The term migration can be defined as ‘the movement of large numbers of people, birds, or animals from one place to another’ (Oxford University Press, 2021). In order to effectively answer the question, ‘should migration be banned?’ we must take into account economic, environmental, and ethical factors. Migration can vary in scale; however, this essay will discuss international migration, and the positive and negative effects it can have on a national and international scale. International migration can be defined as, ‘the movement of persons away from their place of usual residence and across an international border to a country of which they are not nationals’ (IOM, 2021). International migration can be dictated by a number of push and pull factors, including conflict, high unemployment rates and education, which can in turn influence the economy and environmental condition of both their host country and country of origin.
Migration is a one of the key contributors to the global economy, having provided approximately 6.7 trillion USD (9.4% of global GDP) in 2015 alone (McKinsey&Company, 2016). Initially, this appears to be a positive factor, however migration can have both a direct and indirect impact on the economy of a country. Turkey is one of the most significant host countries for refugees and asylum seekers globally, currently holding roughly 4 million displaced migrants. The majority of these refugees originate from countries such as Afghanistan and Syria, almost half of which live below the poverty line (Luxner, 2020), thus are travelling to Turkey in the hopes of increasing their income and providing remittances for any family in their country of origin. Whilst this is an important factor, the number of refugees arriving in Turkey each year causes significant strain on the national economy, as money is required in the funding of refugee camps and in providing jobs and housing for the migrant population. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has already intervened to help aid the country in assisting displaced refugees. However, the exponential increase in the national population means that large amounts of money that are normally required to be spent on public services are having to be spent elsewhere. Since the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011, Turkey has spent approximately 10 billion USD on accommodating the influx of refugees (Devranoglu, 2016) and providing camps and services. From an ethical point of view, this expenditure seems to be the moral thing to do. However, from an economical sense we could argue that Turkey’s funding and assistance for refugees has ultimately hindered its national development. The continuous influx of people arriving in the country has meant that competition for low-skilled jobs has risen drastically over the years, causing unemployment rates to increase from 8.8% in 2011 to 13.5% in 2019 (World Bank, 2019). The increase in unemployment rates in Turkey is still rising, suggesting that migration to Turkey is having long-term effects alongside slowing down the countries rate of development. By banning migration, EDCs such as Turkey and other key host countries would no longer experience strain on their economies, allowing them to resume development and the improvement of their economies.
In contrast to this, migration can also have a significantly positive impact on a country’s economy in the form of remittances. One of the key drivers for migration is to find work in order to send money back to their country of origin for their friends or, more commonly, their family. Many migrant families are heavily reliant on remittances, in 2013 a total of 413 billion USD worth of remittances were sent globally, three times the amount of development aid provided in the same year (World Bank, 2013). Typically, countries that experience more conflict and political instability, such as The Gambia and Syria, are more reliant on remittances as a lifeline. Remittances can help a country’s economy in a number of small-scale and large-scale ways, including helping to reduce poverty in an area. From 1995-2005, the rate of poverty decreased in Nepal from 42% to 31% through the help of incoming remittances (Khanal, 2012). This meant that a smaller amount of money was being spent on healthcare, as levels of poverty decreased and could be used more effectively on boosting the development of the country, in the form of funding other services such as education, improving national literacy rates. In addition to helping to reduce poverty in a country, remittances can provide incentives for economic activity and development. In India, remittances have been proven to positively influence a number of public sectors, such as education and healthcare, having received a total of 79 billion USD in 2018; helping to stimulate the country’s economy (CompareRemit, 2019). By banning migration, the amount of remittances being sent to low-income developing countries (LIDCs) would come to a standstill. Over time this would cause poverty in countries such as Nepal and India to increase again, which could cause strain on their national healthcare systems in response to poorer living conditions and subsequently poorer hygiene in those areas. However, you could argue that by having a more active healthcare system in a country, this would provide a new source of economic stimulation and contribution. On the contrary, the banning would nonetheless lower the country’s Human Development Index (HDI) and hinder development on a national scale.
