In the 21st century, migration has become a critical political subject in most countries. Partially, migration is caused by the widening difference between the first and third world countries but other factors such as agricultural revolution, climatic change, rural-urban migration, unemployment, insecurity, and human rights violations still play a big role. Researchers have also observed that migration flow among various nations revolve around economic and technological reforms (Routledge 1).
According to the United Nations (UN), the volume of human migration across the globe has doubled over the past forty years or so and now it is estimated that about 200 million people live in foreign countries (Routledge 1).
Migration has in the past been perceived by developed nations as a big social annoyance, but a great economic necessity and the subject has therefore induced a lot of debates on the same parameters. In a belated manner, many researchers, both political and social, have identified the need for research in this field and related literature has therefore advanced in this regard.
This study therefore establishes comparative migration theories identified as the theories of international relations. These include the Liberalist, Realist, Neo Liberalist, Neo Realist, Marxist, Neo Marxist and other political theories. Analytically, we will dissect these theories with a special emphasis on economic development, culture and security. Comprehensively, this will advance the research on migration as well as the inclusion of political perspectives and the dynamics associated with human migration.
Economic Aspects of Migration
Most immigration theories encompassing economic development through immigrant workers are based on the demand and supply of labor which characterizes the free world. Most of these theories are therefore analyzed and developed on the same principles.
Neo Liberalist Theory
Across the globe, there has been an increasing trend where immigrant workers from developing nations move to developed nations to provide their services as a result of economic motivations (Chae 59). This trend has largely been encompassed by the neo liberalist theory. It has therefore led to the presence of transnational workers across many fields of service provision in wealthy nations such as teaching, nursing, construction and other services of a similar nature.
The principles advanced by the neo liberalist theory together with existing national policies have greatly impacted on the way migration trends have taken shape in both the global North and South. Practically, neoliberal theories have restructured the provision of labor in wealthy nations to systems which could easily pass as unjust for most human rights activists because blue collar workers (for example) have been noted to offer their services in developed nations for a rudimentary pay.
Also, from the inadequacies caused by many immigrant policies in wealthy nations, there has been an increased illegal trade in immigrant workers across many national borders. These observations cannot only be comprehended from a political aspect only, because a large part of it is economic as well (Herzig 46).
According to the neo liberalist theory, capitalistic tendencies evidenced the world over has contributed to the increased mobility of workers across many wealthy and poor nations.
Essentially, capitalism has increased divisions in economic development, such that many immigrant workers move to wealthy nations because of better economic prospects, as opposed to their own countries which are usually coupled by high levels of poverty. In turn, capitalistic tendencies have locked a great deal of wealth in most wealthy nations and increased the gap for economic developments in wealthy and poor nations.
A key indicator of this trend has been in the care sector where many immigrant workers have since time immemorial been providing care for the sick, elderly, disabled and children, together with other domestic services of a similar nature (Misra 3). Capitalistic tendencies have also increased segregation on the basis of nationality, race, class, gender and other parameters of social division, such that there is an increasing concern of which nationality of race does work, more often with stereotypical tendencies.
The Neo liberalist theory advances the fact that labor intensive work has especially been one of the biggest drivers to social divisions in the society, such that there is a clear-cut difference in who is to provide labor and who is to receive it.
For example, there is a big division in gender work across labor intensive industries giving where there has been a common perception that men should provide this work. However, human rights advocates have disputed such stereotypes and advanced the fact that women have been socially taught to think in such manner, but such roles (labor intensive work) have never been exclusively designed for them (Misra 3).
Research studies point out that most employers do not necessarily know that their homes are a common workplace for many immigrant workers because unknown to them, many immigrant workers leave their home countries to work in the households of wealthy families in host nations. This trend is largely brought about by class differentials as observed by the neo liberal view. Economic resources are the biggest determinant of immigrant work across many nations since the advent of the industrial revolution (Misra 4).
In fact, many immigrant workers are observed to provide their services in many service oriented industries like construction work and the likes, in form of unskilled labor. Economic differences have even gone as far as who provides services and the determination of the quality of such services as well.
The obvious differences between employers and workers are the leading drive of immigrant workers and indeed,
“a crucial determinant of the extent of employment in paid domestic labor in a given location” (Misra 4).
