|
|
Many international institutions and nongovernmental organizations help both developed and developing countries deal with migration, such as the previously mentioned International Organization for Migration (IOM). For example, a recent activity of the IOM is the “return of qualified nationals” program in Afghanistan. During the years of internal conflict in Afghanistan, many of the country’s most skilled workers fled to Europe or the United States. The IOM, therefore, is arranging to place college-educated professionals in private-sector and government jobs in Afghanistan.
More than 7,600 Afghans from a multitude of countries have successfully been assisted with returns home through the program, which matches candidates with jobs in government ministries, NGOs, and international agencies. The program pays for each refugee’s journey home and adds $200 to the monthly salary paid to returning Afghans by their new employers. Some emigrants are reluctant to give up the luxuries of the West, but, similar to the South Africa example noted earlier, to others it is a matter of patriotism. This program has expanded to include the repatriation of skilled workers from Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia, Sierra Leone, and Sudan (International Organization for Migration, 2006).
Many other organizations deal with specific parts of migration. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) provides assistance to those fleeing their native countries for fear of persecution. The International Labor Organization (ILO) promotes fairness in hiring and adequate working conditions for migrants. Financial institutions such as the promotes fairness in hiring and adequate working conditions for migrants. Financial institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund study the economic effects of migration.
The separation of capabilities into private and public organizations and into distinct areas has led some to call for a government-supported international organization to deal with migration. Former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services Commissioner Doris Meissner has said, “The world has multilateral regimes, agreements, and institutions that try to provide frameworks for trading goods and services. Why not a multilateral regime for the movement of people?”
Likewise, Jagdish Bhagwait of Columbia University argues the world needs “adequate institutional mechanisms to deal with [migration], the way we do with health questions at the WHO, with labor questions at the ILO, with aid and finance at Bretton Woods institutions and with trade issues at the WTO.” He believes the current institutions dealing with migration are fragmented and too focused on singular forms of migration such as refugees and labor migration.
Bhagwati’s first goal is to set up an “immigration scorecard” exposing each country’s policy towards legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, asylum-seekers, and refugees. He hopes this scorecard will shame countries and lead to the establishment of international norms concerning migration grounded in the policies of progressive nations.
Overtures on this issue have been rejected by the EU and the United States, however, due to nervousness at the prospect of being tied down by international agreements that would specify rules on sensitive subjects such as migrant rights and immigration procedures.
36 http://www.slcu.nl/images/IOM.pdf; http://www.iom.int/jahia/Jahia/pid/490
Next: Conclusion