Mr Chairman, Distinguished guests, Ladies and Gentlemen

We live in an era of the greatest human mobility in recorded
history. There are more people on the move than ever before at any
time.

It's no wonder that migration has emerged as a key global issue
– no longer the sole concern of limited number of countries,
as it was claimed, rightly or wrongly, for most of the previous
century. It is at the heart of all government policy these
days.

Moreover, today, a migrant, or anyone, knows instantly what is
happening at any time anywhere in the world. Consider these
statistics. There are today 1.9 billion people who have access to
the internet; that was only 390 million in 2000. There are 247
billion emails sent every day. There are 500 million subscribers to
Facebook, about 300,000 to Twitter and both are growing. Whether
directly or indirectly, these communication networks all play a
part in the promotion of mobility. Migrants know where the jobs
are; they know the places to avoid; they communicate with their
family and friends with great ease. And yet, even while human
mobility is acknowledged as one of the defining features of our
contemporary world, it is also one of the most misunderstood.

Migration Myths

Let me address a few general misperceptions about the nature of
migration:

Myth: Most migration is across international
borders

Reality: By far the largest numbers of migrants move within the
borders of their own countries. According to the most reliable
estimates, there are some 214 international migrants around the
world today. There are at least three times as many internal
migrants; a majority of who have left rural areas for seek a new
life in the cities. Internal migration in China – which
stands at some 210 million – is roughly equivalent to all
international migration.

Myth: Migration is overwhelmingly a flow of people from
developing countries and towards developed countries

Reality: Contemporary migratory movements reflect the complex
patterns of social and economic globalization; they flow in all
directions and affect all countries in one way or another (with
North Korea as the lone exception confirming the rule).

Developing countries are commonly seen as a source rather than
as a destination of migrants. However, existing figures highlight
the importance of intra-regional movement: in 2010, "there were
almost as many migrants from developing countries living in other
developing countries (73 million) as migrants from developing
countries living in developed countries (74 million)" (UNGA,
2010).

Human mobility within sub-regions and continents has always been
important, but seldom recognized as such. Over 80 per cent of
South-South migration is estimated to take place between
neighboring countries (Ratha and Shaw, 2007). This applies in
particular to countries located in sub-Saharan Africa: in 2010, 63
per cent of the Sub-Saharan migration was intra-regional, directed
mainly towards countries such as South Africa, Burkina Faso or
Kenya (World Bank, 2010).

Mauritius, a tiny island in the Indian Ocean, is a perfect
illustration of the interplay of migratory and economic realities:
It takes in labour migrants from China, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka
and in turn sends migrant workers to Canada, while serving as a
tourist platform for nearly 1 million visitors each year.

Myth: The number of international migrants is spinning
out of control

Reality: Today’s migrants move for much the same reasons
that their predecessors did. 60 years of post-Second World War
experience has taught us at IOM that migrants seek, essentially,
better life opportunities for themselves and their families. And
they are willing to pay the price for this in terms of
determination, effort and, not unusually, even sacrifice.

Their pattern of settlement is also very similar. They seek
initially to reside in locations where they enjoy the comfort of
ethnic support networks, before they or their children acquire the
financial means and the social confidence to strike out into the
broader community.

If we look at history dispassionately, we remember that every
new wave of migrants in Australia, or the United States for that
matter, has been met with a measure of doubt and even suspicion and
yet, ultimately, every past wave of migrants has become an integral
part of the Australian community

Myth: Migrants move because they don’t love their
country

Reality: In our globalized world, mobility, whether permanent or
temporary, is most frequently a professional or familial choice.
There is no reason to see migrants as deserters. In fact, the vast
majority of migrants maintain close links with their country of
origin; circular migration is increasingly favoured; and more and
more migrants end up returning home in the end, taking back with
them valuable social or financial capital.

Myth: There is no international organization dealing with
migration

Reality: Working in close partnerships with its Member States,
IOM has been dealing with all facets of migration for 60 years,
covering the full migratory cycle from the pre-departure stage,
through travel and reception in the country of destination, social
and economic integration and eventual return to the country of
origin.

