Unit 5 - Essays - Refugees and International Migration Flashcards
(4 cards)
With the aid of examples, assess the extent to which refugee flows impact more on receiving/destination areas in LICs/MICs than on receiving/destination areas in HICs.
Paragraph 1 – LICs/MICs (e.g. Lebanon):
Lebanon hosts 1.5 million Syrians—25% of its population.
Huge pressure on healthcare and schools; double shifts in education common.
Overcrowding in urban and informal settlements causes tension.
Weak infrastructure and economic instability make support difficult.
Paragraph 2 – HICs (e.g. Germany):
Germany took ~900,000 Syrian refugees—under 1% of its population.
Strong welfare system supports integration (housing, language training).
Political debate intensified; rise in anti-immigrant sentiment.
Long-term economic benefit: filling labour gaps, entrepreneurship.
Paragraph 3 – Comparison of Social and Political Strain:
Lebanon faces immediate survival challenges (e.g. child labour, housing shortages).
Germany’s main impact is political and long-term social integration.
LICs have limited capacity and aid dependency; HICs have structural resilience.
Paragraph 4 – Variation in Support and Integration:
Germany supports permanent settlement and labour force integration.
Lebanon lacks legal rights, formal employment, or durable infrastructure.
Refugees in Lebanon live with repatriation uncertainty; not the case in Germany.
Conclusion – Clear Judgement:
Refugee flows have a greater short-term and systemic impact on LICs/MICs due to limited infrastructure, funding, and legal protections. HICs feel political and long-term integration pressures, but with stronger capacity to cope.
With the aid of examples, assess the extent to which refugee flows impact more on the source areas than on the receiving/destination areas.
Paragraph 1 – Social Impacts on Syria (source):
Loss of skilled professionals (doctors, teachers); brain drain.
Demographic imbalance: young men flee; elderly and children left.
Families fragmented; millions internally displaced.
Paragraph 2 – Economic and Political Impacts on Syria:
Economic collapse: shrinking tax base and labour force.
Few remittances due to refugee poverty status.
Political legitimacy weakened; diaspora support opposition.
Paragraph 3 – Impacts on Receiving Areas (Lebanon & Germany):
Lebanon: Overcrowding, fragile economy under strain, rising tension.
Germany: Costly integration, but long-term labour benefits.
HICs manage better; LICs struggle with burden.
Paragraph 4 – Relative Scale and Severity:
Syria faces existential threats: state collapse, loss of sovereignty, shattered society.
Receiving countries face challenges, but impacts are more manageable and sector-specific.
Conclusion – Clear Judgement:
The source area (Syria) suffers more severe and lasting impacts, including depopulation, economic collapse, and political instability, compared to even the most burdened destination countries.
With the aid of examples, assess the extent to which government attempt to control international migration
Paragraph 1 – U.S. Control Measures (Mexico case):
Border wall (700+ miles), visa quotas, deportations, and policies like Title 42.
Smuggling costs have risen ($5,000+), making legal migration harder.
Despite barriers, undocumented migration persists (~5 million Mexicans in the U.S.).
Paragraph 2 – Successes and Failures of U.S. Control:
Some reduction post-2008 financial crisis.
Mixed impact of stricter laws—undocumented migration remains high.
Policies change often with political leadership (Trump vs Biden).
Paragraph 3 – Germany’s Controlled Asylum Policies (Syria case):
2015 “open door” policy later balanced by stricter EU-Turkey deals.
Integration policies and asylum procedures well-structured.
Migration central to politics; rise of right-wing parties in response.
Paragraph 4 – LIC/MIC control is weaker:
Lebanon cannot control inflow; overwhelmed by sheer numbers.
Weak border management and reliance on NGOs.
Lack of resources makes policy implementation difficult.
Conclusion – Clear Judgement:
HIC governments like the U.S. and Germany can partially control migration through policy and infrastructure. However, full control is elusive due to political, humanitarian, and economic pressures. LICs/MICs lack the capacity for effective control.
‘Improvements in transport is the main reason for the global increase in international migration.’ With the aid of examples, how far do you agree with this view?
Paragraph 1 – Role of Transport:
Affordable air travel, improved road links, and mobile tech aid long-distance migration.
Syrian migration to Germany involves crossing multiple borders—enabled by transport networks and smuggling routes.
Mexican migration involves desert crossings, buses, or legal flights (where possible).
Paragraph 2 – Economic and Social Drivers Matter More:
Push: poverty, conflict, low wages, violence (seen in both Syria and Mexico).
Pull: better jobs, education, and healthcare.
Mexico → USA and Syria → Germany show economic security is a stronger motivator.
Paragraph 3 – Political and Legal Factors Also Key:
Asylum rights, border policies, and refugee protections shape flows.
Germany’s asylum system encouraged Syrian migration.
U.S. visa quotas and border crackdowns limit Mexican migration despite transport access.
Paragraph 4 – Cultural and Family Links:
Chain migration critical—family reunification (e.g. Mexicans joining relatives).
Social networks reduce perceived risks and increase chances of success.
Conclusion – Clear Judgement:
Transport is a facilitating factor but not the main reason. Economic disparity, conflict, and political policy are more fundamental causes of international migration flows.