Interestingly, this has contributed to the obvious variations in immigrant work and influenced the positions held by many of these immigrant workers. Class differentials have prehistorically been associated with many gender differentials; many workers are therefore sometimes forced to go out of their way to cater for the needs of their employers while suppressing their own but employers do not necessarily go the extra mile to reciprocate the same effort.
Marxist and Neo Marxist Theories
The Marxist theory has a slightly different view of migration when compared to the Neo liberalist theory. Although some elements of neo liberalist theory are closely related to Marxist principles (like Marxist theory advances the fact that economic inequalities and class differentials determine immigration policies by a large extent), Marxist principles exclusively imply that immigrant workers act like an army of reservists incase a labor crisis ever arises. This is therefore an advancement of international labor division and a supporter of major capitalistic principles in the society.
The Marxist principle essentially has many facets but key among them is the fact that immigration is part of a wider capitalistic movement whereby the ruling and elite class are always exerting a strong downward pressure on the poor. Marxist principles therefore support immigration of human labor from poor nations to developed nations as a fragment of capitalistic development with an implication that capitalism is expected to increase in the coming years.
Thus, immigration will also increase. A similar principle advanced by the Marxist theory is that in the short term, immigration will always be supported by the differences in economic empowerment together with high unemployment levels in poor nations. During periods of economic recession, many regimes have the liberty to review their economic principles so that they may avert any capitalistic related crisis.
Another principle advanced by the Marxist theory is the varying differences of interests by the elite class in a capitalistic society regarding whether immigrant workers fall into a unified capitalistic society or a difference in preference of immigrant policies so that many immigrant workers can be available for exploitation even during periods of high unemployment.
According to the principles advanced by the Marxist theory, there exists two kinds of people on this world; the first group is largely composed of capitalists while the second group is the working class. The category by which people fall into should therefore be evaluated with regards to ones relationship with the factors of production. According to Marxist principles therefore, immigration comes about from the
“submission of the worker to the organization of the means of production dictated by capital” (Myers 1248).
Comprehensively, it is observed that immigration does not only seek to change the labor needs in a particular economy but also defines the structural characteristic of the monopolistic capitalistic economy. Therefore, the short-term changes in immigrant labor can be depicted through the levels of immigrant labor but the long-term effects can be manifested through the projected increase in immigration trends across the globe.
The Marxist principles therefore states that immigration serves the interests of capitalism in a number of ways including reducing worker wages, increased supply of labor force to boost the process of accumulating capital, counteracting the decrease in profits, counteracting a decrease in inflationary tendencies (in a structural manner) and dividing the working class (Myers 1248).
The elite in the society achieve a division of working class through influencing perceptions in social media and through changing education policies to suit their interests.
This system has also been observed to perpetrate racist principles in the society. The same factors have also been observed between the Irish and English divide which has enabled the capitalistic elite to maintain control and power over economic resources. Racism therefore leads to the development of class differentials in the society by dividing people into different groups, and classifying them according to their relationship with the factors of production.
The Marxist theory also amplifies that immigrant workers decrease social conflicts and civil unrests because wherever they go, they enter the system in the lowest socioeconomic level. In the same regard, they have also helped elevate native manual laborers to supervisory positions or jobs that do not require manual labor all together.
Most Marxist writers observe that despite immigrants being a very useful economic group in the conventional capitalistic economy, some developed economies tighten economic policies regarding immigrants, or even in extreme cases, expel immigrants during times of recessions and overproduction (Myers 1249).
However, immigrants have on other fronts been identified as the classical solution to most capitalistic problems because they help expansionary efforts especially in their initial stages of migration; it is easy to isolate their influence during times of overproduction or recession and their effects are usually observed on a small scale and so inflationary pressures are easily controlled (Myers 1249).
Neo Marxist principles have been advanced from the Marxist principles but they largely deal with immigration as regards the global market. In other words, they majorly relate to free market forces that determine immigration as opposed to capitalistic forces advanced by Marxist principles.
The world market therefore provides us with a perfect explanation as to why immigrant systems are they way they are in the present world (Betts 37). Proponents of the Neo Marxist theory on the side of the receiving nation tend to incline more towards the Marxist approach but those that analyze nations where immigrants come from, rely more on the neo Marxist approach.
