A migration industry with vested interests thwarts state migration controls

Evidence

But historical-structuralist theory was in turn criticized by many migration scholars: if the logic of capital and the interests of Western states were so dominant, how could the frequent breakdown of migration policies be explained, such as the unplanned shift from labor migration to permanent settlement in Western Europe after 1974 (see below)’? Both the neoclassical perspective and the historical-structuralist approach seemed too one-sided to adequately analyze the great complexity of contemporary migrations. The neoclassical approach neglected historical causes of movements, and downplayed the role of the state, while the historical-functional approach seemed to see the interests of capital as all-determining, and paid inadequate attention to the motivations and actions of the individuals and groups involved. Moreover, as migratory processes matured, it became evident that they developed their own social networks and dynamics. Migration and settlement seemed to become self-sustaining processes, which continued often in unexpected ways even if their original causes disappeared. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 3836 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Formalizing the labor market institutionalized coercion into a migration industry; Labor migration is largely governed by informal networks that states cannot regulate; State incoherence in migration control reveals deeper political intentions, not mere inadequacy — Junaid Rana, Terrifying Muslims: Race and Labor in…, 734 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Migrations become self-sustaining processes that outlive their original causes #complicates (0.72) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 3836