While restrictions on immigration can reduce overall migration, they can also provide the opposite results, as more migrants would try to use unauthorised channels. This was the finding of a new UCL-led research in collaboration with Royal Holloway and University of Birmingham.
Published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the study tried to identify how migrants are likely to move from one country to another, based on different levels of restriction. Under this, there were three kind of visas: high-skilled visas, low-skilled and family visas.
[smlsubform prepend=”GET THE SAFETY4SEA IN YOUR INBOX!” showname=false emailtxt=”” emailholder=”Enter your email address” showsubmit=true submittxt=”Submit” jsthanks=false thankyou=”Thank you for subscribing to our mailing list”]
According to the report, restricting students and those eligible for high-skilled visas, does not significantly change the numbers of incoming migrants. When family and low-skilled visas are restricted, there is a reduction in migration, but this leads many migrants towards unauthorised channels.
In addition, under a scenario where anyone could migrate as long as they comply with minimal visa eligibility requirements, only 44% of aspiring migrants chose to move through legal channels.
What is more, when restricting low-skilled worker or family migration,immigration was reduced by 21% and 32% respectively. However, unauthorised immigration was increased by 14% and 24%.
These results indicate that enforcing unauthorised migration is not an efficient solution as more than 80% of unauthorised migrants would need to be apprehended to balance the effects of legal restrictions.
