国际移民问题研究论文范文

INTRODUCTIONThe 19-member Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM) releaseda six-chapter consensus report on 5 October 2005 calling on all nations torespect the human rights of migrants and recommending a new InteragencyGlobal Migration Facility to help coordinate migration policies at the regionaland eventually global level. The GCIM mandate was to put migration on theglobal agenda, to highlight gaps in policy responses to people crossing nationalborders, and to examine links between migration and other global report includes six principles and 33 more specific recommendations aimedat creating a comprehensive global framework in six broad areas: migrants in aglobalizing labour market, migration and development, irregular migration, migrantsin society, the human rights of migrants, and the governance of the 33 recommendations, 25 are directed primarily at developed or receivingcountries, 15 to sending countries, and eight to the international of these recommendations have been made previously, and some areincluded in earlier United Nations’ system reports and WORKERS AND DEVELOPMENTChapter one begins with the estimate that 200 million people are outside theircountries of birth or citizenship (the UN is revising this figure to 190 million in2005), that half are in the labour forces of receiving countries, and that developmentand demographic disparities, as well as deficits in the protection of humanrights, promise more migration. Perhaps the most important GCIM recommendationis the call to open more doors for guest workers in order to reduce praises traditional immigration countries such as Australia, Canada, andthe United States, but calls for more temporary worker programmes becausethey are more acceptable in “non-immigrant Europe” as well as in many developingcountries attracting migrants from their poorer neighbours. GCIM asserts thatsome sending countries believe that the circular migration promised by guestworker programmes is more beneficial to them, and concludes that “the oldparadigm of permanent migrant settlement is giving way to temporary and circularmigration” (GCIM: 31).GCIM acknowledges the problems of temporary worker programmes, includingthe fact that migrant workers have limited rights and may settle rather thanreturn, but argues that well-designed programmes can work as intended, that is,admit temporary workers rather than permanent residents. GCIM says that welldesignedguest worker programmes are those that fully inform migrants of theirrights and obligations; allow them to change jobs in receiving countries; andhave governments enforcing laws that regulate contractors, employers, andothers involved in moving workers over borders and employing them. GCIMbelieves that regular returns to countries of origin as well as reintegration assistancecan minimize guest worker migrants cross national borders for higher wages and more opportunities,but only 25 per cent work in countries in which they are covered by bilateralpension agreements, so that the work-related taxes paid abroad by 75 per centof the migrants do not necessarily provide them with benefits. GCIM arguesthat non-portability of pension benefits is one reason why migrants are willingto work in the informal sector abroad and reluctant to return generally welcomes the movement of professionals from developing todeveloped countries, but also notes that their exodus can slow idea of receiving countries compensating migrant countries of origin forthe loss of their human capital is rejected as impractical, and GCIM does notthink that codes of conduct that discourage, . “aggressive recruiting” ofhealth-care personnel can be effective. Instead, GCIM calls for sending countriesto value nurses and other professionals likely to emigrate more highly, forreceiving countries to train more nurses rather than recruit foreigners, and forboth to co-invest in human capital in developing countries, such as by usingforeign aid to train health-care urges that the GATS Mode 4 negotiations be brought to a “successfulconclusion”, and notes that some developing countries see Mode 4 as a way tobegin to liberalize the movement of professionals. GCIM asserts that globalcorporations want and should get more power to “deploy the right people at theright time and place”.Chapter two covers migration and development. GCIM sees mostly benefitsfrom the US$150 billion in remittances to developing countries in 2004. GCIMemphasizes that remittances belong to migrants and should not be “subjectto undue official regulation”; urges efforts to reduce transfer costs with technology,education, and competition; and calls on sending countries to create a“conducive environment” to encourage migrants to invest their remittances athome (GCIM: 27-28). GCIM recognizes that remittances can lead to dependencyamong recipients, and that going abroad to earn them can impose significantpsychological costs on migrant third “R” in the migration and development nexus is returns. GCIM highlightsthe development potential of diasporas, noting that many of the 600 MexicanHometown Associations (HTAs) in the United States voluntarily contribute todevelop the infrastructure of their communities of origin, with their contributionsmatched by federal, state, and local governments under 3 x 1 programmes(US$3 in government funds for each US$1 of HTA contributions). In addition toproviding funds, diasporas can forge trade and investment links and provide theideas and energy needed to get development going, but GCIM emphasizes thatdevelopment must begin at home. GCIM notes that diasporas can, but need notalways, contribute to development, and can impede development when they, forexample, finance conflicts in their countries of AND INTEGRATIONChapter 3 tackles irregular migration, emphasizing that 25 to 35 per cent of allmigrants in many industrial countries are irregular and that there are large numbersof irregular migrants in some developing countries as well. GCIM acknowledgesboth the complexity of irregular status and the conditions that encouragemigrants to risk migrating illegally, and laments the divide between those concernedprimarily with human rights and those concerned primarily with national between these extremes can prevent governments from adoptingone or both of GCIM’s preferred solutions – regularization or returns (GCIM:37-38).GCIM notes the significant investments that have been made in border controls,and calls on receiving countries to combat irregular migration by opening newchannels for legal migrants (“appropriately designed temporary migrationprogrammes”). GCIM also calls for prosecuting employers of irregular workersto de-magnetize the labour market for irregular migrants and the smugglersand traffickers who emerge to facilitate illegal are called on to protect the human rights of the migrants they are removing,and countries of origin are reminded that they should accept the return oftheir nationals. Meanwhile, GCIM urges case-by-case regularization. In anotherdifficult trade off, GCIM acknowledged the link between irregular migrationand asylum and called for maintaining respect for asylum by having a fairand fast procedure to determine if an applicant is in need of protection whileimplementing policies to reduce irregular 4 turns to integration, noting that major cities in industrial countrieshave become very diverse. Diverse societies can find it difficult to achieve consensus,especially when residents cannot communicate easily and there is competitionfor limited resources. GCIM calls on host countries to respect the humanand labour rights of migrants, and for employers, unions, and migrants and theirassociations to cooperate to promote integration. As with irregular migration,GCIM sought a balance between respecting cultural differences and condemningcultural practices that violate international human rights noted the special problems of women, children, and irregular migrants,asserting that irregular migrants “who have been living in a country for longperiods of time” have some claim on the services of the state (GCIM: 51).GCIM takes aim at journalists and groups who fan xenophobia, calling insteadfor a “responsible debate on migration” (GCIM: 52).INTERNATIONAL LAW AND GOVERNANCEChapter 5 turns to the international legal framework for managing internationalmigration. It notes that international law sets out the rights and responsibilitiesof governments to regulate migration into their countries, the rights and responsibilitiesof migrants, and areas in which cooperation among states is essential to improving responses to international flows of people. GCIM emphasizes thatthe basic rights of migrants are established in the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights and seven human rights treaties, most of which have beenratified by a large majority of states. The exception is the 1990 InternationalConvention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Membersof their Families, which has been ratified by 30 mostly migrant-sendingcountries. Recognizing that receiving countries are unlikely to ratify the MigrantRights Convention in large numbers, GCIM focuses on the pressing need forgovernments to implement the laws that they have ratified and recommends thatthe UN human rights machinery should be used more effectively to ensure theprotection of migrant rights.