Let me now turn to some common errors about the impact of
migration on social and economic life

Myth: Migration is a threat to national identity and a
source of social discord and fragmentation.

Reality: Migration is a process through which nations –
not least Australia – have been built. When that process is
properly managed, when migrants are given the chance to use their
talents and energies, they can be, and generally are, a power of
good. In our globalized world, social diversity is a source of
intellectual energy and creativity in enterprise, provided it rests
on a foundation of common values.

Myth: Migration is a threat to national identity and a
source of social discord and fragmentation.

Reality: Migration is a process through which nations –
not least Australia – have been built. When that process is
properly managed, when migrants are given the chance to use their
talents and energies, they can be, and generally are, a power of
good. In our globalized world, social diversity is a source of
intellectual energy and creativity in enterprise, provided it rests
on a foundation of common values.

Myth: Migrants are more given to criminal
activity

Reality: One of the lessons borne out of the experience 60 years
of post-Second World War migration right around the world is that
fear of "migrant criminality" is one of the reactions of host
societies to changes in their patterns of life.

Let us be objective and realistic. It is unquestionable that the
settlement of migrants in new and different cultural contexts will
at times result in dysfunctional behaviours and tensions. These
challenges have to be addressed with honesty.

But let us not fall into the trap of portraying the failings of
a few as the criminality of all. Overwhelmingly, migrant
communities are rather more pre-occupied with improving their and
their families’ economic prospects than in engaging in
criminal activity. Reality check: 60 years of large-scale migration
around the world have by and large resulted in the building up
strong and dynamic societies.

But that invites us to consider the next myth.

Myth: Today’s migrants are different from those of
50 years ago.

Reality: Today’s migrants move for much the same reasons
that their predecessors did. 60 years of post-Second World War
experience has taught us at IOM that migrants seek, essentially,
better life opportunities for themselves and their families. And
they are willing to pay the price for this in terms of
determination, effort and, not unusually, even sacrifice.

Their pattern of settlement is also very similar. They seek
initially to reside in locations where they enjoy the comfort of
ethnic support networks, before they or their children acquire the
financial means and the social confidence to strike out into the
broader community.

If we look at history dispassionately, we remember that every
new wave of migrants in Australia, or the United States for that
matter, has been met with a measure of doubt and even suspicion and
yet, ultimately, every past wave of migrants has become an integral
part of the Australian community.

Myth: Migration is a social and humanitarian issue
unrelated to development.

Reality: Migration is closely related to development. The
relationship between the two fields has come to be a very useful
platform for inter-governmental consultations, specifically in the
form of an annual Global Forum on Migration and Development.

Myth: Migration places a burden on the economy of
countries of destination.

There has been a great deal of recent research focussing on the
question of whether migration is a cost or a benefit to the
economy, and while there are, unsurprisingly, differences of view,
there is an increasingly solid base of evidence supporting the view
that migrants make significant and positive contributions to the
economies of their countries of destination.

• In the United States, native-born Americans gain an estimated
  USD 37 billion a year from immigrants' participation in the US
  economy, according to the President's Council of Economic
  Advisers.
• Recent studies have found that overseas-born migrants
  contributed $8.1 billion to the New Zealand economy in 2006, while
  using $4.81 billion in benefits and services. In comparison, New
  Zealand-born citizens contributed $24.76 billion and used $21.92
  billion in benefits and services.
• A UK Home Office study has estimated that the foreign born
  population contributes 10% more in government revenues than it
  receives in government expenditure.

Myth: Migration is a drain on the resources of countries
of origin.

Reality: Migration is the original and oldest poverty reduction
strategy known to humankind. It is a time proven strategy for
individual - and in many cases community - poverty alleviation and
development.

Migration and the remittances it generates often comprise the
determining factor in whether there will be food on the table,
medicines for health care, and education for boys and girls. In
2009, migrants sent US$ 24.2 billion in remittances to their
families in the LDCs. That's approximately US$8 billion more than
foreign direct investment that same year2. While remittances are,
of course, private funds and cannot and should not substitute for
Official Development Assistance, money sent home is an important
source of poverty alleviation, currency stabilization, and can help
unlock human potential.

