Font size: 
Polany was accurate in pointing out that there would be such a global movement of population. But fortunately, reality is less gloomy than his prediction, due to the global prosperity the world now enjoys.
According to a special report by The Economist in January 2008, the flow of laborers across the world has driven the constant global economic growth in the past decade. Moreover, developed countries turn out to be among the remarkable beneficiaries of this trend as they have absorbed young and productive laborers.
Even so, it should not escape notice that Polany made a valid argument. As a result of its impact on receiving countries, global immigration has been a source of many domestic concerns about crime, downward pressure on wages, especially in low-skilled workplaces, terrorism, and other security and economic issues. Most of these problems are more related to illegal immigrants, however.
As native citizens' concerns about job security grow, international immigration has become a very critical political issue not only in European countries, but also in the United States. This has forced responses from their political leaders.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has turned from his Labor Party's tradition of being receptive to immigration inflow, and is now claiming to want to secure jobs for his own people. Last year, the United States experienced serious civil backlash from the pursuit of an immigration reform bill that would open a path to citizenship for some of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country. The bill was not approved by Congress. President George W. Bush has also made efforts this year to enhance the guest worker program in an attempt to help farm industry employers.
All these policy efforts are aimed at addressing the flow of immigration, handling the domestic struggle with immigration, and reducing the costs associated with the accompanying economic benefits. Unfortunately, these goals seem to be incompatible with one another. Complying with the domestic, xenophobic demand to shut out newcomers renders the other goals moot.
In fact, the growing inflow of international people should be accepted as an unavoidable reality. There are few good reasons to give up on productive foreign workers, as long as the domestic economy, in order to be workable, needs them.
Therefore, what is required is a breakthrough in maintaining a proper inflow while soothing xenophobia and providing adequate remedies to illegal immigration problems. The point is that if the latter two tasks are fulfilled successfully, then managing borders would become easier to handle.
Firstly, regarding the illegal immigration issue, migration policies have so far turned out to be ineffective. According to Wharton management professor Passel Cappelli of the Pew Hispanic Center, there have been two policy approaches. One is to tighten the borders against illegal immigrants and the other is to impose grave inconvenience on them by refusing to provide drivers' licenses, government benefits or by enforcing sanctions on their daily workplaces -- all of which have proved ineffective.
Migration policy approaches toward the issue can be made toward the current illegal residents and would-be illegal residents respectively. To the extent that the domestic economy will not suffer, current illegal immigrants need to have access to citizenship. According to Bernard E. Anderson, a Wharton labor economist, although illegal immigrants cause some displacement and depression of wages in the United States, this has not been a serious factor in reducing the earnings and employment opportunities of American workers.
On the other hand, tighter control of borders is required against would-be illegal residents. According to Vernon M. Briggs Jr., professor at the School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University, the most effective way to reduce illegal immigration is to apply sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants and actively enforce these sanctions at workplaces.
Secondly, xenophobia or domestic hostility toward immigrants, especially those from relatively low-level economies, mainly stems from myth or prejudice. The distorted perceptions of immigrants involve fears about stolen job opportunities, ignorance of different cultures or backgrounds, concern over drains on social welfare, and the incorrect belief that they bring disease and degradation to the environment with them.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has revealed that in the United States these perceptions are completely unfounded. Quoting the Carter Institute's founding, it announced that there is "no statistical reliable correlation" between immigrants and joblessness. Furthermore, rather than drain social welfare, their contributions through taxes outweigh what they take from domestic welfare. Concerns over disease and environment also proved to be groundless.
In dealing with such emotional obstacles, the role of immigration policy is limited. It seems that a different type of measures should be brought in as a supplement, which could help mitigate xenophobic responses. It would be good if immigrants were given the opportunity to demonstrate themselves to be qualified, valuable players in society who contribute to domestic wealth.
For example, some U.S. reality shows such as "Survivor" have served in this role though they were not initially designed to do so. A Korean immigrant's son, Yul Kwon, who was the final survivor in 2006, said that his intention in joining the show was to break the chronic negative image Americans have of Asian immigrants.
After he won, Kwon was invited to a CNN interview, where he talked about the negative perceptions of Asian-Americans in U.S. society. Since then, he has been hired as a CNN correspondent, expanding his involvement in reforming Americans' perceptions of Asian immigrants.
It seems that this kind of reality show can set an example when it comes to reducing xenophobia. It seems to hold substantial potential for reshaping domestic perceptions in general by overcoming unrealistic myths and by making room for perceiving immigrants as valuable components of host societies.
It may appear that globalization does not deserve a friendly welcome because it causes global immigration to be a source of social instability. However, it seems undeniable that trying to avoid or prevent global immigration may cost far more than adjusting to it. Most importantly, there are still good prospects of remedying the social instability.
--
(Lee Jae Young is a freelance writer and citizen reporter for Ohmynews International. He has a master's degree from Cornell University Law School in Ithaca, New York. ©Copyright Lee Jae Young.)
