The Economic Consequences of Mass Deportation

[Migrant Rights. Image from migrant-rights.org] [Migrant Rights. Image from migrant-rights.org]

The Economic Consequences of Mass Deportation

By : Jadaliyya Reports

[This report was originally published by Migrant Rights on 6 December 2013.]

Over eight hundred thousand migrants have left or have been deported from Saudi Arabia this year. Migrant-Rights.org has previously parsed the counter-intuitiveness of nitaqat, which requires firms to employ varying percentage of employees, as well as the ineffectiveness of the mass deportations used, in part, to facilitate its implementation. The coupled strategies have paralyzed several sectors of Saudi Arabia’s economy:
 

Citizens have complained about the lack of services and rising costs of goods, while businessman have lamented the drained workforce. Saudi Arabia’s volatile policies against undocumented workers and nitaqat-incompliant companies not only contravenes migrants’ rights, but have again proven detrimental to Saudi Arabia’s economy.

Economists have prophesied the adverse economic consequences of Saudi Arabia’s nationalization schemes since before the nitaqat’s debut in late 2011. Both international observers and local employers warned that the rigid imposition of national quotas coupled with mass deportations would debilitate sectors of the Saudi economy and could even lead to a reduction in national employment rates.  These predictions were in part based on the failures of GCC countries’ previous nationalization plans, as well as the consequences of restrictive migration policies (particularly when high demand for foreign workers still exists). Sector-wide quotas and deportations fail to address the structural causes of either the large undocumented work force or the reliance on foreign workers.

Saudi Arabia’s nationalization policies contradict their ends as well as both the immediate and long-term needs of the Saudi economy. The unemployment issue is of course more complex than the trope of migrants "taking advantage" of the Saudi economy and displacing Saudi nationals. Many jobs migrants occupy are often those Saudis rebuke because of their poor wages, poor conditions, or perceived poor social "value" (less than a quarter of such "unsuitable" jobs are excluded from nitaqat).  Additionally, Saudi nationals lack the skills and experience to fulfill the quota mandates of certain sectors in particular. For example, over sixteen thousand foreign engineers have left their positions this year. Engineering companies have been unable to replace them with Saudi nationals, despite opening applications to recent graduates or otherwise inexperienced candidates.

Quotas fail to address the reasons expatriates are often preferred to Saudi nationals in both low and high income employment; the dual economy, in which the majority of nationals work in the well-paying, benefited public sector while the private sector is comprised primarily of expatriates, requires resolution.  Though Saudi Arabia and other GCC nations implemented programs to improve education, training nationals, and even supplement benefits to citizens working in the private sector, they have done little to truly merge these economies—in part, because eliminating this divide is possible only by equalizing the rights and benefits of migrant and local workers.

Of course, the critical role migrants execute in the Saudi economy is evident to authorities and to citizens alike. But the prevailing narrative on migrants, reinforced by state policies, is so purposefully maneuvered to present Saudi as a patron of migrants rather than their co-dependents. Minimizing migrants’ economic (and social) contributions obscures discourse on their entitlement to labor rights, perpetuating misconceptions of their "temporariness" and legitimizing the ad hoc policies that make migrants easily disposable. Acknowledging the dependency on the undocumented workforce in particular makes it less difficult to lambast migrants unable to take advantage of an amnesty riddled with obstacles.

GCC states periodically launch raids and mass deportations in an effort to curb illegal migration, but their strategies have proven inefficient time and time again. This failure is largely because deportations do not address a significant structural cause of irregular migration: the GCC states` migration regime, or in effect, the sponsorship system. The sponsorship system induces irregular migration in several ways, in part because it unreasonably restricts the definition of a “legal” migrant.  The sponsorship system bonds migrants’ legal residency to their sponsor/employers; migrants who do not work for the sponsor or occupation listed on their visa, or migrants working part-time for several employers, are all considered irregular.

Migrants are easily pushed into this undocumented status. Migrant-Rights.org’s campaign to end the kafala system highlights several of these coercive factors:
 

  • By obstructing the ability for migrants to change employers without the permission of their original sponsor (or by imposing high transfer fees), the system denies migrants their right to employment mobility. Migrant workers are consequently forced to endure terms that may differ from their original contract, including underpayment, excessive working hours, or unsafe working conditions.  Because migrants have very limited recourse from abusive or otherwise undesirable conditions, and can face further exploitation in attempting to legally transfer sponsorship, they are often forced to “abscond.”
  • Some employers also fallaciously report migrants as “huroob,” or runaways, in order to recruit more workers. This status cannot be rectified without the release of the sponsor. Saudi Arabia recently pledged to abolish this practice, but it has affected a number of pre-existing “undocumented” workers.
  • Migrants who escape are considered illegal—they are not entitled to any back pay, and can be fined, indefinitely detained, and deported. Migrants who cannot afford to purchase a ticket home, as well as migrants otherwise abandoned by their sponsors, can be stranded in GCC states for years.