From an environmental point of view, migration is a significant global problem. Mass migration can have a weighty negative impact on the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions of a country, in addition to the emissions made from the migration journey itself. The scale of the impact is heavily reliant on the size and concentration of migrants arriving in a country. However, from 1991-2009 UK GHG emissions rose by approximately 190 million tonnes; partially as a result of net migration. Almost 80% of total UK GHG emissions were carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, transport accounting for 27% of total emissions in 2019 (Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, 2021). The UK is already one of the most densely populated countries in Europe, and the continuous influx of migrants is projected to increase the UK population by 7 million by 2033. This will increase the UK’s GHG emissions to roughly 515 million tonnes by the same year, worsening an already substandard condition (MigrationWatchUK, 2010). This will cause an increasing strain on the UK economy, as it must mitigate further repercussions through public and economic expenditure. In addition, this influx would significantly contribute to the nation’s overpopulation problem and the nearing of the global climate tipping point. Another concern about overpopulation arising from migration to advanced countries (ACs) is the topic of climate refugees. In 2008 there was an estimated 24 million people displaced by climate change related weather events, such as hurricanes and floods, and is estimated to rise to 143 million people by 2050 (McDonnell, 2018). These refugees are typically displaced to countries such as France and the UK, which currently aren’t facing imminent threat from climate change. However, in the future, rising sea levels as a result of melting ice sheets in the Arctic and Greenland could pose a threat to low-lying regions. In the UK, the south and east coasts could become more prone to flooding, meaning people living there will be forced to move. By banning migration overpopulation could be decreased, and these long-term effects slowed, preventing host countries and ACs becoming a source of climate refugees. However, you could argue that the effects of sea levels rising result from too many factors for the banning of migration to have a significant impact, thus illegalising it would have little to no effect. In addition to this many climatologists believe that, to an extent, climate change is currently irreversible. This suggests that the banning of migration ultimately won’t have any influence on the rate of climate change and would be a superficial decision to make.
The ethics of migration has been a long withstanding discussion concerning the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. Areas of conflict commonly occur between the human instinct for hospitality vs wanting to protect one’s own country in terms of the economy and native culture. Professor Melissa Lane writes in a paper on the ethics of migration: “Historically the movement of peoples has been viewed as an economic and legal issue, rather than an ethical consideration,” (Lane, 2017) suggesting that the debate around migration has been centred around practicality rather than ethics. What is described as a ‘universal right to hospitality’ relates to the topic of cosmopolitanism as discussed by philosopher Seyla Benhabib (Bravo, 2015). Cosmopolitanism suggests that all people are united in the same community, and we must put aside our different beliefs and therefore provide hospitality for any refugees or asylum seekers that require it. By banning migration, the mutual relationship between the people of the global population would be broken, creating global divisions and slowing down the process of globalisation. Migration is an important contributing factor to globalisation in the sense that it allows different cultures and traditions to be spread worldwide. However, this could be seen as a negative factor as migration can lead to time-space compression, in which the distinction between different cultures and the countries in which they originate can become blurred. Despite this, migration still succeeds in strengthening global connections, and ultimately denying hospitality for a migrant contradicts the idea of the ‘universal right to hospitality’ and can be considered as highly unethical. In this sense, migration should not be banned, as it would act as a denial of the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. However, the relative danger of many migration routes provides a contradicting viewpoint. Roughly 3,000-4,000 migrants die per year on global migratory routes (Varrella, 2021), many of which as a result of illegal migration, typically involving more dangerous migration routes. Arguably, it is unethical to allow these migrants to participate in these life-risking journeys, so by banning migration this theoretically would stop happening. However, there is then the argument that, should migration be banned, illegal migration would become a more favoured option for people seeking to travel elsewhere. This means that the amount of people put at risk as a result of dangerous migration routes would increase, fundamentally meaning that banning migration would have a more regressive than advantageous impact.
