tain the ever growing inflow of migrants, rigid controls at potential points of entry to the continent have been installed. They include: heavily armed guards, the erection of walls in European enclaves located in African continent. A growing number of receiving countries have negotiated readmission agreements with countries of origin obliging them to readmit their national who lack proper documentation in order to facilitate their expulsion. Recent examples include agreements between Germany and Albania, Spain, and Mauritania. Efforts to counter undocumented migration have also included bilateral agreements between transit and receiving countries. Morocco and Tunisia are for instance expected to readmit foreigners who, having transited through them, were residing in European Union without authorisation .

For Abderrahmane Essadi in their attempt to ensure externalisation of their migratory policies, European countries have imposed a division of tasks whereby other countries are in charge of protecting Europeans boundaries. Transits countries are transformed into nets where migrants are all retained when undocumented, little care being given to discriminate those who may need international protection. A clear defiance by European states of their obligations towards asylum seekers has been the closure of transit camps in Europe . This was recalled by the Call of Bamako for Respect of Migrants Dignity on 26th January 2006. Pushed away by despair from their home country, refugees are confined in camps, maltreated and later expelled. Such policies lead to disasters such as those of Ceuta and Mellila enclaves, violence on refugees in Cairo, desert dead, boat people scandals in Mediterranean Sea or Rio Grande .

Criminalisation of illegal immigration is also part of the arsenal resorted to by receiving countries. In United Kingdom, under UK Asylum and Immigration Act (1996) made it an offence for employees to employ any individual without work permit. In Australia until their case are examined asylum seekers are detained. An example in point of receiving countries determination at reversing immigration trends are the growing stigmatisation of migrants , the repatriation rate imposed by some governments to their security forces , pressures on air transport companies to avoid transporting undocumented passengers . Receiving countries have recently decided to take advantage of the phenomenon by selecting those to admit in their territories on the grounds of the receiving country’s needs in skills and labour force.

Recent developments in receiving countries policies to reverse migration trends include the resort to “selective migration”, and advocacy of a “co development” of states stakeholders of immigration. One of the prominent promoters of these approaches has so far been Jacques Chirac, French president. He reiterated his view of during at Bamako’s France-Afrique Summit in 2005. Co development implies for migrants to invest with the support of governments of receiving countries in their home countries so as to create better prospects for those remaining. If one could encourage this approach’ effort at alleviating precarious conditions for both migrants and migrating peoples, there are high risks associated with co development. Sending countries in the context of selective immigration would lose skills to the benefice of destination countries. Added to co development, selective immigration will definitely consecrate the global division of labour.

The terrorist attacks against United States on September, 11 2001 and the Global War on Terror have further complicated the conditions of immigrants. Receiving countries in order to not serve as haven to terrorists or in view of protecting their territory and citizens have further strengthened the policies governing admission of migrants. The defiance to international law and institutions has also affected migrants as, on the ground of ensuring their security, refugees have gradually been treated the same as economic migrants or worse, meantime the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrants Workers and their Families is largely ignored by ratifying states.

The

For long ignored or considered marginal, international immigration recently erupted on the world agenda as, traditional destination countries suddenly realised the intensity of the phenomenon. Understood as the intensification of exchanges worldwide, globalisation has often been seen through transfers of capital, goods or information. The permanent or temporary residence of a person in a country different from his original country or a country he claims citizenships as we define immigration, implies the sharing of the risks, misery and other threats felt by some to the whole world. International immigration as such gives concreteness to the concept of global village, a village where it becomes more and more difficult to hide the misery of slums to neighbours who lives in rich areas.

The roots of immigration are generally poverty and conflicts or war . Exposed to squalor, of all ages, peoples have tried to settle in greener pastures of safer haven. From the first known cases of Hebrews leaving for Egypt during the reign of Pharaohs, to the attempts of Africans leaving for Europe or Southern Americans leaving for the Northern part of the continent, immigration has always been part of mankind’s history, structuring to a certain extent the face of the world as it appears today.

The discovery of Americas in 1492 launched the first era of massive international migration. In large flows, Europeans both investors and people without capital migrated to Americas. For Europeans, this happened in a context of growing economic recession and scarcity. America and later Oceania presented opportunities to improve on their conditions. The period of the Napoleonic Wars was characterised by freer movement of goods, capital and labour and as such was referred to the “first global century”. Prior to this period, Africans were massively forced to migrate in America as they were reduced to slavery .

With the abolition of Slavery in the 1850s and thanks to innovations in both transatlantic shipping and transcontinental railways, Europeans, confronted to squalor and famine in their continent especially in Italy and Ireland migrated to cause peaks never reached before then by immigration .

Others inflows were observed elsewhere in the World. During the colonial domination, though the Coolie system a large flow of Chinese and Indians settled in estates of the Indian Ocean (Madagascar, Maurice, Seychelles, South Africa)

The trend dropped after World War I as restrictive legislation on immigration emerged in traditionally receiving countries, while public hostility and economic recession was developing in those countries.

After a period of relative stability, international immigration increased especially since the last two decades of the 20th century. This era is marked by new origins of migrants and the emergence of new destination countries as well as sophistication of the phenomenon. In 2000, the total number of people living out of their countries was 175 millions .

The collapse of former Soviet Union increased the number of migrants. Citizens of those states in large numbers migrate since then to America and West Europe., Africans in large numbers migrate daily to Europe, North America or the Persian Gulf; other flows include Southern Americans leaving for North America or South Asians moving worldwide. The migration senses observed during the Napoleonic Wars still persist but dropped considerably in number.

For long tolerated, ignored or even encouraged by receiving countries, international migration became in recent years mostly perceived as a plague. Worldwide, we observed the multiplication of measures to reverse the trend: the erection of gates, the closing of centres for asylum seekers, the reformulation of laws. Meantime, migrants are the object of increasing xenophobia in receiving countries, with states doing little to protect or to integrate them. Growing confusion between economic migrants and asylum seekers is observed as the second are increasingly treated the same as the first.

