Estilos de lo virtual en cine

Discussions now move on to consider the effects of post 2004 Polish migration to the UK. These are divided into three separate sections differentiating migration consequences on the sending country – Poland, the receiving country – the UK and migrants and their families.

2.6.1 Implications for the sending country (Poland)

Among the consequences of out-migration on migrants’ home countries is the possibility of remittances, financial gains sent by those who wish to support their families back in their country of origin. If migrants manage to integrate with other ethnic groups (cf. ‘bridging’ vs. ‘bonding’, Nannestad, Svendsen & Svendsen, 2008; Ryan, 2011), this in consequence may influence the home country’s ethnic composition (e.g. mixed marriages, Janta, 2013). There is also the potential of social remittances when the migrant decides to return to his/her home country and brings back home assets other than financial resources (e.g. social networks; work experience) acquired in the host country (Klagge et al., 2007). This can be referred to as ‘brain circulation’ or ‘brain regain’ (Klagge et al., 2007). The flows of people can create opportunities for “migration-induced knowledge-based development” (Klagge et al., 2007, p. 2). This has previously been called ‘migration-return-development-nexus’ (Ammassari, 2004). Another effect of migration on the emigration country is the potential decrease of the unemployment rate due to the unemployed searching and gaining employment outside their homeland (Iglicka, 2010).

Some of the consequences of out-migration on the sending countries are possible skills shortages and labour shortages due to the loss of some of the labour force. This is sometimes referred to as ‘brain drain’, whereby the emigration country suffers due to the loss of its often young and educated people (Grabowska-Lusińska & Okólski, 2008). For instance, ‘washing out’ of parts of the Polish population was recorded in the aftermath of the EU accession (Anacka & Fihel, 2012). Declining birth and fertility rates and in consequence accelerated ageing of the population which can lead to a demographic crisis may also occur.

37 2.6.2 Implications for the receiving country (the UK)

One of the benefits of migration for host countries is the possibility of filling gaps in the labour market and skills shortages. This is perhaps most common in those countries that have traditionally been recognised as migration countries (e.g. UK) where the native population perhaps got accustomed to migrants taking on the least desirable positions (cf. Currie, 2008; Craig, 2012). Another impact is linked to ‘brain gain’, which may be facilitated by attracting highly skilled migrants (Ackers & Gill, 2008; Ackers, 2013). It is noteworthy that the possibility of drawing on a pool of migrant workers can prove to be very beneficial to the receiving country since these workers were brought up and educated elsewhere; thereby these costs were met by the sending country (Anderson, 2000; Kilkey, Plomien & Perrons, 2013). Also, with regard to economic migrants, the potential benefits to a host country are relatively greater than the costs as migrant workers are required to pay taxes but seem to rarely claim social assistance benefits (Currie, 2008; Dustman & Frattini, 2013). Arguably, post-accession migrants can be perceived as an asset for the receiving countries’ economies; this relates to the fact that, when compared to the British host population:

Recent immigrants, i.e. those who arrived since 2000, are less likely to be both receiving benefits and living in social housing than natives. Furthermore, recent immigrants, both those from EEA and non-EEA countries have made a positive net contribution to the UK fiscal system despite the UK’s running a budget deficit over most of the 2000s (Dustmann & Frattini, 2013, p. 4).

Among the consequences of immigration on the receiving countries are potential issues around integration and effective communication (i.e. English language issues). At its worst, the former can lead to racial, ethnic or religious conflicts with regard to migrants who do not share similar characteristics with the host population (Kymlicka & Norman, 2000; Vertovec, 2007). Whilst in the longer-term, immigrant communities may become a burden on the social and/or economic resources of the receiving country; in the short-term an increased demand for certain services and resources in particular areas may also occur (Kymlicka & Norman, 2000; Currie, 2008). However, others note this is not a common outcome, especially in regard to economic migrants who predominantly come to work and rarely put a strain on the country’s resources (Dustman & Frattini, 2013).