Cultural Aspects to Immigration
Culture is an important analysis element in immigration because immigrants usually migrate into other cultures which are more dominant than theirs. Depending on the theories discussed, different nations either assimilate minority cultures or are very protective of their cultures to wade off any immigrant influence.
The Marxists theory is one such theory which will be later analyzed as one that advances cultural differentials. The realist theory however purports an acculturation system where the influence of the dominant culture supersedes minority cultures. The liberal culture however accommodates minority culture even under the influence of the majority culture. These theories are further explained below:
Marxist Theory
The Marxist theory identifies that capitalism brings about social differentials. Notably, many employers have in the past-developed different racial preferences for workers in different types of jobs; primarily based on work stereotypes associated with racial groups.
For instance, many employers have always expected Latina women to have a good knowledge on how to cook, take care of children and clean the house while British workers have only been noted to specialize in one of the above (Misra 5). Social differentials have not only led to the development of class, gender, racial and ethnic differentials because the same trend has also been noted on the basis of nationality. Such differentials have been observed in wages and remunerations.
For example, many employers have been observed to pay immigrant workers less than native workers because they assume that immigrant workers live in much deplorable conditions back in their home countries. These sentiments are firmly supported by the Marxist theory which advances the fact that capitalists take advantage of class and economic inequalities to bring about cultural differentials and to exert a downward pressure on wage differentials so that they can increase their own profits (Fitzgerald 42).
Realist Approach
With regard to cultural factors of immigration, the realist theory advances the fact that cultural superiority of host nations always has a firm influence over immigration. In other words, the realist approach exerts cultural superiority over the interests of immigrants. From this base, the realist approach identifies that man is usually self centered, quire rigid and rarely flexible to immigration. In this regard the realist approach proposes that dominant cultures will always have their way as regards immigration policies.
Liberalist Theory
The liberalist theory is quite different from the realist theory. In fact, it is the direct opposite of it because it accommodates human rights and is a deviation from traditional cultural views of immigration, culture and religion. The liberalist theory is therefore more flexible on immigrants and much accommodative to cultural influences from immigrants and the host’s nation as well. America’s divergent culture exposes such a society that is explained by the liberalist theory
National Identity Approach
The national identity approach exposes cultural and national aspects to immigration in more ways than one. Myer identifies that the national identity approach
“…argues that the unique history of each country, its conceptions of citizenship and nationality, as well as debates over national identity and social conflicts within it, shape its immigration policies” (1251).
Compared to other theories of a similar nature, it is evidently clear that the national approach includes all other aspects to immigration except for external and situational elements.
This approach has been advanced from careful consideration of political and social ideologies already advanced from previous studies. Myer outlines such factors as
“national identity, nation building, prejudice, alienation and social closure” (1251).
National identity approach also focuses on a number of factors observed from historical interaction of immigrants among different countries. This approach further goes on to conceptualize the different histories and traditions of each country; like the past perception of American spirit against immigrants which slowly shaped up to be the accommodative spirit of immigrants in America today.
In the same regard, the perceptions many citizens of a receiving nation hold and the existent immigrant policies in many nations are developed from long experiences of immigration during the First World War and beyond (Myer 1251).
The interests of different states with regard to immigration are therefore not necessarily immediately developed from demographical or economic factors but from historical experiences on the same (Paul 108). Self-understanding as a result of cultural acceptance through general idioms, from different perceptions about patriotism and nationhood therefore surface as important in the establishment of immigration policies and perceptions in any given country.
For example, the open immigration policies of the French can be backdated to periods of open assimilation policies of the French which have built over time to create flexible immigrant policies. On the contrary, Germany has often had a problem with its immigration policies, dating back to periods of nationhood which exposes the unresolved issues between the ideas advanced by the Nation-State and those advanced by human rights activists supporting universal principles (Inthorn 82). Indeed, Herbert (cited in Meyer 1252) notes that:
“Policy toward foreign labor … is not only a question of the liberalism or economic strength of these governments but quite clearly also is bound up with the traditions – evolved over generations – within these societies in dealing with foreigners more generally and with foreign workers entering the host country in search of employment in particular”.
Herbert therefore advances the fact that it is wrong to analyze immigration solely on the basis of the phenomenon associated with immigration policies because this approach excludes the important factor of analyzing how the general society would perceive immigrants in the event of a massive employment of foreign workers in their homeland, because immigrants are likely to contravene on the traditions and values.