Whatever the causes of immigration: search of asylum or the improvement of the living conditions of migrants, considering the trend of the phenomenon, the growing inequalities between richer and poorer countries, tendency would hardly reverse in the coming years. The human scandals of Pas-de6Calais, Ceuta and Melilla, Rio Grande call for humane and moral considerations of all states stakeholders of the phenomenon. Side by side, transit, destination and sending countries, losers or gainers in the process should address the roots causes, trapped and castigated as they are today, migrants should effectively as victims of the whole process, whose sole expectation is to have a better life.

I. IMMIGRATION FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF GAINS AND LOSSES

Immigration, provide opportunities to workers both skilled and unskilled to find jobs not affordable in home countries. Be they migrants from developing countries settling in developed countries or reverse, migration of workers is always motivated by the quest of jobs in quantity as well as quality. Unskilled workers through immigration were able over the years to satisfy receiving countries demands of low-value jobs left –as not interesting by their nationals. An example in point is that of Arabs from Maghreb largely employed in the building industry of France. By easing employment needs of receiving countries, the flow of migrant workers leads to deflation of labour cost in receiving countries while the side effect affects the sending country.

Inflow of remittances and foreign exchanges appear to be for sending countries and communities the main satisfaction derived from immigration of their nationals. Though remittances are difficult to quantify since they are channelled through various means to their ultimate destination, remittances are increasingly growing in their impact on the provision of additional financial means to the sending countries. From a study by United Nations, remittances represent the first source of wealth in: Egypt, Cap-Vert, Jordan, Lesotho, Samoa and Yemen where they surpass any exportation product . In 2002, from estimation by IMF, 130 billion dollars were sent as remittances by migrants to their home countries, 79 billion of them were for developing countries. Though not equal to foreign direct investment, remittances surpassed official development assistance. Remittances from migrants are largely geared towards family consumption as such, its direct effect on the general wealth of countries is somehow mitigated or difficult to assess. Nevertheless these inflows have the advantage of reducing social pressure from poorer group on their governments, it should be recalled that in some regions of the world: Western Africa and Philippines migration is seen there as the main chance for some families to achieve upward social mobility . Traditions of migration have developed in countries like Mali whereby migrated relatives constitute in many respects strong supports to large groups. The organisation of migrants into community development committees to finance their communities’ development is among the main sources of construction of facilities in regions like Kayes in Mali and remote areas of the Philippines.

Table 1: Financial flows to developing countries, 1980-2003, source UN/DESA: based on the IMF balance of payments statistics database

Migration can foster trade between countries stakeholders in the process: transit, sending, and destination countries. The trend however is likely to be more of a trade between sending countries and receiving ones. Migrants could introduce products from their home country in their attempts to satisfy their needs. Also, they could foster trade of such products already available in destination countries from sending countries but not demanded enough or ignored at all in the destination country. The inverse would happen when migrants specialise in trade and introduce in the form of commodities, products of home country. This is achieved once the migrant return home country or serve as intermediary in trade. The development of second hand cars’ trade, equipment and other furniture in developing countries are clear manifestations of the fostering of trade through migration.

A close look at history of the phenomenon shows how migrants from western countries contributed in tying the fate of their original country to those of receiving countries. The settlement of Spaniards and Irish in America definitely sealed that continent’s fate to that of Europe as both parts have ever been privileged partners so far. A term “Greater Atlantic Economy” is used to mean the trading relationships emerging from European migration to Oceania and America. Before the emancipation of those regions they were mostly participating in trade as supplier of raw material for European industry, the peak being during the Atlantic Trade Slave.

Return of skilled workers to their original country would increase local human capital with additional experiences at times not available at home. Putting the experience acquired from the sojourn in a different country (often more developed), skilled workers could introduce new working methods; propose solutions to problems experienced in their home country. Also, the return of workers skilled or not, may have as outcome, enabling both countries (receiving and sending) to benefit from former ties left behind by migrants. Former friends, employers and partners of any kind could be useful in one way or the other to both countries.

For developing countries, migration could constitute an opportunity to achieve acquisition of new technology often too slowly transferred from developed countries. By exchanging with their

Migrants through effective participation in their family’s and community’s development have so far become elite no matter the level of education, what actually matters has become the extent to which they assist those left behind.

For developing countries, migration could constitute an opportunity to achieve acquisition of new technology often too slowly transferred. By exchanging with their relatives or in trading, migrants introduce a number of appliances of common use in their receiving country but not yet introduced in their home countries. The migrant return is an additional source of technology transfer as they are likely to introduce and share knowledge regarding the said technology.

Despite the numerous gains they derive from the phenomenon of international migration, developing and poorest countries are nevertheless exposed to loss of highly skilled and motivated workers. Workers’ movements are largely motivated by differences in wages and economic opportunities between the country of origin and the countries of destination. Sending countries end up facing lowered service quality. As Coppel et Al observed, “Immigrants tend to be better educated than those they leave behind, though they may be less educated than the average population of the host country.”

Brain drain is the main side effect of immigration for poor countries; it needs to be addressed with a minimum of equity by countries and organisations stakeholders. Brain drain for development is underscored by the “new growth theory”. According to this theory, a person’s knowledge not only provides a direct benefit in terms of available skills but also has a positive effect on the productivity of others. Elimination of those with skills eliminates this indirect benefit to the economy of sending countries at large. The case is worsened when considering that Official Development Assistance is largely obtained from donors with conditionalities such as to be directed in priority in the domains of education, health by receiving countries. Deprived of those skills, developing countries tend to be cheated twice as they end up paying to train skills serving richer countries. The situation becomes acute when considering the formulation of new immigration policies, richer countries have clearly given preference for highly skilled workers as there is progressive restriction of immigration of unskilled workers considered useless and harmful to their counterparts of those countries where they would migrate. A case in point is that of Southern African countries where the whole health sector is bereaved with its qualified personnel having migrated after training in their home countries to western countries.