38 Currie (2008), similarly to Kymlicka and Norman (2000), notes that negative views are prevalent in the public and political debates with regard to migration and welfare due to economic concerns about the potential for immigration to generate increased welfare expenditure. Proponents of such arguments view migrants as an additional burden on increasingly stretched welfare budgets, perhaps particularly post the global economic crisis of 2008. Counter arguments have been made by those who state that the long-term contributions of migrants prevail over their costs to the welfare state (Dustman & Frattini, 2013). The importance of overcoming racism and xenophobic intolerance should be emphasised; however, concerns about newly arrived migrants being in competition with disadvantaged established communities for limited local jobs and welfare resources also must be acknowledged (Cook, Dwyer & Waite, 2012; Pemberton and Scullion, 2013).

2.6.3 Implications for migrants (and their families)

Among the consequences of economic migration on migrants themselves are financial (e.g. savings; remittances) and social (e.g. work/life experience, language skills, new ideas/identity) gains that may emerge from international migration (Dustmann & Weiss, 2007). However, the latter can also add to the difficulty of re-integration on returning home since it is most probable that the home country will have changed in the migrants’ absence, while the migrant is likely to be somewhat changed too (Andreouli & Howarth, 2012). Klagge and colleagues (2007) coined the following terminology: financial capital, social capital (e.g. social relations and networks), and human capital (e.g. newly acquired skills and attitudes). The latter emphasises that returnees can be innovators who could potentially bring change to their country of origin in light of what they experienced in the host country (King, 1986). As noted earlier, recent studies consider women migrants as potential ‘agents of change’ (Lisiak, 2014). This is particularly relevant to this research because return migrants were involved (see sample characteristics in chapter five). To these three forms of capital, ‘migration-specific capital’ can be added (Vertovec, 2007). This presents the experience of migration as beneficial to migrants who wish to make subsequent migratory decisions (e.g. knowledge; social networks; previous migration experience):

The more you have of this, the less risk you face moving, the lower the costs and the better the chances of success… all factors encouraging circular migration (ibid., p. 5).

39 One of the possible consequences of migration for migrants themselves is ‘brain waste’ in cases where individuals are unable to utilise their pre-existing workplace skills and qualifications (Iglicka, 2009). This may be due to limited language skills or the necessity to take on any type of low-skilled, low-paid work, because of debt or a poor financial situation. It is noteworthy that with regard to Polish migrants working in the UK, even menial work can bring high returns due to the wage disparities between those countries (Morokvasic, 2004). Furthermore, ‘double marginalisation’ can be experienced by some return migrants who, having initially faced problems finding work and starting new life in the immigration country, return to the home country and face similar problems. This is part of what was referred to by Iglicka (2010, p. 120) as the ‘migration trap’ which highlights the possibility of Polish migrants deciding to migrate again after being unsuccessful in their attempts to re-integrate in the home country (cf. chapter six).

It is also necessary to consider the impacts of migration on family life. Family breakdown may be one of the outcomes of migration (Cooke, 2001; Smith, 2011). Due to new pressures abroad, some families may not be able to deal with the stress related to being mobile or the management of a ‘dual-location household’ (Smith, 2011). One of the effects reported with regard to recent Polish migrants to the UK was that they contribute to the phenomenon of ‘euro-orphans’ (cf. White, 2011). ‘Euro-orphans’ are those children whose parent (or parents) emigrated abroad while they were left behind in relatives’ care. This often relates to seasonal, short-term economic migration of the parents, which is often motivated by wishing to ensure a better future for their children (White & Ryan, 2008). Moreover, certain gendered expectations that may be experienced across international spaces may put a strain on some migrants. In relation to these, Ryan and colleagues (2009) coined ‘double caring responsibilities’. This could relate to, on the one hand, the need to provide care and support to parents in the home country, and on the other, to the necessity to offer care to children in the host country (cf. chapter seven, section 7.4).