That said the national approach theory does not totally disregard economic or demographic factors because it acknowledges that there are important short-term factors that influence immigration tendencies.
Without doubt, this approach acknowledges the fact that external factors like economic elements shape immigration but it proposes that there are other factors which affect external elements thereby inducing their effects in the first place. In this regard, the approach advances the fact that immigration is not only affected by structural factors but by ideological factors as well.
It is therefore interesting to observe how economic and cultural factors all play out to determine the politics associated with immigration. The national identity approach therefore tries to deduce the relationship between periods of social unrests and the resultant effect on immigration tendencies (Kurthen 115).
A serious social crisis is definitely bound to induce some form of change and an increase in nationalistic tendencies is bound to increase the level of nativism in any given country. The theory of national identity therefore brings to fore the significant differences in immigration policies across the globe, based on the differences in the levels of nationalism with the previous example of Germany and France. These social differences can be explained on three fronts.
The first frontier is between states or societies that are proponents for large-scale migration and ethnic societies that are firmly against immigration, thereby imposing strict immigration policies. To explain the difference of immigration perspectives within various societies, Meissner cited in (Myer 1254) makes an example of several states by explaining that:
“For Europeans, membership in their societies is tied to shared ethnicity and nationality. In asserting that they are non-immigrant nations, European states reject ethnic diversity as a positive societal value. Immigration, therefore, is seen as a fundamental threat to national unity and the common good.”
Freeman cited in (Myer 1254) is also of the same opinion because he argues that
“divergent immigration histories moulds popular attitudes toward migration and ethnic heterogeneity and affect the institutionalization of migration policy and politics.”
Reference is made of societies that were predominantly English speaking and European countries which observed huge migration trends soon after the end of the Second World War.
The second frontier of the national identity approach identifies that countries which have an ethnically homogenous society have a less likelihood of accommodating trends of permanent immigration. This is often observed if the foreigners are of a dissimilar ethnic background when compared to the existing predominant population. It is therefore obvious that the challenge of accepting foreigners of a different culture when different countries are faced with the same situation primarily depends on the culture of the host society.
Homogenous cultures which have a largely predominant religion and those that are formed from years of little ethnic diversity have posted trends of very minimal immigration due to strict immigration policies. This is in contrast to a country predominantly characterized by a society that is largely founded on political principles as opposed to ethnic.
The third frontier specifically makes reference to citizenship policies especially those to do with birth in relation to the two previous categorizations such as the way the US (which is largely a heterogeneous society) adopted the principle of citizenship by birth and large scale permanent immigration as opposed to Japan and many European states which adopted the principle of citizenship by parentage, thereby enabling them to preserve their national ethnic mix (Zaman 36).
Security
Security is usually an important state concern especially in the advent of an increase in immigration. States have therefore gone ahead to enforce their border controls to safeguard national security interests especially in today’s age of terrorism. Countries therefore enforce border controls to regulate not only illegal immigrants but also legal migrants as a security measure.
However, such operations depend on the country that undertakes them because commonly, states intensify border controls on nationals and borders with certain countries because of their perceived threat to national security. The intensity of border controls is therefore determined by the stakes in security concerns of a given nation. Nonetheless, the following theories explain such actions:
Marxist Theory
The Marxist Theory advances the fact that states will intensify border controls as a security measure especially to safeguard the economic interests in the pretexts of national security.
Bluntly, the theory purports that states will always intensify border controls as a capitalistic measure to ensure their capitalistic interests are properly safeguarded through a control of immigration. The Marxist theory therefore purports that states will intensify security operations as a form of domination by the wealthy nations to maintain their position in the capitalistic pyramid of power.
Neo Marxist
The Neo Marxist theory exemplifies the inequalities that Marxist approach advances of states and why they undertake security measures on immigrants. The Neo Marxist theory therefore identifies more than one factor for ensuring border controls as opposed to the Marxists approach which advances the fact that states will intensify border controls to safeguard their economic security.
The Neo Marxist theory therefore advances the fact that states undertake security controls to regulate human movements not only for economic security but also for social and status control.