II- STATES’ REACTION AT IMMIGRATION

States’ reaction at migration depends upon their political, demographic, social or economic needs. According to their needs, receiving countries would either encourage or discourage migration. The receptiveness of countries to migration is at least in part a reflection of previous migration trends and the public expectation of further immigration. Just as till 1990s Ivory Coast encouraged neighbouring countries citizens migrating to work in the agriculture in extension, today migrants have turned into a target owing to the proportion and influence they had gradually gained in that country. Botswana might no more encourage skilled foreigners to settle as over time their skills are gradually shared by its nationals

Migration affects the social fabric of both home and host country, gainers and losers of the phenomenon have been opposed since immigration erupted in the global agenda. For long ignored or perceived as marginal, immigration in traditionally receiving countries is the object of separate ands co-ordinated actions. If one is obliged to admit the righteousness of every state to set rules governing foreigners’ entry into its territory, the unforeseen consequences and the dislocation of world societies thanks to walls, soldiers and laws need to be addressed. Jose Antonio Ocampo reminded that the recent explosive growth in international migration is a response to perceived inequalities of opportunity between sending and receiving countries, at a crossroads, world leaders must seize every opportunity to take bold and decisive action to reverse negative trends

National policies at international migration have been adopted to address an array of concerns including: the effects of low fertility and population ageing, employment, the protection of human rights, social integration, brain drain and brain gain, remittances, the granting of asylum, undocumented migration and persons smuggling. Immigration policies are mainly intended to have a bearing on the size and composition of international migration flows. The number of countries adopting measures to restrict international migration has increased significantly in recent decades: by 2003, 1/3 of all countries had adopted policies to lower immigration, compared with only 7 of all in 1976

All governments have the right to determine whom it admits into its jurisdiction on what bases. While states are obligated to accept their own citizens, the admittance of non-citizens is a prerogative of individual governments. Legal instruments provided for by United Nations for refugees or migrants workers are facing harsh days as growing radicalisation is the trend in rejection of migrants confused with asylum seekers more often than not.

There is an urgency to address the causes of immigration so as to reverse the trend of uncontrolled inflows of workers in countries was there are not always expected or desired. Phenomenon of “boat peoples” hundreds of young peoples wondering in deserts, attempting trespassing walls or exposed to malpractice by smugglers involved in illegal immigration.

First policies at immigration were meant to ensure a control on the quality and quantity of migrants in traditionally receiving countries. In 1917, facing enormous migration rates, United States passed the first Immigration Act. The Act increased the tax required per immigrant to $8 US and imposed a literacy test on immigrants. The 1917 Immigration Act included an “Asian Barred Zone” provision that effectively excluded all immigrants from Asia. The 1921 Emergency Quota Act (Johnson Act) set limits to immigration according to national origin. The Asian Barred Zone remained in place until the late 1940s. Policies nowadays though less radical are in their implementation more restrictive indeed.

The most significant cases of restrictive policies are those enacted in the European Union and broad Schengen Space. In the main countries of destination especially European countries, increasingly restrictive immigration policies and public hostility towards migrants emerged towards the end of the end of 20th century and gradually become harsher. The aim is mostly to protect the economic interests of the unskilled workers of destination countries. On the one hand, in order to contain the ever growing inflow of migrants, rigid controls at potential points of entry to the continent have been installed. They include: heavily armed guards, the erection of walls in European enclaves located in African continent. A growing number of receiving countries have negotiated readmission agreements with countries of origin obliging them to readmit their national who lack proper documentation in order to facilitate their expulsion. Recent examples include agreements between Germany and Albania, Spain, and Mauritania. Efforts to counter undocumented migration have also included bilateral agreements between transit and receiving countries. Morocco and Tunisia are for instance expected to readmit foreigners who, having transited through them, were residing in European Union without authorisation .

For Abderrahmane Essadi in their attempt to ensure externalisation of their migratory policies, European countries have imposed a division of tasks whereby other countries are in charge of protecting Europeans boundaries. Transits countries are transformed into nets where migrants are all retained when undocumented, little care being given to discriminate those who may need international protection. A clear defiance by European states of their obligations towards asylum seekers has been the closure of transit camps in Europe . This was recalled by the Call of Bamako for Respect of Migrants Dignity on 26th January 2006. Pushed away by despair from their home country, refugees are confined in camps, maltreated and later expelled. Such policies lead to disasters such as those of Ceuta and Mellila enclaves, violence on refugees in Cairo, desert dead, boat people scandals in Mediterranean Sea or Rio Grande .

Criminalisation of illegal immigration is also part of the arsenal resorted to by receiving countries. In United Kingdom, under UK Asylum and Immigration Act (1996) made it an offence for employees to employ any individual without work permit. In Australia until their case are examined asylum seekers are detained. An example in point of receiving countries determination at reversing immigration trends are the growing stigmatisation of migrants , the repatriation rate imposed by some governments to their security forces , pressures on air transport companies to avoid transporting undocumented passengers . Receiving countries have recently decided to take advantage of the phenomenon by selecting those to admit in their territories on the grounds of the receiving country’s needs in skills and labour force.

Recent developments in receiving countries policies to reverse migration trends include the resort to “selective migration”, and advocacy of a “co development” of states stakeholders of immigration. One of the prominent promoters of these approaches has so far been Jacques Chirac, French president. He reiterated his view of during at Bamako’s France-Afrique Summit in 2005. Co development implies for migrants to invest with the support of governments of receiving countries in their home countries so as to create better prospects for those remaining. If one could encourage this approach’ effort at alleviating precarious conditions for both migrants and migrating peoples, there are high risks associated with co development. Sending countries in the context of selective immigration would lose skills to the benefice of destination countries. Added to co development, selective immigration will definitely consecrate the global division of labour.

The terrorist attacks against United States on September, 11 2001 and the Global War on Terror have further complicated the conditions of immigrants. Receiving countries in order to not serve as haven to terrorists or in view of protecting their territory and citizens have further strengthened the policies governing admission of migrants. The defiance to international law and institutions has also affected migrants as, on the ground of ensuring their security, refugees have gradually been treated the same as economic migrants or worse, meantime the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrants Workers and their Families is largely ignored by ratifying states.

The

phenomenon, the growing inequalities between richer and poorer countries, tendency would hardly reverse in the coming years. The human scandals of Pas-de6Calais, Ceuta and Melilla, Rio Grande call for humane and moral considerations of all states stakeholders of the phenomenon. Side by side, transit, destination and sending countries, losers or gainers in the process should address the roots causes, trapped and castigated as they are today, migrants should effectively as victims of the whole process, whose sole expectation is to have a better life.

