Voluntary and forced movements
• Main voluntary movements: students/workers moving for longer than a year but not
entire life. globalisation, improved transport and info and reduced barriers have
helped to increase numbers. female numbers increased and make up 50% of
international migrants. reflects changing employment structure and receiving areas
have more jobs available. most emigrants from HIC’s go to other HIC’s. LIC’s
emigrants move to MIC’s, NIC’s and HIC’s, forces HIC’s to increase barriers.
• Causes of forced migration: natural disaster destroying home/ability to make a
living. war so people have to flee to save their lives. religious or political
persecution. Forced recruitment of labour. war and civil conflict (ethnic cleansing
operations). human-induced disasters (climate change).
Barriers to international migration
Cost: closing-up and opening-up costs. journey cost depends on distance and
method. high costs for illegal immigration as have to pay for people to help cheat
system. emotional cost
Distance: biggest barrier. long journeys cost more and take more time. more
difficult to return to point of origin and to keep in contact.
Cultural and information: limited info about destination. different language, religion
and cultural outlook. migrant may stand out and suffer persecution. ethnic ghettos
(people from same place). improved technology so can see destination. reduced
social barriers
Immigration laws: late 20th century most HIC’s imposed restrictions in immigrants;
visa requirements more demanding. tourists have to have return ticket to prevent disappearing. intercepting illegal sea crossing. sending back ineligible asylum
seekers, airline that brought them pays for return. building border fences
Main migration flows and patterns of recent years
economic migrants from Mexico, Central America and Caribbean into USA. west
Africa into EU. south-east Asia into Australia.
free movement within EU of people from poorer east Europe to richer west Europe.
construction workers from south Asia into oil rich countries around the Gulf
young men move to the mining industries of South Africa, Botswana and Australia
refugees fleeing from war in Afghanistan and Syria into neighbouring countries
students from China and Russia going to school and university in EU and USA
Impacts of migration on destination country
• negative economic: more people mean cost of providing services increases. most
people are of childbearing age, more maternity beds and school places have to be
provided. more housing to be built and local taxes increased. some industries rely
heavily on migrant labour, causes problems for local workers. some money earned
is sent back as remittances and not spent in destination country. more differs to
reduce unemployment in original population. welfare payments remain high even
though economy is growing
• positive economic: migrants take fewer desirable jobs. destination country gains
skilled labour at reduced cost. skills shortages filled quickly. reduces labour costs
for employers as workers work for low rates. if migrant returns to place of origin
when they retire cost of pensions doesn’t have to be borne by the destination
country. if migrants are allowed in on work permits, these can be revoked when
economy goes into recession, saves money on welfare benefits.
• Negative social: ethnic ghettoes develop when group of immigrants choose to live
in the same area. can depress house prices and leads to racial tension. schools
become dominated by migrants’ children and local children may educate
elsewhere. migrant’s cultural identity are lost, especially for second generations.
• Positive social: multi-ethnic society can lead to greater appreciation and
understanding of other cultures. immigrant families often move into and revitalise
declining services such as local convenience stores. wider range of products and
foods become available to whole community.
• Political and cultural: discrimination against minority immigrant groups can lead to
unrest. laws can be brought in to outlaw racism and extremism. lead to reaction
from original population, leading to anti-immigration ways. calls for restrictions on
immigration so more border checks and increased barriers to movement. migrants
may ‘close ranks’ and emphasise more strongly their cultural identity. arts
enhanced by immigrant culture. move into mainstream.
• Environmental: reduced population pressure can lower rate of environmental
degradation. leads to growth of cities, more pollution.
Impacts of migration on origin
Negative economic: loss of young adults from the labour force. abandoned farms,
reducing agricultural output. loss of labour force may deter inward investment by
foreign TNCs, economic development may be slowed if skilled workers leave a
‘brain drain’. ageing population reduces tax revenues and increasing government
expenditure on pensions.
Positive economic: reduction in unemployment and welfare payments. remaining
workers become more productive. more food available, increasing daily calorie intake. less pressure on services and amenities. housing shortages may be
reduced. larger farms and more commercial, boosting food production and
economy. remittances sent home and money can stimulate demand, leads to
economic growth. returning migrants may bring more skills, improving labour force
quality.
Negative social: if migrants are successful, more youths may migrate, unbalancing
social structure of country. young men migrate more than women, may find it
difficult to find marriage partners. traditional extended family is disrupted by
emigration of younger generation. no support for elderly.
Positive social: population density is reduced and no. of people per household is
reduced, children can have room of their own. BR decreases as migrants are of
childbearing age. reduces pressure in child clinics and reduces class size in
schools. woman becomes head of household if man migrates, improves her social
status. remittances pay for home improvements and private education. returning
migrants can increase social expectations in community, made more aware of
education value and need for leisure facilities.
Political: if migration leads to population decline, government may adopt pronatalist policies to boost BR. government may try to discourage emigration. taxes
increased to compensate for lost tax revenue.
