Your Excellency, President Sampaio,

High Representative of the Secretary General for the United Nations
Alliance of Civilizations,

Our gracious hosts here at the Gulbenkian centre,

Your Excellencies, Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is an honour for the International Organization for Migration
(IOM) to participate in this groundbreaking initiative to stimulate
a dialogue and potentially an on-going process on "Reconciling
diversity and cohesion" with a view toward building inclusive and
participatory societies in European countries.

In the field of migration, I can think of no more pressing issue
than that of public information and education about the benefits
and positive contribution of migration and migrants.

It is a particular honour to do so together with His Excellency
President Jorge Sampaio, High Representative of the Secretary
General of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations
(UNAoC).

IOM has committed since the UNAoC's creation to be President
Sampaio’s and the UNAoC’s principal partner on the
migration pillar of their work. I myself have participated in each
of the UNAoC annual foras and am looking forward to doing so in
Doha in December of this year.

We are meeting here in Paris at a propitious time -- amidst the
wave of democratization and social change sweeping throughout the
Arab world and beyond.

We live in an era of the greatest human mobility in recorded
history. There are more people on the move than ever before. It's
no wonder that migration has emerged as a key global issue –
no longer the sole concern of a limited number of countries, as it
was claimed, rightly or wrongly, for most of the previous century.
Migration is at the heart of government policy these days.

Our gathering also occurs at a time of growing anxiety over the
changing composition of the nation state; when countries face the
challenge of managing social diversity within their borders –
and at a time when xenophobia and hate crimes can rear their ugly
heads in even the most traditionally tolerant of countries.

It is a cruel irony that as IOM celebrates its 60th Anniversary;
and at a time when more people are on the move than at any other
time in recorded history -- one billion of 7 billion people on the
globe -- even in traditional migrant countries that have, in the
past, taken pride in being a "migrant society" or a "nation of
migrants" there are some who are no longer sure they want to
welcome newcomers.

Europe is in a more difficult position than most major global
regions of destinations that were shaped for centuries as
immigration societies. Here, the concepts of the mono-ethnic nation
state and national identity are still exceptionally strong, recent
as they are in their modern understanding.

This means that often immigration policies in many European
countries are even more than elsewhere shaped by fears and
misconceptions rather than evidence, objective debate and a
strategic outlook for the future.

At the same time, Europe is the only global region in which
neighbors opened their borders and labour markets to citizens of
other European Union countries to freely travel, live and work
across the united Europe. This is a unique and admirable
achievement that should be supported in these difficult times.

Mr. President, in addressing the challenge of diversity in
societies in this period of mass migration, it is important to
begin by recalling some key dynamics.

What is abundantly clear is that we are living in a world
sustained by economic, social and cultural inter-dependencies. And
at the heart of all of them are various processes of communication
and exchange. Including human mobility.

Looking at migration from this angle has the advantage of
reminding us that we have probably reached the point at which it is
no longer reasonable or useful to look at migration simply as a
product of the interplay between push and pull factors.

We must fully come to terms with the reality that large-scale
migration is an integral part of the inter-connected world we have
created. It now has a life of its own. It is inevitable,
unavoidable and for the most part desirable. We cannot afford to
lose sight of this reality in times of economic uncertainty.

And yet, even while human mobility is acknowledged as one of the
defining features of our contemporary world, it remains one of the
most misunderstood. Migrants are the human face of globalization.
As you embark on your endeavor to begin a conversation about
reconciling diversity with social cohesion, I should like to make 3
points:

1. first, to underline the importance of developing an accurate
   view of the place of migration in our contemporary world;
2. second, to point to some common misperceptions about migration;
   and
3. third, to suggest some lines of action that would contribute to
   better understanding and acceptance of migration, as a critical
   underpinning to managing the diversity it brings.

I. FORMING AN ACCURATE VIEW OF
MIGRATION

There are few areas of policy subject to greater
misrepresentation in public discourse than that of international
migration. Despite a growing body of theoretical and empirical
research relating to migration -- neither theory nor research has
had much impact on policy formulation.

Political discourse, media reports and public opinion on the
nature, purpose and socio-economic impact of migration tends be
negative. This is seen in the recurrent, widespread anti-migrant
sentiment in many parts of the world. Harmful stereotypes,
discrimination and even xenophobia are re-appearing in societies of
destination and generating controversy on the value of
multiculturalism nowadays.

The overwhelmingly positive contributions to our societies and
economies by the majority of migrants are unfortunately at risk of
being forgotten. Moreover, there is a fine line between a realistic
and honest debate about the challenges stemming from migration and
the politicized stereotyping and scapegoating that is taking place
around the world.

Part of the reason for such negative perceptions is that
migratory flows are more visible and more diverse than ever before,
generating questions about the changing compositions of our
societies, and how to manage greater cultural diversity.

