
Clemens, M.
(2014). Does
Development Reduce Migration? CGD Working Paper 359,
Center for Global Development. Washington DC.
Clemens,
M., Huang, C., Graham, J., Gough, K. (2018). Migration Is What You Make It:
Seven Policy Decisions that Turned Challenges into Opportunities, Center for
Global Development. https://www.cgdev.org/publication/migration-what-you-make-it-seven-policy-decisions-turned-challenges-opportunities
Collett, E. (2016). Questions of Immigration Control
Preoccupy Policymakers Worldwide as Mixed Flows of New Arrivals Continue, and
in Some Cases, Surge Migration Information Source. www.migrationpolicy.org/article/asylum-seeker-and-migrant-flows-mediterranean-adapt-changing-conditions
Cortes, P.,
& Tessada, J. (2011). Low-Skilled Immigration and the Labor Supply of
Highly Skilled Women. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3 (3).
88-123.
Czaika, M.,
& De Haas, H. (2013). The Effectiveness of Immigration Policies. Population
and Development Review, (39). 487-508. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2013.00613.x
Darwin, C. (2022). Report on the Situation of Refugees
in Zambia, Africa and the Middle East Refugee Assistance.
https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/20_10_2014_09_30_27_Report-Refugees-Zambia.pdf
de Haas, H.
(2010). Migration transitions: A theoretical and empirical inquiry into the
developmental drivers of international migration. IMI Working Paper 24,
International Migration Institute, University of Oxford.
de Haas,
H., Natter, K., & Vezzoli, S. (2016). Growing Restrictiveness or Changing
Selection? The Nature and Evolution of Migration Policies, Int Migr Rev. https://doi.org/10.1111/imre.12288
de Haas,
H., Czaika, M., Flahaux, M., Mahendra, E., Natter, K., Vezzoli, S. and
Villares-Varela, M. (2019). International Migration: Trends, Determinants, and
Policy Effects. Population and Development Review, (45).885-922. https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12291
Demetrios, P., Banulescu-Bogdan, N., & Hooper, K.
(2022). Coming Together or Coming Apart? A New Phase of International
Cooperation on Migration, Migration Policy Institute. Washington, DC.
De Soysa, I., & Numayer, R. (2008).
Disarming fears of diversity: Ethnic heterogeneity and state militarisation
1988-2002. Journal of Peace Research, 45 (4). 497-118.
Dreher, S.
(2002). Regulation, Lexikon der Politikwissenschaft, C.H. Beck.
Foged, M.,
& Giovanni, P. (2016). Immigrants' Effect on Native Workers: New Analysis
on Longitudinal Data. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 8(2). 1-34.
Gebremedhin,
T., & Mavisakalyan, A. (2013). Immigration and Political Instability.
Kyklos, 66 (3). 317-341. https://www.oecd.org/development/pgd/46923664.pdf
Gindling,
T. H. (2009). South–South
Migration: The Impact of Nicaraguan Immigrants on Earnings, Inequality and
Poverty in Costa Rica. World Development, 37 (1). 116-126.
Guild, E.,
& Van Selm, J. (2005). International Immigration and Security:
Opportunities and Challenges. Routledge. London.
Helbling,
M., Bjerre, L., Römer F., & Zobel, M. (2017). Measuring Immigration
Policies: The IMPIC database. European Political Science, 16(1). 79-98.
Helbling,
M., & Leblang, D. (2019). Controlling Immigration? How Regulations affect
Migration Flows. European Journal of Political Research, 58. 248-269.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12279
Helbling,
M., & Meierrieks, D. (2020). Transnational Terrorism and Restrictive
Immigration Policies. Journal of Peace Research, 57(4). 564–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343319897105
Hollifield,
J. (1992). Immigrants, Markets and States: The political Economy of Postwar
Europe. Harvard University Press.
Hollifield,
J., & Wong. T. (2013). International Migration: Cause or Consequence of
Political Change? Migration and Citizenship: Newsletter of American Political
Science Association Organized Section on Migration and Citizenship, 1(1). 3–9.
Raposo, V., & Violante, T. (2021). Access to
Health Care by Migrants with Precarious Status During a Health Crisis: Some
Insights from Portugal. Hum Rights Rev, 22. 459–482.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-021-00621-5
Ruist, J.
(2015). The Fiscal Cost of Refugee Immigration: The Example of Sweden.
Population and Development Review, 41 (4). 567-581.
Sasnal, P.
(2018). Domesticating the Giant: The Global Governance of Migration,
International Institutions and Global Governance Program.
https://www.cfr.org/report/domesticating-giant-global-governance-migration#chapter-title-0-3
Schultz,
C., Lutz, P., & Simon, S. (2021). Explaining the Immigration Policy Mix:
Countries' Relative Openness to Asylum and Labour Migration. European Journal of
Political Research, 60. 763-784. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12422
Stefanescu, D. (2020). Partnerships for Mobility at
the Crossroads: Lessons Learnt From 18 Months of Implementation of EU Pilot
Projects on Legal Migration, International Center for Migration Policy
Development.
International
Migration Policies: Data Booklet, United Nations, Department of Economic and
Social Affairs, Population Division.
World
Migration Report 2022. International Organization for Migration (IOM). Geneva.
Who's who:
Definitions. (2016). Refugee Council London. England.
Article Information
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF GOVERNMENT CONTROLS ON IMMIGRATION
Authors: DR. COOSHALLE WILSON
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/04/06
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.