Migrationary Trends: Update

By: Bikal Dhungel

The UN and the IOM ( International Organisation of Migration ) published the migration trends of 2015 with the data provided in 2016. The trends looks similar to the years before but in comparison to a decade before, it has increased a lot. Outward migration was fueled by wars and violence in some parts of Asia and Africa. Inward migration was fueled by high economic development in East Asia and oil rich middle eastern countries.

The pictures below shows the number of international migrants by major area of destination and the migration by origin. The pictures show that Europe hosts largest number of migrants. It is also to be noted that Europe also has very high internal migration especially from Eastern to Western Europe.
                                                                           

( Source: UN, IOM Migration Report 2015 ) 

The two pictures below shows the countries sending the largest number of refugees in 2000 and 2015 and the destination. The figures remain almost unchanged except that the total number has increased drastically. The third picture below shows the direct connections meaning the countries providing largest number of immigrants to certain countries. This can be due to cultural links and ties, historical relations, Colonialism in the past etc. 

( Sources: All Pictures, UN, IOM, Migration Report 2015 ) 

Notes on Refugee Crisis

By: Bikal Dhungel 

Over 50 million people have left their houses due to war, violence, repression, climate change and so on. 20 million of them have left their country and are living in refugee camps. From Kibera to Lebanon, Turkey, South Sudan to elsewhere, there is a big crisis going on. It has already reached Europe. More than 1.5 million refugees are expected to reach Europe at the end of this year. In Germany alone, there will probably be more than 800,000 refugees. So, few quick notes on this issue.

• European Union is based on solidarity: A big joke. European countries present their solidarity when it is about getting billions of Euros but not when getting the refugees. Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Italy and others were pointing on solidarity in times of crisis and also got billions of cash injection from Germany but when Germany is asking them to take their fair share of Refugees, they don't care.
• Fixed Quote for refugees according to population size and economy of member state: Although high ranking officials and governments including the European Commission is calling for quotas but I am sure, it will fail. Why ? Refugees enter the EU from few countries, Greece, Malta, Spain, Italy, Poland and Hungary. Those arriving in a boat will land either in Greece, Spain, Italy or Malta. Those coming from Russia , Georgia or Ukraine will arrive first in Poland. These countries are member of European Union. So, when we introduce quota system, Greece, Italy, Spain, Poland and Hungary should also take their share of Refugees. But when they refugees were already there first and from there they came to Germany or other economically strong nations, who believes that these migrants will agree to return to these countries ? If they were happy there, they would not come to Germany in the beginning. Moreover, Hungary, Greece or Spain themselves have high unemployment rates. Refugees will not get any job either. So, sooner or later, they will have to come to better countries anyway. Hence, wasting time discussing about fixed quota is useless.
• Why do people , hundreds of thousands are coming from Balkans ( Serbia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Bosnia, Albania ) even though there is no war or violence and they are even EU candidates ? : Simple economics. When the average income of Balkan states is less than 250 Euros per month, and when Refugees get in average over 400 Euros per month without working at all, who is the stupid person still living there ? All of them will come to Europe even though they know that they wont get asylum. Europe is a free cash machine. Politicians from Balkan countries are telling to stop paying cash to people from Balkan. Only free foods will stop their incentive from moving away from their country. When large number of youths are moving out of the country, its bad for their economy.
• Why so many want to come to Germany ? - The over warmheartedness. This is good in the first stance but when it spreads well across international media, over night, it can turn into a disaster. We saw in the news, also people who were in Hungary, applying for asylum , when they heard that Germany is giving residence permits to Syrians, they took the trains over night to Germany. In such cases, due to immense pressure, the welcoming habits of Germans can have an end within a short time. Two years ago, in a survey, 70% Germans expressed that their government should help refugees from war torn countries. Now, due to massive inflow, they feel that their country cannot handle it anymore. So, only 49% thinks that Germany can accept more refugees.
• Isnt 800,000 a small number in a country of 82 million ? - in the first sense yes, its 1% of population. But we should also see the future, in 2015 its 800,000. What about 2016,17,18 and later ? Are the social infrastructure enough ? Are they capable to handle in a short time ? Answer is no. The capacity of schools, universities should be increased, there should be enough housing, public transportation should support the growing population, local authorities should be able to handle them. Otherwise, the constitutional democracy will collapse when its overcrowded.
• What about social impact ? Almost since a year I am following the news, that local authorities in Germany are concerned about refugees. They are doing nothing else than looking for a place to house refugees, giving them foods etc. Their capacity is limited and they are overwhelmed. The national state cannot help either because they too are in problem. It can radicalize the local population that, their representatives are focusing on refugees and have no time for social issues, things about local people, local schools, infra-structures etc. Charity can only be limited. See the earthquake in Nepal. In the first two weeks, people from around the world rushed to help, donated lots of money and the international media covered the news from Nepal. Soon after that, they returned to their business as usual, and the world forgot Nepal. Now its the turn of Nepalese themselves to help. But in the case of Refugees, they are continually coming, so when local authorities focus on this for long time, it will impede development and impact on their own economy which will radicalize the people and they will start to see Refugees as threat to their existence. Then they start to throw stones to refugee houses and in extreme case, attempt to kill them. Germany already has a dark past. Terrible pictures from Rostock Lichtenhagen, Hoyerswerda, Mölln, Solingen and elsewhere shows that public opinion cannot be neglected.
• 
  
