Do International Migration And Remittances Reduce Poverty? Developing Countries?

This paper will be focused on Hispanic immigrant population since Hispanics are a rapidly growing group in the United States and more tend to be poor (Broussard & Alfred, 2009). In details, Hispanic population grew 43 percent between 2000 and 2010 (one in four Hispanics was poor in 2009), and it is projected to triple in size by 2050 (Nwosu, C., Batalova, J., & Auclair, G., 2014). Moreover, income inequality was higher among Hispanics than among whites (Nwosu, C., Batalova, J., & Auclair, G., 2014).

Migration policies are often designed with the sole objective of influencing international migration by either restricting or encouraging circular migration, immigration or emigration(Ripsman & Paul, 2010). Open border policies have contributed to the uncontrolled to the flow of illegal immigrants into countries and in turn generating challenges to the host countries. The fundamental basis for arguments has been whether open immigration policy or restricted immigration policy

Immigration issues have been a problem throughout history. This Society holds different perceptions on the topic. Some people favor the flow of immigrants while others oppose it. Immigration is a social problem that must constantly be reviewed due to the complexity of the problems. In this situation, different factors such as the quality of life for immigrants, how they impact the economy, how the implementation of policies would benefit them, have to be taken into consideration. Immigration policies affect all aspects of today’s society. The key figures in the immigration issue are immigrants, documented/undocumented, political figures.

The United States of America (USA) has been one of the traditional receiving countries of immigrants (Friedberg & Hunt, 1995), and they do not take in too lightly of allowing immigrants violate its law and entering illegally to settle in its country without consequences. To date, millions of people have violated its immigration policies. The USA is also the economic leader of the world. It has been the notion that illegal immigrants are devouring up the US economy and for that reason they should be ousted. However, illegal immigrations have rooted into society since far back in history, and realized now, it is that illegal immigrants are not damaging the US economy; they contribute to it and their services costs

As the population of Latin America and the Caribbean raised in 1995 with a 190 percent increase (Gonzalez 199), the job markets in Mexico are becoming scarce and competitive. The living conditions of residents in provincial towns like in Cheran, “whose timber-based economy is in tatters” (Martinez 9) are greatly affected. Mexican immigrant workers are forced to cross the border and find a greener pasture in the United States, because “in 1994, Mexico was crippled by a profound-and-prolonged-economic crisis” (Martinez 8). With the huge influx of Mexican immigrant workers coming to the States in search for better jobs, the US citizens are concerned about the economic impact: jobs, government and public services. However, the Americans’ concern that the immigrants are draining the nation’s resources, is a sweeping statement, it is based on a myth. There are many recent studies that the immigrant’s population living in the United States helps the economy. Similarly, the Mexican government and immigrant families are grateful for their immigrant workers for lifting the ailing economy and the status of immigrant families. Immigrant workers, legal or illegal, are positively reshaping the economy of sending and receiving countries through these major myths.

Some of pioneers in this field are Hollifield, Freeman, and Kesstler. In their study of immigration in political economic perspective, Kessler and Freeman argue that immigration is more likely to increase the benefits for receiving economy and the local people rather than harming them (year). Even though the cheap labor of the immigrants may make wages decrease for some jobs that the they participate in, it increases the productivity of labor as a whole and it increases the benefits of the owners of business that choose to hire immigrants. Also usually the immigrants work in low-levels jobs that the locals don't want to do, so they help fulfil the shortage of low-skilled labor without increasing the competition for other jobs that the locals prefer. However, if the immigrants pay less tax (because of governmental support or because of illegal immigration) than the citizens, the tax payers would feel resentful and want to oppose immigration, and therefore would make it problematic for the government. Ideally, according to Kessler and Freeman (year), the interest of state when making policies for immigration is maximizing the economic revenue that the immigrants can bring in while minimizing their consumptions of public benefits. Most of the states are driven by economic incentives when they adjust

Edwin notes that the failure and monetary costs of the ‘enforcement-only’ approach that the government is currently practicing. Edwin acknowledges the need for effective immigration reform; he proposes an immigration policy that rises and fall with U.S labor demand coupled with strict enforcement of wage and labor laws. Edwin also discusses the value of illegal immigrants on the American economy.

Mexican immigration has a large impact on the United States both politically and economically. Focusing on the labor market, and how over history, especially throughout the 20th century, American employers in various industries, have benefited from the immigrant workers crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Recognizing the value of immigrants willing to work various job positions for low wages, during worker shortages in America. In the 1990s alone the number of Mexican Immigrants workers grew by 2.9 million, a 123 % increase. (PP.

