Prime One

The studies of the World Bank and the University of Harvard allow to establish the spread of this subject: an increase of the flow of emigrants equivalent only to 3% of the labor force of the developed countries it would generate benefits that multiply by ten what the poor countries could hope in an agreement in Ronda of the Development of the World-wide Organization of Comercio. For the industrialized countries, this way of migratory restriction constitutes a time bomb. New the European contribute of determining form to the support of the States of the Well-being, guaranteeing the future of a native population that ages and that decreases. Still more, the combination of closed uses available and opposite is a direct invitation to the irregular immigration, that turns to million human beings in legal and social ghosts. irregular constitutes the new face of the poverty and the exclusion in our societies, and the weakest link of the chain that maintains important bags of submerged economy.

To be clear, there is an automatic guarantee of which an increase of immigration generates well-being in the countries of origin and those of welcome, but one more a more flexible management and no ordinate of migratory flows could generate for all a prosperity without precedents. The question is not how to protect better our borders; not even what we could do so that people are not themselves forced to leave her countries of origin. The interesting thing is to identify what political migratory favors more to those who live in the poverty, and how they can be acceptable and beneficial for the societies of the destiny countries. () It is essential to contemplate an ambitious program of circular migrations that includes incentives for the return, that includes to the set of the EU and that does not limit doctors and engineers. Since it has indicated the Commission World-wide of Migrations, these mechanisms offer an alternative that avoids the draconian ends and that regulate the migratory flows of more human and effective form. Partly, one is to change the approach with which all – progressive and preservative we have watched until now this subject. But it is also tried to remember how it was Europe when we were arranged to take until its last consequences assumed commitments and the responsibility against others. As it had to listen to Churchill of his minister of the Interior in that one same meeting of 1954, to accept the impulses of Prime minister in the matter of immigration would suppose to betray an historical tradition of the United Kingdom, and that not only would offend the liberal ones, but also to sentimental . Gonzalo Fanjul Coordinator of Investigations of InterMon Oxfam ccs@ solidarios.org.es Original author and source of the article.