Donald Trump’s immigration policy — it has set off global anxiety — reveals the myopic view of a political leadership. The movement of labour always benefits the receiving land as much as the place from where it moves out. The World Migration Report 2024 emphasises that “migration is a driver for human development and can generate significant benefits for migrants, their families and countries of origin.”
New ideas and diverse cultures brought along by migrants enrich their host lands. Think about Kizzy Corbett, an African-American immigrant, the scientist who discovered the coronavirus vaccine and saved the world. If the United States of America is anxious that H1B visa-holding Indians would replace efficient American techies, they should remember that the H1B visa, which allows companies to hire foreign professionals in high-skill industries, helps the US fill its STEM talent gaps. Restrictive conditions on the granting of H1B visas would have negative consequences. If employers shift their production base or enable migrants to work remotely, the destination country will lose out on domestic income and cheap supply of skilled labour.
The Human Development Report 2009 discovered that internal migration is much larger a movement than international migration. The underlying causes for this movement are almost the same as international migration. Pushed out by the lack of opportunities in the place of origin, migrants move to big cities in search of employment and income. The Periodic Labour Force Survey 2021 stated that 28.9% of the Indian population are internal migrants.
The difference in the levels of income and the standards of consumption between the place they left and the one where they have arrived motivates the migrants to stay put. New items of consumption and, above all, the possibility of sending their children to better schools and colleges prevent migrants from returning to their places of origin. Social assimilation facilitates this decision, as do government amenities like subsidised rations, free water and electricity, education and health services.
A survey of house helps in Delhi and the National Capital Region brought out interesting facts about such migrants. All the people surveyed had seen a manifold increase in income at their adopted place as compared to their place of origin. No household, not even the ones that did not have any employment at the place of origin, had a monthly income below Rs 5,000. Rather 75.5% of the migrants surveyed had monthly household income ranging between Rs 10,000-Rs 30,000, with 8.9% of them earning above Rs 30,000.
When asked about the facilities that they enjoy in the new place, respondents spoke about free ration, free education for their children, free water and electricity by the then government. Exactly 82.2% felt appreciated by their employers and accepted by their neighbours. A formidable 73.3% of the respondents preferred to continue working in the destination place although 26.7% of them missed their native places. No one, however, said they would like to go back to their places of origin.
A world equal in terms of income is utopian. However, old economic theories showed that such a reality is theoretically feasible with free movement of labour and capital. But this is too much to ask for in a world where countries prefer to keep their borders fenced. The world, disrupted by physical, biological and digital megatrends, requires heads of nations to understand their roles as developers of sustainable growth, and not landlords busy protecting the boundary walls of their own countries.
Manimala Roy is an economist who works in the areas of gender and migration