I. IMMIGRATION FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF GAINS AND LOSSES

Immigration, provide opportunities to workers both skilled and unskilled to find jobs not affordable in home countries. Be they migrants from developing countries settling in developed countries or reverse, migration of workers is always motivated by the quest of jobs in quantity as well as quality. Unskilled workers through immigration were able over the years to satisfy receiving countries demands of low-value jobs left –as not interesting by their nationals. An example in point is that of Arabs from Maghreb largely employed in the building industry of France. By easing employment needs of receiving countries, the flow of migrant workers leads to deflation of labour cost in receiving countries while the side effect affects the sending country.

Inflow of remittances and foreign exchanges appear to be for sending countries and communities the main satisfaction derived from immigration of their nationals. Though remittances are difficult to quantify since they are channelled through various means to their ultimate destination, remittances are increasingly growing in their impact on the provision of additional financial means to the sending countries. From a study by United Nations, remittances represent the first source of wealth in: Egypt, Cap-Vert, Jordan, Lesotho, Samoa and Yemen where they surpass any exportation product . In 2002, from estimation by IMF, 130 billion dollars were sent as remittances by migrants to their home countries, 79 billion of them were for developing countries. Though not equal to foreign direct investment, remittances surpassed official development assistance. Remittances from migrants are largely geared towards family consumption as such, its direct effect on the general wealth of countries is somehow mitigated or difficult to assess. Nevertheless these inflows have the advantage of reducing social pressure from poorer group on their governments, it should be recalled that in some regions of the world: Western Africa and Philippines migration is seen there as the main chance for some families to achieve upward social mobility . Traditions of migration have developed in countries like Mali whereby migrated relatives constitute in many respects strong supports to large groups. The organisation of migrants into community development committees to finance their communities’ development is among the main sources of construction of facilities in regions like Kayes in Mali and remote areas of the Philippines.

Table 1: Financial flows to developing countries, 1980-2003, source UN/DESA: based on the IMF balance of payments statistics database

Migration can foster trade between countries stakeholders in the process: transit, sending, and destination countries. The trend however is likely to be more of a trade between sending countries and receiving ones. Migrants could introduce products from their home country in their attempts to satisfy their needs. Also, they could foster trade of such products already available in destination countries from sending countries but not demanded enough or ignored at all in the destination country. The inverse would happen when migrants specialise in trade and introduce in the form of commodities, products of home country. This is achieved once the migrant return home country or serve as intermediary in trade. The development of second hand cars’ trade, equipment and other furniture in developing countries are clear manifestations of the fostering of trade through migration.

A close look at history of the phenomenon shows how migrants from western countries contributed in tying the fate of their original country to those of receiving countries. The settlement of Spaniards and Irish in America definitely sealed that continent’s fate to that of Europe as both parts have ever been privileged partners so far. A term “Greater Atlantic Economy” is used to mean the trading relationships emerging from European migration to Oceania and America. Before the emancipation of those regions they were mostly participating in trade as supplier of raw material for European industry, the peak being during the Atlantic Trade Slave.

Return of skilled workers to their original country would increase local human capital with additional experiences at times not available at home. Putting the experience acquired from the sojourn in a different country (often more developed), skilled workers could introduce new working methods; propose solutions to problems experienced in their home country. Also, the return of workers skilled or not, may have as outcome, enabling both countries (receiving and sending) to benefit from former ties left behind by migrants. Former friends, employers and partners of any kind could be useful in one way or the other to both countries.

For developing countries, migration could constitute an opportunity to achieve acquisition of new technology often too slowly transferred from developed countries. By exchanging with their

Migrants through effective participation in their family’s and community’s development have so far become elite no matter the level of education, what actually matters has become the extent to which they assist those left behind.

For developing countries, migration could constitute an opportunity to achieve acquisition of new technology often too slowly transferred. By exchanging with their relatives or in trading, migrants introduce a number of appliances of common use in their receiving country but not yet introduced in their home countries. The migrant return is an additional source of technology transfer as they are likely to introduce and share knowledge regarding the said technology.

Despite the numerous gains they derive from the phenomenon of international migration, developing and poorest countries are nevertheless exposed to loss of highly skilled and motivated workers. Workers’ movements are largely motivated by differences in wages and economic opportunities between the country of origin and the countries of destination. Sending countries end up facing lowered service quality. As Coppel et Al observed, “Immigrants tend to be better educated than those they leave behind, though they may be less educated than the average population of the host country.”

Brain drain is the main side effect of immigration for poor countries; it needs to be addressed with a minimum of equity by countries and organisations stakeholders. Brain drain for development is underscored by the “new growth theory”. According to this theory, a person’s knowledge not only provides a direct benefit in terms of available skills but also has a positive effect on the productivity of others. Elimination of those with skills eliminates this indirect benefit to the economy of sending countries at large. The case is worsened when considering that Official Development Assistance is largely obtained from donors with conditionalities such as to be directed in priority in the domains of education, health by receiving countries. Deprived of those skills, developing countries tend to be cheated twice as they end up paying to train skills serving richer countries. The situation becomes acute when considering the formulation of new immigration policies, richer countries have clearly given preference for highly skilled workers as there is progressive restriction of immigration of unskilled workers considered useless and harmful to their counterparts of those countries where they would migrate. A case in point is that of Southern African countries where the whole health sector is bereaved with its qualified personnel having migrated after training in their home countries to western countries.

II- STATES’ REACTION AT IMMIGRATION

States’ reaction at migration depends upon their political, demographic, social or economic needs. According to their needs, receiving countries would either encourage or discourage migration. The receptiveness of countries to migration is at least in part a reflection of previous migration trends and the public expectation of further immigration. Just as till 1990s Ivory Coast encouraged neighbouring countries citizens migrating to work in the agriculture in extension, today migrants have turned into a target owing to the proportion and influence they had gradually gained in that country. Botswana might no more encourage skilled foreigners to settle as over time their skills are gradually shared by its nationals

Migration affects the social fabric of both home and host country, gainers and losers of the phenomenon have been opposed since immigration erupted in the global agenda. For long ignored or perceived as marginal, immigration in traditionally receiving countries is the object of separate ands co-ordinated actions. If one is obliged to admit the righteousness of every state to set rules governing foreigners’ entry into its territory, the unforeseen consequences and the dislocation of world societies thanks to walls, soldiers and laws need to be addressed. Jose Antonio Ocampo reminded that the recent explosive growth in international migration is a response to perceived inequalities of opportunity between sending and receiving countries, at a crossroads, world leaders must seize every opportunity to take bold and decisive action to reverse negative trends