  Are the people coming to Europe real refugees or are they really looking to live in a peaceful place ? - May be no. In every country, when there is war, people who are effected the most are poor people. In the cases of extreme violence, they are displaced within a nation or in some cases they flee to neighbouring countries and live in camps. Those who make their way to better countries are mostly from high class. They can afford to pay the traffickers to come to Europe. Although there is war, who is the one that needs most security ? It is the poorest, not higher class. During the Civil War in Nepal, 200,000 people were displaced within the country. People from higher class knew about a thing called asylum and made their way to Belgium or US or UK and claimed asylum. Their demand was genuine and also got the protection status. On the other hand, the real vulnerable ones continually suffer. This is why I personally prefer the UNHCR to choose most vulnerable refugees from war torn area and re-settle them in third countries. UNHCR chooses the ones in need and not the upper class who can afford to go to Europe.
  Second point that they only want to live in peace is not true in most cases. Take the example of refugees arriving via Turkey or Hungary to Germany. Turkey is peaceful, Hungary is peaceful, even Serbia is peaceful. They could have resided there if peace is all they wanted. But why they choose Germany ? Because their intention is to make more money, which is understandable in basic sense but this is not what Asylum is about. A wish to live a better life is not and should not be a reason to apply for asylum.
  
  
• Long term impact of going away – Germany was totally destroyed after World War II. Had they opt to move away, there would have been massive outflow to other countries and probably Germany would still be as poor. But the politicians had a plan to rebuild, with support from other countries as well. They made the people work hard, they cleared off the ashes and made way for economic development. Within 10 years, they had a fantastic economy. If there is a problem, it should be solved. Running away from the problem will not achieve anything.
• How to help refugees in cost efficient way ? - There are many ways. The cost of processing asylum applications, housing and lodging refugees and other cost will reach a total of 4 billion Euro for Germany this year. 4 billion Euro for 800,000 people gives 5000 Euro per person per year. If you invest this amount in refugee camps, it is enough to provide a decent living. It is possible to build a nation from this amount if financial support from other countries are combined. In refugee camps in Lebanon, if you invest this amount in schools, building markets, building roads and creating employment, it will give incentive for people to remain there. Nation-building approach must be well thought. There will still be people who might not find jobs but then take one person from each household and educate them or let them work in the EU and send money back home, and that money could be invested to generate income. Doing this in massive scale will help the refugees where they reside and the support in European societies will increase as well. Like people who invested their toys and cloths in Munich central station, send these cloths to refugee camps. It will save costs for them. There are many such things that can be done.
• But how to go further immediately ? Actually the west can solve the problem but they dont seem to be interested in it. Unlike Egypt, Libya or Tunisia, the first war in Syria lasted almost 1.5 years. The rebels failed to topple down the government of Bashir Al Assad. This is a clear proof that there was a wide support for Al Asad in Syria. It was also thought that the rebels were brought from foreign countries with the help of foreign secret services. And then western nations decided to bomb Syria. It still did not help. Syrian Army is still fighting with rebels. Now the rebels are also the cadets of Islamic State, which is much worse than a dictatorship. The west has realised that Asad was good for Syria at least in terms of peace. The war continued and has no sign of ending soon. Now, the west can learn from its mistake and talk with Asad, which Russia is already doing. Talking with Asad, Iran ( which is helping Syria with weapons ) and Russia can help to drive out or destroy the IS fighters and rebel groups in Syria. The war will then be over and more refugee flow will stop. With financial support, Syria can then be rebuilt and the displaced refugees might return. If the west fail in this diplomacy, they will have to calculate with more refugees in the future, both from Syria and from camps in Lebanon or Jordan. In addition, when the west sells weapons to Saudi Arabia or other rich gulf states, they can raise the issue. They can tell them not to finance the war or terrorism based on political interest. And of course they should take the refugees. Gulf region is underpopulated and vast amount of wealth is available. If there is political will in these countries, Syrian people will find easier to adapt due to similar culture.
