This House would offer increased aid to developing world countries that encourage and accept large i

It is an accident of geography, or history, simple bad luck that has resulted in some countries getting large numbers of immigrants while many others get none. The first developed country on migrant routes get large numbers as those wishing to seek asylum have to apply in the first safe country. Similarly those countries next to conflict zones, or places affected by natural disasters, get very large influxes of migrants who hope to return home as soon as possible; there are more than 1.1 million refugees from Syria in Lebanon[1] a country of less than 6million. It is right that there should be a mechanism to help even out the burden of migrants and that rich developed countries should be those who pay that cost.

[1] ‘Syria Regional Refugee Response’, data.unhcr.org, http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=122, accessed 19^th August 2015 

While the burden of migrants should be shared the burden is not just monetary. Developed countries should not be able to dodge their responsibility to take in large numbers of migrants simply because they can pay poorer countries to take migrants in their place. Being burdened due to geography may be unfair but so is being burdened because you are poor and can be bribed. A truly just system would redistribute migrants within the developed world rather than shifting the burden to those who are still developing.

Migrants in developed countries are often not very well treated, for example the Traiskirchen migrant camp in Austria, one of the richest countries in the EU was condemned for its inhumane conditions by Amnesty in August 2015.[1] The aid provided can be earmarked to ensure that migrants being well treated and provided for through safe transportation and access to essential government services such as healthcare and welfare.

The advantage of this provision in developing rather than developed countries is cost. The same amount of money goes a lot further in a developing country. This provision therefore makes sense in a time were many developed countries are both struggling with greater numbers of migrants and with austerity. Greece, which has had 124,000 migrants arrive in the first seven months of 2015, a 750% rise over the same period in 2014, is a notable case.[2]

[1] ‘'No respect' for human rights at Traiskirchen camp’, The Local at, 14 August 2015, http://www.thelocal.at/20150814/no-respect-for-human-rights-at-traiskirchen-refugee-camp

[2] Spindler, William, ‘Number of refugees and migrants arriving in Greece soars 750 per cent over 2014’, UNHCR, 7 August 2015, http://www.unhcr.org/55c4d1fc2.html

Providing money to developing countries to provide for the migrants they take in does not ensure that the money will be spent on those who it is meant to be spent on. In some developing countries aid is badly spent or is badly affected by corruption; in 2012 the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon stated “Last year, corruption prevented 30 per cent of all development assistance from reaching its final destination.”[1]

Moreover even if the aid is spent on those it is earmarked for there are problems. Many developing countries are affected by poverty, poor housing, and few government services. Aid being provided to pay for such services for migrants is likely to cause resentment among a population that does not have the same access as the newcomers.

[1] Ki-moon, Ban, ‘Secretary-General's closing remarks at High-Level Panel on Accountability, Transparency and Sustainable Development’, un.org, 9 July 2012, http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=6185

Migrants can bring the benefit of their industriousness to developing countries. When there are crises it is the middle professional classes who are most likely to migrate as they have the resources and knowledge with which to do so. When it comes to economic migrants it is often the educated youth who are looking for better work opportunities; skilled workers make up 33% of migrants from developing countries despite being only 6% of the population.[1] Developed countries already have a highly educated and skilled population, and will take in those migrants with skills they need. Developing countries on the other hand have a much less well educated population so derive more benefit from the influx of skilled workers to help them develop thus counteracting the ‘brain drain’.

[1] Docquier, Frédéric, Lohest, Olivier, and Marfouk, Abdeslam. ‘Brain Drain in Developing Countries’, The World Bank Economic Review. Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 193–218, p.198 http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1093/wber/lhm008

Migrants also benefit developed countries albeit in a slightly different way. Migrants, often even those who are highly educated, provide a cheap workforce doing the jobs that native workers don't want to do. This is particularly the case in agriculture in developed countries where anything that is labour intensive relies upon cheap migrant, often illegal, labour. In the US somewhere between a quarter and a half of the farm workers are illegal immigrants.[1] This results in goods and services being cheaper in the developed country than they otherwise would be benefiting the whole country.

