Forced Migration in the 21st Century - Essay Example

Introduction Migration of individuals basically means that people or groups of people move from their home country to another country, and there aremany reasons why this would occur. Forced migration means that the person is forced out of his or her home country because of persecution or war. The person may either seek refuge in a different country, which means that he or she becomes a refugee. The person may, alternatively, seek refuge in the same country, which makes the person an internally displaced person. These individuals have special challenges in the 21st Century, as there is an influx of migrants who are voluntary and are looking for better economic opportunity. This presents a challenge, as countries who are absorbing an influx of voluntary migrants may not have enough economic opportunities for the forced migrants. Additionally, because the same conditions exist for the voluntary and the forced migrants, forced migrants may have difficult attaining refugee status, which means that they might not be accepted by the receiving country. Content A forced migrant is somebody who is forced to leave their home to seek refuge because of the possibility of being persecuted in their home country (Davenport et al., 2003). They may either seek refuge inside the borders of their own country, in which case they are internally displaced or in another country, in which case they are refugees (Castles, 2003, p. 5). The first kind of migration examined will be that of forced migration. There are many types of forced migrants. Refugees is one type, and these are people who have been displaced because of war in their home country (Castles, 2003, p. 5). They can be contrasted with 殿sylum seekers,in that every country has the right to define what constitutes a refugee, and every government must grant a person the status of refugee. Therefore, an individual is granted the status of 殿sylum seekeruntil the government grants them the status of 途efugee(Castles, 2003, p. 7). Refugees may also refer to persons who leave their home country for fear of persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality or membership of a particular social group or political opinion (Davenport et al., 2003, p. 28). While the refugees are individuals who seek asylum from a country other than their home country, internally displaced migrants are slightly different, according to Adelman (2001). Adelman (2001) states that the internally displaced also leave their homes because of fear of persecution, like refugees, but, unlike refugees, the internally displaced stay within the countrys borders (Adelman, 2001). Ibanez & Velez (2008) state that individuals even in countries with widespread violence may seek asylum either as a refugee or an internally displaced, while others choose to stay. The reason for this is because, even in countries where there is widespread conflict, some groups are targeted for violence and others are not. The targeted group may choose to leave, while the non-targeted group may stay (Ibanez & Velez, 2008, p. 662). Indeed, people in war-torn countries have a right to stay in their homeland, which means that 都afe zonesmust be created for the people who remain. Refugee camps are an example of this (Hyndman, 1999, p. 107). While forced migration is something that is necessary, in that people in war-torn countries often cannot stay because they would be tortured, killed, raped or all of the above, these migrations are often a problem for the receiving country. Dwyer states that the problems presented includes a burden on the receiving countrys welfare system, which has led some countries to exclude migrants from welfare benefits, or reduce the welfare rights that they might enjoy (Dwyer, p. 3). The individuals who are forced to migrate may face challenges related to the competition that they may experience due to a lack of jobs in the target country, and the fact that a target country might not be able absorb them due to individuals who migrate to the country by choice. One of the reasons for choice migration, according to Portes & Borocz (1989), is known as the 菟ush pull.In a nutshell, in impoverished areas, people are pushed out because of harsh conditions in the home country, and pulled forward by favorable conditions in the target country. Some examples of 菟ushfactors include economic, social and political hardships. Some examples of 菟ullfactors include more economic opportunity and the opportunity to be free (Portes & Borocz, 1989, p. 607). This is closely related to neo-classical theory. According to this theory, migration patterns occur when there are geographic differences in the supply and demand for labor (Castles, 2002, p. 1149). When one country has a demand for labor and a lot of capital, while another country has an oversupply of labor and limited capital, then individuals will migrate from the country with the oversupply of labor to the country with the demand for labor, in search of a better wage (Massey, 2001, p. 433). According to Massey et al. (2001), what this result in is an equilibrium of sorts. This is because the countries where people are leaving will have less oversupply of labor, and the country to where people are moving will have less demand for labor, therefore the wage gap of the two countries will somewhat be diminished. This will also result in higher wages in the poor country, and lower wages in the richer country (Massey et al., 2001, p. 433). Rystad (1992) states that