[1010G]Economist阅读帖-By橘子汁

橘子汁UID: 2672285

原帖：
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1081436-1-2.html


Economics地址：
http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/153


坚持坚持~

International Migration


About this debate

A dramatic rise in international migration, both legal and illegal, means at least 200m people now live abroad. European countries that were long sources of emigration are importing foreign labour and the number of foreigners born in America has reached record levels(创纪录的水平). Migrants provide flexible labour, but also strain(使紧张，重负) welfare and local cultures; they send home over $300 billion annually, but also represent a brain drain(人才流失) from poorer countries. Given the global economic slowdown and xenophobia, should governments now impose(推行，采用(not 强加)) more restrictions? Should would-be migrants be seeking opportunities at home?

橘子汁UID: 2672285

Background Reading

Remittances
Big, but dipping(decreasing)
Remittances held up well in 2008, but this year will be much worse


LAST year was a terrible one for private financial flows to the poor and emerging(in Chinese新兴) economies. They collapsed from $1.16 trillion in 2007 to $707 billion as panicky(恐慌的) rich-world investors deserted emerging- and developing-country equity(股本；资产净值) and debt markets last year and as banks became increasingly reluctant to lend across borders(跨国界). But remittances from migrant workers proved to be a much more stable source of funds for the poor. Although many feared that such remittances would collapse too, the World Bank's figures show that they held up well, growing by an impressive 15% in the year. The bank estimates that migrant workers sent $328 billion home to their families in 2008. India is the largest individual recipient, hauling in $52 billion (up from $27 billion). Chinese workers sent home $40 billion, up from some $26 billion in 2007.
Dilip Ratha, the World Bank's main expert on remittances, says wryly(挖苦地) that migrants have been “thrust into the role of a sort of lender of last resort” by developing countries facing shortages of hard currency
(strong currency—globally traded currency). This is a particularly pressing for(敦促) small economies which depend disproportionately on money from emigrants. In 2007 remittances amounted to 46% of GDP in Tajikistan, 34% in Moldova, and 28% in Lesotho. They were between a fifth and a quarter of GDP for Honduras, Jordan, Samoa and Lebanon.
Policymakers in such countries hope that remittances will continue to hold up this year. Optimists argue that remittances are less affected by economic conditions in the recipient countries than other kinds of financial flows, because they are sent primarily to support people's families rather than with an eye on(着眼于，留意) returns.
There is some truth to this: remittances typically(通常) fall less in response to economic downturns(经济衰退) in the receiving country than investment flows do. But returns do matter. For example, the combination of a weak rupee and higher interest rates(利率) in India compared with rich countries, may go a long way towards(有助于) explaining last year’s vastly increased flow of remittances from Indians abroad.
However, the global nature of the economic crisis, as well as the fact that countries where migrants work have been hit harder, in most cases, than the countries they come from, cast doubt(产生怀疑) on the prospects for the continued resilience of remittances. In Latin America and the Caribbean, most migrants send money back from the United States, the first big economy to go into recession(经济衰退). Remittances to the region grew by only 2% in 2008, the worst of any region. Data for the first half of this year show that remittances to Guatemala, El Salvador, and Mexico all fell by at least 10% compared with the same period last year.
So it may only be a matter of time before the current global downturn also slows the flow of remittances. If, for example, Russia’s economy were to shrink by 6.5% this year, as the IMF has estimated, it seems likely that some of the many migrant workers from Tajikistan would lose their jobs. As flows of remittances to Tajikistan, mostly from Russia, make up some 46% of the country’s GDP, the Tajik economy as a whole would suffer. The bank now expects remittances worldwide to decline by at least 7%, and possibly by as much as 10%, this year.
As more migrants lose their jobs, their ability to keep sending money home will be severely restricted. But rising unemployment and a shallow recovery in the rich world may also encourage more rich countries to enact or expand restrictive immigration policies, as many have already begun doing. The OECD has documented (to equip with exact references to authoritative supporting information) instances of everything from reductions in ceilings (an upper usually prescribed limit) on the number of migrants to tougher norms to policies that explicitly aim to send migrants back where they came from. More policies like these could cause remittances to fall a lot more than even in the bank's most pessimistic projections (an estimate of future possibilities based on a current trend).

橘子汁UID: 2672285

Limiting migration
People protectionism
Rich countries respond to the economic downturn by trying to limit the flow of migrants

IN THE boom years, migrants picked fruit in southern California's orange groves(丛林), worked on construction sites in Spain and Ireland, designed software in Silicon Valley and toiled(辛勤工作) in factories all over the rich world. Many will continue to do so, despite the economic downturn. But as unemployment rises in most rich countries, attitudes towards migrants are hardening(变强硬).
Attacks on Romanians in Northern Ireland and on Indian students in Australia are the most visible and disturbing manifestations(表现) of growing xenophobia. In response, many governments are also tightening their migration policies, according to a
report
published by the OECD on Tuesday June 30th. Governments are reducing quotas for foreign workers and imposing tougher entry requirements on them in an effort to control the flow. Some are even paying existing migrants to go home.
Several countries have cut the numbers of people allowed to enter through official programmes. Spain let in 15,731 foreign recruits under its “contingente(依情况而定)” scheme in 2008, but slashed(削减) the quota to a tiny 901 this year. The Italian government has announced that no non-seasonal workers will be admitted in 2009, whereas 70,000 were officially admitted in 2008. South Korea welcomed 72,000 migrants under its Employment Permit Scheme last year, but this year's limit is set at 17,000. And Australia, which had earlier said that 133,500 skilled migrants could enter the country this year, has now lowered the limit to 108,100.
Many rich countries maintain lists of occupations for which there is a shortage of domestic workers, giving foreigners with the appropriate skills preferential(优惠的) treatment. Several countries have reduced the scope of such lists drastically(猛烈地，大幅地). In Spain, for example, the list issued in October 2008 had nearly a third less professions listed than the previous version.
Some countries have made it harder for employers to hire foreigners by making them jump through more hoops (应该是增加中间程序的意思) than before. In Britain, for example, employers hoping to hire certain kinds of skilled foreigners face tougher rules about where job advertisements must be placed. In America, the “Employ American Workers Act” attached to the fiscal stimulus bill(刺激方案), puts stricter conditions than before on any company that receives government bail-out (紧急援助) money and wants to hire skilled foreigners under the country's H-1B visa programme. As a result, some American banks and other financial-services firms have rescinded job offers to foreign-born graduates of American universities and postgraduate programmes. Some of those who have the paperwork allowing them to work are finding it harder than ever to renew their permits.
Some countries are getting creative in their attempts to reduce not just fresh flows of migrants, but also the stock of migrants already present, by encouraging people to go home. Some migrants to Spain from outside the EU, for example, became eligible in November last year for a portion of their Spanish benefits if they returned home and promised not to return for three years. The Czech government is promising to provide the air-fare and $704 to workers who have been laid off. About 1,100, mostly contract labourers from Mongolia, had accepted by the end of March.
Given that many more locals find themselves without jobs in the downturn, it may seem sensible to limit immigration. It is hardly surprising that Spain, where unemployment is 18%, is looking particularly hard for ways to stop migrant flows. But the OECD's analysis points to several problems with this. Lessons from the 1970s, when the recession that followed the oil-price spikes led Germany, France, and Belgium to clamp down(施压) on immigration, suggest that such anti-migrant rules can persist even when they have outlived their use.
In general, given the politics, it is much easier to tighten controls, as countries are doing now, than to loosen them when the economy starts growing again. There are also genuine shortages of workers in some professions, such as medicine and certain technical jobs such as engineering, which locals cannot easily and quickly retrain for. Clamping down on the total flow of migrants, therefore, risks making such shortages worse.
In addition, some measures to limit official migration, such as making it harder for temporary work-permit holders to renew their permission to stay, risk pushing people into staying on illegally. Paying someone to go back home for three years, for example, would be counterproductive if the economy rebounds by the end of 2010 and such workers are in demand once again. When the world economy emerges from the doldrums, some countries that have passed legislation restricting the ability of local companies to hire foreigners may find themselves lacking the flexibility that migrants bring. Migrant workers, for example, accounted for over two-fifths of employment growth between 2003 and 2007 in Austria, Denmark, Italy and Spain, and 71% in the same period in Britain.

