Tweet
The Dilemma of Return for Migrant Generating Countries
By Rubén Silié
Posted: Jun 1, 2006 19:16 UTC
PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad & Tobago - Central American and Island Caribbean countries are faced with significant flows of emigrants headed for several destinations, but lately there has been a concerned reaction over the rising number of professionals and skilled workers who emigrate, thus creating in their countries of origin what is known as the brain drain.
This has given rise to proposals for return policies, so that countries would not lose the skills whose development came at such great sacrifice.
The return of emigrants is an issue that is linked to their very departure, since those who choose to leave their country of origin, in most cases, do so with their personal advancement and that of their family in mind, therefore the decision to live abroad is perceived as something temporary that would come to an end once the proposed objectives are achieved.
The return policy refers to "the appreciation of the emigrant as a necessary human resource for the country of origin, regaining him/her by any means". [1] The policy varies according to the type of emigrant, whether they are labourers, refugees, displaced persons or professionals. Return situations are linked to the approach used by the migrant himself, or if he is responding to a policy to discourage his stay when he leaves the recipient country or country of attraction for the country of origin; relocations are usually the culmination of forced departures brought about by natural disasters or hostile conflicts and the recovery of professionals.
The rationale behind those policies can be applied by proposing the pure and simple return of emigrants or by establishing programmes through which these individuals could make a contribution to the society of origin.
The return can be voluntary, when the emigrant himself understands that the time has come to go back to his country, whatever the reasons may be. In other instances, coercion is at work, as is the case with repatriations. The latter situation is unpredictable since it may occur with irregular immigrants or with different types of refugees.
European countries applied important return programmes to recover a considerable portion of their population that emigrated to Latin America, but the context of that return was extremely beneficial for those emigrants, since they were returning to countries that had entered a phase of economic recovery and development far superior than that of any of the Latin American countries where they found themselves at that time. The return not only involved the satisfaction of reuniting families, but also an environment of political stability, as well as the possibility of sound employment, adequate social security and a set of benefits that the so-called patrimonialist State usually offered citizens.
Another example of massive repatriation occurred in Central America. There, hostile conflicts (during the 70s) propelled the relocation of thousands upon thousands of people. Within those great migrations of people were persecuted politicians or economic emigrants equally affected by the hostile conflicts. At a certain time, once peace agreements had been reached, these same individuals were the target of return campaigns. However, that process did not enjoy the same successes as the European one, since the emigrants were not returning to their countries under the same conditions as the Europeans did. That explains the surge of a second migratory wave, carried out by the same individuals who fled from the effects of the hostile conflicts, only this time the emigrants left the countries of the Central American isthmus and moved toward the United States of America and Europe.
These examples show us that to ensure a return policy with sound results, it is essential that emigrants have, in their countries, better conditions than those that motivated them to leave in the first place. This is the dilemma that we the generating countries have to face: how to recover our best talents, without first changing the socioeconomic reality.
Dr. Rubén Silié Valdez is the Secretary General of the Association of Caribbean States.
By Rubén Silié
Posted: Jun 1, 2006 19:16 UTC
PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad & Tobago - Central American and Island Caribbean countries are faced with significant flows of emigrants headed for several destinations, but lately there has been a concerned reaction over the rising number of professionals and skilled workers who emigrate, thus creating in their countries of origin what is known as the brain drain.
This has given rise to proposals for return policies, so that countries would not lose the skills whose development came at such great sacrifice.
The return of emigrants is an issue that is linked to their very departure, since those who choose to leave their country of origin, in most cases, do so with their personal advancement and that of their family in mind, therefore the decision to live abroad is perceived as something temporary that would come to an end once the proposed objectives are achieved.
The return policy refers to "the appreciation of the emigrant as a necessary human resource for the country of origin, regaining him/her by any means". [1] The policy varies according to the type of emigrant, whether they are labourers, refugees, displaced persons or professionals. Return situations are linked to the approach used by the migrant himself, or if he is responding to a policy to discourage his stay when he leaves the recipient country or country of attraction for the country of origin; relocations are usually the culmination of forced departures brought about by natural disasters or hostile conflicts and the recovery of professionals.
The rationale behind those policies can be applied by proposing the pure and simple return of emigrants or by establishing programmes through which these individuals could make a contribution to the society of origin.
The return can be voluntary, when the emigrant himself understands that the time has come to go back to his country, whatever the reasons may be. In other instances, coercion is at work, as is the case with repatriations. The latter situation is unpredictable since it may occur with irregular immigrants or with different types of refugees.
European countries applied important return programmes to recover a considerable portion of their population that emigrated to Latin America, but the context of that return was extremely beneficial for those emigrants, since they were returning to countries that had entered a phase of economic recovery and development far superior than that of any of the Latin American countries where they found themselves at that time. The return not only involved the satisfaction of reuniting families, but also an environment of political stability, as well as the possibility of sound employment, adequate social security and a set of benefits that the so-called patrimonialist State usually offered citizens.
Another example of massive repatriation occurred in Central America. There, hostile conflicts (during the 70s) propelled the relocation of thousands upon thousands of people. Within those great migrations of people were persecuted politicians or economic emigrants equally affected by the hostile conflicts. At a certain time, once peace agreements had been reached, these same individuals were the target of return campaigns. However, that process did not enjoy the same successes as the European one, since the emigrants were not returning to their countries under the same conditions as the Europeans did. That explains the surge of a second migratory wave, carried out by the same individuals who fled from the effects of the hostile conflicts, only this time the emigrants left the countries of the Central American isthmus and moved toward the United States of America and Europe.
These examples show us that to ensure a return policy with sound results, it is essential that emigrants have, in their countries, better conditions than those that motivated them to leave in the first place. This is the dilemma that we the generating countries have to face: how to recover our best talents, without first changing the socioeconomic reality.
Dr. Rubén Silié Valdez is the Secretary General of the Association of Caribbean States.