Institutional Approach
The role of the state in institutionalizing immigration policies is basically explained in the institutional approach. Some Australian scholars have pointed out that the state has never taken a passive role in implementing immigration policies across many states but has on the contrary been marshalling support from the general public on its goal of increasing the population to a significant level.
For example, in Canada, bureaucrats have had a significant role to play in formulating the country’s refugee and immigration policies in the past.
A pure form of the institutional approach identifies that the state can often influence policies related to immigration in an autonomous manner that transcends the pressures of human rights groups or organizations of a similar nature. Policies that are created out of these structures develop and give birth to institutions which later entrench and uphold the same values. The institutional approach has many facets but it is dependant on the level of autonomy the state has from the societal and human rights pressures.
Some scholars are of the opinion that the state would majorly serve to uphold its own values and serve selfish interests while other scholars point out that considering the nature of the state as a constituent of many agencies, it is bound to serve societal interests related to the mandate of the agencies.
For example, the department of commerce would specifically serve commercial interests. Scholars have however in the past differed on this principle, with some noting that the state acts in a monolithic manner while others noting that the state acts according to the different interests of its agencies. Studies done in Canada during the cold war era noted that the state was a near autonomous entity because it had the ability to conceal important security information from the general public, the legislature and even the media in general.
Nonetheless, many scholars perceive the state as less autonomous than is previously perceived. Myer (1261) is of the opinion that “the state and the institutions that make it, have their own interests and periodically enjoy substantial autonomy, but also from the literature on federal agencies that describes the interactions between state agencies and their “clienteles.” She bases her opinion from theories based on the state done across the globe.
Brettell (155) advances the fact that “the state has a significantly independent agenda, which includes the pursuit of economic security, a rational bureaucratic agenda, and continued legitimacy”. In the same regard, they advance the theory that immigration policies are influenced by many factors such as the factors of production, cultural preferences and geographical or political units.
Structural studies analyzing periods of state dominance in immigration policies advance the opinion that the state is relatively monolithic while scholars in the US advance the theory that the state is basically divided because the agenda of state agents is relatively different from immigration policies. Most of this conflict is observed in the department of labor which may have conflicting policies regarding immigration and adopted by the federal government or the legislature.
The institutional approach is observed to have different variables because on one hand, there are strong states that can easily wade off any societal pressures or pressures coming from human rights groups while there are those states that are relatively weak and often cave in under the pressures of the society and human rights activism.
For instance the UK and the US are classic examples of weak states that often cave in under societal pressures; meaning that their policies regarding trade, industrial development and indeed those of immigration are easily affected. On the contrary, states such as Iran, Japan, Germany and France are strong states and societal pressures are unlikely to affect them.
Hollohied cited in (Myer 1261) advances the fact that “the statist and administrative approach to immigration in France has contributed to the politicization of the issue of immigration; whereas in the United States the federal nature of the political system, the stability of the party system, and the pluralist approach to legislation have helped to fragment the issue and keep it off the national agenda for most of the postwar period. Despite the eminent differences in this fact, it is clear that both the US and France have adopted flexible immigration policies in the past.
The concentration of state power is therefore quite variable when the US is analyzed in isolation because state power is quite assertive when it comes to policies about refugees and people in exile; quite flexible with regard to policies on formal immigration and weakest with regard to illegal immigrants and migrations of similar nature. The different types of policy clusters have their own network of policies with their own influencers and players who rarely contravene each other’s fields.
Realism and Neorealism
Realism and neo realism are two important theories important in the analysis of international relations because they represent international relations as a conflict between the interests of various groups. Kurthen (24) analyzes the two theories by identifying that
“Realism is based on four key assumptions. First, states are the principal or most important actors and represent the key unit of analysis. Second, the state is viewed as a unitary actor, which faces the outside world as an integrated unit. Third, the state is essentially a rational actor. And fourth, national security issues are the most important ones on the international agenda”.
Realism in isolation therefore analyzes the perceived and potential threat of conflict between nations of different premises.
Matters of a high strategic importance are sometimes analyzed as high-level politics between states while social and cultural politics such as those advanced by the national identity theory are often perceived as low stake political issues. Despite the fact that some proponents of the realist approach to immigration acknowledge the fact that economic matters affect how states interact with each other and the formulation of immigration policies, they also acknowledge the fact that all this happens in the context of a political struggle between the state and other players.