橘子汁UID: 2672285

Cracking down (镇压，制裁) on illegal immigration
The Missouri way

A powerful precedent(先例，范例) is set

VALLEY PARK, a small suburb of St Louis perched (坐落，位于) on the banks of the Meramec river, seems an odd place for a fight over illegal immigration. Although there are surely some illegals about, as there are in most parts of America, there is no visible community of outsiders(外来人) or labour-intensive industries to lure them. But since 2006, when Valley Park passed legislation that outlawed (认定…为不合法) the hiring of illegal aliens or renting to them, the battle has
raged. On June 5th the federal court of appeals
upheld (支持) the town’s ban on hiring illegal immigrants. This has opened the door to the enactment of similar laws across the country.
Valley Park’s ban on renting to illegals had earlier been struck down by a lower court, but the fight continued over hiring. A local apartment-owner who uses contractors (合同工) for repair work objected to being required to verify the citizenship status of her workers. But the appeals court has now ruled that the city is not barred from imposing employment regulations that go beyond existing federal rules.
A similar case, this one from Hazelton, Pennsylvania, is still pending before another federal appeals court. Unlike Valley Park, Hazelton experienced an obvious jump in illegal aliens, who were drawn to the area by its meat-processing(肉类加工) factories. The city cited increases in crime rates, more gang activity, higher spending on bilingual education at its public schools and on health care, and various other expenses, with no offsetting rise in tax revenues. It blamed the federal government’s lax(松懈的) enforcement of its own immigration laws for its fiscal burden. Hazelton has led the way in the local ordinance movement and has been in one court or another most of the time since 2006.
A number of towns have already copied Hazelton and Valley Park, and so too has the state of Arizona, which has established its own citizenship-verification requirements. Voters in Fremont, Nebraska, recently passed a Hazelton-type law by ballot initiative; it is currently under review in state courts. Kris Kobach of the University of Missouri-Kansas City law school has advised Valley Park, Hazelton and a number of other cities on how they can impose their own requirements on illegal aliens while still remaining within the federal law. It looks as though his job is now going to be a lot easier.

橘子汁UID: 2672285

Immigration reform
All together now
Could this be the year for immigration reform?