National policies at international migration have been adopted to address an array of concerns including: the effects of low fertility and population ageing, employment, the protection of human rights, social integration, brain drain and brain gain, remittances, the granting of asylum, undocumented migration and persons smuggling. Immigration policies are mainly intended to have a bearing on the size and composition of international migration flows. The number of countries adopting measures to restrict international migration has increased significantly in recent decades: by 2003, 1/3 of all countries had adopted policies to lower immigration, compared with only 7 of all in 1976

All governments have the right to determine whom it admits into its jurisdiction on what bases. While states are obligated to accept their own citizens, the admittance of non-citizens is a prerogative of individual governments. Legal instruments provided for by United Nations for refugees or migrants workers are facing harsh days as growing radicalisation is the trend in rejection of migrants confused with asylum seekers more often than not.

There is an urgency to address the causes of immigration so as to reverse the trend of uncontrolled inflows of workers in countries was there are not always expected or desired. Phenomenon of “boat peoples” hundreds of young peoples wondering in deserts, attempting trespassing walls or exposed to malpractice by smugglers involved in illegal immigration.

First policies at immigration were meant to ensure a control on the quality and quantity of migrants in traditionally receiving countries. In 1917, facing enormous migration rates, United States passed the first Immigration Act. The Act increased the tax required per immigrant to $8 US and imposed a literacy test on immigrants. The 1917 Immigration Act included an “Asian Barred Zone” provision that effectively excluded all immigrants from Asia. The 1921 Emergency Quota Act (Johnson Act) set limits to immigration according to national origin. The Asian Barred Zone remained in place until the late 1940s. Policies nowadays though less radical are in their implementation more restrictive indeed.

The most significant cases of restrictive policies are those enacted in the European Union and broad Schengen Space. In the main countries of destination especially European countries, increasingly restrictive immigration policies and public hostility towards migrants emerged towards the end of the end of 20th century and gradually become harsher. The aim is mostly to protect the economic interests of the unskilled workers of destination countries. On the one hand, in order to contain the ever growing inflow of migrants, rigid controls at potential points of entry to the continent have been installed. They include: heavily armed guards, the erection of walls in European enclaves located in African continent. A growing number of receiving countries have negotiated readmission agreements with countries of origin obliging them to readmit their national who lack proper documentation in order to facilitate their expulsion. Recent examples include agreements between Germany and Albania, Spain, and Mauritania. Efforts to counter undocumented migration have also included bilateral agreements between transit and receiving countries. Morocco and Tunisia are for instance expected to readmit foreigners who, having transited through them, were residing in European Union without authorisation .

For Abderrahmane Essadi in their attempt to ensure externalisation of their migratory policies, European countries have imposed a division of tasks whereby other countries are in charge of protecting Europeans boundaries. Transits countries are transformed into nets where migrants are all retained when undocumented, little care being given to discriminate those who may need international protection. A clear defiance by European states of their obligations towards asylum seekers has been the closure of transit camps in Europe . This was recalled by the Call of Bamako for Respect of Migrants Dignity on 26th January 2006. Pushed away by despair from their home country, refugees are confined in camps, maltreated and later expelled. Such policies lead to disasters such as those of Ceuta and Mellila enclaves, violence on refugees in Cairo, desert dead, boat people scandals in Mediterranean Sea or Rio Grande .

Criminalisation of illegal immigration is also part of the arsenal resorted to by receiving countries. In United Kingdom, under UK Asylum and Immigration Act (1996) made it an offence for employees to employ any individual without work permit. In Australia until their case are examined asylum seekers are detained. An example in point of receiving countries determination at reversing immigration trends are the growing stigmatisation of migrants , the repatriation rate imposed by some governments to their security forces , pressures on air transport companies to avoid transporting undocumented passengers . Receiving countries have recently decided to take advantage of the phenomenon by selecting those to admit in their territories on the grounds of the receiving country’s needs in skills and labour force.

Recent developments in receiving countries policies to reverse migration trends include the resort to “selective migration”, and advocacy of a “co development” of states stakeholders of immigration. One of the prominent promoters of these approaches has so far been Jacques Chirac, French president. He reiterated his view of during at Bamako’s France-Afrique Summit in 2005. Co development implies for migrants to invest with the support of governments of receiving countries in their home countries so as to create better prospects for those remaining. If one could encourage this approach’ effort at alleviating precarious conditions for both migrants and migrating peoples, there are high risks associated with co development. Sending countries in the context of selective immigration would lose skills to the benefice of destination countries. Added to co development, selective immigration will definitely consecrate the global division of labour.

The terrorist attacks against United States on September, 11 2001 and the Global War on Terror have further complicated the conditions of immigrants. Receiving countries in order to not serve as haven to terrorists or in view of protecting their territory and citizens have further strengthened the policies governing admission of migrants. The defiance to international law and institutions has also affected migrants as, on the ground of ensuring their security, refugees have gradually been treated the same as economic migrants or worse, meantime the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrants Workers and their Families is largely ignored by ratifying states.

The

ying the fate of their original country to those of receiving countries. The settlement of Spaniards and Irish in America definitely sealed that continent’s fate to that of Europe as both parts have ever been privileged partners so far. A term “Greater Atlantic Economy” is used to mean the trading relationships emerging from European migration to Oceania and America. Before the emancipation of those regions they were mostly participating in trade as supplier of raw material for European industry, the peak being during the Atlantic Trade Slave.

Return of skilled workers to their original country would increase local human capital with additional experiences at times not available at home. Putting the experience acquired from the sojourn in a different country (often more developed), skilled workers could introduce new working methods; propose solutions to problems experienced in their home country. Also, the return of workers skilled or not, may have as outcome, enabling both countries (receiving and sending) to benefit from former ties left behind by migrants. Former friends, employers and partners of any kind could be useful in one way or the other to both countries.

For developing countries, migration could constitute an opportunity to achieve acquisition of new technology often too slowly transferred from developed countries. By exchanging with their

Migrants through effective participation in their family’s and community’s development have so far become elite no matter the level of education, what actually matters has become the extent to which they assist those left behind.