Stigmatization is not limited to migrants in host countries,
however; it also exists in countries of origin, fuelled by the idea
that migrants have "abandoned" their country or by the unrealistic
hopes and expectations of the migrants’ families and
communities of origin.

Misinformation and misperception can trigger a vicious cycle,
influencing government policy, which in turn reinforces negative
attitudes in mass media and the community at large. Policies and
political discourse can therefore play a major role in shaping the
image of migrants in host societies.

One of the biggest challenges in this regard is what and how
governments communicate about migrants and migration policy to the
wider public. Here, we must all remember and underscore that
migrant’s rights are human rights. They are entitled to the
same respect and dignity to which all persons are entitled.

Informing and educating the public may be the single most
important policy tool in all societies grappling with migration,
since managing migration also involves managing how migrants are
perceived in society.

Allow me, in this connection, to address a few of the common
misperceptions about the nature of migration.

II. COMMON MIGRATION MYTHS

1. 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
globally today. There are at least three times as many internal
migrants; a majority of whom have left rural areas to seek a new
life in the cities. In China alone, there are more than 200 million
internal migrants – in other words, as many as the total
number of all "international migrants" worldwide.

2. 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; migration
flows in all directions and affects all countries in one way or
another. Developing countries are commonly seen as a source rather
than as a destination of migrants. Existing figures, however,
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)".
Human mobility within sub-regions and continents has always been
important, but seldom recognized as such. Some eighty per cent of
South-South migration is estimated to take place between
neighboring countries.

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

Reality: While the number of international migrants has
grown steadily since the end of the Second World War, it is
important to get our facts right. There were some 75 million
international migrants in 1965. Today, some 45 years later, there
are some 215 million. By 2050, the number of migrants will be 450
million, according to studies and estimates. This increase must be
kept in perspective, however. In percentage terms, the global
international migrant population has stayed consistently at around
3% of the total global population. Global population mobility has
certainly increased considerably. There is much more internal
migration and we move around a great deal more than before, as
tourists -- there were nearly one billion visitor movements in 2010
-- as business people, as students.

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

Recent research on whether migration is a cost or a benefit to
the economy provides a solid evidence base supporting indicating
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.
• A UK Home Office study estimated that the foreign born
  population contributes 10% more in government revenues than it
  receives in government expenditure.
• In many European countries, particularly in the Mediterranean,
  migrants contribute to maintaining the competitiveness of
  agriculture, food processing, and tourism – sectors exposed
  to global competition from low labour-cost countries. In other
  words, migrants keep jobs in Europe.

Nonetheless, Europe faces major challenges in both integration
of already residing migrants, and in attracting new ones. In
particular, skilled migrants – those increasingly in demand
globally – often choose to go elsewhere, even if admission
rules are sufficiently simplified. The reason for this, according
to data from the EU countries on preferential skilled immigration
programmes, is that skilled migrants are often relegated to working
in low-skilled occupations far below the level of their
qualifications. To be competitive, Europe will need to promote
tolerant societies that value diversity and dynamic economies that
promote innovation and occupational mobility.

5. 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. Officially recorded remittance flows to
developing countries in 2010 stood at $325 billion and are expected
to reach $404 billion by 2013. (World Bank 23 May 2011.)
That’s twice the amount of foreign aid and equal to all
foreign direct investment. Total migrant remittances are also
roughly the equivalent to the GDP of Norway or Austria. 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. Likewise, 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.

III. WORKING TO
“DE-MYTHOLOGIZE” MIGRANTS AND MIGRATION

Migration is often the catch-all issue that masks the fears and
uncertainties beneath the public’s concerns – be they
concerns unemployment, housing or social cohesion (in countries of
destination) or loss/waste of human capital, “brain
drain” or economic dependency (in countries of origin). What
can we do to dispel migration myths and build a balanced a
comprehensive discourse on international migration?