AMERICA receives more immigrants than any other country. But its system for dealing with them is a model of
dysfunctionality, with 11.9m illegally present in 2008, up 42% since 2000. Past efforts at reform have failed dismally. In 2006 protesters filled city streets after the House of Representatives(众议院) passed a bill(法案) making illegal immigration a felony; but the proposal failed to pass muster(to be accepted as satisfactory) in the Senate(参议院). The Senate’s own effort in 2007 fared(进展) even worse. Police clashed with(交锋，冲突) a crowd in Los Angeles. Opponents of reform barraged senators with so many calls that their phone system crashed. The Senate’s bill, designed to please all sides, ended up pleasing no one.
Now Washington may try again. With a wretched(不幸的，悲惨的) economy and long to-do
list, it hardly seems an opportune moment. Yet on April 14th America’s two biggest unions, including one that helped block reform in 2007, unveiled a plan to push it forward. Luis Gutierrez, a congressman(国会议员，especially 众议员) from Chicago, has visited 17 cities to build momentum
for reform. A coalition of advocacy groups is planning an $18m campaign to make immigration a priority. Several big cities will hold rallies(rally, 集会) on May 1st.
The White House says only that Barack Obama will begin a debate later this year, but many reformers are giddy(激动得发狂). “We expect something in May,” Mr Gutierrez says hopefully. As The Economist
went to press on April 16th Mr Obama was due to arrive in Mexico, where the issue would undoubtedly surface (to come into public view) once more. The day before, he had named Alan Bersin as America’s first-ever “border tsar(沙皇)”.
Advocates contend(声称) that bringing immigrants’ shadow economy into the light will fatten tax rolls(税金), end the abuse of illegal workers, improve wages for all and spur economic growth. Though the details remain controversial, the outline for a sensible system is clear: a more tightly controlled border; a path towards legalizing (legalize) existing immigrants; a system for verifying the status of workers and punishing employers who
flout (SCORN) the rules; and a better way to admit temporary workers in future.
Historically, however, downturns have prompted Americans to shun foreigners, not welcome them. Competition for jobs is rising with unemployment. Conservatives(保守主义者) and populists(平民论者) remain combustible(easily excited). CNN’s Lou Dobbs has fumed(大怒) about an “amnesty call” from Washington. Lamar Smith, the senior(资深的) Republican(共和党人) on the House Judiciary Committee(众议院司法委员会), has declared: “No nation should force its citizens and legal workers to compete with illegal immigrants.”
Nevertheless this year’s attempt has at least a chance of success. The federal raid of a meatpacking plant in Iowa in 2008 exposed the worst side of America’s system, charging immigrants as serious criminals, separating families and upending a town. The Mexican side of the border has continued its descent into chaos. Patterns of settlement have shifted, leaving states such as Georgia and South Carolina to grapple with(努力应付) unexpected burgeoning immigrant populations. Neighbourhoods far from the border, including some suburbs of Washington, DC, have been transformed by immigrants. These changes have given the debate over immigration a new national context(背景), says Audrey Singer of the Brookings Institution, a think-tank(智囊团). Without guidance from the federal government, last year the states passed 206 laws and resolutions related to immigration, says the National Conference on State Legislatures.
The political winds have also shifted. In 2004 Latinos(拉丁人) supported John Kerry by 53% to 44%. In November they sided with Mr Obama 67% to 31%, helping him win important states such as Florida, New Mexico and Colorado. One study found that in 20 of 22 competitive congressional races, candidates favouring broad(广泛的) reform defeated hardliners(强硬派). Before 2008, says Frank Sharry of America’s Voice, which did the study, “everyone from Rahm Emanuel to Republican operatives thought that illegal immigration was one of those issues that helped Republicans.” In 2008 immigration helped mobilise(动员，股东) Latino voters for Democrats(民主党人). Among the general electorate(大众选区，选民), it was the incendiary(纵火的) issue that failed to incense(). Our YouGov poll(应该是民意调查) (see chart) shows opinion fairly evenly divided.
Just as important is labour’s apparent change from hindrance(阻碍) to help. In 2007 the AFL-CIO, which represents 10m workers, argued that plans to allow illegal immigrants to remain as guest workers would depress wages for their members. On April 14th the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, a coalition of seven unions representing 6m more, argued that reform would help American workers in the long run. The announcement should win some blue-collar Democrats to the reformers’ cause.
While healing one split(分歧，裂缝), the new alliance may reinforce(加强) another—with business. The AFL-CIO and Change to Win want a new commission(委员会) to align immigration more closely with the needs of the labour market. Congress now caps(restrict the number of 限额提供) visas for foreign workers, a clunky(clumsy in execution笨拙的) system that does not match supply too precisely with demand. Business has long bemoaned(悲叹，感叹) the limits on skilled immigrants in particular, who have founded 52% of Silicon Valley start-ups (fledgling business enterprises) according to the Kauffman Foundation, a Missouri-based think-tank. A new commission might move more nimbly than Congress. But business groups fear it could be just as political.
When Mr Obama may dip his toe in these choppy waters, let alone dive in, remains unclear. “The president has consistently said that he wants to start the discussion later this year,” says Nick Shapiro, a spokesman for the White House. “But the economy comes first.”

橘子汁UID: 2672285

Immigration and America
Seeking order on the border
Barack Obama appoints(任命) a new border tsar, but immigration reform will be slower coming

WILL Barack Obama’s administration seek to reform America’s broken immigration system soon? His predecessor(前任) tried hard, but failed dismally. With a wretched economy and long to-do list, it is not an opportune moment. Yet efforts are being made now to prepare the ground for later action. On Tuesday April 14th America’s two biggest trade unions unveiled a plan to push for reform. Luis Gutierrez, a congressman from Chicago, is touring the country calling for it. And a coalition of advocacy groups plans an $18m campaign in favour. Rallies are expected in several cities in the next couple of weeks.
The White House says only that Mr Obama will begin a debate later this year, but many reformers are pleased at the signs of early work. In the meantime, on Wednesday, Mr Obama was expected to name Alan Bersin as his new “border tsar”, charged with overseeing policy on illegal immigration and drug violence at the frontier(边境). On Thursday the president is due to visit Mexico, where the subjects of migration and the border are likely to arise once more.
Advocates of reform contend that bringing immigrants out of the shadow economy will fatten tax rolls, lessen(减少) abuse of illegal workers, improve wages for all and spur economic growth. Though the details remain controversial, an outline for a sensible system is clear: a path towards legalising immigrants; a more tightly controlled border; a system for verifying workers and punishing employers who flout the rules; and a better way to admit temporary workers.
Historically, however, downturns have prompted Americans to shun foreigners, not welcome them. Rates of immigration have apparently dropped in the past 18 months or so. Competition for jobs is rising with unemployment. Conservatives remain combustible. CNN’s Lou Dobbs is fuming about an “amnesty call” from Washington. Lamar Smith, the ranking Republican on the House judiciary committee, declares that: “No nation should force its citizens and legal workers to compete with illegal immigrants”.
Reform may not come quickly, but the demand for it is evident. Raids on meatpacking plants and other workplaces dominated by migrants have exposed the ugly side of America’s system: charging immigrants as serious criminals, separating families and upending businesses. The Mexican-American border continues its descent into chaos. Patterns of settlement have shifted, leaving states such as Georgia and South Carolina to grapple with burgeoning immigrant populations where there were historically none. Such changes have given the debate over immigration a new national context observes Audrey Singer of the Brookings Institution, a think-tank. Without guidance from Washington, in 2008 states passed 206 laws related to immigration, according to the National Conference on State Legislatures.
The political winds have also shifted. In 2004 Latinos supported John Kerry's bid for the presidency by 56%, compared with 40% for George Bush. In November they sided with Mr Obama 67% to 31%, helping him to win important states such as Florida, New Mexico and Colorado. In the past, says Frank Sharry of America’s Voice, a reform group, “everyone from Rahm Emanuel to Republican operatives thought that illegal immigration was one of those issues that helped Republicans.” But a study by America’s Voice found that in 20 of 22 competitive congressional races, candidates favouring broad reform defeated hardliners. It appears that general voters had lost interest in the issue, although Latinos were motivated to vote for the Democrats.
The attitudes of unions matter, too. Two years ago the AFL-CIO, which represents 11m workers, argued that plans to keep immigrants as guest workers would depress wages for their members. On Tuesday the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, which represents 6m, argued that reform would help American workers in the long run.
While healing one split, however, it may crack another. The AFL-CIO and Change to Win propose a new commission to better align legal immigration with the needs of the labour market. Congress now caps visas for foreign workers, a clunky system that does not match supply with demand. Business groups have long bemoaned the limits on skilled immigrants in particular, who have founded 52% of Silicon Valley start-ups, according to the Kauffman Foundation. A new commission might move more nimbly than Congress. There is also the risk, however, that it could be even more restrictive than the present system. “A commission sounds good on its face,” says Randy Johnson of the United States Chamber of Commerce, but “they become politicised”.






