International Migrants Day
On December 18th, 1990, the UN General Assembly passed a Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and their family members. Asian nations whose citizens worked in other countries as migrants lobbied for the date to be recognized as International Migrants Day, and in 2000 it was finally designated as such by the UN.
It emphasizes and publicizes the contribution of roughly 272 million migrant workers worldwide, stressing their human rights and campaigns for their fundamental freedoms and for their protection. Its concern was for migrants who leave their homes temporarily to work in other countries, usually to send remittances home to support their dependents. People from countries such as Thailand and the Philippines go to work in rich countries, such as those in the Middle East, and concerns have been raised at times as to whether some of them are being treated fairly. Migrants Day is thus a way of drawing attention to possible abuses, and encouraging employers to follow a code of conduct.
The Day was not primarily concerned with the migrants who have recently occupied headlines by seeking permanent homes in other countries, either as refugees from civil wars or tyranny, or those seeing to escape poverty in their own countries and to make a new home in a richer country that offers greater economic opportunity.
The recipient countries have faced a problem where their native population has, correctly or incorrectly, perceived the arriving migrants as a threat to their own economic well-being. Tensions have risen in several places, especially among relatively unskilled workers, since the migrants themselves are often themselves initially lacking in skills, and are therefore seen as competition. This has resulted in several European countries witnessing a rise in anti-immigrant feeling, and the emergence of populist parties based on an anti-immigrant message.
There were allegations that the 2016 Brexit vote in the UK took the decision to leave the EU because of resistance to the freedom of movement that membership of it required. Polls taken at the time did not really bear this out, in that roughly 50 percent cited sovereignty as their reason for voting Leave, as compared to only about 33 percent citing immigration. A few commentators suggested, however, that ‘sovereignty’ might have been for some a code word for opposition to immigration.
The key seems to be control. If people think their nation is in control of immigration, hostility to immigrants declines quite sharply. The opposition comes when people feel helpless and unable to exercise any say in the matter. The popularity of a points-based system of immigration enjoys support because it gives the destination country the feeling that it is in control of the process and can choose, to some extent, the type of immigrants it wishes to admit.
If the UK does adopt such a policy, as seems likely, it may or may not reduce the total numbers coming in, but it will probably reduce opposition to immigration, and enable the immigrants who do come to be accepted and to integrate more readily, and to make a valuable contribution to the economic life of the nation.