[1] Baragona, Steve, ‘US Farmers Depend on Illegal Immigrants’, Voice of America, 11 August 2010, http://www.voanews.com/content/us-farmers-depend-on-illegal-immigrants-100541644/162082.html

It is an accident of geography, or history, simple bad luck that has resulted in some countries getting large numbers of immigrants while many others get none. The first developed country on migrant routes get large numbers as those wishing to seek asylum have to apply in the first safe country. Similarly those countries next to conflict zones, or places affected by natural disasters, get very large influxes of migrants who hope to return home as soon as possible; there are more than 1.1 million refugees from Syria in Lebanon[1] a country of less than 6million. It is right that there should be a mechanism to help even out the burden of migrants and that rich developed countries should be those who pay that cost.

[1] ‘Syria Regional Refugee Response’, data.unhcr.org, http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=122, accessed 19^th August 2015 

While the burden of migrants should be shared the burden is not just monetary. Developed countries should not be able to dodge their responsibility to take in large numbers of migrants simply because they can pay poorer countries to take migrants in their place. Being burdened due to geography may be unfair but so is being burdened because you are poor and can be bribed. A truly just system would redistribute migrants within the developed world rather than shifting the burden to those who are still developing.

Migrants in developed countries are often not very well treated, for example the Traiskirchen migrant camp in Austria, one of the richest countries in the EU was condemned for its inhumane conditions by Amnesty in August 2015.[1] The aid provided can be earmarked to ensure that migrants being well treated and provided for through safe transportation and access to essential government services such as healthcare and welfare.

The advantage of this provision in developing rather than developed countries is cost. The same amount of money goes a lot further in a developing country. This provision therefore makes sense in a time were many developed countries are both struggling with greater numbers of migrants and with austerity. Greece, which has had 124,000 migrants arrive in the first seven months of 2015, a 750% rise over the same period in 2014, is a notable case.[2]

[1] ‘'No respect' for human rights at Traiskirchen camp’, The Local at, 14 August 2015, http://www.thelocal.at/20150814/no-respect-for-human-rights-at-traiskirchen-refugee-camp

[2] Spindler, William, ‘Number of refugees and migrants arriving in Greece soars 750 per cent over 2014’, UNHCR, 7 August 2015, http://www.unhcr.org/55c4d1fc2.html

Providing money to developing countries to provide for the migrants they take in does not ensure that the money will be spent on those who it is meant to be spent on. In some developing countries aid is badly spent or is badly affected by corruption; in 2012 the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon stated “Last year, corruption prevented 30 per cent of all development assistance from reaching its final destination.”[1]

Moreover even if the aid is spent on those it is earmarked for there are problems. Many developing countries are affected by poverty, poor housing, and few government services. Aid being provided to pay for such services for migrants is likely to cause resentment among a population that does not have the same access as the newcomers.

[1] Ki-moon, Ban, ‘Secretary-General's closing remarks at High-Level Panel on Accountability, Transparency and Sustainable Development’, un.org, 9 July 2012, http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=6185

Migrants can bring the benefit of their industriousness to developing countries. When there are crises it is the middle professional classes who are most likely to migrate as they have the resources and knowledge with which to do so. When it comes to economic migrants it is often the educated youth who are looking for better work opportunities; skilled workers make up 33% of migrants from developing countries despite being only 6% of the population.[1] Developed countries already have a highly educated and skilled population, and will take in those migrants with skills they need. Developing countries on the other hand have a much less well educated population so derive more benefit from the influx of skilled workers to help them develop thus counteracting the ‘brain drain’.

[1] Docquier, Frédéric, Lohest, Olivier, and Marfouk, Abdeslam. ‘Brain Drain in Developing Countries’, The World Bank Economic Review. Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 193–218, p.198 http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1093/wber/lhm008

Migrants also benefit developed countries albeit in a slightly different way. Migrants, often even those who are highly educated, provide a cheap workforce doing the jobs that native workers don't want to do. This is particularly the case in agriculture in developed countries where anything that is labour intensive relies upon cheap migrant, often illegal, labour. In the US somewhere between a quarter and a half of the farm workers are illegal immigrants.[1] This results in goods and services being cheaper in the developed country than they otherwise would be benefiting the whole country.