• What to learn – I think , at last the citizens of the west should understand, if your country bomb a nation, you should also take refugees. Those who raise war should face consequences. It is a scandal, when countries like USA go to war in Iraq or elsewhere for own self interest and then the refugees will come to Europe, due to its close geographical location and they bear all the cost. It is a scandal. That is why, before the US raise any war, Europe should take stance and say, we will not participate in this war unless it is vitally necessary. Same is valid for European states that participate in such war. It is a shame that UK is reluctant to take refugees. UK bombed Libya, Syria and others but only took 200 syrian refugees till date. If there is enough public pressure to avoid war, the refugee flow will be lower.
      
• How Europe can profit from immigration – European population is ageing. With the same growth rate and no immigration, German population will fall to 73 million in 2050 from 81 million today. They have the lowest birth rate of the world. Other European states are not far. 15 out of 28 European states will face population decline until the mid century. In the case of Germany, researchers in the University of Coburg calculated that every year, there should be a net immigration of 500,000 until 2030 to maintain the population stable. Failure to do so will reduce the quality of life because more and more money should be spent on old age homes and the pensions of older people. When the number of youths will be reduced, tax should increase. This will reduce incentive to work and will cause negative impact in the economy. Japan and other advanced nations are suffering with this problem. For this reason, Japan is allowing further immigration. Western Europe is dependent on eastern Europe to fill its labour gap but eastern Europe cannot support for a long term. Because lots of polish are moving away to western Europe for employment, scarcity of labour is common in Poland now. It is allowing immigration from non-European countries and will be a major destination in the coming days. So, supports of education and training fo refugees will help Europe in the longer term.
• How to go forward now – Resolve the bottlenecks. The main cause of chaos in the society is due to existing system. There are 400 people in Germany who listen to the refugees and decide either they are allowed to stay or not. 400 people for 800,000 refugees this year is far too few. The 40% refugees who are recognized as refugees or get temporary protection can stay and everything is ok. But the remaining 60% can appeal, they can take a lawyer, go to the court and in this cases, these 400 workers are required to provide details about the application process and on which ground the people were rejected. This is why, the application process in Germany take years and in best case, 6 months. In the Netherlands and Switzerland, they are dealt within few days. Those who are rejected will be sent back easier. In Germany, it takes place rarely. In 2013, only 4000 out of 200,000 rejected refugees were sent back. Others stay anyway. This does not make any sense. The state should not make decision based on their heart rather on minds. The balloon of heart and mind can be dangerous and costly. At the present, if the success rate of Syrians are 90% anyway, why dont the government give them temporary protection immediately without going through all the process of asylum ? This would relax the bureaucracy and they can come to job market faster, they wont need any government support and they even pay tax which is good for the nation. Most importantly, other asylum application can be dealt faster. Of course there are also problems with it. Not all people who claim themselves as Syrians are actually Syrians. They can be Moroccans, Tunisians or Egyptians. In the past, many Indians, Pakistanis etc have claimed asylum in the name of Afghans because there is war going on in Afghanistan and they have higher acceptance rate as refugees than the Indians or Pakistanis. Similarly, many Nepalis have claimed asylum in the name of Tibetans or Bhutanese. This is a serious challenge and hard to detect as they speak similar language and look similar physically. Still, as a whole, the policy of exempting Syrians in the first place can help to normalize the crisis.    

