Economics

Mitos da migração versus factos económicos

Feb 26, 2019 Mahmoud Mohieldin and Dilip Ratha

WASHINGTON, DC — Em 19 de Dezembro de 2018, a Assembleia Geral das Nações Unidas votou a favor da adopção do Pacto Mundial para Migrações Seguras, Ordenadas e Regulares, com 152 votos a favor, 5 votos contra e 12 abstenções. Os defensores saudaram o pacto como um passo na direcção de uma gestão da migração mais humana e racional , no entanto, a oposição continua a ser considerável.

O pacto não é um tratado juridicamente vinculativo, nem garante novos direitos para os migrantes. Na verdade, os 23 objectivos do pacto foram elaborados com base em dois anos de discussões alargadas e seis rondas de negociações, focados especificamente na criação de um quadro para a cooperação internacional que não interfira excessivamente nos assuntos internos dos países.

Devido a mal-entendidos sobre o pacto, é benéfico analisar mais detalhadamente o desafio da migração - e os vastos benefícios que um sistema bem gerido pode trazer aos países de acolhimento e aos países de origem.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

Mahmoud Mohieldin

Writing for PS since 2011
30 Commentaries

Mahmoud Mohieldin, a former Egyptian minister for investment, is Egypt’s High-Level Climate Champion for COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, an executive director at the International Monetary Fund, and Facilitator of the Green Climate Fund’s second replenishment process.

Dilip Ratha

Writing for PS since 2014
2 Commentaries

Dilip Ratha is head of the World Bank Migration and Remittances Unit and Global Knowledge Partnership on Migration and Development.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 2 Comments on this article

B Wilds Mar 1, 2019

The debate of what people "deserve" and whether those who have it should share is not new. Whether a person has landed in a place of plenty by luck or worked their way in by cunning or toil it is something to be valued.

Borders are a creation of man and men set the rules as to who crosses them and on what terms. While it may seem unfair to exclude or deny individuals this right we must remember that life is unfair and this is a reality of life. More on an immigrant's right to enter a world of plenty in the article below.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2018/07/immigrants-right-to-enter-land-of-plenty.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Friesen Feb 26, 2019

I am sure that, when the history of our time is written in a couple of hundred years, the barriers that today's rich countries trow up to migration will be seen in much the same way as we view slavery today. Today, we can hardly fathom how so many people could have regarded slavery as right, and justified, and necessary. And yet it was so regarded. Mainstream opinion in the American South was just like that.

In two hundred years, I expect that people will be able to look back at our time as we look back at slavery. They will be able to view us with at least a bit of objectivity. And the barriers which industrialized, rich countries put up to keep people out of the industrial clusters which they want to keep all to themselves are going to be viewed as every bit as unfair and unjustified and selfish and harmful as slavery. Today's industrialized countries are not that way because their inhabitants are smarter or harder-working than anybody else. The only reason they have so much is that industry tends to create and attract more industry, for many reasons. The result is that those countries that happened to industrialize early have a huge advantage. To those who have, more is given.

Today, mainstream opinion in rich countries is that the barriers they put up are justified. Never mind that they condemn millions to lives of poverty in a world that could easily give everybody a decent life. Never mind the suffering, death, and starvation into which those barriers force so many people. Slavery forced people to work themselves to death. Today, we put up barriers to prevent people from working - to keep them away from jobs that they could be doing - to keep them from contributing. The future will judge us, just as we judge those who promoted and used and tolerated slavery.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.