We must continue to work assiduously to reduce the costs of
transferring remittances and create better incentives for their
productive application and use. Likewise, lowering the barriers to
human movement and ensuring migrants' rights, are essential in the
fight against poverty in today's inter-connected and mobile world.
Through the trade and investment networks they establish, and the
skills and innovative ideas they transfer back to their home
countries, migrants provide a critical complement to the human
capital already present in the LDCs.

Myth: Migrants come to join unemployment queues, steal
jobs from nationals and also drive wages down

Reality: Extensive research has tended to show that there is no
direct correlation between the presence of recent migrants and
unemployment levels. Large scale US studies have found that
locations with high unemployment rates do not necessarily have
large numbers of recent migrants; and locations with many recent
immigrants do not necessarily have high unemployment rates.

Migrants and native-born workers tend to work in different job
markets – so they do not necessarily compete. And migrants
create jobs both as consumers and as entrepreneurs.

It is, of course, prudent to manage labour migration flows
carefully and in times of economic hardship it makes sense to
reduce incoming numbers. But when the economy takes off and the
labour market expands, migrant workers help maintain the cruising
speed.

The renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith perhaps summed it
up best in his 1979 treatise entitled The Nature of Mass
Poverty:

"Migration," he said, "is the oldest action against poverty. It
selects those who most want help. It is good for the country to
which they go; it helps break the equilibrium of poverty in the
country from which they come. What is the perversity in the human
soul that causes people to resist so obvious a good?"

It is high time we stopped discussing whether there ought, or
there ought not to be migration: It is simply an integral part of
the social and economic fabric of the world we have constructed
over the last several decades.

"High Road," "Low Road" Migration Scenarios

This brings me to final part of my remarks - "high road and low
road scenarios" that are available to Governments to manage the
migration process.

The "low road scenario" is one of status quo based on
stereotypes, fear, and short-term political expediency.
Characteristics include:

• A univariate migration policy i.e. highly restricting and
  limiting immigration;
• Absence of a comprehensive legal framework;
• No coordinated government approach to migration
  management;
• No regular institutionalized dialogue on migration with
  neighbouring countries; and
• Little or no effort to inform the public about the benefits of
  migration.

The "high road scenario," on the other hand, calls for a
comprehensive, rights-based approach to migration management:

• First, Governments on the "high road" pursue all available
  options to manage the migration cycle through innovative policy
  options and laws that facilitate the entire range of labour
  migration options, including integration in the host country, even
  if only on a temporary basis, in order to meet labour market
  demands.

• Second, is a ‘whole-of-government approach" to migration,
  one which makes maximum use of inter-Ministerial collaboration to
  produce well-balanced, comprehensive policies that address all
  aspects of the migration cycle, including border control, migrants'
  human rights, including health, and regular dialogue.

  Governments also need to involve other interested parties
  – communities and businesses, for example, to contribute to
  sustainability and success, a "whole of society approach" to
  migration, so to speak.

• Third, under the "high road" scenario, Governments participate
  actively in one of the existing 15 Regional Consultative Processes
  (RCPs) on migration; these cover the world and they work
  effectively bringing together destination, origin and transit
  countries regularly.

• At the global level, States will find it in their national
  interest to support the Global Forum on Migration and Development
  (GFMD), chaired this year by Switzerland, and to encourage the
  efforts of the Global Migration Group (GMG) – an alliance of
  14 UN Agencies and IOM – currently chaired by UNESCO.

• Finally, the ‘high road scenario' calls for serious
  efforts on the part of Governments to do more to inform, educate
  and work with communities to abolish stereotypes, minimize
  discrimination and xenophobia and promote the economic and social
  contributions of migrants to the global economy and human
  development.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, let me summarise my main points:

One: Migration is much debated but often little understood.

Two: Migration works to the advantage of both countries of
origin and destination.

Three, a "high road scenario" to migration management best
serves national interests as well as those of migrants: one that
addresses all options available to meet increasing labour migration
demands; protects migrants' human rights; promotes regular dialogue
between countries of origin and destination; and highlights the
economic and social contribution of migrants to our societies.