郁闷，这篇和上一篇内容很多是一摸一样的。。

橘子汁UID: 2672285

Economics focus
Give me your scientists…
Restricting the immigration of highly skilled workers will hurt America’s ability to innovate




JOE BIDEN, America’s new vice-president, is prone to gaffes. In 2006 it was the turn of some Americans of Asian descent to take offence at his comment about needing “a slight Indian accent” to go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts in Delaware. Mr Biden’s defence was that he was trying to compliment the immigrant group on its entrepreneurial zeal(热情).
Many Americans are less favourably disposed(对…有好感) towards immigrants. And rising unemployment is hardening attitudes. In the hubbub over the insertion(刊载) of “Buy American” provisions(条款，规定) into President Obama’s fiscal-stimulus package, the Grassley-Sanders amendment(修正案) was largely overlooked. This restricts the freedom of recipients of federal bail-out money to hire high-skilled foreign workers under the government’s H-1B visa programme. Some people were delighted at what they saw as a significant, if small, first step in cracking down on those who they fear crowd skilled American workers out of the workplace. But others contend that such restrictions could dull America’s edge in innovation, just when it is needed to help revive the economy.
Mr Obama says that part of the solution to America’s economic problems should come from its universities and research laboratories. Yet these institutions in America are now manned
disproportionately by immigrants, who made up 47% of scientists and engineers in America with PhDs, according to the 2000 census. Immigrants accounted for two-thirds of the net addition to America’s stock of such workers between 1995 and 2006. Their role in innovation may seem obvious: the more clever people there are, the more ideas are likely to flourish, especially if they can be commercialised. But although contemporary theories of growth emphasise the importance of ideas, they assign no special role to immigration. Economists have tended to think of innovation as driven by the demand for better goods, which generates a need for skilled innovators. People’s choices of career and education should respond to the labour market’s demands, encouraging more of them to become innovators if needed. But because career choices cannot be expected to adjust instantly, there might be scope(余地) for skilled immigrants to fill the gap.
Addressing these issues requires data on just how inventive immigrants are, a question that until recently was the province of educated guesswork. But William Kerr, an economist at Harvard Business School, used name-matching software to identify the ethnicity of each of the 8m scientists who had acquired an American patent since 1975. He found that the share of patents awarded to scientists born in America fell between 1975 and 2004. The share of all patents given to scientists of Chinese and Indian descent living in America more than tripled, from 4.1% in the second half of the 1970s to 13.9% in the years between 2000 and 2004. Nearly 40% of patents filed(归档) in 2005 by Intel, a silicon-chip maker, were for work done by people of Chinese or Indian origin. Some of these patents may have been awarded to American-born children of earlier migrants, but Mr Kerr reckons that most changes over time arise from fresh immigration.
What of the criticism that these workers are displacing native scientists who would have been just as inventive? To address this, Mr Kerr and William Lincoln, an economist at the University of Michigan, used data on how patents responded to periodic changes in the number of H-1B entrants. If immigrants were merely displacing natives, increases in the H-1B quota should not have led to increases in innovation. But Messrs Kerr and Lincoln found*
that when the federal government increased the number of people allowed in under the programme by 10%, total patenting increased by around 2% in the short run. This was driven mainly by more patenting by immigrant scientists. But even patenting by native scientists increased slightly, rather than decreasing as proponents of crowding out would have predicted. If anything, immigrants seemed to “crowd in” native innovation, perhaps because ideas feed off each other. Economists think of knowledge, unlike physical goods, as “non-rival”: use by one person does not necessarily preclude use by others.
…and your huddled mathematicians
But does all this emigration from the developing world harm the originating countries’ capacity for innovation? A new paper**
uses data on the patents cited by scientists working in India in their applications to America’s patent office. It finds that proximity(地理位置的临近) does matter: Indian patent applicants refer to research by people in India much more often than they cite work by those elsewhere. In that sense, having many scientists leave India does harm innovation there. But Indian researchers also refer to scientists of Indian origin in America more than very similar work by scientists with whom they do not share ethnic ties. So a scientific diaspora(流离) gives countries of origin a leg-up(援助) in terms of access to the latest research, mitigating some of the problems of a “brain drain”. And given that the same scientist is likely to be more productive in America than in a developing country because of better facilities and more resources, immigration may help overall innovation (some of the benefits of which may flow back to firms in poorer countries).
Over time, knowledge flows between countries, and innovations in one place may benefit people elsewhere. So in the long run it may not matter where research takes place. Nonetheless(尽管如此), innovation benefits from clusters(…的聚集). Until there are Silicon Valleys all over the place, the world (and not just America) would be better off if American firms could hire the best people regardless of where they come from.

橘子汁UID: 2672285

这篇太长了，分两天做的。



Global migration and the downturn
The people crunch((突发的)短缺)
The economic slump(不景气) is
battering migrants. For tens of millions of people working outside their homelands, life is becoming much more precarious(不稳定的)




WORKERS waiting at airports: some flying off to seek modest fortunes, others returning to poor homelands whose main export is people. These images of the global labour market in the early 21st century are starting to fade as economic times get harder, both in countries that take in migrants and (partly as a result) in countries that send them out.

