PRESS BRIEFING BY DIRECTOR OF POPULATION DIVISION

The phenomenon of international migration would appear increasingly often and for a very long time on the United Nations agenda as a delicate and controversial issue with great demographic impact, Joseph Chamie, Director of the Population Division in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, told correspondents at a Headquarters briefing this morning.

Presenting the International Migration 2002 wall chart, which contains the latest information on global trends, he said that the number of migrants had more than doubled in the past 10 years.  There were now around 175 million migrants worldwide, affecting societies and making a social, financial, political, economic and cultural impact on governments, institutions, organizations, families, communities, businesses, civil society and other sectors.  Yet the issue would remain controversial for many years because of its implications, he said, pointing out that some countries would not be growing -- or would grow much more slowly -- if not for migration.

Furthermore, the overall number of migrants did not reflect the scene on the national scale, he said.  Thirty years ago, 5 per cent of the United States population was foreign-born, and today that figure had risen to around 12 per cent.  The Netherlands and Austria had gone from 2 per cent to 10 per cent in the same timeframe, while Canada was up from 15 to 19 per cent, and Australia from

20 to 25 per cent.  As a result, 44 per cent of governments in developed countries and 39 per cent in the developing world today had policies aimed at reducing immigration, compared to 6 or 7 per cent 30 years ago.

Mr. Chamie said that governments were increasingly dealing with international migration, giving out two, often conflicting, messages -- "help wanted" and "keep out".  They were increasingly deciding whom they wanted within their borders and whom they wanted to keep out.  That double message complicated matters for a phenomenon that involved the flow of money, he said, noting that

the remittances that migrants sent to their families back home amounted to about $50 billion annually, the equivalent of the total annual official development assistance (ODA).

In response to a question, he said it was a fundamental role of all governments to control the movement of people across their national borders.  International human rights instruments reaffirmed a person’s right to leave a country, but they did not assert the right to enter one.  While only 6 to 7 per cent of governments had policies restricting immigration 30 years ago, 40 per cent of them were doing so today.  However, migration policies were evolving, he added, pointing out that just over the weekend Canada's Prime Minister had characterized immigration as an investment and wanted to increase the annual immigration rate by 1 per cent to 300,000, compared to the present 127,000 a year (figure from 2000).

Answering another question, Mr. Chamie said migration was a challenge for both developed and developing countries as people went to neighbouring countries seeking opportunities.  India, for example, was sending out and receiving a great number of migrants, while people were moving across countries in South America, and others were moving in the Persian Gulf in search of new positions as oil

workers.  The migrant stock also included 16 million refugees as of the year 2000, but no figures were available yet to reflect recent situations such as that in Afghanistan, he said.

Asked about the graphic form of the information contained in the wall chart, he said a follow-up report would be published in November.  It would contain a more in-depth look at such causes of migration as economic reasons, social or cultural purposes, family reunification, escape from civil conflict and replacement migration.  The last was related to two demographic phenomena of particular importance:  population decline and population ageing.

Referring to a feature of the chart that rated national immigration levels, he said that information had come from governments themselves.

Was migration a problem and did the report offer any solutions? a correspondent asked.

Mr. Chamie replied:  "Demographics are with us; it's like the weather."  As with the other two dimensions of population, fertility/reproduction and mortality, migration depended on the levels coming in.  That was a challenge for many countries, he said, adding that the Population Division had done demographic analyses for 10 countries indicating how many people a country would need in order to maintain their population, labour force or age structure.

Responding to other questions, he acknowledged that the figures available to his office could not take account of undocumented migrants.  Also, there were no figures on how many people were migrating for which reasons.

Asked if there had been any increase in violations of migrants’ human rights, he replied that there was general agreement to stop the trafficking of people, but the possibility of growing abuse was high given the great numbers of people moving, especially those trying to come into countries without proper documentation.  Referring to "push and pull" factors at work, he said there was a great amount of growth in Africa and Asia, providing the "push".  The "pull" came from Europe and the developed world, which wanted people to do the tasks that their nationals were unable or unwilling to do.

Responding to another question, he said he expected feedback from governments based on the wall chart and on the upcoming report.  The Population Division would continue to study the matter and look at interrelationships between international migration and development, especially since many countries were concerned with the "brain drain and brain gain" and its impact on their societies.

Pointing out that there was political from both sides, he noted that people said immigrants were taking their jobs, on the one hand, while other people needed "more grape-pickers", on the other.  Both sides could support their positions with pros and cons and the Division’s job was to make the debate less heated and more rational with scientific information and objective numbers.

* *** *