Everything on the Line: Can Open Government Help Solve the Migration Paradox?
People want “orderly migration,” but border controls alone are not enough. Good data, clear decision-making, and due process can help turn sentiment into policy. They may even help lower the temperature of the debate.
By
The migration debate seems sharply divided. Some advocate for stricter border enforcement, while others call for more open movement. But the reality is more complex.
In the United States and Europe, there is growing consensus on the need for “orderly migration.” This entails clarifying pathways to arrival and citizenship, speeding up social, economic, and linguistic integration, and controlling borders and other ports of entry. Policy lags behind public agreement, though.
To create policies that work, we must translate sentiment into reality. Sober discussions need clear, unbiased data. They also need ways to build agreement and clarify decision-making at every level while also creating a system that is both just and accountable.
Navigating Complexity
Migration is complex. Reaching a policy consensus means navigating what look like contradictions.
For many, leaving home is a matter of survival. “Push factors” like violence, persecution, economic collapse, political instability, and disasters need governance changes in the home country.
There are also “pull factors” that make people cross borders, such as the search for better jobs and to reunite with family. This pairs well with the fact that businesses in destination countries need workers. There are acute labor shortages in key industries like healthcare, construction, and agriculture, as well as “skilled” work in technology and health. These are areas where immigrant workers play a critical role.
At the same time, migration patterns are shifting. “Transit countries” like Mexico, Morocco, and Turkey have struck deals with wealthy countries. Other countries, unaccustomed to significant migration, have become destinations, creating new governance challenges. Another group of countries have long relied on migrants to keep society running, which may now face accusations of exploitation and abuse.
Lowering the Temperature
How much immigration to have and how it should take place are, at heart, moral and political questions. Too often, however, decisions come from stories and emotions, not data and deliberation.
But there can be a more rational approach. Open government can help those discussions. Governments can improve data and they can clarify the due process for migration. They can also engage the public in problem-solving approaches to discuss options.
Without clear, data-driven policies, public trust fades, making clear-headed and compassionate migration policy more difficult. Opportunistic politicians may use these issues to inflame, rather than inform. Transparency, public oversight, and strong reporting are key. They help make sure migration policies work well, which can balance the needs of voters, employers, and migrants. (Now more than ever, it is important to remember migrants are also people with rights and choices as well.)
Just as important is how we reach decisions. Politicians need to find less polarizing ways of discussing the issue. Processes designed to build consensus can not only help solve the problem, but can create an opportunity for social cohesion. For a polarizing topic like immigration, rebuilding this sense of cohesion is critical to forging a better way forward.
Actions for Destination and Transit Countries
There are at least three types of open government actions that destination and transit countries can use to improve their immigration policies: better data, decision-making and policy processes, and due process.
Better Data
- Public dashboards need to better show migration flows. These should include monthly updates on work visas, asylum claims, and enforcement actions. They also should include temporary labor and outflows.
- Working with the private sector, governments can publish industry-specific reports to map labor market needs. Governments may also encourage or compile reports from industry associations and civil society. For example, Canada has job-specific immigration targets that could be a useful model.
- Be clear about border and asylum processing times. This will help people know what to expect and may lessen political backlash.
Decision-Making and Policy
- Publish agreements on migration control to prevent secretive deals that bypass accountability. There should be clear expectations that extrajudicial processes and secret laws are intolerable.
- Ensure parliamentary or public review of financial aid linked to migration control. The controversy over the EU-Tunisia migration deal stemmed from the fact that it was kept secret from the public until it was revealed by journalists.
- Creating transpartisan methods for discussion in and out of parliament helps find common ground. These can include deliberative democracy practices.
Due Process
- Set up independent migration ombudsmen to review complaints about detention conditions, deportation procedures, and asylum decisions. For example, the UK’s Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration carries out these duties.
- Require regular audits of migration enforcement agencies. This helps stop corruption, unfair profiling, and inefficiencies.
- Share data on case backlogs and approval rates. This will help improve due process in asylum decisions.
- Update administrative processes so that they follow rules and are fair.
The Puzzle of Origin Countries
Dealing with emigration is a tougher challenge. It means making an origin country safer, more livable, more just. Indeed, countries have done this in the past. Countries that once were the epicenter of emigration — Italy, Japan, and Sweden once sent their young and adventurous citizens abroad — are now destinations
How to turn a place people want to leave into one they want to visit is a topic for another day. We will cover it in an upcoming article about economic growth in the 21st century.
Conclusion
Migration debates are often framed as battles to be won rather than challenges to be managed. Better data, clear decisions, and accountable institutions can break the political deadlock. Clear reporting, independent oversight, and public involvement can improve migration policies. They can make these policies more effective and legitimate.
Without these mechanisms, migration policy risks being reactive and crisis-driven. Worse, demagogues can use it to spread fear rather than offer solutions. The question is not whether migration should happen — it already does. The real challenge is creating policies that benefit countries, communities, and people.