Consider, for example, the changing fate of the “Kigezi kids”, a group of young workers, mostly graduates, who gather each month to gossip about life in London. They hail from(来自于) southern Uganda—an area of green hills and endemic poverty—and their meetings are usually pleasant chats over a barbecue, when they compare property portfolios(房地产投资组合?) and community projects back in Africa.
Now, the mood is darkening. Several work in London’s troubled financial-services sector. Six months ago their prospects seemed secure, but the eruption of the worst financial crisis since the 1930s has spread anxiety. One woman, after four years of study and employment, is poised to(做好准备) go home. Another is distraught after an offer of a permanent job was withdrawn. More recent arrivals moan that it is tough to find work, even the menial sort. Daily living
grows harder: some split the cost of housing, others walk to save on bus fares.
All are startled by the recent slide in the value of the pound. The Kigezi kids are struggling to help relatives in Uganda who, battered by high prices of rice and maize flour(玉米粉), send frequent requests for money. “There is a feeling that it’s getting hard to be here. I’m praying I don’t receive any text messages,” says one man. A few are quietly changing their mobile-phone numbers to avoid demands for cash. “It is even creating bad blood(怨恨) with relatives who think their sons and daughters in London are no longer being helpful,” he says.
Their troubles are emblematic of migrants’ growing woes(困难，麻烦) all over the world. Rates of migration soared in recent decades as the likes(喜好) of Britain and America enjoyed rapid economic growth and sucked in(吸入) labour. Around 200m people now live outside their homelands, some 3% of the global population. The proportion of foreign-born people in many Western countries has surged well above 10%: this includes Greece and Ireland, from where emigrants used to leave. Spain, where a construction boom helped to create a third of all new jobs in Europe in recent years, sucked in 4m foreigners (especially from Bulgaria and Romania in the EU, plus Ecuador and other bits of the former empire) between 2000 and 2007.
As economies turn, migrants suffer. Many industries where they predominate (tourism in Ireland, financial services in Britain, construction in America and Spain) have shed jobs fast. Spanish unemployment is already 12%; many thousands of migrants are said to be claiming benefits. Spain’s government is seeking ways to get some to move again. It says hopefully that 87,000 will re-emigrate under a new “plan of voluntary return”, which lets migrants claim future unemployment benefits early, in two lump sums(a complete payment consisting of a single sum of money), if they hand in residence permits and work visas and promise to stay away for three years. As much as $40,000 is apparently on offer, per migrant. Yet few have shown interest.
As migrant workers suffer in America—general unemployment is over 7%, a 16-year-high, with Hispanic workers hit especially—the message sent home is “don’t come”. It has been received clear enough, for now. A study of 120,000 Mexican households published in November showed emigration (almost entirely to America) had slumped by 42% from two years earlier. Border arrests have fallen equally fast. The value of remittances has also tumbled(骤降), says Mexico’s central bank.
Into the unknown


As long as the slump was limited to rich countries, the impact on migrants was relatively predictable: some would be diverted to faster-growing emerging economies; some might choose not to migrate; some would go home, at least for a time.
Early evidence suggested that migration was indeed slowing. Data released in November showed 577,000 immigrants arrived in Britain in 2007, 14,000 fewer than the year before (although emigration fell faster, lifting net(净) migration). Last year probably saw a much starker(严峻的) drop. Similarly a survey in Ireland late last year suggested that of 200,000 Polish migrants, around a third expected to leave within a year.
On January 14th a Washington, DC, think-tank, the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), published a study of the impact of recession on migration in America. It concludes that the foreign-born population there has already stopped growing, after years of rapid expansion. Illegal migrants in particular have responded to the slump: in the past year or so the stock of unauthorised migrants has stopped rising. As the recession worsens, the number of foreign-born in America might yet decline.
But as economic misery has spread to poorer countries, the picture has been muddied. Nobody knows what to expect from a co-ordinated
global downturn at a time of historically high migration. Demetrios Papademetriou, one of the two authors of the MPI study, notes that as economies such as Mexico’s are also battered, the push to export migrants could rise again fast. One estimate quoted by his study suggests that, if real wages in Mexico slip by 10%, American authorities should brace themselves for a 6.4-8.7% rise in attempted illegal immigration.
Similarly in Europe, although the economic slump has hastened the re-emigration of some from rich countries (anecdotes point to Polish workers leaving a sinking Iceland faster than rats off a ship), as economies in eastern Europe also slow, migrants may opt (choose) to stay. Young and single workers may choose to move on, but migrant families, especially, may conclude that they are better off(更好过，处境更佳) claiming welfare in rich countries than returning home.
Lessons from history
A global slump is likely to change migration flows significantly. In October the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, urged rich countries not to put up barriers against migrants during a slump, but noted that “migration flows are reversing. In several instances we are seeing a net outflow from countries facing economic crises.” The International Labour Organisation suggests that 20m jobs will be lost, globally, this year, and gives warning that the rich are bound to(必定) close doors.
The lessons from other big downturns suggest that migrants will suffer. Germany, France, the Netherlands and Belgium all called an abrupt
halt(突然的停止) to long-running guest-worker(外籍劳工) programmes in 1973, anticipating a painful recession that decade.