This observation is quite important in the understanding of immigration trends across the globe because even perceived conflicts among states (including those of a military nature) influence immigration policies.
More specifically, such conflicts have made states adopt more rigid immigration policies such as the case witnessed in America during the literacy test where there was a strict immigration policy which stressed the need for immigrants to have passports and visas when entering different states. However, on the contrary, many studies have identified that potential threat between various nations may also trigger nations to be more flexible on immigration policies.
For example, after the end of the Second World War, after the French suffered many fatalities, France felt very vulnerable to further German invasion and decided to loosen its immigration policies to accommodate more Spaniards and citizens from Portugal and Italy to boost its national population. The invasion by Japan in Australia also manifests the same trend because the Australian government felt that its population was too scarce to repel further invasion from any Asian country.
Across continents, Israel also exhibited the same security concerns against the Arab world and they therefore encouraged more Jews to come into their country to increase Israel’s numbers. Also during the cold war, many Western powers such as US and Britain encouraged the immigration of people from the wider communist block to express their sentiments against their anti communism stand (Kurthen 56).
Many realists did not however focus their studies regarding the effects of the theory on immigration because more focus was centered on national security and military conquests, together with the perceived threat accompanying it.
The realist approach has also influenced the perceptions held on the impact of immigration policies on immigration trends but none of the new views advanced are a pure form of the realist approach. The US specifically bears a lot of importance on immigration policies because it affects its national security, economic progress and ideological formation. It is therefore important to note that state actions or a lack of it determines how states relate and this in turn affects the stand of different countries regarding the entry and exit of immigrants.
Some scholars have also noted that the accumulation of immigrants in any given state is bound to increase military power and indeed the security of a given state (Kurthen 57). Other scholars have also noted that in the past few decades, many policies regarding foreign relations made in the US have had a direct relation to the number of refugees in America at present.
On a much broader perspective, it is important to note that the realist and the neorealist approaches are closely related because the neo realist approach is founded on principles of the classical realist approach.
Comparatively, the two approaches (realist and neo realist approach) share common principles; like they are both centered on the power of the state in determining immigration policies; both theories advance the fact that states can rationally explain their behavior and that states are always seeking power through the safeguard of their interests.
The neorealist theory analyzes states with regard to the power they hold which determines the relationship with other political entities (Brettell 155). The difference with classical realism theory is that relationships between states can be analyzed through the system or pattern developed by various players in a structured system of an anarchical nature. Waltz cited in (Özçel_K 92) advances the fact that the structural patterns has there facets: “first, it is defined as an international system that characterizes as an anarchic one.
Second, it is an interaction among units with similar functions. Finally, structure is defined by the distribution of capabilities across states in the system”. According to this assumption, it is evidently clear that structure bears a lot of importance to the neorealist approach because it determines the outcome of how various states handle immigration issues (Renshon 137).
Liberal Theory
Liberal scholars take a more positive approach to immigration as opposed to the stand taken by realists and neo realists. They are of the opinion that the economic independence held by major world powers, the influence of nations with other nations and the wide spread of democracy has a direct relation to the way nations interact with a potential possibility of fostering understanding between nations.
As opposed to the principle held by many realist scholars, liberalists hold the view that many actors at a non-state level have a significant impact in the way nations relate. They are also of the opinion that issues of an economic or social nature are equally as important as issues of a military nature (Brettell 168). Some facets of the liberal theory have also had an insignificant impact on policies of immigration although other facets of the same theory have been observed to have a significant influence on immigration policies.
Such factors are like neo liberalism of an institutional nature and theories that advance the effect of globalization in state interaction. Insignificant factors advanced by Myer are like “economic liberalism, interdependence liberalism and republican liberalism” (1266).
Neoliberal Theory
The neoliberal approach identifies that non state actors and international organizations boost state interaction and also help in conflict resolution especially on matters that deal with issues of a common interest. Such organizations are like the NATO, GAAT, EU and such like organizations.
In some respects, these organizations have little effect on immigration policies but with the exception of the European Union which has a significant impact on immigration policies of most European states (Myer 1266). The diminished impact international organizations have on international policies is partly caused by the high political stakes associated with immigration.
Also significant is the complexity of every stakeholder enjoying the benefits accruing from immigration. Finally, research has noted that the high supply of labor to host countries and more especially wealthy nations has exempted many developed countries from collaborating with the sending countries. The success of the European Union in removing barriers of immigration has proved that the neo liberal approach can be practical.
