The Dynamics of Emigration:
The outward movement of
people from one country to another, emigration, is driven by many reasons which
are not limited to tourism/vacation centred; to have a better life as compared
to what obtains in one’s home country (entailing the availability of social
amenities and infrastructural facilities, employment opportunities, security of
lives and properties and above all, a people-centric government to mention a
few).
The above is what
differentiates the emigration in the developed to the underdeveloped/developing
countries. The developed world has its citizenries, exuding an admirable
passion for their home country and so many comfortable not to travel abroad
after all, what would be offered elsewhere is present at home. But to those who
travel abroad, such travels are driven by tourism, job related transfer and
education (research related) as against travelling with a view to playing cat
and mouse with the foreign country’s immigration service, the norm by many in
the underdeveloped world.
On the flip side, the
underdeveloped world have the majority of its people emigrating due to the
inadequate or absent of well structured and equipped higher education system, a
very harsh business environment hampered by corruption, inadequate power supply
and poor transport system which is strengthened by a cobwebbed network of bad
roads and widespread poverty with many having the mindset that a better home
exist elsewhere.
From both illustrations,
it is noted that the generality of citizens seeing their home as home is down
to one distinct feature, the sensitivity of the government to the plights of
the people which in the long run drives the government to meeting the developmental
goals and objectives of the nation as a whole.
According to a publication
by 24/7
Wall St. titled "Countries with the most Immigrant", the United
Kingdom having a total of 7.8 million immigrants (12.4% of its population)
living in the country, was listed as the 6th nation with the highest
immigration level in the world. Other nations listed are the United States of
America, Russian Federation, Germany, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates,
France and Canada, as the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh and
eight countries respectively.
On
June 27, 2013, workpermit.com
had a publication stating that “the UK's Home Secretary, Theresa May, has
announced that UK immigration will launch a pilot scheme in November which will
test the effectiveness of making foreigners from 'high risk countries' pay
£3,000 security bonds to prevent them from overstaying their UK visitor visas.”
In the course of this work, these high risk countries namely India, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nigeria and Ghana would also be referred to as pilot
victims.
This £3,000
security bond restriction to just 6 of the 54 commonwealth, not to talk of the
over 200 countries in the world has widely defaced its expected positive effect
of being a tool for the UK government to control its yearly budgetary expenses
in favour of its citizens and legal immigrants, as against the many illegal
immigrants (foreigners that stay beyond the timeline indicated in their visas).
Emigrating illegal-immigrants:
With
its projected implementation in November, 2013, the £3,000 would be employed as
a monetary tool through which an agreement between the government of the United
Kingdom and every visitor from these high risk nations is made to discourage
these visitors from exceeding their stay in the country.
On
this note, every visitor, who stays in the United Kingdom beyond the timeline
or date stipulated on his or her visa, would not just be made to leave the
United Kingdom but also forfeit the £3,000 paid on entry into the country.
The effect of the £3,000
is of mixed effect to the United Kingdom and to its visiting nations. This is
discussed in below:
The “High Risk Countries Bond”
effect To the United Kingdom government:
1. £3,000 is a lot of money and
interestingly, from the economist point of view, the said amount would be of
economic advantage to the government, as the money would be used for the
various economy strengthened driven activities employed by the UK government.
Remember that no interest is paid to foreigners upon the refund of the money
and to the defaulters, the £3,000 is not given back to them.
2. If effected the £3,000 bond would go a
long way in dropping the “vacation centred travels” from these countries to the
UK. In recognition of the fact that many people from these countries would be
unable to afford the money, it is expected that the goal of having a drop of
its immigrant from these countries would no doubt be achieved. The big question
from this is if the exclusion of the other 48 member countries of the
Commonwealth, not to mention the world would in the long run, not make the High
Risk Countries Bond, a shadow of itself, thus widely regarded as ineffective,
in addition to the fact that it is widely considered to be discriminatory..
3.
The illegal immigration rate from these high risk countries, would no doubt
drop, as it would forestall the intention of many who planned to exceed their
visa stay in the UK from playing cat and mouse with the UK government. In
similar fashion, cbc news reports
“was a key issue in Cameron's election campaign for his Conservative Party.
Cameron has pledged to cut net immigration from 252,000 people a year in 2010
to 100,000 a year by 2015.”
As observed in the preceding, the third point indeed makes this new legislation an expected benefit to the UK government, as disclosed by dailymail.co.uk . In the article titled “Immigration is hurting us, say six out of ten British voters: Fears over impact on jobs and public services”, an opinion poll revealed that more than three-quarters of people (77 per cent) said they supported a ‘drastic’ reduction in immigration, saying it would make it easier for British people to find jobs and reduce the pressure on public services.
The “High Risk Countries Bond” effect to the pilot victims:
1. A discouragement of “pilot victims” nationals from embarking on tourist visit to the UK;
2. A reprisal action by the pilot victims to the United Kingdom, which could be a dent on the diplomatic relationship between the United Kingdom and these nations. For example, on July 30, 2013, punchng.com reported that the Nigerian government’s indication to retaliate and respond with likewise measures. Also, on June 25, 2013, bbc.co.uk reported that “Indian business leaders have criticised plans to make visitors pay a £3,000 "security bond" to enter the UK.” These are an indication of the far-reaching outcry that has followed the expected immigration legislation in the United Kingdom.
3. A wakeup call for these governments to be efficient at ruling through the provision of the essential social amenities and infrastructural facilities which would mitigate their nationals from seeking greener pastures elsewhere, as they should be made to see home as home, as against the mindset of other countries being better than home.
Irrespective of “the UK government, aware of the severity of the
situation, is going to limit the access of migrants to the labor market of the
country, and deal with the immigration policy of the United Kingdom in its
entirety. The British Prime Minister said that the government intended to stop
the flow of migrants to the UK. In particular, it is proposed to impose fines
on private landlords who fail to check the immigration status of their tenants.
Those who lease housing to unregistered visitors will face a fine of 1,000
pounds”, in addition to “Prime Minister David Cameron and Queen Elizabeth II
share the opinion that the access for immigrants to unemployment benefits must
be limited to six months, and new rules for local governments must be created.
When allocating social housing, they will have to give priority to the locals.
Companies that use illegal labor will likely face large fines. Cameron also
said that only after 12 months of being in the country immigrants may receive
civil legal aid” as reported by pravdu.ru, immigration
being the British government’s biggest problem is a
difficulty that could ironically encourage the pilot victims and other
developing countries of the world to take the bull by the horns at solving
their governmental deficiencies, whilst encouraging their nations to shun
neither illegal travels nor illicit stay in a foreign land but stay back at
home to contribute to the development of the nation.
Achieving this however,
is not about sweet talk but the exude of a pragmatic determination and
sincerity of the government as measured in its policies effected, projects
executed, accountability and of course, its zero tolerance on corruption
because corruption is the biggest setback and headache to a nation’s
development.