橘子汁UID: 2672285

In the late 1920s and 1930s America, which had earlier seen very high rates of immigration, slammed its doors, and then kept immigration rates low for decades (see chart). As the Depression took hold, many foreign workers re-emigrated: some 500,000 left in the 1930s, with many southern Europeans moving back permanently to the old continent. In the same decade the stock of Mexicans in America fell by a dramatic 40%, as they lost jobs and many were deported. Similarly the depression of the 1890s provoked (to provide the needed stimulus for)
a host of(大量) migrant-hostile legislation in Argentina, America and elsewhere, as native-born workers demanded that foreign rivals be kept out.
The International Organisation for Migration (IOM), among others(值得一提的是；除了别的之外), now worries that once again xenophobia will rise as “job competition increases between nationals(国民) and migrants”. Hostility is creeping up(缓慢上升，悄然袭来). Deportations from America are rising fast (a record 361,000 illegal migrants were kicked out in 2008, up from 319,000 the year before). An opinion poll by the German Marshall Fund, in November, suggested that a majority of Americans and Europeans regard migration as a problem, not as an opportunity.
Britons and Americans, in particular, are hostile to foreign workers, with over half of respondents saying that migrants steal jobs and roughly(大体上，(not粗暴地)) two-thirds saying that they bring higher taxes (because of claims on welfare). In turn(相应地，继而) politicians are talking even tougher about migration and, in some cases, such as Britain, are making it harder for outsiders to get legal entry.
Danny Sriskandarajah, until recently of the Institute for Public Policy Research in London, notes another concern about changing public moods. So far anxiety, for example in Britain, has been directed at the government for failing to control the influx(流入) of foreigners. “A more poisonous response is one targeted at the foreigners themselves,” he suggests. That might come about as unemployment rises, especially if some migrants are better able than natives to keep jobs, for example in farm or care work, perhaps because of a willingness to work long hours for low pay.
Elsewhere hostility towards migrants is already becoming substantially more brutal. In Russia, human-rights groups fear that racist attacks against foreigners will soar as the economy slows. In December, as a gang of teenage skinheads(光头党)
was convicted in Moscow of killing 20 migrants, an NGO, Moscow Human Rights Bureau, reported that 113 migrants had been murdered between January and October 2008, nearly twice the rate of the year before. Some 340 migrants were also wounded.
Doomsters (one given to forebodings and predictions of impending calamity) have other reasons to worry, especially about the poor. The past few years have shown how important remittances have become in alleviating poverty and spurring investment in poor countries. In some cases they account for bigger flows of capital(资金) than aid or foreign investment. They spread wealth from rich to poor countries, but now remittances are being squeezed (to reduce the amount of).
In November the World Bank suggested that total remittances to poor countries last year would be at least $283 billion. Known flows have more than doubled since 2002 (partly a result of better measurement). For many small countries they accounted for a large chunk of GDP in 2007, for example in Tajikistan (46%), Moldova (38%) and Lebanon (24%). Choke remittances, and such places will suffer.
Even for larger economies, such as India and China, remittances provide hefty(大量) flows of capital. The World Bank expected India to get $30 billion from its diaspora (the migration of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland) in 2008 and China $27 billion.
The Philippines has some 8m people abroad: their remittances provide about a tenth
of total domestic output. In the first ten months of 2008 the country earned nearly $14 billion from emigrants, substantially more than the year before. But 2009 looks less rosy: the government is cutting high expectations of income from migrants, amid(在…中amidst)
fears that Filipinos who work in IT and finance, especially, will lose jobs.
Elsewhere things are worse already. In November Kyrgyzstan lamented that remittances (mostly from migrants in Russia) were tumbling(暴跌). Tracking such flows is hard, but an estimate by the central bank in Kenya—where migrant money is the biggest source of foreign currency, exceeding tourism—spoke of a sharp drop last year, especially from Kenyans in America.
Remittances had been seen as more resilient in an economic downturn than aid and investment flows, perhaps because the senders of cash have personal ties with the recipients. But the World Bank says some poor countries should expect “outright(完全的，彻底的)decline” in such funds. Flows to Africa, which had earlier boomed, stagnated(停滞) last year; flows to parts of Latin America dropped. In November the head of the UN Conference on Trade and Development, Supachai Panitchpakdi, predicted that 2009 would see remittances to poor countries slide by 6%; but it could be worse.
A second reason to worry is that places with young, expanding populations have got used to exporting surplus labour. Morocco sends young men to Europe; Central Asian countries send them to Russia; Pakistan and other parts of South Asia pack them off(匆忙打发走send away) to labour in the Gulf. If such exporters of humans can no longer do so, they will instead have to absorb millions more themselves: a tall order in a time of general downturn. The risk of social and political upheaval(剧变) may grow.
From slowdown to spasm
A related spasm of social pain could be felt in China, where internal movement plays a big role in the economy. Some of the 140m domestic migrants (mostly rural folk who had gone to cities) risk losing their jobs. Officials know that finding ways to keep them working, or to provide them with welfare, will be essential. In December China’s premier, Wen Jiabao, urged local governments to enact policies to create jobs “especially for migrant workers”.
Is there a bright side from higher rates of migration? Optimists in Europe argue that enlargement of the EU and the freer movement of workers—some 2m east Europeans now live and work in western Europe—may give the continent useful flexibility during a recovery.
Late last year the European Commission suggested that young, well-educated workers will be prepared to move to find jobs. Around 80% of the recent arrivals from eastern Europe are younger than 35, and so are likely to be more mobile than their elders. The commission also suggests that relatively few countries (so far) have seen recent migrants make much use of welfare, beyond schools and clinics.
Unlike previous waves of migrants (like the South Asians who arrived in British factories in the 1950s), eastern Europeans can probably move between jobs. Poles, for example, may be well placed to move from construction to agricultural labour.
In America, too, migrants who are less reliant on welfare may be willing to move from state to state for work, or to opt for lower-skilled employment for the sake of sustaining their incomes. The bad news there, however, is that state crackdowns on unauthorised migrants, along with a border that is getting harder to cross, are making it tougher for migrant workers to flow to where they are needed. As barriers go up, migration’s benefits go down.

lvruochenUID: 2792806

加油
我插一下楼不介意吧
顺便问一下
这个都是一个debate吗？
应该几天一个debate呀

共勉

橘子汁UID: 2672285

10# lvruochen

这是一个debate，而且只是一个debate的backgroud reading部分，真正的debate部分还没开始。
我觉得不要在乎多久一个debate吧，一个debate的内容太多了。
认认真真把一个debate搞清楚就是胜利。

lvruochenUID: 2792806

同意了

橘子汁UID: 2672285

前几天疯狂考试，进度不能太落下~~~     


Immigration
The border closes
Tougher enforcement and the recession have cut the flow of immigrants; but the state of the economy has made it harder to overhaul a broken system

