Unit 5 - Essays - Mixed Migration Flashcards
(2 cards)
‘Source areas are more likely to experience negative impacts from migration than positive impacts from migration.’ With the aid of examples, how far do you agree?
Paragraph 1 – Negative impacts on source areas (strongest in LICs/MICs):
Ceará (Brazil): Youth and male outmigration causes labour shortages and “brain drain”
Syria: Huge loss of skilled professionals, family separation, and weakened political legitimacy
Isle of Purbeck: Brain drain, ageing population, local service decline
Paragraph 2 – Positive impacts can exist (e.g. remittances):
Mexico: $60 billion in remittances boosts local economies and reduces unemployment
Ceará: Remittances improve rural living standards; women empowered as men leave
Return migrants sometimes bring back skills and ideas (Mexico and Purbeck)
Paragraph 3 – Severity of impact depends on scale and preparedness:
Syria lost over 13 million people; Lebanon hosts 25% of its population as refugees – imbalance worsens effects
In contrast, Church Stretton experiences modest change and even demographic rebalancing
Paragraph 4 – Variation over time and by type:
Seasonal migration (e.g. Mexico H-2A visas) limits long-term harm.
Internal migration within HICs (e.g. London) less damaging than refugee flows or mass rural–urban shifts.
Conclusion – Clear Judgement:
Source areas often suffer more visible and lasting negative effects, particularly in LICs or war-torn regions. However, positive effects such as remittances and demographic rebalancing can occur, especially in more stable or developed areas.
With the aid of examples, assess the importance of distance as a factor in distinguishing between different types of migration.
Paragraph 1 – Distance distinguishes local vs. international migration:
Syria to Germany (2,500–4,000 km): Long, intercontinental refugee journeys requiring asylum
Mexico to USA: Cross-border but shorter than Syria–Germany; dominated by economic motives
London intra-urban moves: Typically within 5–20 km – commuting and lifestyle-based relocation
Paragraph 2 – Distance affects cost, legality, and risk:
Long distances increase travel costs and dangers (e.g. smugglers from Syria, desert crossings from Mexico)
Short-distance moves (e.g. London to Church Stretton ~260 km) are safer and voluntary
Paragraph 3 – But other factors can outweigh distance:
Push-pull dynamics (conflict, jobs) drive all migration types regardless of distance.
São Paulo draws migrants from 2,400+ km away, but impact is shaped more by urban readiness and poverty than distance alone
Paragraph 4 – Some overlaps exist (e.g. rural–urban vs. urban–rural):
Both urban–rural (e.g. London to Church Stretton) and rural–urban (e.g. Ceará to São Paulo) cover similar distances but differ in motives and impacts
Conclusion – Clear Judgement:
Distance is a useful indicator to categorise migration (local, internal, international), but motives, scale, and legal context are often more significant in defining the type and impact of migration.