Globalization Theory
The globalization theory advances the fact that states can achieve economic success, stability and security from going global. These observations have kick-started a series of studies which have seen the decline of state control on major immigration policies. Sassen (cited in Myer 1267) argues that “we must accept the possibility that sovereignty itself has been transformed, and that exclusive territoriality – a distinctive feature of the modern state – is being undermined by economic globalization”.
At present, there are many factors that influence the previous state of sovereignty many states used to enjoy. According to Myer, such factors include “emergence of de-facto regimes on human rights and the circulation of capital, as well as ethnic lobbies, ECIEU institutions, unintended consequences of immigration policies and other lunds of policies and economic internationalization” (1267).
The autonomy most states used to enjoy have now greatly diminished especially as many countries position themselves to enjoy the benefits of globalization. Globalization can never be isolated from human mobility if nations expect to gain from globalization because globalization majorly encompasses the free movement of capital and free exchange of ideas (International Organization for Migration 1).
Practically, not many factors affecting immigration have been properly analyzed because over the past decade and beyond, immigration theories have been majorly influenced by issues to do with citizenship and not enough to do with immigration (Papastergiadis 92). In fact, many factors such as human rights concerns, international migratory trends and such like variables currently affect immigration policies and influence the sovereignty of many nations.
Some scholars have often tried to point out the difference between immigration policies and citizenry policies. Evidently, they advance the fact that it is difficult maintaining two types of regimes when dealing with immigrant policies because of the complexity in separating trade policies and immigrant policies.
There is therefore a big dilemma many states face with regards to border control because there is a pressing need to control immigrants at the border but at the same time, there is a need to make the border open to trade with other nations (Moses 222). Such dilemmas have been observed in trade agreements such as that of NAFTA and FATT because they provide an eminent circulation of workers within participating states but at the same time, these workers increase trade within the same states.
The same scholars who advance this theory also note that globalization unfortunately or fortunate enough has a limited influence in the immigration policies of various countries. This notion is still held among various states as well but it is obviously clear that labor circulation is a form of human migration though many analysts prefer to look at the same issue from an economic angle only.
However, the European Union is the only visible body which has managed to provide a comprehensive analysis of the economic and human immigration aspects to such events (Messina 111). Essentially it has been able to merge capitalistic, trade and labor aspects to determine how a state should control its borders for economic and social gains.
The globalization theory has not only been seen to define the above factors because it is also identified to compliment the national approach theory by identifying specific social elements with regard to immigration policies. Scholars have in the past observed that globalization tendencies especially accruing from the period after industrialization exert tremendous pressure on nationality and also influence policies to do with citizenship.
European countries have manifested the conflict associated with nation states with regard to immigration because there is an increased interplay of sub national pressures including the constitutional conflict relating to the prosperity of Europe and state interests, viz a viz the need for Europe to integrate in the world economy. Such pressures are bound to have a negative effect on immigration policies, in that they are bound to make states formulate more rigid policies.
This has in turn led to a crisis of integration of many states that often cave under such pressures when analyzing their integration approach in today’s society that is characterized by globalization. In another front, there is an increased level of insecurity by most states especially brought about by globalization and the increased immigration that follows it; thereby prompting many nations to adopt stricter immigrant policies.
Many scholars have identified that globalization may potentially be the last frontier of capitalism in a global context and it greatly diminishes the control of the state because states can no longer dictate how the economy operates (Rex 257). In the same regard, the society as conceptualized in the post industrial era has caused a deep division in many contemporary societies across the globe when compared to the industrial period (Thieme 37).
Potentially, there is bound to be an increased sense of fragmentation in the society, courtesy of capitalistic tendencies. In turn, there is bound to be a decline of traditional politics because new opportunities are bound to be created through globalization and probably, it will lead to the progression of parties that ride on anti immigrant policies.
Conclusion
Even though there are huge volumes of literature about immigration policies, there needs to be more research merging the different schools of thought advanced by the numerous theories on immigration. This study has by and large, highlighted these theories and provided comparisons on each. The main theories highlighted broaden our conceptualization of existing immigration policies across the globe.