migration patterns from poor countries to rich is one way that the richer countries solve their labor demand problem (Rystad, 1992, p. 1184). This is a concern for the forced migrant, particularly when the forced migrant is migrating to a particularly wealthy country, such as the United States. This is because these countries have to absorb immigrants from different countries. The neo-classical theory states that the wages and the job opportunities will go down as more immigrants come to the country in search of better economic opportunities. The forced migrant may therefore have difficulty finding economic opportunities in the receiving country. This is of particular concern to the individuals who are forced from their home, when they enjoyed a good standard of living in their country of origin. An example of this would be a farmer in Colombia who is forced from his home because of the destruction of illicit crops that displaced him from his home. Because the presence of illicit crops signifies combat zones in this country, regional violence usually follows the eradication, and the farmer is forced out as his farm is now in the middle of a war zone (Ibanez & Velez, 2007, p. 662). This farmer enjoys a certain standard of living, as he has assets, a home and a family to feed. If he migrates to a country that is already absorbing migrants who are searching for better economic opportunities, he might not be able to find a job in the new country, particularly if the new country is in the middle of a recession, as is currently the case. And, if he finds a job in this country, the wages will be depressed because the new immigrants are equalizing the possible labor shortage. Therefore, the farmer might not be able to find the same standard of living in the target country then he did in the country of origin. Forced migrants may also have problems with attaining refugee status within the receiving country, and an analysis by Castles (2003) will explain why this would be so. Castles explains that forced migration and economic migration, which would be voluntary migration, have become blurred because social inequality in the sending countries is what leads to conflict in these countries. This social inequality is also the reason why people voluntarily leave their homes. Since social inequality leads to failed economic policies, weak states, human rights abuses and predatory ruling cliques, it leads to the notion that migrants have many reasons for mobility. Because the migrants from the sending countries have differing motivations for leaving, according to Castles, this leads to an 殿sylum-migration nexus,and it makes it 妬mpossible to completely separate economic and human rights motivations(Castles, 2003, p. 4). Since the bureaucracies of the receiving countries have 渡eat categoriesfor migrants individuals who are migrating for human rights reasons are refugees and have special status, while migrants who are migrating for economic reasons are voluntary, therefore are not accorded this special status this blurred distinction is harmful to the forced migrants, as they may not be accepted in the receiving country. Conclusion Forced migrants are people who are displaced because of violence and persecution in their home land. Unfortunately, because of the global nature of the world, and the fact that migration has become commonplace, forced migrants may find themselves in conditions that are detrimental. They might not be able to find a job in the receiving country, and, if they do, they might not be able to make enough of a living to support their family. This is because of the influx of voluntary immigrants. Furthermore, because the people voluntarily leave countries for economic reasons, and the countries that send these voluntary immigrants have social instability that causes forced migration, forced migrants may have problems being accepted into the receiving country. Sources Used Adelman, H. (2001) From refugees and forced migration: The UNHCR and human security. Available at: http://pi.library.yorku.ca/dspace/bitstream/handle/ 10315/6726/refugeestoforcedmigration.pdf Castles, S. (2002) Migration and community formation under conditions of globalization. IMR, 36.4: 1143-1168. Castles, S. (2003) Towards a sociology of forced migration and social transformation. Sociology, 77.1: 13-34. Davenport, C. (2003) Sometimes you just have to leave: Domestic threats and forced migration, 1964-1989. International Interaction, 29: 27-55. de Haas, H. (2009) Mobility and human development. Available at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/19176/ Dwyer, P. (2005) Governance, forced migration and welfare. Social Policy and Administration, 39.6: 622-639. Hyndman, J. (1999) The post cold war geography of forced migration in Kenya and Somalia. Professional Geographer, 31.1: 104-114. Ibanez, A. & Velez, C. (2007) Civil conflict and forced migration: The micro determinants and welfare losses of displacement in Colombia. World Development, 36.4: 659-676. Massey, D., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A. & Taylor, E. (1993) Theories of international migration: A review and appraisal. Population and Development Review, 19.3: 431-466. Portes, A. & Borocz, J. (1989) Contemporary immigration: Theoretical perspectives on its determinants and modes of incorporation. International Migration Review, 23.3: 606-630. Rystad, G. (1992) Immigration history and the future of international magazine. International Migration Review, 26.4: 1168-1199. Read More