近年来，各国无论来自什么党派的政客都表示要控制迅速增加的移民数量，正如移民专家所指出的那样，在如今的发达国家，移民问题已跃升为选民最关心的问题之一。非法移民通过各种非法途径进入另一国家，如以游客身份进入，然后就“黑下来”不走了。联合国难民署表示，2006年全球有1000万难民或政治避难者进入他国。成为移民或外籍劳动力是穷人提高生活质量的一种方式。只要收入差异存在，移民就会继续增长。今天全球的移民总数(包括非法人口)预计达到2亿。这个数字听上去很大，但只占到世界总人口的3%，今后还有很大的增长空间。大多人并不明白过去40年的全球人口大流动并没有带来预期的消极后果。相反，在让数百万移民或外籍劳动力过上更好生活的同时，移民输出国和接收国在文化和物质上也获得利益。过去10年来，世界上大多数地区之所以能在低通胀的情况下保持经济增长，一个重要原因就是全球范围内的劳动力增长迅速。国际货币基金(IMF)的数据称过去40年的移民数量翻了一番还多。发达国家的年轻人或是能力不够，或是缺乏斗志，因此需要输入新鲜血液。欧美在这方面获益匪浅。此外，随着移民输出国人口的不断增加，移民也是一件好事。IMF的数据显示，来自洪都拉斯、萨尔瓦多、圭亚那和牙买加的移民离开后，促进了本国工资的上涨和贫困率的下降。移民也可以让本国人从日常工作中得到解放，转而去做更具技术含量的工作。让外籍劳力照顾孩子，父母就可以回到原来的工作岗位。移民也是消费者，他们也要租房子、买东西，也要购买服务。发达国家比其他任何历史时期都想要接收更多的技术移民。世界银行对20个发达国家的5200万移民做的调查显示，36%的移民拥有大学学历，比1990年大幅提高。2007年11月的一次民调结果显示：55%的西班牙人认为移民对他们的经济有好处，意大利人同意这一观点的比例是50%，德国和英国只有42%。许多民众担心的是，大量外来者会占用有限的公共资源，而且，如果国家经济不景气，外来者会抢他们的饭碗。不欢迎移民的人认为移民或许会给经济总量带来好处，但个人感受到的却十分有限。此外，对于大批移民会占用接收国大量公共资源的担忧，如学校、廉租房和医疗卫生设施等，研究显示，许多合法的新移民都是身强力壮、受过教育的年轻人，并不会占用多少公共资源，而他又和普通公民一样交税。当然，随着移民年龄的不断增加，他使用公共资源的幅度也会随之增加。西班牙老龄化带来的劳动力短缺，不仅阻碍了经济增长，缩小了公共社会保护体系的经济基础，而且大大增加了支出规模。西班牙人口4400万，其中外国人几乎占9%。1998年至2005年，西班牙的外来人口增长了486%，使西班牙成为名副其实的移民大国。随着西班牙经济的发展，外来务工人员还在持续增加。如何安排好数量巨大的劳工的工作和生活，成了关乎社稷的大事。与此同时，还使政府和各政党必须面对工作人口与不工作人口之间的利益冲突。因此，改变劳动力供给短缺状况，可以有效地缓解人口老龄化对经济、社会与政治的诸多负面影响。西班牙政府于2005年为居住在本土上的非法移民解决身份，受益者达到70万之众。为了保证其政策获得期望中的成果，西班牙政府采取了一系列相应的社会政策措施，在解决人口问题时，也缓解了经济压力。事实上，西班牙不少地区，由于充分利用来自操相同语言的拉美国家移民，加上来自北非、东欧和亚洲的移民10年来为经济发展注入了不少新鲜血液，改变了社会面貌。当地人口的缺损给移民创造了机会，这是移民西班牙成功的客观因素。去年7月联合国“移民与发展论坛”上来自160多个联合国成员国以及国际劳工组织、联合国专门机构、国际移民组织、欧委会等国际性或地区性组织的600多名代表专程与会，就当前国际移民与发展的相关问题展开热烈研讨。再次激发了欧洲各国对移民问题的密切关注。专家们普遍认为移民问题是一个世纪挑战，各国应努力寻求妥善的应对措施。