Remarkable evolution has taken place in migration. For a long time until a few years ago, huge countries with low-density populations were preserving it as a strategic asset to develop in the future.
What is the current scenario? What forces are influencing migration processes? The people of the wealthiest zones were limiting the growth of their internal population over a long period, as were China, Japan, Europe and other so-called advanced countries. Let us hope, however, that demographic policies looking to support large families will be implemented sooner or later to lead to a less imbalanced situation in such advanced countries.
Because of such constraint, countries occupying immense areas, with the possibility of developing rich agriculture and the exploitation of subsoil resources, today see emigration in a very different perspective: as a condition to assert themselves in the world context, in geopolitics, since the extension of land, by itself, does not confer any vital status, but its population does, with intellectual and scientific preparation capable of mastering and exploiting the available resources.
It means many could not continue generating wealth at a good pace because of a lack of labour and having to call immigration with suitable professional qualifications. This phenomenon is becoming more acute, as many rich countries require skilled labour. Germany, for example, has already made known that it needs more than half a million young engineers each year to work in its industry. In addition, it created a fund for scholarships to allow young people from abroad to study there. Something similar happens in Canada.
Some countries have opened themselves to immigration, first of people with advanced higher instruction, descending from there to other types of training that allow each person to integrate into the local economy, generating wealth with the knowledge and experience they bring.
We are witnessing a solid focus from all the advanced countries on Indian youth to emigrate there. They say they are welcome and will be in a safe and democratic country where they can work and develop their full potential. Above all, they can apply their skills in technology and entrepreneurship, as the young Indian population know how to do it so well. Some countries have already begun acknowledging degrees taken in India ( for example Australia).
There have been four types of moves that have called attention to and led to very different attitudes towards those who want to migrate:
Some countries, with a closed and isolationist attitude, knew how to take advantage of skilled labour that sought them out. But they were and are very restricted in their rights, especially citizenship, even after years and years of living and working there. A particular type of attitude seems to be implicit in preserving the characteristics of its population. Japan and Switzerland are part of this group of countries.
Others prevented the emigration of citizens of specific origins and ethnicities without an understandable reason. A vast Asian country, almost empty, made it difficult for citizens from China to emigrate there. But things have changed radically now.
Still, others were open to immigration as they needed it within specific controls. They saw in practice that it was an excellent bet, as the variety of origins, their training and work habits showed how important it was for the development. They got citizenship rights after some permanence.
Some value personal merit, with the independence of their provenience, and the business environment fosters quick advancement. The United States, for example, attracts young Indian immigrants. This emigration is responsible for many start-ups, unicorns and valuable innovations in IT technologies, which have already created colossal wealth in the USA.
Others were more inward-looking, endowing educational, health and security institutions for the entire population. They were open to receiving the specialized professionals they needed and are now positively attracting young people from India with citizenship rights after some permanence. I see Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in this group. Without the dynamism as of n3, this group will soon overgrow with solid clusters of entrepreneurs and people of science and technology who will push for excellent innovations and wealth creation.
Countries with a tested style of coexistence, which guarantees peace, order and stability, are the most sought after because, in such a social environment, one can fully apply the energy to build his home and work to contribute to the good of the country of adoption.
In the modern and civilized estate relationship, reciprocity is a must. When one country grants specific benefits to others, it expects to receive something of the same importance in return for its citizens. This interchange is perfect for fostering valuable collaboration.
And the more rights a country can grant, the better. We cannot forget that ‘the land is the entire inheritance of all men.’ Firstly, for those already installed there and others who want to join them and integrate the society.
One crucial question remains: Who pays for training those who emigrate, sometimes with demanding and expensive university courses? The host country seems to do a favour by receiving engineers, business leaders, researchers and medical doctors from India. Yes, to some extent, it does.
But it is worth seeing from another perspective: the host country did not have to spend anything on training those immigrants with a demanding and costly university education from their country of origin.
When medical doctors, engineers and entrepreneurs from India migrate, the governments who need them should think about and try to find specific ways to be fair and just towards the country from where the specialists are coming.
One proposal would be to help the country of origin expand its tertiary education system – from where many highly educated migrants come – in proportion to the number of migrants and the costs incurred with the education of those who departed.
Such an approach could, in a certain way, compensate for the effects of the brain drain, with the possibility of having more seats in the desired university careers for local people.