Additionally, the high costs of recruitment as well as recruitment practices that amount to trafficking can coerce or force migrants to enter the country without proper documentation.  Citizens profit from the sponsorship by selling their visas to middlemen, employers, or directly to migrants. Migrants work "illegally" for another employer, while paying the citizen to act as their sponsor and renew their documents. Others establish fake companies and recruit migrants for profit by charging them exorbitant fees, only to leave them stranded without recourse. Employers are complicit in this phenomena as well, as some prefer to recruit from those on “free visas” to save recruiting costs or circumvent visa quotas.  An estimated seventy percent of visas issued by the Saudi government are traded in the black market.

This also means that amnesty programs are inherently problematic, because they permit “correction” by reverting to the very system that induces undocumented migration. Many citizens have recognized the need for the government to re-appropriate regulation of the migration regime by assigning a government body, rather than individuals, as the sponsor.

A balanced, rights-based approach to reducing the reliance on both a foreign and undocumented workforce would entail a comprehensive review of the structural issues begetting undocumented and irregular work. For example, it would require regularization of workers over a much longer period of time, and would hold unscrupulous employers and recruitment agencies equally accountable for their irregular activities.

Furthermore, a gradual implementation of nitaqat and overarching nationalization schemes would also avoid the professed "need" for these retributive raids.

GCC countries, several of which are also cracking down on undocumented workers, should learn from Saudi Arabia`s fallout and adopt a rights-based approach to nationalization and regularization of migrants’ status. Migrant Rights once again urges GCC countries to reconsider crackdowns from both an economic and human rights perspective.

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • Lies, Deceit, and Criminality: Israel & the United States Attack Iran (Part II)

      Lies, Deceit, and Criminality: Israel & the United States Attack Iran (Part II)

      Join us for Part II of our series on the US-Israeli attack on Iran as we discuss the US' recent bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities as well as their national and regional implications.

    • Long Form Podcast Episode 9: Islamophobia, the West, and Genocide with Hatem Bazian

      Long Form Podcast Episode 9: Islamophobia, the West, and Genocide with Hatem Bazian

      Hatem Bazian addresses the historical trajectory of Islamophobia and its significance in understanding geopolitical transformation in the post-Cold War world. As Western ideologues shifted from their focus on the Soviet Union after the Cold War, and increasingly adopted the Clash of Civilizations paradigm to undergird their maintenance of global hegemony, Islam and Muslims replaced communism as the chief bogeyman. Bazian explains how and why this came about, and the centrality Palestine played in its development and operation, both in the West and for Israel. He also addresses US government disciplining of universities and particularly student activists.

    • Long Form Podcast Episode 8: Resigning the State Department Over Gaza With Hala Rharrit

      Long Form Podcast Episode 8: Resigning the State Department Over Gaza With Hala Rharrit

      In this episode of Long Form, Hala Rharrit discusses the factors that led her to resign from the US State Department, the mechanisms by which institutional corruption and ideological commitments of officials and representatives ensure US support for Israel, and how US decision-makers consistently violate international law and US laws/legislation. Rharrit also addresses the Trump administration’s claim that South Africa is perpetrating genocide against the country’s Afrikaaner population, and how this intersects with the US-Israeli campaign of retribution against South Africa for hauling Israel before the ICJ on charges of genocide.

Past is Present: Settler Colonialism Matters!

On 5-6 March 2011, the Palestine Society at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London will hold its seventh annual conference, "Past is Present: Settler Colonialism in Palestine." This year`s conference aims to understand Zionism as a settler colonial project which has, for more than a century, subjected Palestine and Palestinians to a structural and violent form of destruction, dispossession, land appropriation and erasure in the pursuit of a new Jewish Israeli society. By organizing this conference, we hope to reclaim and revive the settler colonial paradigm and to outline its potential to inform and guide political strategy and mobilization.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often described as unique and exceptional with little resemblance to other historical or ongoing colonial conflicts. Yet, for Zionism, like other settler colonial projects such as the British colonization of Ireland or European settlement of North America, South Africa or Australia, the imperative is to control the land and its resources -- and to displace the original inhabitants. Indeed, as conference keynote speaker Patrick Wolfe, one of the foremost scholars on settler colonialism and professor at La Trobe University in Victoria, Australia, argues, "the logic of this project, a sustained institutional tendency to eliminate the Indigenous population, informs a range of historical practices that might otherwise appear distinct--invasion is a structure not an event."[i]

