Mandylion
Mar 28, 2004, 09:22
This is an issue that impacts up all in one way or another. Even if we never go abroad and become migrants ourselves, people coming into our countries to work and live will still have great impacts on our economies, politics, and cultural landscapes.
Recently the BBC, in usual fine style, has posted a wonderful jumping off point for further investogation. It covers a full range of issues from personal stories, historical background, scholarly debate, and a public forum. You can take a look for yourself here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/special/migration/)
Some excerpts :
International migration affects every country and is now at the centre of a growing debate. About 3% (175 million people) of the world's population live outside their country of birth.
Western governments are often under pressure to restrict the entry of migrants. Developing countries find themselves losing highly-skilled professionals while at the same time receiving important revenues from emigrants.
One opinion on the issue
The movement of people across borders is essential in today's globalised world. International business depends on an international labour force, and the ability of people to move around the world with ease.
Most developed countries face declining birth rates and ageing populations, which can be mitigated by migration. Remittances earned abroad are the principal support to the economies of many developing countries.
But much of migration today is unregulated. There are not enough legal channels open for those who want to migrate and whose labour may be needed.
The other side
Borders are essential to nationhood. They are the line between "us" and "them". Without 'them' there can be no 'us', precluding the possibility of social solidarity.
Aristotle wrote that each virtue has two corresponding vices, one marked by an excess of the characteristic related to the that virtue, the other by an insufficiency.
Denunciations of xenophobia or chauvinism are appropriately widespread, but an open borders policy is a function of the other vice, insufficient national feeling.
Recently the BBC, in usual fine style, has posted a wonderful jumping off point for further investogation. It covers a full range of issues from personal stories, historical background, scholarly debate, and a public forum. You can take a look for yourself here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/special/migration/)
Some excerpts :
International migration affects every country and is now at the centre of a growing debate. About 3% (175 million people) of the world's population live outside their country of birth.
Western governments are often under pressure to restrict the entry of migrants. Developing countries find themselves losing highly-skilled professionals while at the same time receiving important revenues from emigrants.
One opinion on the issue
The movement of people across borders is essential in today's globalised world. International business depends on an international labour force, and the ability of people to move around the world with ease.
Most developed countries face declining birth rates and ageing populations, which can be mitigated by migration. Remittances earned abroad are the principal support to the economies of many developing countries.
But much of migration today is unregulated. There are not enough legal channels open for those who want to migrate and whose labour may be needed.
The other side
Borders are essential to nationhood. They are the line between "us" and "them". Without 'them' there can be no 'us', precluding the possibility of social solidarity.
Aristotle wrote that each virtue has two corresponding vices, one marked by an excess of the characteristic related to the that virtue, the other by an insufficiency.
Denunciations of xenophobia or chauvinism are appropriately widespread, but an open borders policy is a function of the other vice, insufficient national feeling.