For developing countries, migration could constitute an opportunity to achieve acquisition of new technology often too slowly transferred. By exchanging with their relatives or in trading, migrants introduce a number of appliances of common use in their receiving country but not yet introduced in their home countries. The migrant return is an additional source of technology transfer as they are likely to introduce and share knowledge regarding the said technology.

Despite the numerous gains they derive from the phenomenon of international migration, developing and poorest countries are nevertheless exposed to loss of highly skilled and motivated workers. Workers’ movements are largely motivated by differences in wages and economic opportunities between the country of origin and the countries of destination. Sending countries end up facing lowered service quality. As Coppel et Al observed, “Immigrants tend to be better educated than those they leave behind, though they may be less educated than the average population of the host country.”

Brain drain is the main side effect of immigration for poor countries; it needs to be addressed with a minimum of equity by countries and organisations stakeholders. Brain drain for development is underscored by the “new growth theory”. According to this theory, a person’s knowledge not only provides a direct benefit in terms of available skills but also has a positive effect on the productivity of others. Elimination of those with skills eliminates this indirect benefit to the economy of sending countries at large. The case is worsened when considering that Official Development Assistance is largely obtained from donors with conditionalities such as to be directed in priority in the domains of education, health by receiving countries. Deprived of those skills, developing countries tend to be cheated twice as they end up paying to train skills serving richer countries. The situation becomes acute when considering the formulation of new immigration policies, richer countries have clearly given preference for highly skilled workers as there is progressive restriction of immigration of unskilled workers considered useless and harmful to their counterparts of those countries where they would migrate. A case in point is that of Southern African countries where the whole health sector is bereaved with its qualified personnel having migrated after training in their home countries to western countries.

II- STATES’ REACTION AT IMMIGRATION

States’ reaction at migration depends upon their political, demographic, social or economic needs. According to their needs, receiving countries would either encourage or discourage migration. The receptiveness of countries to migration is at least in part a reflection of previous migration trends and the public expectation of further immigration. Just as till 1990s Ivory Coast encouraged neighbouring countries citizens migrating to work in the agriculture in extension, today migrants have turned into a target owing to the proportion and influence they had gradually gained in that country. Botswana might no more encourage skilled foreigners to settle as over time their skills are gradually shared by its nationals

Migration affects the social fabric of both home and host country, gainers and losers of the phenomenon have been opposed since immigration erupted in the global agenda. For long ignored or perceived as marginal, immigration in traditionally receiving countries is the object of separate ands co-ordinated actions. If one is obliged to admit the righteousness of every state to set rules governing foreigners’ entry into its territory, the unforeseen consequences and the dislocation of world societies thanks to walls, soldiers and laws need to be addressed. Jose Antonio Ocampo reminded that the recent explosive growth in international migration is a response to perceived inequalities of opportunity between sending and receiving countries, at a crossroads, world leaders must seize every opportunity to take bold and decisive action to reverse negative trends

National policies at international migration have been adopted to address an array of concerns including: the effects of low fertility and population ageing, employment, the protection of human rights, social integration, brain drain and brain gain, remittances, the granting of asylum, undocumented migration and persons smuggling. Immigration policies are mainly intended to have a bearing on the size and composition of international migration flows. The number of countries adopting measures to restrict international migration has increased significantly in recent decades: by 2003, 1/3 of all countries had adopted policies to lower immigration, compared with only 7 of all in 1976

All governments have the right to determine whom it admits into its jurisdiction on what bases. While states are obligated to accept their own citizens, the admittance of non-citizens is a prerogative of individual governments. Legal instruments provided for by United Nations for refugees or migrants workers are facing harsh days as growing radicalisation is the trend in rejection of migrants confused with asylum seekers more often than not.

There is an urgency to address the causes of immigration so as to reverse the trend of uncontrolled inflows of workers in countries was there are not always expected or desired. Phenomenon of “boat peoples” hundreds of young peoples wondering in deserts, attempting trespassing walls or exposed to malpractice by smugglers involved in illegal immigration.

First policies at immigration were meant to ensure a control on the quality and quantity of migrants in traditionally receiving countries. In 1917, facing enormous migration rates, United States passed the first Immigration Act. The Act increased the tax required per immigrant to $8 US and imposed a literacy test on immigrants. The 1917 Immigration Act included an “Asian Barred Zone” provision that effectively excluded all immigrants from Asia. The 1921 Emergency Quota Act (Johnson Act) set limits to immigration according to national origin. The Asian Barred Zone remained in place until the late 1940s. Policies nowadays though less radical are in their implementation more restrictive indeed.

The most significant cases of restrictive policies are those enacted in the European Union and broad Schengen Space. In the main countries of destination especially European countries, increasingly restrictive immigration policies and public hostility towards migrants emerged towards the end of the end of 20th century and gradually become harsher. The aim is mostly to protect the economic interests of the unskilled workers of destination countries. On the one hand, in order to contain the ever growing inflow of migrants, rigid controls at potential points of entry to the continent have been installed. They include: heavily armed guards, the erection of walls in European enclaves located in African continent. A growing number of receiving countries have negotiated readmission agreements with countries of origin obliging them to readmit their national who lack proper documentation in order to facilitate their expulsion. Recent examples include agreements between Germany and Albania, Spain, and Mauritania. Efforts to counter undocumented migration have also included bilateral agreements between transit and receiving countries. Morocco and Tunisia are for instance expected to readmit foreigners who, having transited through them, were residing in European Union without authorisation .

For Abderrahmane Essadi in their attempt to ensure externalisation of their migratory policies, European countries have imposed a division of tasks whereby other countries are in charge of protecting Europeans boundaries. Transits countries are transformed into nets where migrants are all retained when undocumented, little care being given to discriminate those who may need international protection. A clear defiance by European states of their obligations towards asylum seekers has been the closure of transit camps in Europe . This was recalled by the Call of Bamako for Respect of Migrants Dignity on 26th January 2006. Pushed away by despair from their home country, refugees are confined in camps, maltreated and later expelled. Such policies lead to disasters such as those of Ceuta and Mellila enclaves, violence on refugees in Cairo, desert dead, boat people scandals in Mediterranean Sea or Rio Grande .

