The question is not whether migration is “good” or “bad” – it’s how it’s managed, writes Professor Alan Gamlen…
Migration is one of the defining forces of the 21st century. It changes economies, societies, families and individual lives. Yet public debate often reduces it to a deceptively simple question, one which drives division and anger: are you for migration or against it?
That is the wrong question.
Human beings have always moved. They move for work, family, education, safety, adventure and a better life. Sometimes they move once and settle permanently. Often they move several times, maintain connections across borders, or eventually return home.
Migration is rarely just an individual calculation about wages. Families and communities shape decisions. Social networks make some destinations easier to reach than others.
Recruiters, universities and employers actively encourage mobility. Historical ties, languages, trade relationships and colonial legacies create migration pathways that can persist for generations.
And beneath all these explanations lies something more basic: human beings have always sought movement, opportunity and change.
Migration transforms lives
For many migrants, moving dramatically improves living standards.
Crossing from a poor country to a wealthy one can multiply earnings several times over. Migration can also provide access to safer communities, better education, healthcare and political freedoms.
But migration can create serious vulnerabilities too.
Once people cross borders, responsibility for protecting them becomes blurred. Migrants can become vulnerable to exploitative employers, dishonest recruitment agents, smugglers and traffickers. Temporary workers are especially exposed when their visa status depends heavily on a particular employer.
Migration also affects the places people leave behind.
Emigration can deprive poorer countries of skilled doctors, nurses, engineers and other professionals. Rural areas may lose population. Families can spend years separated.
But migrants also send money, knowledge and investment home. Remittances have become one of the largest financial flows into many developing countries, often exceeding both foreign aid and foreign investment. Diasporas can create trade links, businesses, professional networks and opportunities that span borders.
Migration therefore creates risks and rewards on both sides of the journey.
What migrants bring
Migrants into Australia experience the same mixture.
They expand the labour force, start businesses and introduce new ideas. Skilled migrants can increase innovation. Other migrants fill jobs that employers struggle to recruit locally.
They also change culture. Australian food, sport, music, neighbourhoods and workplaces are inseparable from successive waves of migration.
More than half of Australians were either born overseas or have at least one overseas-born parent. Migration is not something happening outside Australian society. It is part of what Australian society is.
But rapid migration can also create pressures.
Population growth increases demand for housing, transport, schools and healthcare. Poorly designed temporary migration programmes can encourage exploitation.
Employers want workers but get human beings, with families and connections who change communities. And rapid social change can provoke anxiety and anger.
These pressures need to be acknowledged rather than dismissed.
The mistake is to leap from recognising them to assuming migrants caused every problem associated with population growth.
Housing shortages, for example, depend heavily on construction, land supply, planning, infrastructure and investment.
Labour-market outcomes depend on wages, regulation and enforcement. Social cohesion depends on whether governments and communities help newcomers participate in shared institutions.
Migration interacts with these systems. It does not replace them as an explanation.
Most migration is not what people imagine
Public discussion also gives a misleading picture of who migrants are.
Global migration remains relatively unusual. Only a small share of the world’s population lives outside the country where they were born.
Most international migrants are not refugees. Most move through ordinary pathways for work, family, education or lifestyle reasons.
Forced displacement is nevertheless a severe and growing global problem. Wars and political instability have displaced tens of millions of people, while climate change is creating new forms of displacement that existing refugee law was never designed to handle.
Australia’s migration system reflects this diversity.
It has a relatively small, capped permanent migration programme and humanitarian programme, alongside much larger temporary flows involving students, skilled workers, working holiday-makers and others.
That distinction matters. Talking about “migration” as though it were a single programme obscures more than it reveals.
What good migration policy looks like
Migration is not a crisis to be stopped, nor a magic solution to every economic problem.
It is a permanent feature of an interconnected world that has to be governed competently.
Good migration policy starts with accurate information. Governments need clear data about who is arriving, who is leaving, why they are moving and what happens afterwards.