Third World immigration into the U.S. has not produced a highly skilled labor force, as the above statistics show. Instead, the U.S. labor pool has become flooded with low level, menial laborers, whose desperation for work of any sort has undercut the wages paid at the lower end of the labor market, which in turn made it more difficult for native born American citizens to escape poverty. An estimated 1,880,000 American workers are displaced from their jobs every year by immigration. The cost for providing welfare and assistance to these Americans is over $15 billion a year. (Associated Press, 1997)

Immigration is a topic on everyone 's minds these days. With presidential candidates vying for votes in debates and political campaigns, immigration has been talked about quite a bit. But what is truly known about immigration? Since it is such a divisive issue, it is hard to know what is true and what isn’t. Unfortunately, the information most readily available to us comes in the form of opinionated articles and biased speeches by presidential candidates. Because the information we receive is biased, not necessarily true, and only a piece of a larger picture, it’s hard to know what to believe. With some saying immigration hurts our economy and others arguing for the benefits of immigration, no one truly understands the actual economic impact of immigration. For this paper, I have chosen three academic journals on the topic of the economics of immigration that agree on one important point: our immigration system is broken.

The impact of immigration is a highly controversial topic that gets touched on with the media outlets frequently. With the development of newfound criticism and the rise of popular slogans such as “Immigrants take Jobs,” immigration has become an increasingly prominent economic topic that contains multiple viewpoints and requires discussion. Many economics have noted that alterations in immigration impact a variety of economic policies that make it virtually impossible to make conclusive models on both it’s short-term and long-term effects. Yet, there seems to be agreement that rapid changes such as the ones occurring in our country right now may lead to a decline in economic growth. Therefore, as proposals of reducing legal immigration increase, it has become necessary to view immigration as a serious fiscal issue, that although on the surface may seem to solve a plethora of problems, really doesn’t.

Did you know that people in other countries have jobs that can not even sustain life? This is a very detrimental problem for the country and the family within that country. Sadly, the people within the country come to a point of recognition that they are going to have to change their circumstances in life. So they have to make a difficult decision leave their family to be able to give their children a better life by sending money back to the home country or take their oldest child out of school to start selling things on the streets. If the parent decides to leave the home country, then she will start a process of immigration to another prosperous country like the United States America without looking back to change her

Synchronously, the developing economies such as some Asian and South American regions which exported their experienced workers to the overseas market can also reduce the unemployment pressure that governments must face in long-term period. On the other hand, international remittances are beneficial for both migrant-sending and migrant-receiving countries. Statistics discovered that the international remittances transmitted to the homeland of 35 to 40 million migrant workers are currently estimated to be about US $66 billion per year, and represent the second largest international monetary trade flow, exceeded only by petrol (Sasikumar 2001). For the countries which exported labour to rich countries, they would gain enormous exchange funds from international remittances and regard the money as foreign investment to facilitate their economic development. By contrary, for these migrant-receiving countries, the outflow of vast domestic currency would take away some financial threats such as malignant inflation to a great extend. Nay, the popularization of one country's currency could also accelerate its economic fluidity and strengthen its economic influence to the other countries.

In this article Bermeo and Lebland discuss two hypotheses explaining the relation between immigration and foreign aid. They hypothesis that (1) donor countries use this foreign aid to ‘aid’ or to further their own individual immigration policy goals, and (2) migrants, who have already moved, lobby their new countries for an increase in aid to their home countries. Anti-immigration parties and policies have come out of developed donor nations including Austria, Denmark, and the Netherlands. This social unrest stems from immigration of low skilled migrants to these industrialized countries. Many of these new policies include increases in border security and mandating language proficiency. These countries however send a significant amount in

Remittances typically refer to transfers of money by foreign workers to their home countries. Remittances are not a new phenomenon in the world, being a normal associated to migration which has always been a part of human history. Remittances are playing an important role in the economies of many developing and low income countries. Pakistan is a labour abundant country; hence, as neoclassical theory shows, if workers are unable to find jobs and/or wages to satisfy their needs, they will look elsewhere. Pakistan’s history provides us with a new trend of emigration nearly each decade. Remittance is an important source of foreign exchange earnings for Pakistan since 1970. During the past four decade Pakistan received