Criminalisation of illegal immigration is also part of the arsenal resorted to by receiving countries. In United Kingdom, under UK Asylum and Immigration Act (1996) made it an offence for employees to employ any individual without work permit. In Australia until their case are examined asylum seekers are detained. An example in point of receiving countries determination at reversing immigration trends are the growing stigmatisation of migrants , the repatriation rate imposed by some governments to their security forces , pressures on air transport companies to avoid transporting undocumented passengers . Receiving countries have recently decided to take advantage of the phenomenon by selecting those to admit in their territories on the grounds of the receiving country’s needs in skills and labour force.

Recent developments in receiving countries policies to reverse migration trends include the resort to “selective migration”, and advocacy of a “co development” of states stakeholders of immigration. One of the prominent promoters of these approaches has so far been Jacques Chirac, French president. He reiterated his view of during at Bamako’s France-Afrique Summit in 2005. Co development implies for migrants to invest with the support of governments of receiving countries in their home countries so as to create better prospects for those remaining. If one could encourage this approach’ effort at alleviating precarious conditions for both migrants and migrating peoples, there are high risks associated with co development. Sending countries in the context of selective immigration would lose skills to the benefice of destination countries. Added to co development, selective immigration will definitely consecrate the global division of labour.

The terrorist attacks against United States on September, 11 2001 and the Global War on Terror have further complicated the conditions of immigrants. Receiving countries in order to not serve as haven to terrorists or in view of protecting their territory and citizens have further strengthened the policies governing admission of migrants. The defiance to international law and institutions has also affected migrants as, on the ground of ensuring their security, refugees have gradually been treated the same as economic migrants or worse, meantime the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrants Workers and their Families is largely ignored by ratifying states.

The

ocial or economic needs. According to their needs, receiving countries would either encourage or discourage migration. The receptiveness of countries to migration is at least in part a reflection of previous migration trends and the public expectation of further immigration. Just as till 1990s Ivory Coast encouraged neighbouring countries citizens migrating to work in the agriculture in extension, today migrants have turned into a target owing to the proportion and influence they had gradually gained in that country. Botswana might no more encourage skilled foreigners to settle as over time their skills are gradually shared by its nationals

Migration affects the social fabric of both home and host country, gainers and losers of the phenomenon have been opposed since immigration erupted in the global agenda. For long ignored or perceived as marginal, immigration in traditionally receiving countries is the object of separate ands co-ordinated actions. If one is obliged to admit the righteousness of every state to set rules governing foreigners’ entry into its territory, the unforeseen consequences and the dislocation of world societies thanks to walls, soldiers and laws need to be addressed. Jose Antonio Ocampo reminded that the recent explosive growth in international migration is a response to perceived inequalities of opportunity between sending and receiving countries, at a crossroads, world leaders must seize every opportunity to take bold and decisive action to reverse negative trends

National policies at international migration have been adopted to address an array of concerns including: the effects of low fertility and population ageing, employment, the protection of human rights, social integration, brain drain and brain gain, remittances, the granting of asylum, undocumented migration and persons smuggling. Immigration policies are mainly intended to have a bearing on the size and composition of international migration flows. The number of countries adopting measures to restrict international migration has increased significantly in recent decades: by 2003, 1/3 of all countries had adopted policies to lower immigration, compared with only 7 of all in 1976

All governments have the right to determine whom it admits into its jurisdiction on what bases. While states are obligated to accept their own citizens, the admittance of non-citizens is a prerogative of individual governments. Legal instruments provided for by United Nations for refugees or migrants workers are facing harsh days as growing radicalisation is the trend in rejection of migrants confused with asylum seekers more often than not.

There is an urgency to address the causes of immigration so as to reverse the trend of uncontrolled inflows of workers in countries was there are not always expected or desired. Phenomenon of “boat peoples” hundreds of young peoples wondering in deserts, attempting trespassing walls or exposed to malpractice by smugglers involved in illegal immigration.

First policies at immigration were meant to ensure a control on the quality and quantity of migrants in traditionally receiving countries. In 1917, facing enormous migration rates, United States passed the first Immigration Act. The Act increased the tax required per immigrant to $8 US and imposed a literacy test on immigrants. The 1917 Immigration Act included an “Asian Barred Zone” provision that effectively excluded all immigrants from Asia. The 1921 Emergency Quota Act (Johnson Act) set limits to immigration according to national origin. The Asian Barred Zone remained in place until the late 1940s. Policies nowadays though less radical are in their implementation more restrictive indeed.

The most significant cases of restrictive policies are those enacted in the European Union and broad Schengen Space. In the main countries of destination especially European countries, increasingly restrictive immigration policies and public hostility towards migrants emerged towards the end of the end of 20th century and gradually become harsher. The aim is mostly to protect the economic interests of the unskilled workers of destination countries. On the one hand, in order to contain the ever growing inflow of migrants, rigid controls at potential points of entry to the continent have been installed. They include: heavily armed guards, the erection of walls in European enclaves located in African continent. A growing number of receiving countries have negotiated readmission agreements with countries of origin obliging them to readmit their national who lack proper documentation in order to facilitate their expulsion. Recent examples include agreements between Germany and Albania, Spain, and Mauritania. Efforts to counter undocumented migration have also included bilateral agreements between transit and receiving countries. Morocco and Tunisia are for instance expected to readmit foreigners who, having transited through them, were residing in European Union without authorisation .

For Abderrahmane Essadi in their attempt to ensure externalisation of their migratory policies, European countries have imposed a division of tasks whereby other countries are in charge of protecting Europeans boundaries. Transits countries are transformed into nets where migrants are all retained when undocumented, little care being given to discriminate those who may need international protection. A clear defiance by European states of their obligations towards asylum seekers has been the closure of transit camps in Europe . This was recalled by the Call of Bamako for Respect of Migrants Dignity on 26th January 2006. Pushed away by despair from their home country, refugees are confined in camps, maltreated and later expelled. Such policies lead to disasters such as those of Ceuta and Mellila enclaves, violence on refugees in Cairo, desert dead, boat people scandals in Mediterranean Sea or Rio Grande .