UNTIL recently, most of the people who came to Emilio Amaya’s office in San Bernardino were working illegally. Now the flow of immigrants has slowed, and those who used to toil on building sites(建筑工地) and in restaurant kitchens are taking long breaks to visit their relatives. Fortunately, a new line of business has emerged. Mr Amaya is helping people fill in forms that will enable them to move their possessions back to Mexico.
It is an abrupt reversal of a once seemingly inexorable(不可阻挡的) trend. Ever since 2002, when America began to recover from a mild economic downturn, migrants both legal and illegal have streamed over the border. By 2006 Americans rated immigration as the nation’s second-most-important problem after the Iraq war, according to Gallup. A bold attempt to reform immigration laws the following year was scuppered(破坏) by an extraordinary outburst of popular anger. Yet, almost at that moment, the problem began to go away.
The least desirable kind of immigrant has declined the most steeply. In the year to September 2008, 724,000 fewer people were caught trying to cross into America from Mexico, the lowest annual tally（a recorded reckoning(总计)）since the 1970s (see chart). Border cops have naturally claimed credit for the drop. But the heavy hand of the law is probably much less of a deterrent(阻碍物，威慑物) than the invisible hand of the market.
Illegal immigrants often work as builders and landscapers, two trades that have collapsed along with the housing market. As the most casual workers in any industry, they are often laid off first. Although it is impossible to say how many are out of work, one clue comes from their closest competitors in the labour market. In the past year the unemployment rate among Hispanic(西班牙裔) Americans has risen from 5.7% to 8.6%. That is a steeper increase than for whites or blacks.
In some places, such as Arizona, tough penalties for companies that hire illegals have made the situation worse. Edmundo Hidalgo, who runs a Hispanic organisation in Phoenix, says employers who are prepared to wink at(默许，纵容) illegality in a tight labour market become more scrupulous(有顾虑，审慎的) when there are lots of workers to choose from. Not surprisingly, the Arizona border is particularly quiet these days. “Why risk your life to come and be unemployed?” asks Wes Gullett, who steered John McCain’s presidential campaign in Arizona.
Jeffrey Passel, a demographer(人口统计学家) at the Pew Hispanic Centre, estimates that the number of illegal immigrants in America fell by 500,000 between 2007 and 2008. Some left the country; others worked their way to legitimacy. Few were replaced. For the past three years, Mr Passel reckons, there has been more legal than illegal immigration—a reversal of the previous pattern. And even legal immigration may now be falling.
Gabriel Jack, a Silicon Valley immigration lawyer, says companies are requesting fewer visas for foreign workers, although demand for the most popular permits still outstrips supply. Tourism and business travel seem to have declined, too. Fewer people are flying into and out of America than at this point last year, according to the International Air Transport Association. All of this changes the politics of immigration.
Tricky politics
During the presidential campaign Mr. Obama promised to tackle immigration reform in his first year in office. He has a sound reason for keeping that promise: Latinos are solidly Democratic. Exit polls for CNN suggest that Mr. Obama carried Hispanic voters by 28 points in Texas, 51 points in California and 54 points in Nevada. By 2012 the Hispanic electorate will be bigger and the heavily Latino Western states will command a few more electoral-college votes, thanks to the 2010 census, which will give extra congressional seats to the West.
The abrupt slowdown in human movement might seem to improve the odds that America’s broken immigration system will be overhauled soon. What do nativists(本土主义者) have to fear, if fewer people are trampling the border and some undocumented workers are going home? In fact, though, immigration reform is becoming harder.
The immigration bill that died in 2007 would have legalised undocumented workers, stepped up(提高，加快) enforcement of existing laws and increased the supply of immigrant workers. It was a compromise that offered something to liberals, Hispanics, conservatives and businessmen.
The recession has swept away the third part of the grand bargain. Even 18 months ago some Midwestern Democrats (including Mr. Obama) were wary of(谨慎) a guest-worker programme. It will be extremely hard to sell an increase in foreign workers during a recession. Doris Meissner of the Migration Policy Institute in Washington notes that the last two major relaxations of immigration laws, in 1965 and 1990, both occurred at times of low unemployment.
If there is to be no grand bargain, lesser steps may be taken. Farmers, who have political clout(（政治上的）影响力) and a perpetual hunger for cheap labour, may be allowed to hire more seasonal workers. “Americans still aren’t rushing to pick lettuces in 115º heat,” notes Glenn Hamer, president of Arizona’s chamber of commerce(商会). The DREAM Act, which would enable some illegal aliens who were brought to America as children to become residents, may be revived.
But if no provision is made to increase the supply of foreign labour permanently, the immigration issue will come back once business picks up again. As Tamar Jacoby of ImmigrationWorks USA, a pressure group, puts it, efforts to secure the border and to police unscrupulous employers will have to compete against the dynamism of the world economy. Don’t count on the cops to win.

橘子汁UID: 2672285

The moderator's opening remarks



Are there too many migrants? Your answer probably depends, first, on where you sit. A young African bobbing in a boat in the Mediterranean(地中海), hoping for a job in Europe, of course believes there is room for one more migrant in the ageing rich world. His relatives back home, who probably clubbed together to fund his trip, also expect a return on their investment. Remittances are a lifeline for poorer countries, and more migration should mean more capital for the poorest. Last year, says the World Bank, migrants in rich countries sent home over $300 billion to poor ones (and extra money flows from mid-income countries).
Similarly a highly skilled engineer who moves from America to work in the Gulf, or a French banker taking a job in London, or a wealthy Swede who has retired to Greece, a Indian student in California, would all support more migration. If one believes that the freer flow of traded goods or capital helps make the world wealthier, then it makes similar sense to promote freer movement of labour too. Look at ageing and withering Japan, say migration enthusiasts: it is reluctant to allow large-scale immigration and it pays a price(付出代价).
But sit elsewhere and the argument is not so clear-cut(清楚明显的). There are economic costs to migration, too. A skilled young African emigrant represents a drain of educated talent from the poorest countries to the richest. How will countries develop if the brightest jump ship? And what of mid-income places, such as South Africa, which struggle to develop while also absorbing millions of migrants from neighbouring countries? For richer economies, too, how will Spain, Britain and America tackle worsening inequality, long-term unemployment among the lower skilled and a lack of mobility among certain groups (such as African Americans in the United States, or some older immigrant populations in Europe) as long as inflows are high?
Nor is migration just about economics. Many move country not as workers but as dependants: think of those who flock to America, Canada and Britain under family reunification programmes. Cold(真实客观的) calculations about the flow of labour being good for the world economy ignore that migrants are people who carry personal, cultural, religious, political and social identities. Integrating them can be costly and difficult. Shouldn't we dare to admit that where migrants come from undoubtedly affects how willing a society is to accept them? Ireland has seen a boom in migration, with hundreds of thousands of white-skinned Catholic Poles assimilating remarkably well. But if the same number of Nigerians or Pakistanis had moved there, would the influx have proceeded so smoothly?
This debate will help us to weigh up these issues and more. The context is clear: we are in a period of historically high levels of migration, with many countries in Europe, for example, importing people at a rate they have never seen before. Despite the recession slowing migration flows slightly, there is no sign that a substantial collapse in migration is under way.
Be warned at the outset that statistics in this field are rarely to be trusted. We are not even sure how many migrants there are in the world—perhaps 200m, but much depends on how one defines a migrant in the first place. In rich countries the numbers are far from rock-solid(可靠的) (it is hard to count illegal migrants, especially); in poorer countries statistics on migrants are guesses at best. So subsequent precise calculations attempting to quantify migrants' impacts, good or bad, might be taken with a pinch of salt(姑且听之，不可尽信).
Our debate should dare to wander away from narrow economics. We might want to tackle questions such as whether migrants are a boon or a cost to welfare states: do they pay more taxes or claim more benefits? But we also should keep in mind that migrants influence everything from sports (would English football be a poorer thing without the legions of foreign players?), to military matters (note the South Africans, Nepalese and others serving in the British army), to discussions of terrorism.

