TABLA DE SISTEMAS DE EVALUACIÓN POR MATERIAS SISTEMAS

International Migration of Filipinos

Migration from the Philippines has continuously grown for the past 40 years. Through the years, there is an annual increase in the number of Filipinos getting out of the country to live and work abroad.

In 2010, I delivered a professorial lecture entitled ‘Addressing the Social Costs

of International Migration to Filipino Families and Children’. In the lecture, I

cited what I deemed as the major patterns and features of international migration of Filipinos. The main points on patterns and features of migration and corresponding concerns that I raised in the lecture are summarized and presented here in this section. These patterns and features continue to characterize international migration from the Philippines and so are the issues and concerns that accompany them.

The patterns and features of international migration from the Philippines are as follows: 1) unabated and continuous rise of Filipinos migrating and working abroad; 2) a bigger number of temporary workers and undocumented workers than permanent residents; 3) Overseas Filipinos in various occupations but securing niches; and 4) a growing feminization of international migration.

Unabated and continuous rise of Filipinos migrating and working abroad.

Recent estimates place the total number of overseas Filipinos at about 10.2 million who are dispersed in more than 200 countries and in major ocean plying vessels in the world. That would mean that one out 10 Filipinos is out of the country and is now working and living abroad.

Asis (2008) cited three reasons why international migration of Filipinos has reached its magnitude and is still expected to rise in the coming years: 1)

29

economic difficulties and lack of opportunities and employment that has perennially characterized the Philippine economy which drive people to seek employment abroad; 2) aggressive government policy of deploying Filipino workers abroad; and 3) culture of migration which further emphasizes feelings of relative deprivation and the idea of migration as the ultimate alternative strategy for a better life.

A higher percentage of temporary workers and undocumented workers than permanent residents. The Filipino diaspora or overseas Filipino population is

comprised of permanent residents (48%), temporary contract workers or OFWs (41%) and undocumented migrants (11%) (CFO, 2013). OFWs and undocumented workers when combined are larger in number than permanent residents. That would mean that we should expect that more Filipinos will eventually return to the country than those who will settle in their host countries. Hence, the Philippine government must be ready to absorb returning migrants, whether they have been forced to move out of their host countries or they return to the Philippines on their own volition.

Overseas Filipinos in various occupations but securing niches. Filipinos take on

various occupations abroad, from less skilled to highly skilled work. Young Filipinos have also secured a niche in domestic work, nursing, and seafaring (Asis, 2008). It is, thus, not surprising that fears of both brain drain (depletion of the country’s professionals) and brawn drain (depletion of young and able bodied workers) have been raised. The brain drain concern has been raised because the Philippines has continuously sent big numbers of professionals like nurses, pilots, captains of the ship, and teachers to other countries. The fear of a brawn drain in the long term has also been voiced out because a large percentage of workers sent abroad are young and able-bodied Filipinos.

Increasing flows of remittances and their growing impact. The OFW

30

its overseas employment program) was mere US $103 million. In 2017, the Philippines ranks third ($33 billion) in the world in terms of remittances received behind India ($69 billion), and China ($64 billion) (World Bank, 2018). The Country Migration Report: The Philippines in 2013 observed: “Remittances have increased tremendously, particularly in the past 10 years. It took 15 years to reach 1 billion USD, 12 (years) to reach 10 billion USD and only 7 (years) to surpass 20 billion USD, the latest recorded peak in 2012” (p. 6).

From such huge volume of remittances, the Philippines and families of migrant workers abroad have reaped huge benefits. A concern, however, has been raised with this pattern: Is the country becoming dependent on migrant remittances and thus, is suffering from the Dutch disease? Dutch disease is a

situation in which a booming sector adversely affects the growth and

performance of other sectors of an economy. Ofreneo (2017) explains: “Some

observers claim that migration is the “oil well” of the Philippines. The remittances of the 11 million or so overseas Filipino workers (OFWs), amounting to over $30 billion a year, help sustain the growth of the economy even if our industry and agriculture are eroded and unemployment affects three million Filipinos. This is the reason some economists even call migration as the country’s “Dutch disease…it is argued by some observers that our highly-successful labor migration lulls us not to do much in nurturing local industry and agriculture because remittances and jobs overseas keep the economy alive. Remittance inflows tend to spur the appreciation of the peso and weaken manufacturing at home”.

Another similar concern is also raised: What are the consequences of having migrant remittances-dependent families in the Philippines? Anecdotal evidence suggests that more and more members of the migrant families in the Philippines are without work and have become totally dependent on the monthly remittances that they receive from their migrant relatives abroad.

31

Feminization of international migration. In contrast to the earlier waves of

international migration from the Philippines, “Filipino women are very visible in international migration. They not only compose the majority of permanent settlers, i.e., as part of family migration, but are as prominent as men in labor migration. In fact, since 1992, females have generally outnumbered men among the newly hired land-based workers legally deployed every year. In 2015, domestic work was the top occupation for new hires, at 38 percent” (Asis,

2017). This pattern where more and more women migrate in comparison with

men is popularly known as the feminization of international migration.

There are no recent estimates of how many Filipino families are without both parents or father or mother in the Philippines because they are abroad working as migrants. In 2007, Coronel and Unterreiner estimated that about 1.4 million families have mothers working abroad and around 1.2 million more have absent fathers. According to them, these figures mean that about 15% of total families then in the country have children growing up without either a father or a mother who would have ensured their care, guidance and protection. Such figures raise the concern on the adverse effects of separation of parents, especially of mothers on children and families left behind in the Philippines.