The question ‘should migration be banned?’ is a complex one and has many factors that indicate stances of both for and against. From an economical and environmental viewpoint, migration has significant short-term negative impacts through the causation of strain on national economies and the weighty contributions to national GHG emissions. This can in turn create long-term effects in the form of the hinderance of a country’s development and contribution to climate change. The topic of climate change has been an enduring issue, and whilst migratory activity certainly contributes largely to the issue, climate change arguably results from too many factors for the banning of migration to have a significant impact. From looking at the negative effects of migration, the logical solution would be to ban migration globally to prevent these short-term and long-term effects, however migration can also present many positive influences and opportunities. In contrast to its possible negative impact on a country’s economy, it can also provide a catalyst in order to boost economic activity, which can subsequently stimulate national development, as opposed to hindering it. The ethics of migration does not necessarily propose any specific negative or positive impacts. However, from looking at cosmopolitanism and the ‘universal right to hospitality’, we can infer that banning migration is both morally wrong, and could promote illicit activity such as illegal migration, consequently putting more migrants at risk than there already are. From this we can conclude that migration should not in fact be banned, as its current effects can be largely positive in terms of the economy. Banning it would be substantially unethical as it could force individuals to remain in a conflicted location or to partake in illegal migration, most likely putting their life at significant risk.
Worked Cited
Bravo, K., 2015. Do refugees have a ‘right’ to hospitality?. [Online]
Available at: https://theconversation.com/do-refugees-have-a-right-to-hospitality-47629
CompareRemit, 2019. Inward Remittances to Rescue Flagging Indian Economy. [Online]
Available at: https://www.compareremit.com/money-transfer-guide/inward-remittances-to-rescue-flagging-indian-economy/
Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, 2021. Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics: 1990 to 2019. [Online]
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/final-uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-national-statistics-1990-to-2019
Devranoglu, N., 2016. Fridges and flour: Syrian refugees boost Turkish economy. [Online]
Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-turkey-economy-idUSKCN0VS1XR
IOM, 2021. Key Migration Terms. [Online]
Available at: https://www.iom.int/key-migration-terms
Khanal, P., 2012. Trends and Scenario of Poverty in Nepal. [Online]
Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/211605849.pdf
Lane, M., 2017. Philosophical Perspectives on States and Immigration. [Online]
Available at: https://liberal-international.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/lane_migration.pdf
Luxner, L., 2020. Turkey offers blueprint for future migrant crises. [Online]
Available at: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/turkey-offers-blueprint-for-future-migrant-crises/
McDonnell, T., 2018. The Refugees The World Barely Pays Attention To. [Online]
Available at: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/06/20/621782275/the-refugees-that-the-world-barely-pays-attention-to?t=1616597360216
McKinsey&Company, 2016. Global Migration’s Impact and Opportunity. s.l.:s.n.
McKinsey&Company, 2016. Global Migration’s Impact and Opportunity. [Online]
Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Public%20and%20Social%20Sector/Our%20Insights/Global%20migrations%20impact%20and%20opportunity/MGI-People-on-the-Move-In-brief-December-2016.pdf
MigrationWatchUK, 2010. Environmental impact of immigration. [Online]
Available at: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/215/environmental-impact-of-immigration#:~:text=Over%20the25%20year%20period%20from,by%20almost%20515%20million%20tonnes
Oxford University Press, 2021. Definition of migration noun from the Oxford Advanced American Dictionary. [Online]
Available at: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/migration#:~:text=%2Fma%C9%AA%CB%88%C9%A1re%C9%AA%CA%83n%2F,the%20migration%20routes%20of%20birds
Varrella, S., 2021. Number of recorded deaths of migrants in the Mediterranean Sea from 2014 to 2021. [Online]
Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1082077/deaths-of-migrants-in-the-mediterranean-sea/
World Bank, 2013. Migrants from developing countries to send home $414 billion in earnings in 2013. [Online]
Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/10/02/Migrants-from-developing-countries-to-send-home-414-billion-in-earnings-in-2013
World Bank, 2019. Turkey Unemployment Rate 1991-2021. [Online]
Available at: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/TUR/turkey/unemployment-rate