Criminalisation of illegal immigration is also part of the arsenal resorted to by receiving countries. In United Kingdom, under UK Asylum and Immigration Act (1996) made it an offence for employees to employ any individual without work permit. In Australia until their case are examined asylum seekers are detained. An example in point of receiving countries determination at reversing immigration trends are the growing stigmatisation of migrants , the repatriation rate imposed by some governments to their security forces , pressures on air transport companies to avoid transporting undocumented passengers . Receiving countries have recently decided to take advantage of the phenomenon by selecting those to admit in their territories on the grounds of the receiving country’s needs in skills and labour force.

Recent developments in receiving countries policies to reverse migration trends include the resort to “selective migration”, and advocacy of a “co development” of states stakeholders of immigration. One of the prominent promoters of these approaches has so far been Jacques Chirac, French president. He reiterated his view of during at Bamako’s France-Afrique Summit in 2005. Co development implies for migrants to invest with the support of governments of receiving countries in their home countries so as to create better prospects for those remaining. If one could encourage this approach’ effort at alleviating precarious conditions for both migrants and migrating peoples, there are high risks associated with co development. Sending countries in the context of selective immigration would lose skills to the benefice of destination countries. Added to co development, selective immigration will definitely consecrate the global division of labour.

The terrorist attacks against United States on September, 11 2001 and the Global War on Terror have further complicated the conditions of immigrants. Receiving countries in order to not serve as haven to terrorists or in view of protecting their territory and citizens have further strengthened the policies governing admission of migrants. The defiance to international law and institutions has also affected migrants as, on the ground of ensuring their security, refugees have gradually been treated the same as economic migrants or worse, meantime the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrants Workers and their Families is largely ignored by ratifying states.

The

tain the ever growing inflow of migrants, rigid controls at potential points of entry to the continent have been installed. They include: heavily armed guards, the erection of walls in European enclaves located in African continent. A growing number of receiving countries have negotiated readmission agreements with countries of origin obliging them to readmit their national who lack proper documentation in order to facilitate their expulsion. Recent examples include agreements between Germany and Albania, Spain, and Mauritania. Efforts to counter undocumented migration have also included bilateral agreements between transit and receiving countries. Morocco and Tunisia are for instance expected to readmit foreigners who, having transited through them, were residing in European Union without authorisation .

For Abderrahmane Essadi in their attempt to ensure externalisation of their migratory policies, European countries have imposed a division of tasks whereby other countries are in charge of protecting Europeans boundaries. Transits countries are transformed into nets where migrants are all retained when undocumented, little care being given to discriminate those who may need international protection. A clear defiance by European states of their obligations towards asylum seekers has been the closure of transit camps in Europe . This was recalled by the Call of Bamako for Respect of Migrants Dignity on 26th January 2006. Pushed away by despair from their home country, refugees are confined in camps, maltreated and later expelled. Such policies lead to disasters such as those of Ceuta and Mellila enclaves, violence on refugees in Cairo, desert dead, boat people scandals in Mediterranean Sea or Rio Grande .

Criminalisation of illegal immigration is also part of the arsenal resorted to by receiving countries. In United Kingdom, under UK Asylum and Immigration Act (1996) made it an offence for employees to employ any individual without work permit. In Australia until their case are examined asylum seekers are detained. An example in point of receiving countries determination at reversing immigration trends are the growing stigmatisation of migrants , the repatriation rate imposed by some governments to their security forces , pressures on air transport companies to avoid transporting undocumented passengers . Receiving countries have recently decided to take advantage of the phenomenon by selecting those to admit in their territories on the grounds of the receiving country’s needs in skills and labour force.

Recent developments in receiving countries policies to reverse migration trends include the resort to “selective migration”, and advocacy of a “co development” of states stakeholders of immigration. One of the prominent promoters of these approaches has so far been Jacques Chirac, French president. He reiterated his view of during at Bamako’s France-Afrique Summit in 2005. Co development implies for migrants to invest with the support of governments of receiving countries in their home countries so as to create better prospects for those remaining. If one could encourage this approach’ effort at alleviating precarious conditions for both migrants and migrating peoples, there are high risks associated with co development. Sending countries in the context of selective immigration would lose skills to the benefice of destination countries. Added to co development, selective immigration will definitely consecrate the global division of labour.

The terrorist attacks against United States on September, 11 2001 and the Global War on Terror have further complicated the conditions of immigrants. Receiving countries in order to not serve as haven to terrorists or in view of protecting their territory and citizens have further strengthened the policies governing admission of migrants. The defiance to international law and institutions has also affected migrants as, on the ground of ensuring their security, refugees have gradually been treated the same as economic migrants or worse, meantime the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrants Workers and their Families is largely ignored by ratifying states.

The history of immigration and even recent developments however include examples of receiving states efforts at ensuring a smooth integration of migrants, at times this went up to encouraging immigration of certain groups for moral purposes. Applied for long in Australia, a number of restrictions with respect to non-Caucasian immigrants were removed in 1966 and, since 1973; Australia has abandoned its long standing “white Australia policy”. United States under Immigration Act 1990 raised the number of permanent migrants to 675,000 since 1995. Criteria governing admissions under this Act include: family reunification, needed labour, refugee and special eligibility.

Since 11th September 2001 many countries are giving high priority to the monitoring of those entering their jurisdiction. Increased emphasis is placed on scrutinising the background of visa applicants for security reasons. European Union launched in early 2003 EURODAC, the first automated fingerprint identification system for asylum seekers and certain categories of illegal immigrants arriving Europe Union, Iceland and Norway.

Under PATRIOT Act passed a few days after the 11th September attacks, the defence and security forces were given additional powers in dealing with migration issues. Security forces and officers are authorised to detain without charge for as long as necessary any person attempting entry in United States. Asylum seekers have obviously been targets of provisions. Also since that Act consular authorities have been empowered to reject the documents of any person seeking entry in United States. In United Kingdom, anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001) extended governments provisions to cover detaining suspected terrorists.

If countries either losers or gainers from immigration all want to effectively address the issue so as to turn into an exclusively benefiting factor, the roots causes need to be addressed so as to prevent precarious conditions in South. This implies the resort to good governance in the sending countries, this would create conditions supporting hope for the thousands of young desperate leaving daily and exposed to smugglers, violence and humiliation. The North in turn should cease considering the best thing to do is to extract the best form South, for the current experience shows how the rebuttals from the other parts of the World can cast threats upon their well being.