The changing patterns of migration raise difficult challenges for Christians, such as whether mobility is a basic human right, argues Oliver Bakewell
Why is migration so much in the news today?
Reading newspapers, listening to the radio or browsing the Internet might easily give the impression that everybody is on the move.
There are large numbers of people moving but there have been times in history when a greater proportion of the globe’s population has been on the move.
In particular, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries there were massive transfers of populations around the world – from Europe to the Americas, from India and southern China to south-east Asia.
Today, the United Nations estimates that about three per cent of the world’s population are international migrants – that is, living outside their country of birth for over one year.
What has changed is the diversity of migrants and their destinations.
Shrinking world
Whereas the majority of migration used to go from relatively few countries to a few key destinations, today people may move from anywhere to any other part of the world.
The world has got smaller: there are more flights, to more destinations, at lower prices, making it much easier to move across the globe.
On arrival, you can keep in contact with your family and friends by phone and Internet. It is perfectly affordable to have almost daily contact with your family thousands of miles away.
What is the theological basis on which we draw our national borders and impose immigration controls?
Despite the relative ease of intercontinental travel, migration patterns are still largely shaped by geography – more people move to neighbouring countries than travel thousands of miles.
More than half of the migrants to the EU come from other EU countries and the majority of the rest come from other parts of Europe and North Africa.
Historical and social links also play an important role. People are more likely to move to places where they already have some links, whether relatives or a shared language and culture. For example, large numbers of migrants to the UK and France have come from former colonies.
The rich go further
Of course economic factors are also crucial. People usually move in the hope of better opportunities.
However, it is rarely people living in the poorest societies who migrate to wealthier areas. Richer countries have higher levels of emigration – about 10 per cent of the UK’s citizens live abroad. Mobility is a relative luxury and the poorest cannot afford to pay for the journey or take the risks involved.
In Europe we do not generally see the poorest of the poor arriving. Instead it is people from upper- or middle-income countries, or wealthier classes from the poorest countries.
There is no doubt that the movement of people from poorer nations to industrialised states of Europe and North America has grown significantly.
Economic growth, relatively low unemployment and an ageing population mean there are many opportunities for migrants and many employers eager to hire them.
While the debate about the costs and benefits of migration within the UK will continue for many years, there is no doubt that there is a demand for migrant workers in our fields, hospitals, schools and homes.
Migration (both skilled and unskilled) is essential for the functioning of European economies.
But, while we are keen to have their labour, there is less enthusiasm for having the people. Around the world, restrictions on immigration are growing.
In 1976 only six per cent of the United Nations’ member states were keen on lowering immigration; by 2002, this figure had risen to 40 per cent.
Since 9/11, controlling immigration has become a significant security concern. The pressure to increase restrictions is ever growing.
Despite tighter immigration laws, more and more people are now crossing borders in irregular ways. In Europe, there are estimated to be between three and seven million immigrants who are staying illegally.
Rather than stopping the movement of people, attempts to control the borders of Europe have tended only to make it more dangerous and expensive for people to move – resulting in more people dying on the frontiers and greater exploitation of migrants when they arrive.
While governments seem unable, and often unwilling, to control a large proportion of this irregular migration – which serves an important economic role – they seem to find it much easier to make it much tougher for those asking for protection from persecution and war. In the UK, the majority of asylum seekers come from countries in turmoil – such as Somalia, Iraq and DR Congo.
There is a worrying trend for European governments to associate immigration with crime, terrorism and social disintegration.
In many poor neighbourhoods across Europe, immigrants are identified as a problem and subjected to discrimination and violence.
Recently, the rest of the world has looked on the xenophobic violence in South Africa with horror. These may seem like distant events, but they are not so far away; they are echoed in the day to day lives of millions of people across the world, such as the immigrants in Italy who were violently attacked in Naples and Rome in May.
It is easy to condemn such xenophobia and racism. It clearly has no place in a Christian response to migration.
The Church has consistently preached a message of hospitality and welcome to the stranger in our midst.
The institution of asylum in international law drew on the practice shaped by the sanctuary provided by churches and other sacred buildings over centuries.
These traditions continue in many congregations and Christian organisations. Such practices and beliefs about attitudes to strangers are shared with other faiths.
Awkward questions
But the changing patterns of movement across the world do raise some difficult challenges for Christians and others concerned with ideas of global justice.
It is much easier to welcome the stranger in one’s midst – who one can see, meet, chat to and get to know – than those who remain beyond our knowledge.
They can be reduced to being seen as frightening numbers of immigrants when they are in other parts of the country, or more terrifying numbers when they are potential migrants, waiting to ‘invade’ the comfort of our society.
Then it becomes much easier to agree that we must control their movement.
However, if we are concerned with global justice, we have to ask ourselves: why is it that we live in such comfort while others do not?
In the UK, for example, we are used to the idea of helping poor people in Africa by supporting development ‘over there’ but do those same people become a threat if they intrude into our comfortable lives in the UK?
If we share a common humanity – made in the image of God – what is the theological basis on which we draw our national borders and impose immigration controls to keep poor people out?
Is migration a problem? Let’s turn the question around. Would we like to live in a world where migration is not possible – one in which people have to live and die in the place where they were born?
Of course many do exactly that. But many others choose to move to other areas in the same country or further afield. Those of us living in wealthy states take such mobility as our right. Can we deny such an option to others?
Oliver Bakewell is a research officer at the
International Migration Institute
, Oxford.