[1] Baragona, Steve, ‘US Farmers Depend on Illegal Immigrants’, Voice of America, 11 August 2010, http://www.voanews.com/content/us-farmers-depend-on-illegal-immigrants-100541644/162082.html

Developed countries have a responsibility to take in large numbers of migrants. There are several reasons for this. First they have a historical responsibility resulting from a legacy of colonialism, imperialism, and industrialisation that benefited the developed world at the expense of the developing world. This helped create the inequalities in the world that drive migration so developed countries should accept that a greater responsibility for migrants is the price.

Second developed countries have a much greater capacity to absorb migrants than developing countries. Developed countries have more jobs, and the ability to create more through using the state’s financial resources to increase investment. They already have the legal framework for large numbers of migrants; laws that ensure equality and fair treatment regardless of religion or ethnicity. And in many cases they already have sizeable migrant communities (with some exceptions such as Japan) that help create a culture of tolerance that embraces the diversity migrants bring.

An argument based upon ‘historical responsibility’ and capacity to absorb migrants runs into several problems. First not all developed nations bear historical responsibility for colonialism; should Switzerland and Denmark bear the same historical responsibility as the UK and France? What about countries that were themselves essentially colonies; Finland and Czech Republic? Identifying what counts towards this responsibility is tricky and very open to argument, and even more so working out how many migrants a certain responsibility should result in taking in.

Capacity to absorb migrants is also difficult to judge. A country may have a lot of migrants already showing tolerance but it could also mean that country is already at the point where it can take no more with racism and discrimination rising as a result.

It is regrettable that difference is a major source of conflict among humans with differences in religion and ethnicity having regularly been the source of conflicts household human history. While many countries have traditions of accepting migrants others don't and even those that are tolerant may not be prepared for a large influx of migrants.

This policy would bring about such an influx in those countries that take up the offer of aid for taking in migrants. A new community is likely to be labelled the ‘other’ by the natives of that country and be blamed for taking jobs and putting pressure on services. This happens because the newcomers are easy to blame and have few influential voices in the country to speak out in their defence.

Places with existing large migrant communities are less likely to experience anti immigrant hostility. Thus in India Delhi with 38.4% of the population immigrants (not just international) has less conflict thant Mumbai with 26.5%, and in the US New Mexico with a 45% Hispanic population has less anti-Hispanic sentiment than Florida with 21%.[1]

[1] ‘Causes of Conflict’, University of North Carolina, accessed 20 August 2015, http://nbiconflict.web.unc.edu/conflicts/immigration-conflicts/causes-of-conflict/

Whether a country is developed or not is not necessarily a good indicator of if a country is prepared for a large number of migrants. Nor is whether a country has large numbers of immigrants already; Israel is a country made by immigration yet has still seen anti immigrant riots.[1] In order to prevent social conflict it would be far better to have migrants in countries with a similar culture to their own thus migrants from an Arabic nation would be repatriated to an Arabic country that is participating in the aid scheme. Of course no two countries culture is the same but it should be possible to find cultures with more similarity than the developed country.

[1] Greenwood, Phoebe, ‘Israeli anti-immigration riots hit African neighbourhood of Tel Aviv’, The Telegraph, 24 May 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/9287715/Israeli-anti-immigration-riots-hit-African-neighbourhood-of-Tel-Aviv.html

Moving migrants to developing countries in return for quantities of aid is simply not a sustainable policy. Migrants fleeing conflict looking for safety may accept any safe country but the migrant problems affecting rich countries are in large part economic migration. These people are looking to get to a developed country to earn more and have better prospects than they could at home so are unlikely to accept a country at a similar (or potentially lower) level of development as a good alternative. They are therefore likely to simply tray again to make their way to a developed country when they can. There have been examples of migrants such as Rachid from Algeria who has tried to get into Europe three times already and is waiting for a ship to try again,[1] it is unclear how this proposal would alter this problem.

[1] Ash, Lucy, ‘Risking death at sea to escape boredom’, BBC News, 20 August 2015, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33986899

Part of the payment of aid would be to ensure that migrants can't simply set off in an attempt to get back into a developed country. The aid would fund sufficiently good living conditions to encourage the migrants that staying where they are is a better option than attempting another harsh and dangerous journey. Moreover a part of the aid would be to ensure monitoring of migrants who have just arrived in the developing country to ensure they remain.