Immigration Policy as Foreign Policy/Dis Politika Olarak Goc Politikasi.

• Author: Duncan, Howard

Introduction

Some observers of international affairs, if asked to make a list of issues that fall within the category of foreign policy, would include immigration. Others would not. Few governments have a stand-alone ministry responsible for immigration, this matter more often managed through an interior ministry or home office. Most articles published in academic immigration journals look at the domestic effects of immigration whether these effects are felt by the country of destination or by the immigrants who have entered that territory. It is relatively rare to see articles that examine immigration as it relates to foreign policy or, more broadly, to international relations. (1) Here, I hope to shed some light on why we tend to treat immigration or, as some now prefer, "international migration" or simply "migration" as a domestic policy issue rather than a matter of foreign policy. (2)

I will not get deep into definitions here but will acknowledge that I regard foreign policy as a subset of domestic policy in the sense that the foreign policy of a state is normally to serve that state's national interests and is, to that degree, domestically-oriented policy. (3) Broadly-speaking, a state's foreign policy is designed to influence the behaviour of other states for its own benefit, and it can exercise this influence through co-operation, coercion, or conflict, the latter being the most costly and least desirable way to exercise foreign policy. Seeing foreign policy in terms of influencing the behaviour of other states is admittedly a conservative approach most associated with the realist school of international relations, (4) but, for the sake of simplicity, it is the approach followed here. As globalization has intensified, however, there are many non-state actors that influence policy, both domestic and foreign, some of these non-state actors operating internationally. The so-called international community is but one and one that, in the immigration field, is increasingly important as the recently adopted Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regulation Migration (5) and the Global Compact on Refugees, (6) both agreements of the United Nations, demonstrate. In addition to the international community, however, states exercising immigration-related foreign policy need to take into account the role of international business organizations, international civil society organizations and similar interest groups, and the media including social media, now a significant international influence on policy and how it is received by the public.

Fundamentally, immigration policy is to accomplish two things, to keep people out of a country's territory or to let people in. These are not mutually exclusive, and nearly all states that let some immigrants in exclude others from entering. It is worth noting at the outset that there is no universal international law governing immigration. The Global Compacts mentioned above are non-binding and the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (7) is not universally accepted both in that not all countries have signed it and many of those who have observe it only partially. This means that when one considers immigration policy as foreign policy, there are no universally accepted codes for governments to appeal to or be restricted to operate within. To put it another way, there is no internationally legislated or enforced machinery for the global governance of immigration. States can go their own way, strike the deals that suit their interests with either other states or international bodies or global businesses. Even the European Union with its relatively free flow of people across borders ultimately leaves immigration policy in the hands of its individual member states; there is no common EU immigration policy or law. (8)

Doors Open

Why do states let immigrants into their territory when there is no obligation to do so by international law? What are the interests that are served by allowing non-nationals to enter to work and reside? The principal but not only interests are economic and demographic. Traditional settler societies such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States have a history of sustained large-scale immigration to build their societies' populations and economies. Population growth established sovereignty over their still-sparsely-populated territories and fuelled economic development. Although in the case of these four countries, their immigration began when they were colonies of the British Empire and, therefore, the policy of colonization was a form of foreign policy, the continuation of high levels of immigration since their independence has been more a matter of domestic policy and the serving of domestic demographic and economic interests. Immigrants have, over the decades, brought with them their labour, their education, their entrepreneurship, their investment capital, and their innovation in quantities that have allowed these societies to develop rapidly and assume their positions as members of the OECD group of countries. Immigration has secured these domestic interests if not absolutely then at least more rapidly than would otherwise have taken place.

Today, many countries that are experiencing very slow population growth, if not actual decline, are looking to immigration not only to bolster their populations but to meet their domestic labour force requirements, both of which are important to maintaining economic prosperity. As the nature of domestic economies changes, the types of immigrants sought will change. This has been seen amply in post-industrial economies which increasingly select immigrants on the basis of higher education than on their capacity for physical labour. This demand for brains over brawn has given rise to an intensifying global competition for talent, such are the relative demographic trends between those countries seeking and those countries supplying immigrants. (9) This skills shortage will persist until the education systems of countries with growing populations develop to the point that employers in OECD countries come to accept their qualifications. Among the consequences of the global skills shortage is the rise in demand for foreign students and the comparative ease with which some countries permit people on student visas to convert their status to that of long-term or permanent residency; higher education for foreign students is another way to supplement a domestic skills shortage. (10) In addition to these economic motivations towards admitting immigrants to one's territory is to bring in foreign investors and those with entrepreneurial intentions. Many countries have developed programs to select immigrants on these grounds, some making these forms of investment a condition on their admission.

Demographic factors may rise in prominence in immigration policy-making as more and more countries experience population stagnation and decline. Global fertility rates have been falling for decades. (11) Few countries with developed economies now have replacement fertility rates, and many have already begun to experience declining populations. Others with below-replacement fertility manage to increase their populations through immigration. (12) Low fertility is not a problem only for absolute population size. Sustained low fertility results in skewed age structures, principally with older people occupying a disproportionate share of the population. This has significant economic disadvantages as an ageing population usually means a reduced labour force and may also indicate a reduced capacity for innovation and the ability to participate in the newer high-growth knowledge-based economies. Most notable among those countries experiencing actual population shrinkage are numerous countries of Eastern Europe. Consider the following UN's projections for population decline to 2050: Bulgaria (23% decrease), Latvia (22%), Moldova (19%), Ukraine (18%), Croatia (17%). (13) These are the most severe examples in the world today and arise from a combination of very low fertility, high emigration, and low immigration. Whether a change in immigration policy can overcome these unfortunate trends remains to be seen. For many of the world's shrinking countries, public attitudes towards immigration are largely negative.

It is not only economics and demographics that count among the national interests that states hope immigration will support. For some states, bolstering national cultures is a hugely important priority and this can mean sustained efforts to attract a country's diaspora to the homeland. Israel is the paradigm case here as their Law of Return of 1950 grants to Jews worldwide the right to enter and remain in Israel and, in fact, to acquire immediate citizenship. (14) All Jews anywhere are regarded as Israeli citizens through the Law of Return, which has helped the country increase its population to the current 9.2 million, up from 1.7 million in 1955. Of these, 75% are Jews, this indicating the effectiveness of the Law of Return. From the point of view of the state of Israel, this population growth is a matter of national and cultural survival, and it contributes to Israel's claims of sovereignty over its territory (ignoring here the controversies over these claims of sovereignty and what counts as Israel's territory). Israel is not alone in seeking the return of its diaspora to maintain or grow a nation's population as well as grow the national economy and, in many cases, degree of influence over world affairs. Countries with small and declining populations are regarded as weakening in international stature, a state of affairs that further exacerbates their population decline as demographic and economic shrinkage diminish the incentives for diaspora members to return and may increase the incentives for citizens to leave, especially those who are younger and better educated.

Finally, a country's...