“What Europe saw in 2015 and what the Americas are witnessing today are not simply refugee flows or market-driven population movements but rather ‘survival migration’ . . .” writes Alexander Betts (“Nowhere to Go,” Foreign Affairs, November-December 2019).
According to Betts, many refugees today aren’t traditional refugees fleeing persecution nor are they economic migrants seeking jobs. They are fleeing “failed or fragile states, violence, and economic insecurity.” They are seeking to stay alive.
The governments of the countries from which they flee, whether to the United States or to Europe, are often incapable of governing. Corruption and crime are high and dominate politics and business. In addition, drought and crop failures increase food insecurity.
Betts suggests international cooperation to fight crime and develop stronger local governments, including economic development in home countries.
Some have suggested a “Marshall Plan” to overcome radical need as for Europe after the devastation of World War II.
Whether such strategies succeed over the long term probably depends on whether large numbers of citizens in developed nations realize the need for global answers. Perhaps enough citizens may finally understand how survival migration affects the world as a whole.
Citizens of more prosperous nations might also be moved by simple human kindness.
I was interested to hear a speaker insisting that “immigrants” and “refugees” should be recognized and considered in separate categories.
Traditionally, they have been separate categories. My understanding is that a refugee is forced to leave his/her country because of war, persecution, or natural disaster. An immigrant has more choice. An example would be a person gaining permanent residence in the United States after being hired by an American university to teach. Another example would be the foreign spouse of a U.S. citizen gaining permanent residence.