Universal basic incom. Myth 7. Migration risk and dependancy dictate



Today we are going to look at the myth about the universal basic income that it will lead, first, to an increase in migrants to the country and, second, will cause the establishment of the so-called dependency dictate.

Experts seriously fear that the UBI will cause a sharp increase in migration flows and will attract migrants to the country where it will be established. Many scientists suggest introducing the UBI not only for their own citizens, but also for people in the border areas. This will be necessary in order to minimize the cost of dealing with illegal migrants. This is indeed a very serious issue that is holding back politicians in many countries from introducing the UBI at the moment. After all, there are funds for the project, but politicians doubt that they will be able to cope with the multiplied influx of migrants into the country, although they understand the contribution of migrants to the country’s economy.

The migration statistics are such that migrant money flows are large flows of capital, which – just think about it – are 3 times as much as development aid. Yes, migrants do remit some of their income to their countries of origin, but it is only 15%; the other 85% is invested by migrants in the host country. Therefore, employed migrants contribute to the economy of the host country.

According to the UN, the number of migrants in 2019 reached 272,000,000 people, which is 3,5% of the world’s population. Most migrants this year are registered in Europe – 82,000,000 people, in North America – 59,000,000, in North Africa and West Asia – 49,000,000.

Look at the map of international migration flows for 2005-2010 – there are countries and regions on the circle, each marked with a different color. Flows of the same color coming from these areas signify population outflows and show which countries migrants are arriving in. One of the thinnest tick marks is 100,000 people. The largest flow of migrants is marked in yellow and is located at the top of the map. This is migration from Latin American countries, mainly Mexico, to the United States. The massive blue flows coming from the bottom of the circle indicate migration from India to the United Arab Emirates, the United States, and the United Kingdom. You can view the rest of the migration flows on your own by clicking on pause.

Note that these are official statistics. The same data can be presented in a different format.

Migration statistics: countries with the most international migrants as of 2000 and 2017 in millions.

In both 2000 and 2017, the U.S. remains the unchanged leader in migrant inflows. In 2017, it was the country of choice for resettlement for 50% of the world’s migrants.

The third largest migrant influx is still Germany. Russia has moved from second to fourth position, and Saudi Arabia has taken the lead.

Now let’s look at where the migrants are coming from.

Migration statistics: The largest countries of origin of international migrants as of 2000 and 2017 in millions.

In 2000, the leader in the outflow of citizens from the country was the Russian Federation, which moved to third place in 2017, but not because fewer residents began to leave the country-the number remained at about 11 percent-but because more Indian citizens began to migrate to other countries.

In 2017, they accounted for 16.6% of the total flow of migrants. Mexico remains in second place among the leaving countries.

A rare influx of migrants into a country specifically because of the UBI could provoke increased social tensions. Therefore, the implementation of UBI in individual countries should be only the first, initial stage. Further, this experience should be spread around the world, creating in parallel the Creative Society – a society with a single world economy, nominal borders between countries, based on people and their needs.

If the UBI is paid in every country of the world, and in the same amount, the influx of migrants can not be feared. Then people would not have to go far and wide to work. Families will not have to wait for years for their breadwinners to return, and people will not be guided by purely material interests when deciding to move to another country.

The same solution, that is the Creating Society, fits the second myth regarding the establishment of the dictate of the dependent. This is a situation in which an incompetent person can come to power simply because he promised in his electoral program to pay a solid sum of the UBI.

The electorate, having fallen for the promise, can vote for it at the elections, without even thinking about whether there are funds for the implementation of the project or whether the implementation of the promise is realistic at all. In a Creative society this situation is simply excluded, because there the social pyramid is turned upside down, when not only one leader, chosen by people, stands in power, but each person or a group of specialists in this or that sphere takes part in society’s management.  Therefore, the dictate of the dependent is a problem only in the current consumer society. In a Creative society it becomes a myth.

Thus, the problems that are holding back the introduction of the UBI at the moment, that is fears of a sharp influx of migrants into the country and the establishment of the dependant’s dictate, have one simple solution and become myths in the Creative society, a society in which it is comfortable to live for every person anywhere on our planet.


Rate article
Universal Basic Income: pros and cons, countries with UBI