Notes on the Migration Influencing Policies to Control the Population

Policies relating to migration are concerned with two aspects: internal migration, that is, migration within the country, and international migration, including both immigration and emigration.

Internal migration is considered to be a constitutional privilege in most countries, and, therefore, what national governments can do in this regard is only to encourage internal migration with a view to relieving population pressures, especially when there are regional differentials in density per square mile or kilometer.

The most outstanding example of one such successful attempt is the transmigration scheme in Indonesia. Government sponsored migrants were transported to sparsely inhabited regions of the country and were allotted land, housing etc.

In Malaysia too the Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA) has been successful in inducing people to migrate to comparatively less populated regions of the country.

In fact, around 8 per cent of all migration in Malaysia in recent years is a direct consequence of the FELDA resettlement programme and an additional substantial amount of migration has resulted from economic side-effects induced by the various schemes of FELDA.

Such attempts are not always successful because other considerations such as the nature of the terrain, the job opportunities available, the factor of cultural affinity, etc. play an important role in determining internal migration.

Occasionally, however, instances of government control over population distribution become available, as when the Russians moved millions of people from one part of the country to another, or when American Indians were pushed into reservations.

The concern today in most countries is with the high levels of population growth rates in metropolitan regions, and heavy migration from rural areas to urban centers, leading to increase ^: pressures on urban services.

In a survey of population policies relating to population distribution and internal migration covering 168 countries of the world undertaken by the United Nations in 1983, it was found that there was widespread dissatisfaction among governments with the distribution of population and currents of internal migration in their countries.

Government’s developing countries expressed this dissatisfaction to a greater extent than those of developed countries. A majority in both groups, however, have policies designed to reduce the flow of internal migration, that is, from rural to urban areas.

The majority of the governments both in the developed and the developing countries reported that they had policies on spatial distribution of population.

These policies generally took the form of development strategies to influence the volume and directions of internal migration. Other strategies of an indirect nature to make population distribution policies effective are also employed.

These include the following: tax incentives and disincentives for the location of industries, subsidies to industries locating in favoured areas, location of investments in public enterprises, decentralisation of government services, establishment of national capitals in sparsely populated areas, etc.

Problems, however, arise when conflicts take place between the objectives of population distribution policies and those of economic growth policies, especially when the promotion of economic growth has to be achieved at the most rapid feasible rate.

As has been pointed out, “In a majority of countries, economic growth policies tend to take priority over population distribution policies, with the result that national development programmes sometimes continue to favour the expansion of overcrowded areas.”

As for international migration, most countries today have well defined policies. Restrictions on international migration are increasing, and governments continue to have additional regulations, limiting both entry into and exit from their domains.

In recent times, an interesting example is provided by Israel, where immigration has been encouraged, though, of course, it is restricted only to Jews.

One of the first laws passed by the Government of Israel after the State was founded in 1948 was the Law of Return, according to which every Jewish person, no matter where he lived, was entitled to immigrate into Israel.

A study of the development of the immigration policy of Great Britain is also relevant when migration-influencing policies are considered. Till 1962, there were no restrictions on migration to Great Britain from the commonwealth countries.

The Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962 insisted on an official employment voucher as a requirement for settling down in Britain. In 1965 an upper limit of 8,500 was placed on the issue of such employment vouchers, though dependents were also admitted for settlement.

The Immigration Act of 1971 which came into force in January 1973 introduced a uniform system of immigration control for both Commonwealth and Non- Commonwealth countries, which required work permits for both types of prospective immigrants.

This Act was meant to discourage immigration of all those who could prove parental links with Britain, and come in the wake of the incident in Uganda, when all Asians with British passports were expelled from that country, and Britain was morally obliged to finally accept 28,000 such persons.

The latest development in respect of immigration laws of the United Kingdom is the Nationality Act of 1983, which is a culmination of a twenty-year process of placing increasing controls on immigration and virtually stopping permanent immigration from overseas.

According to this Act, three separate categories of British subjects have been created. Only those who are citizens of Britain, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and colonies “closely connected” with Britain become British citizens with the right to live in Britain and pass on this right to their children.

The other” two categories have no automatic right of residence. These include citizens of British-dependent territories and British overseas citizens mainly located in former British colonies in Eastern Africa and in Malaysia.

With this Nationality Act, the seven-century-old legal tradition by which any child born in Britain was eligible for British citizenship also came to an end.

Australia is another country where the population policy is concerned mainly with immigration.

For several years, Australia considered only Europeans as desirable migrants and extensive immigration of Asians to Australia was effectively prevented for almost a century despite the fact that the country was sparsely populated and needed labour.

Since 1957, however, Asians have been granted naturalisation on the same basis as other settlers, with this major difference that financial assistance is not provided to them for their passage to Australia even if they are needed for that country’s labour force.

In 1978, Australia announced a new immigration policy which was expected to increase immigrations. As stated in reply to the Inquiry conducted by the United Nations, “the programme underlines the Government’s faith in immigration as an element in economic growth.”

It has been emphasised that the underlying premise of the policy is that migration to Australia should be for permanent settlement. Attempts are made to make it easier for family members to qualify for admission, by application of numerical weightings, or points, to the assessment procedure.

For independent applicants, the new approach to migrant selection is also based on numerical weightings of factors considered to be indicators of capacity to settle successfully in Australia.

The main intention of this system is that the migrant intake should be in keeping with the capacity of the country to absorb these migrants and that those who are accepted would have the potentiality to settle successfully in the country.

Thus the policy is to attract the right type of migrant who would be an asset to the country and not an economic burden. In 1982, however the Government reduced its target intake of immigrants, mainly due to rising unemployment.

As for emigration, a number of Governments are concerned about the phenomenon of “brain drain,” and would like to restrict the emigration of skilled and qualified persons. Any measures adopted to prevent such a brain drain are often ineffective.

Specific instances of Governments taking concrete steps to prevent the emigration of the educated are also available. Egypt has an annual quota for the migration of university graduates and postgraduates.

Pakistan provides several instances of disincentives to discourage emigration of the educated. These disincentives include the provision of higher salaries, a requirement of compulsory service for at least two years, a requirement that professionals must obtain permits from various ministries etc.

In Sri Lanka a compulsory period of government service, especially in the case of the professions of medicine and law, has been instituted.

In the context of international migration, the question of policies related to refugees also needs to be considered, though this type of movement differs fundamentally from any type of migration in that it is not voluntary and may involve large numbers of people who may suddenly find themselves uprooted.

Because of the sheer magnitude of the problem of refugees, many countries are now faced with the question of either reconsidering their own rigid immigration policies or even making new policy decisions concerning refugees.

Three points concerning refugee movements have been emphasised: (1) The admission of refugees generally remains a selective process, with more skilled refugees having a better chance of being resettled; (2) the refugees issue requires new policy decisions regarding whether or not to increase quotas criteria for admission etc.; (3) The refugee problem may lead many countries to reconsider their attitude to legal immigrations.