橘子汁UID: 2672285

感觉这篇读的不认真，鄙视下自己

The proposer's opening remarks



There is little doubt that legal, organised and well-managed migration can bring great economic benefits to receiving societies, immigrants and their families, both at origin and destination. And in an increasingly interdependent world, migration's benefits that are not directly economic, such as greater cultural, social and even political understanding, cannot be ignored, though typically they are.
Unfortunately, however, there are too many cases where migration is not legal, organised or well-managed, where flawed policymaking, irrationality, incompetence or corruption chip away
at migration's benefits. One of the most telling consequences is that huge numbers of people move outside legal channels.
Illegal immigration now probably stands at about 30m. About 40% of it is(用it和is) found in a single country, the United States, where between the late 1990s and 2006, more workers may have entered the country illegally than legally. But every region now hosts millions of illegal immigrants, demonstrating that the combined efforts of the market and human nature and need are overwhelming government regulators, and that thoughtfully widening the channels for legal immigration must also become part of the response to illegal immigration.
Illegal immigration is a problem. It fuels a robust and growing industry of organised criminal syndicates(犯罪团伙) and human traffickers(贩子) who transport people across borders for profit. In the receiving country, unauthorised migrants have little recourse to legal protection and are vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous employers, to whom they offer an often massive competitive advantage. Meanwhile, illegal immigration compromises(连累，危害) receiving countries' ability to protect their low-wage labour markets from unplanned inflows of new workers that may depress native workers' wages and job prospects. This makes a mockery of the rule of law, puts unwelcome pressures on a country's social infrastructure(基础设施), and fuels anger and anxiety among voters which, in turn, reduces policymakers' manoeuvring(manoeuvre\maneuver) room for how to manage migration.
But legal migration can also create problems when badly managed. Immigration cannot realise its full package of benefits if receiving countries are inattentive to its growth, composition and impacts on local workers (as some European Union countries and in some ways the United States have been) and fail to invest in immigrant integration by seeking to reap the benefits of immigrants' labour without encouraging them to become part of society. These efforts can seriously backfire, both in the form of popular reactions against immigrants and in fostering an underclass of precariously positioned immigrant workers and families on the margins of society.
The current recession makes clear the risks of too much exuberance when it comes to immigration. Countries like Spain or Ireland that embraced large-scale immigration during their economic boom years have been experiencing a form of buyer's remorse once their economies went into a freefall, while soaring unemployment spawned programmes (so far unsuccessful) to pay immigrants to return home. The lesson appears to be that large, abrupt increases in immigration without measures to anticipate and prepare for cyclical changes in the demand for labour, or to build the legal and institutional infrastructure to manage the inflow and facilitate immigrants' long-term integration, can be just as counter-productive as knee-jerk(膝反射的，下意识的) restrictions of immigration that deny a country the benefits of well-managed migration.
These benefits are substantial. Immigration can boost receiving countries' economic growth and competitiveness, providing their firms and universities with talent from around the world (not to mention healthy numbers of innovators, entrepreneurs and even Nobel prize-winners), while cushioning the blow of demographic(人口统计的) decline(这句表达好矫…). Openness to immigration brings in its wake(随之而来) new ideas, technologies and openings to trade and cultural exchange with sending countries across the globe. Such countries also gain hefty sums in remittances, the skills and knowledge of returning expats(移居外国者) who can form a valuable generation of political, social and industrial entrepreneurs and, increasingly, the benefits from members of a country's diaspora who act as investors, mentors and physically remote, but more and more engaged, agents of change. Meanwhile, migration gives immigrants access to family-sustaining wages and opportunities to build human capital, whether or not they intend eventually to return home.



But can one have too much of a good thing? Has there been too much international migration? The proper way to think about—and act upon—international migration is not to ask whether there are too many or too few migrants. There is no optimal (最佳的，最理想的)quantity of migration either from an economic or social perspective, and any attempt to argue otherwise would have little credibility. The relevant questions instead for those involved in migration are not the mere number of migrants, but rather the flow's composition (e.g. age, skills, experience and education), its channels of entry (e.g. employment or family, temporary or permanent) and in the case of permanent settlement, whether a society is willing or not to commit actively to their integration. And these questions are the critical components of the overarching(首要的) question of how international migration can be made safer, more legal and more consistent with broader policy goals and values. The answers to these questions (and they will differ by country and change over time) provide the blueprint for how countries can get the most out of international migration and avoid the drawbacks of current flawed regimes(体制，方法).
Of course, immigration should not become an excuse for falling behind in other policy fields. Immigrants typically bring enormous energy and valuable skills, but they cannot substitute for effective schools, modern workforce training systems and great universities, as well as policies that encourage and reward work. Immigrants can boost the labour force in ageing societies, but cannot—and should not—be the primary solution to this problem. Indeed, while immigration can provide motivated workers in both high- and low-skilled jobs, we must acknowledge that migration has winners and losers, and that the losers have legitimate concerns that must be addressed.
Taking into account both the long-term needs for migration to help address demographic imbalances and economic competitiveness needs as well as lessons from the current global recession, receiving countries should:
• Resist the temptation to slam the door shut without regard for their long-term need for immigrants. Equally, however, many might do well to resist the temptation to admit more immigrants than they will subsequently be prepared support.
• Redouble(加强
) efforts on immigrant integration. The current recession is exacerbating already troubling differences in social and economic well-being based on immigrant status or ethnicity. Carefully
crafted policies for local language acquisition and training, the recognition of foreign credentials(证书) and the enforcement of labour standards in low-paying immigrant jobs can help to bridge these gaps.
• Take serious and thoughtful steps to address (to deal with) illegal immigration. Law-enforcement activities can make it less attractive for employers to hire illegal immigrants. They must be combined, however, with sufficiently attractive and efficient legal channels to hire foreign workers. More sophisticated—rather than just more—border controls are needed in many countries, alongside internationally coordinated measures to crack down on organised criminal syndicates and smugglers.
Finally, those involved in these issues must prepare for a new way of thinking about migration, finding ways to regulate mobility through new migration policy products that are more consistent both with the market and with human behaviour.
Most promising among them will be circular migration systems that move us away from the current norms of permanent or temporary migration only, and towards mechanisms of earning immigration benefits by playing by the rules, learning the local language and embracing the civic ethos of the host society.
Every country will need to work much better and harder if it is to harness (UTILIZE) the benefits of migration more fully and avert the process's downside, since growing global economic integration and demographic trends will only increase the need for well-managed migration flows for decades to come.