• It is high time we stopped discussing whether there ought or
  there ought not to be migration: migration is simply an integral
  part of the social and economic fabric of the world we have
  constructed over the last several decades. A better informed debate
  will begin with intelligent consideration of the place that
  migration might realistically occupy in demographic, social and
  economic planning.
• While migration is undoubtedly of political interest, it should
  not be addressed solely as a political issue. Discussion of
  migration impacts needs to be done in an open and balanced way. A
  lack of readily available information for the public is often the
  cause of continuing misunderstanding. The dissemination of
  information addressing the concerns and clearly explaining the
  rights of citizens and non-citizens would help dispel doubt and
  confusion.
• Many of the negative perceptions surrounding migration have
  their origins in partisan interpretations, rather than in fact. In
  most immigration debates fear resonates more viscerally than hope;
  negative rhetoric thus has an advantage. Even when such messages
  predominate, however, alternative positive messages can blunt their
  impact.
• The media have a significant influence over public discourse
  – influence that has impact on all, especially policymakers
  and politicians. Much of the reporting is well informed and
  professional, something that cannot always be said about the
  political debates on migration. There is a real need to
  de-mythologize the discourse, however. Balanced, responsible media
  reporting requires avoidance of single-issue headlines, or blanket
  labeling (victims? criminals? heroes?) of particular groups.
• Development of guidelines for fair and accurate reporting on
  migration as well as training materials for capacity building to
  enable media specialists to acquire mastery of the complex aspects
  of migration policy and migratory behavior could go a long way in
  this regard.
• Finally, migrants are too often viewed as passive agents in the
  migration debate in both their countries of origin and their
  countries of destination. One significant way of reducing
  misperceptions is to find ways to give migrants a voice; to modify
  their role in public discussions so they are not just the subjects
  of debate but active participants in it. This can be done for
  instance by making use of new social media technologies to
  encourage migrants to portray more accurate images of who they are
  or what they do.

The South Sudan case illustrates that the CERF should not, and
does not wish to be the sole responder to emergency.

It strikes me that any of the 16 other agencies that have
received CERF allocations during the past six years could no doubt
provide similarly relevant examples of work to reinforce the value
of the CERF.  In its short lifetime, the CERF has
proved to be a lifeline for hundreds of thousands who
suddenly found themselves without hope.    

Social Diversity

Having a fairer picture of the reality of migration opens
avenues for more constructively engaging in the work of managing
social diversity. In the past, there has been much debate about the
advantage and disadvantages of available policy models:
assimilation, integration and multiculturalism.

At various times, each has been praised for its usefulness or
decried for its weaknesses. All are a bit the worse for wear, and
fresh thinking is urgently needed.

• Multi-ethnic societies are increasingly the norm rather than
  the exception;
• People increasingly have multiple identities. While most people
  would identify themselves as having a dominant national identity,
  many are also likely to acknowledge multiple other affiliations on
  grounds as varied as gender, religion, cultural practice,
  professional interest and even local or regional
  commonalities;
• Many of these ties are transnational in nature, because modern
  networks of communication allow personal and professional contacts
  to be maintained in real time whether it is across a city or across
  the world.
  • More than 247 billion emails are transmitted every day.
  • Almost 2 billion persons now have access to the internet (in
    contrast to only 390 million people 12 years ago).
  • Virtual mobility of workers is becoming a reality as people
    from various continents work on the move and cooperate on joint
    projects via online platforms.
  • Facebook now has more than 800 million subscribers; and
  • Twitter has some 200 million users; and both are growing
    exponentially.

It is no longer desirable or even possible to view the encounter
between migrants and their host communities exclusively in the
light of past policy models. Some now speak of inter-culturalism,
which is in line with the European Union concept of integration as
mutual accommodation of the welcoming societies and newcomers.

We all need to change and adapt in order to make our societies
better places to thrive and compete in the increasingly
interconnected world.

• As once relatively homogenous and cohesive societies are giving
  way to multiethnic, multi-religious, multi-lingual, multicultural
  societies, whether by design or default. How can core values be
  identified and maintained in the midst of that diversity?
• What are the social and political impacts of trans-nationalism
  and the growing trend towards multiple citizenships?
• Are there limits to the amount of social change that a
  community can absorb over a period of time?
• How can we ensure the cohesion and stability of societies while
  protecting the rights of minorities?
• How can people be taught to live successfully with multiple
  identities in the context of dynamic social change?

These questions and more will need to be considered in efforts
to develop new policy paradigms and practices for the future. As we
do so, let’s not forget the core commitment of European
governments and societies to the values of human rights. After all,
the modern understanding of human rights can be traced to the
thinkers of the European Enlightenment. Human dignity, freedom,
democracy, equality, rule of law and respect for human rights are
core values of the EU, set out in the Treaty of Lisbon.

Let's work to ensure these same values inform our approach to
newcomers as well as to the second, third and more generations of
individuals seeking respect and tolerance in our societies.

CONCLUSION

Today, migration poses both challenges and opportunities for
governments and communities. We must work together to develop
national and international dialogues, policies and practices to
address migration in a humane and orderly manner, respecting the
rights of citizens and non-citizens alike.

This will be no place more visible than in the attitude with
which we approach today’s discussion and the measures we take
to integrate migrants as active, valued members in the economic,
social, cultural and political life of our host states and
communities. The measure of a civilized society requires nothing
less.

IOM will continue to work with the UNAoC to counter intolerance,
polarization and extremism, and to advance dialogue in this domain.
You have our commitment that we will continue to work closely with
you should you decide to continue the dialogue embarked upon here
today.