 PANEL DISCUSSION Sustaining social cohesion in face of the global migration wave Friday 12 October
Jean-Pierre Garson of the OECD set the scene for the discussion by pointing out that migrants accounted for only about 200 million people in a world population of 6.5 billion. “There’s no invasion,” he said. Generally migrants head for rich countries, and particularly, in the last 15 years, for Europe, “so there’s no Fortress Europe,” he added. He said there was a growing trend by countries receiving migrants to seek individual workers rather than entire families. Pointing out that migrants played a key role in economic growth, he noted that although European countries were looking for qualified workers, many migrants ended up in jobs for which they were over-qualified. Friction between local and incoming populations was highlighted by Maria Livanos Cattaui, who pointed to difficulties in Switzerland where 20 per cent of the population was foreign. Friction was exacerbated when statistics showed that this 20 per cent was responsible for 70 per cent of the crime. Even in the U.S., which had a reputation as an immigrant-friendly country, said Kathleen Newland, there had been persistent friction. She cited the example of “Founding Father” Benjamin Franklin who complained about too many Germans. She said integration in the U.S. had traditionally been facilitated by public schools, the military and the labour market. But schools today were not functioning as well and conscription had been scrapped. This left the labour market to drive integration. The greatest challenge in the OECD countries was the integration of migrants into the body politic. However this could not be done by recipient countries alone: the countries of origin had to increase opportunities, as well as learning to treat international migration as a development asset . “Some developing countries have learnt that their diasporas are a great asset to development,” she said. She noted that nothing undermined trust and generated cynicism as much as governments that showed themselves incapable of dealing with issues of greatest concern to the public. She cited the examples of governments that claimed to erect “walls” against immigration, and U.S. laws apparently designed to stop “undocumented labour” when everyone knew that the country’s agriculture depended on illegal workers. She recommended the establishment of a Citizens’ Council on Immigration in every country, with business taking the lead. Mari Simonen underlined the need for opportunities for discussion about migration, aided by experts to counter mis-information. Discussions had to take into account perceptions as well as facts, about how individuals viewed people who looked different to themselves. Calling for bold leadership, she said migration had always occurred and always entailed change. She also pointed out that 50 per cent of migrants were women, a percentage that was increasing. They were mostly invisible and legally unprotected. “They make it possible for most of us to be here”, she reminded participants, alluding to the fact that many work as domestic help. Gilles Kepel said France was a nation of immigrants but did not always like to admit it. The country was in the throes of a debate over the introduction of DNA testing of family members seeking to join migrants who had already moved to France. It had become an issue of: “Do we trust them or are they coming to eat our bread?” In France “integration” was a key policy issue, he stressed, compared with the approach in, for example, Britain, which preferred to leave it to market forces. The resulting clusters of migrant populations in Britain were the subject of scrutiny after “home grown” terrorist attacks. Equally, recent riots were a major test of France’s integration policies. There was discussion between members of the panel and audience on whether concepts such as integration and assimilation remained valid. After Newland described the idea of anyone choosing any single affiliation “old-fashioned”, Kepel said the rich could easily accept this view because their credit card was effectively a passport. The same could be not said for the poor. ____________________ |