Studies on Return Migration of Filipinos

Overseas Filipinos are a diverse group and is composed of permanent emigrants, temporary migrants or OFWs and irregular migrants. Permanent residents are Filipino immigrants, legal permanent residents, and naturalized citizens of different countries. Many of them acquired the citizenship of their host countries, are professionals and spouses of nationals of the host countries. Many of them have attained affluence having had exercised their professions, established businesses or have had good paying jobs for a long time. They have also integrated well socially and culturally in their host countries. OFWs

include documented land-based and sea-based workers. Their stay overseas is tied with their jobs and are expected to return to the country at the end of

32

their job contracts. Undocumented Filipino migrants are not properly documented or without valid residence or work permits, or who are overstaying workers or tourists in a foreign country.

Of the three groups of overseas Filipinos, the OFWs are more likely to return permanently to the Philippines when compared with permanent residents and undocumented migrants. This is due to their temporary residency status tied with their contracts and the difficulties in gaining permanent residency status or citizenship status in their destination countries like those in the Middle East where most of OFWs are working. Most of the immediate families of the OFWs are also living in the Philippines, to whom these workers would eventually permanently return to. Most of the Filipino permanent residents in the traditional emigration countries like the United States and Canada have settled and integrated well in these host countries as permanent residents or as citizens. Acquiring permanent residency or citizenship is allowed in these countries unlike in most destination countries of OFWs where the possibility of permanent residency or citizenship is difficult if not impossible. Filipino permanent residents are likely to return to visit the Philippines occasionally but are less likely to permanently return to the country especially with their immediate families with them in their host countries. The undocumented migrants with their illegal and vulnerable situation could return to Philippines but most likely in dire circumstances.

With the above-cited differences in the situation, residency status and propensity to return permanently to their home country of the different groups of overseas Filipinos, this study focused on the successful return migration of former OFWs to the Philippines.

In general, Filipino migrant workers are no different from other migrants who are ambivalent about returning to their home country. Sri Tharan (2009 as cited in Senyurekli & Menjivar, 2012) explained that Filipino migrant workers were ambivalent in returning to the Philippines out of economic and psychosocial

33

considerations like being able to continue sending remittances and supporting the achieved family’s higher status at home.

Rodriguez and Horton (1996) found that overseas Filipinos returned to the Philippines sometime between three and six years after migrating and were significantly affected by the unemployment situation in the region of return. They concluded in their study that “the higher the unemployment rate was in the region of return, the less likely the migrant worker was to return home. The researchers also found that a 1 per cent increase in unemployment decreased the probability of return by 12–20 per cent; immigrants with permanent residence visas also had lower rates of return” (Go, 2012, p. 14).

Asis (2001 as cited in Go, 2012) listed the following reasons of women migrant returnees for their return to the Philippines: end of the contract, family reasons, including family problems, and work-related problems. It was found out that a mere 6 per cent have returned because they had achieved their goals. A big majority, about 76 per cent of the women returnees wanted to migrate and work again overseas. Yang (2006) in another study found a correlation between returning home and exchange rate. He found out that “on average, a 10 per cent improvement in the exchange rate reduced the 12-month migrant return rate by 1.4 percentage points” (Go, 2012, p.15).

Go (2012), in her own separate rapid appraisal study of return migration and reintegration, described that the return to the country of Filipino migrant workers was not a free and voluntary choice and decision. “They were forced to return for various reasons, such as labor exploitation, physical abuse, deportation, personal illness or family- related matters (such as illness or death in the family). All agreed that had circumstances not made it necessary for them to return, they would have wanted to continue working abroad” (p. 22). Yu (2015) studied the changes with and challenges faced by Filipino migrant returnees upon return and their return’s impact to their communities. The study found significant changes in the personal identities and social behavior of

34

migrant returnees upon return except for their high regard to family ties and religion which have remained the same if not stronger. Some returnees faced discrimination and/or misjudgment, dealt with unemployment and were challenged by the stark difference between the socio-economic development of their former host countries and the Philippines. Yu noted positive effects of returnees to the communities, noteworthy of which is their contributions to their communities’ socioeconomic development. Likewise, some negative effects of returnees were also observed like exhibited attitudes of arrogance and practices of materialism and overindulgence of children, among others.

Dizon-Anonuevo (2002 in Dizon Anonuevo & Anonuevo, 2002) cited the requisites of successful reintegration based on interviews of Filipino migrant returnees and discussions with government and non-government organizations involved in reintegration: “(1). Migration must be a family decision. The whole family must set the goals and time frame of migration; (2) While working abroad, OFWs must save money and acquire skills for future investments. They should also be in constant communication with the families they left behind; (3) The OFW family must have responsible caretakers for the children, contribute to the family income and maintain regular communication with the migrant; (4) During the return phase, a reintegration program must be implemented in the communities; (5). Throughout the three phases of migration, the national and local governments, NGOs and other sectors of the community must provide a favorable environment for reintegration” (p. 145).

Senyurekli and Menjivar (2012) observed that return migration has received attention in the past but research interest on it has waned or “has been somewhat subsumed under the general rubric of transnational studies of migration…” (p. 1). An extensive review of literature by Carling, Mortensen and Wu (2011) revealed the scarcity of recent return migration studies, both at the

35

international level and in the Philippines. Exceptional was the return migration of Mexicans from the United States which was covered by many publications. Many of the studies focused on the demographics of return, individual reasons, and micro and macro level factors that influence the decision to return. Not much has been done in understanding the experiences of return and the situation of migrant returnees. Obviously, the topic of successful return is barely touched by the studies on return migration. It is in this light that this phenomenological research on the successful return migration of Filipino migrants become more important and relevant.

36

Chapter III. Transcendental

Phenomenology and the Study of the