Bulgaria case study: impact on origin
Social statistics: population = 7.3 million. birth rate = 9.5% per year. death rate =
15% per year. life expectancy = 74 years. fertility rate = 1.43 children per woman.
total rate of population change = minus 6.2%. proportion of single person
households = 33%. proportion of families with no children under 16 = 76%.
Reason for declining population is emigration which is caused by economic decline
and reduction of barriers to migration
economic decline: 1980’s Bulgaria was communist and the fall (1989) meant farms
split up and old factories shut down. high rates of unemployment and rapidly rising
prices. poverty increased dramatically. encouraged emigration.
Reduction of barriers to migration: huge amount of people leaving for better life
search. most emigrants well educated and young. the fall (1989) removed
restrictions to people leaving. joined EU 2007 and allowed free movement. Bulgaria
had been blocked 2007 but released in 2014.
• Economic impacts: ageing pop. puts pressure on gov as more demand for
healthcare and pensions. decline in working population reduces productivity, GDP
and governments tax revenue. not enough workers to work the land. remittances
may rival national income. HDI declined because of purchasing power of population
and ability to attract foreign investment.
• Social impacts: elderly become lonely as children move abroad. high emigration
rates reduce birth rate as its childbearing age that people leave. DR risen as young
have emigrated, increased average age of pop. so more likely for people to die.
unemployment led to alcoholism and depression which increased death rate.
• Emigration influence on government policy: depopulation is worrying. youths leave
so no one to pay pensions and social welfare. extra tax relief and kindergarten
provided to persuade more people having children and careers. joining EU leads to
economic development and foreign investment rise. TNC’s attracted by low labour
costs.
Mexico case study: impact on destination
2000km land border and hard to patrol. 500,000 arrived legally/illegally each year.
12mill migrants in USA. settle in neighbouring states: Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico. distance-decay applies but Texas and CA belonged to Mexico before
1836.
Economic impacts: low unskilled jobs taken as higher wages than Mexico, helps
USA economy as residents don’t want those jobs. perception created of immigrants
taking jobs as when USA needs jobs there aren’t as many. increased poverty for
USA as they all have to work at same low paid rate. legal migrants are working and
paying taxes which helps with US social spending and infrastructure development.
remittances sent home so less money being spent, and less purchase tax being
raised in USA
Social impacts: difficult with integration, Mexicans live together so 2nd language
skills are low. immigrants are increasing crime rates. drug smuggling. low income
and poor education are factors that lead to crime. Mexican cultural traditions have
been introduced with increase cultural diversity of USA. not everyone speaks
English so Spanish now taught in schools. helps ease social tensions, widens
language skills of youth and improves their potential career opportunities. young
migrants counteract potential population decline. contributes to social security
system and help offset pensions taken by ageing US population.
Political impacts: many illegal migrants so negative attitudes towards them and
there have been responses aimed at reducing migrant numbers. immigrants use
public services and that’s been limited for non-citizens. (CA proposition 187).
migrants perceived as burden on economy, migrants have led to debates in US
congress about immigration policy, construction of barrier along border to prevent
illegal crossings. 300% increase in border guards. costs $12bill per year, and
patrols by vigilantes have increased. residents living near border have mobilised to
prevent illegal crossings.
Poland case study: international migration
EU allows free movement. 2004 poor eastern European countries joined EU. people
moved to the west to get jobs with higher jobs. immigration encouraged as paid
taxes and helped economy grow. 2004-2007: half a mill move from Poland to UK,
only 60,000 expected.
UK government reaction to Poland immigration: pressures on jobs, schools,
housing. UK residents couldn’t cope. ethnic riots in Wrexham. poles weren’t
restricted but had to register to worker registration, so border agency could
monitor situation. government restricted Romanians and Bulgarians in 2007.
stricter regulations outside EU
Character and pattern of immigration to UK: early migration streams included nonEU people. moved into big cities where work was available. clustered in ethnic
groups producing recognisable ghettoes. out of town industrial towns were moved
into such as Wrexham, largest in Europe. picking fruit in Hereford and Boston
received many migrants. impacts of poles was more widespread than previous
migration streams.
Push factors from Poland: high unemployment of 19%. Low wages, 1/3 of EU
average. Housing shortages and overcrowding so only 300 dwellings for every
1000.
Pull factors from Poland: ease of migration – UK allowed unrestricted access to
Poles. plenty of jobs and high wages – big demand for affordable reliable
tradesman and wages much higher than Poland. good exchange rate – pound
worth five polish zloty so sending few pounds back to Poland made a big
difference.
Impacts on Poland: economic – shortage of workers slowed polish economic growth
but boosted by remittances (£2.2billion per year). social – young migrants so led to
ageing population but housing shortages and unemployment reduced. Impacts on UK: economic – UK economy grew because of extra workers but money
was sent back to Poland. economic – poles paid taxes which helped pay UK
pensions. social – some Brits resented the poles taking ‘British’ jobs. political –
British immigration laws been made much stricter, especially for outside EU.