Therefore, the classification of the Zionist movement as a settler colonial project, and the Israeli state as its manifestation, is not merely intended as a statement on the historical origins of Israel, nor as a rhetorical or polemical device. Rather, the aim is to highlight Zionism`s structural continuities and the ideology which informs Israeli policies and practices in Palestine and toward Palestinians everywhere. Thus, the Nakba -- whether viewed as a spontaneous, violent episode in war, or the implementation of a preconceived master plan -- should be understood as both the precondition for the creation of Israel and the logical outcome of Zionist settlement in Palestine.

Moreover, it is this same logic that sustains the continuation of the Nakba today. As remarked by Benny Morris, “had he [David Ben Gurion] carried out full expulsion--rather than partial--he would have stabilised the State of Israel for generations.”[ii] Yet, plagued by an “instability”--defined by the very existence of the Palestinian nation--Israel continues its daily state practices in its quest to fulfill Zionism’s logic to maximize the amount of land under its control with the minimum number of Palestinians on it. These practices take a painful array of manifestations: aerial and maritime bombardment, massacre and invasion, house demolitions, land theft, identity card confiscation, racist laws and loyalty tests, the wall, the siege on Gaza, cultural appropriation, and the dependence on willing (or unwilling) native collaboration and security arrangements, all with the continued support and backing of imperial power. 

Despite these enduring practices however, the settler colonial paradigm has largely fallen into disuse. As a paradigm, it once served as a primary ideological and political framework for all Palestinian political factions and trends, and informed the intellectual work of committed academics and revolutionary scholars, both Palestinians and Jews.

The conference thus asks where and why the settler colonial paradigm was lost, both in scholarship on Palestine and in politics; how do current analyses and theoretical trends that have arisen in its place address present and historical realities? While acknowledging the creativity of these new interpretations, we must nonetheless ask: when exactly did Palestinian natives find themselves in a "post-colonial" condition? When did the ongoing struggle over land become a "post-conflict" situation? When did Israel become a "post-Zionist" society? And when did the fortification of Palestinian ghettos and reservations become "state-building"?

In outlining settler colonialism as a central paradigm from which to understand Palestine, this conference re-invigorates it as a tool by which to analyze the present situation. In doing so, it contests solutions which accommodate Zionism, and more significantly, builds settler colonialism as a political analysis that can embolden and inform a strategy of active, mutual, and principled Palestinian alignment with the Arab struggle for self-determination, and indigenous struggles in the US, Latin America, Oceania, and elsewhere.

Such an alignment would expand the tools available to Palestinians and their solidarity movement, and reconnect the struggle to its own history of anti-colonial internationalism. At its core, this internationalism asserts that the Palestinian struggle against Zionist settler colonialism can only be won when it is embedded within, and empowered by, the broader Arab movement for emancipation and the indigenous, anti-racist and anti-colonial movement--from Arizona to Auckland.

SOAS Palestine Society invites everyone to join us at what promises to be a significant intervention in Palestine activism and scholarship.

For over 30 years, SOAS Palestine Society has heightened awareness and understanding of the Palestinian people, their rights, culture, and struggle for self-determination, amongst students, faculty, staff, and the broader public. SOAS Palestine society aims to continuously push the frontiers of discourse in an effort to make provocative arguments and to stimulate debate and organizing for justice in Palestine through relevant conferences, and events ranging from the intellectual and political impact of Edward Said`s life and work (2004), international law and the Palestine question (2005), the economy of Palestine and its occupation (2006), the one state (2007), 60 Years of Nakba, 60 Years of Resistance (2009), and most recently, the Left in Palestine (2010).

For more information on the SOAS Palestine Society 7th annual conference, Past is Present: Settler Colonialism in Palestine: www.soaspalsoc.org

SOAS Palestine Society Organizing Collective is a group of committed students that has undertaken to organize annual academic conferences on Palestine since 2003.

 


[i] Patrick Wolfe, Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event, Cassell, London, p. 163

[ii] Interview with Benny Morris, Survival of the Fittest, Haaretz, 9. January 2004, http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=5412