Rules should be understandable and enforceable. Labour migrants need protection from exploitation. Overseas qualifications should be recognised efficiently. Temporary programmes should have credible pathways for departure, return or transition where appropriate.
Countries also need to coordinate migration policy so as to be in step with housing, infrastructure, education and labour-market policy. Inviting people to come without preparing for population growth merely transfers the costs of policy failure onto migrants and existing residents alike.
And migration management cannot stop at the border. Countries of destination, origin and transit are linked through migration systems, so cooperation matters.
The objective is therefore neither completely open nor completely closed borders.
It requires safe, orderly and regular movement, governed by institutions capable of balancing individual freedom with economic needs and social cohesion.
Migration can transform lives and enrich societies. It can also generate genuine pressures and vulnerabilities.
The sensible political question is not whether migration is good or bad.
It is whether we are managing it well.
Alan Gamlen is professor and director of the Migration Hub at the Australian National University (ANU)
This article was first published in The Klaxon and 360info.org
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless independent voice – holding power to account and delivering journalism that matters.
Running this site isn’t cheap. Rising costs mean we need your support now more than ever. Every donation, big or small, keeps our servers running, our writers working, and our stories free for everyone.
Donate here:
PayPal or credit card – just click on the Donate button below
Direct bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
We’ve also set up a GoFundMe as a dedicated reserve fund for hosting and future improvements.
Thank you for standing with us. We couldn’t do this without you.
With gratitude,
The AIMN Team
An informative Migration 100 article.
I would not have been born in Australia if my colonial ancestors had not migrated here. The only sense of migration control in Australia’s colonial days was the mandatory migration of convicts to this land having been individually selected for the journey by the best of British jurisprudence.
Gamlen is one of the few experts who can present well on immigration through narratives, but falls down on data analysis and definitions like all media and politicians, without any related comparisons globally?
‘Population growth increases demand for housing, transport, schools and healthcare. Poorly designed temporary migration programmes can encourage exploitation.’
There is no grounded empirical research evidence for these claims masquerading as correlations, in fact opposite or neutral, while he also misses one of the most important benefits*.
Modest permanent long term migration with our longer living permanent cohort is a minor driver of population growth through ageing; it’s us overpopulating population data tbrouhg increasing longevity…..
The high NOM net OS migration or net border movements is dominated by high numbers of temporary visa holders ie. international students and backpackers who depart in the medium term.
Like higher numbers of short term tourists, medium term residents counted in via the NOM pay $billions in GST and/or PAYE, hence net financial contributors vs increasing old age dependency ratios, but we ignore and don’t criticise tourists?
Question never addressed by media, politicians and bigots is, if undefined ‘immigration’ is cut, how do we make up the tax revenue shortfall vs more non taxpaying retirees? Cut services &/or raise taxes…..
@ Andrew Smith: I read a recent article that asserted that the housing crisis was caused by tradies preferring NOT to train apprentices because of the alleged loss of income due to lost work time doing the training. Another factor was the large number of short term temporary immigrants staying on, usually legally, after their first visa expires and they choose NOT to go home.
The current Australian migration policy is yet another example of Howard deception by separating permanent visa applications from temporary visa applications, the latter providing most of the ”stayers” that boost demand for city residential housing, thus creating both high demand and high rents.
https://theconversation.com/australia-has-spent-25-years-stopping-the-boats-but-thats-not-the-same-as-controlling-migration-290532?utm_campaign=the-daily-39333&utm_content=the-daily-39333_au%7C1%7C39333%7Cf03bf6e8&utm_medium=email&utm_source=braze&utm_term=Australia+has+spent+25+years+%E2%80%98stopping+the+boats%E2%80%99%2C+but+that%E2%80%99s+not+the+same+as+controlling+migration
The Conversation is better known for grovelling to the COALition rather publishing any article even barely critical of any of their policies.