The realism theory for example is analyzed as the basic theory that defines policies to do with refugees while the Marxist and neo Marxist approach sheds some light on immigrant workers under the context of economic and capitalistic policies. Neo liberalism has been used to expose the factors that prevail in the European Union with regards to immigration and existing legislations regarding movement of labor within the wider European block.
Comprehensively, the globalization theory advances the fact that states can achieve economic success, stability and security from going global. The neoliberal approach identifies that non state actors and international organizations boost state interaction and also help in conflict resolution especially on matters that deal with issues of common interests.
The liberals are however of the opinion that the economic independence held by major world powers, the influence of nations with other nations and the wide spread of democracy has a direct relation to the way nations interact; with a potential possibility of fostering understanding between nations.
In a broader understanding of the realist and neo realist approaches, it is important to note that the two theories are closely related because the neorealist approach is founded on principles of the classical realist approach.
Comparatively, the two approaches (realist and neo realist approach) share common principles; like they are both centered on the power of the state in determining immigration policies, both theories advance the fact that states can rationally explain their behavior and that states are always seeking power through the safeguard of their interests.
On the other hand, the Institutional approach identifies that the state can often influence policies relating to immigration in an autonomous manner that transcends the pressures of human rights groups and organizations of a similar nature. Finally, the national approach theory includes all other aspects to immigration except for external and situational elements.
Development and economic concerns are therefore set to increase immigration as advanced by the Marxists approach but security and cultural interests still stand to impede human migration. Theories that relate to culture and domestic matters within the state are observed to expound more on our understanding of immigration policies because most of these immigration theories rely more on highlighting how nations interact as opposed to the policies they formulate.
These theories also expand our understanding on how immigration affects different functions of the state like the sovereignty and ethnic composition of a nation as opposed to the commercial or economic influence.
Works Cited
Betts, Alexander. Forced Migration and Global Politics. London: John Wiley and Sons, 2009. Print.
Brettell, Caroline. Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines. London: Routledge, 2000. Print.
Chae, Youngsuk. Politicizing Asian American Literature: Towards A Critical Multiculturalism. London: Routledge, 2008. Print.
Fitzgerald, Keith. The Face of the Nation: Immigration, the State, and the National Identity. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996. Print.
Herzig, Pascale. South Asians in Kenya: Gender, Generation and Changing Identities In Diaspora. New Delhi: LIT Verlag MĂĽnster, 2006. Print.
International Organization for Migration. World Migration 2003: Managing Migration Challenges and Responses for People on the Move. Washington: International Org. for Migration, 2003. Print.
Inthorn, Sanna. German Media and National Identity. New York: Cambria Press, 2007.
Kurthen, Hermann. Immigration, Citizenship, and the Welfare State in Germany And The United States: Welfare Policies and Immigrants’ Citizenship. New York: Emerald Group Publishing, 1998. Print.
Messina, Anthony. West European Immigration and Immigrant Policy in the New Century. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002. Print.
Misra, Joya. Neoliberalism, Globalization, and the International Division of Care. Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts, 2010. Print.
Moses, Jonathon. International Migration: Globalization’s Last Frontier. New York: Zed Books, 2006. Print.
Myers, Eytan. “Theories of International Immigration Policy-A Comparative Analysis”. International Migration Review 34. 4 (2000): 1245-1282. Özçel_K, Sezai. “Neorealist and Neo-Gramscian Hegemony in International Relations
And Conflict Resolution During The 1990’s”. Ekonomik Ve Sosyal Arastırmalar Dergisi, Güz 1 (2005): 88-114.
Paul, Ellen. Morality and Politics, Volume 21. Oxford: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print.
Papastergiadis, Nikos. The Turbulence of Migration: Globalization, Deterritorialization, And Hybridity. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2000. Print.
Renshon, Stanley. The 50% American: Immigration and National Identity in an Age Of Terror. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, 2005. Print.
Rex, John. The Ethnicity Reader: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Migration. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 1997. Print.
Routledge. Migration. Berlin Max Planck Institute, 2009. Print.
Thieme, Susan. Social Networks and Migration: Far West Nepalese Labour Migrants In Dehli. New Delhi: LIT Verlag MĂĽnster, 2006. Print.
Zaman, Habiba. Breaking the Iron Wall: Decommodification and Immigrant Women’s Labor