Deaths of Nepalese Migrant Workers Abroad

By: Bikal Dhungel

Over 2 million Nepalese reside in foreign countries for employment purposes and this number is expected to rise further. The recent earthquake has pushed many into financial ruin. The total destruction and the reconstruction cost is expected to be around 30% of the GDP. International migration is the only lifeline for many to earn bread in order to survive. In this situation, the duty of the government is to facilitate this process by better policies for example by lowering the cost of migration. The statistical data shows that the poorest 20% of Nepalese receive only 8% of the remittance flow whereas the richest 40% receive 60%. The data also shows that the richest 20% do not reside in the Gulf rather in Western Europe, North America, Australia or Japan. Hence, helping the poorest to migrate is vital for poverty reduction. 

The average cost of migration to the Gulf is 80k excluding personal expenses. Reducing this cost is important to enable the poor to migrate. Majority of migrant workers are employed in construction sites in the Gulf. Construction works are relatively dangerous. Consequently, several dead bodies return to Nepal in daily basis. The figure below summarizes the total deaths in given years.

The figure shows that majority of death occurs in Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. However, all deaths are not work related. There are suicide, death through road traffic accidents, murder and so on.

It is also important to compare the deaths in foreign countries with the ones in country. The figure below, published by the University of Washington Panel of health data collection, shows the number of years lost in a year. 

Based on this figure, 5323,000 years are lost every year in Nepal. Considering a life expectancy of 70 years, slightly more than 76,000 people die due to above mentioned reason. This is equivalent to 0.271% of the Nepalese population of 28 million. Based on 2014 figure, about 2 million Nepalese are working abroad. Calculating 0.271% of 2 million gives a total number of 5420 (0.271/100 x 2000000). This means, with the death rate of Nepal, 5420 people should have dead per year but the rate is around 3400, which is 0.17%. 

However, this number is not a good comparison as there are disease like Preterm birth complications are also included which can not be the case with migrant workers. Also, migrants are generally healthier than the average population as they require a healthy body to perform physical tasks. Still, several research has shown that migrants often die of diseases that they were not aware of. The medical check up system in Nepal to acquire a foreign employment permit is not efficient and the authorities giving the medical certificate without any check up is business as usual. 

The message from this article is simple: while we blame foreign countries for the deaths of migrant workers, we often ignore the higher number of deaths at home. Of course it is necessary to ensure a safe working conditions but these are often the things we as migrant senders cannot influence. What we can do is to ensure that medical check ups are performed well and the migrant is aware of any health issue he or she is facing and from the government level, it is necessary to pressure the receiving government to enact safety measures. One death is too many and everything should be done to avoid it but we should never transfer the blame to others while not fulfilling our duties. Economically, migrant death means huge burden to the country. Suppose an only bread winner of a family dies in Gulf. His family and children are likely to be pushed into poverty trap because they might have invested heavily for the migrant's trip and other costs. So, several people will be pushed to poverty due to one death. A recommendation for the government is also to initiate an insurance scheme so that the migrant family should not suffer with economical consequences. This is equally valid for the death within Nepal.