9781138244450PRE.3D 5 [1–28] 11.11.2019 5:16PM ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT Edited by Tanja Bastia and Ronald Skeldon 9781138244450PRE.3D 6 [1–28] 11.11.2019 5:16PM First published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 selection and editorial matter, Tanja Bastia and Ronald Skeldon; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Tanja Bastia and Ron Skeldon to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-1-138-24445-0 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-27690-8 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Swales & Willis, Exeter, Devon, UK 9781138244450PRE.3D 7 [1–28] 11.11.2019 5:16PM CONTENTS List of figures List of tables List of contributors Acknowledgements xiii xv xvi xxvii Introduction Tanja Bastia and Ronald Skeldon 1 PART I Conceptual perspectives and approaches 15 1 Paradoxes of migration and development Hein de Haas 17 2 Theorising changing conditions and ongoing silences Nina Glick Schiller 32 3 Migration and development: theoretical legacies and analytical agendas in the age of rising powers Parvati Raghuram 43 4 The interface between internal and international migration Julie Vullnetari 54 5 Border work: frames, barriers, and disingenuous development Michael Collyer 63 vii 9781138244450PRE.3D 8 [1–28] 11.11.2019 5:16PM Contents 6 Undocumented migration and development Oliver Bakewell 74 7 Geographies and histories of unfreedom Uma Kothari 84 PART II Economic and social dimensions: poverty and inequalities 93 8 Migration and inequality: an interdisciplinary overview Ingrid Palmary 95 9 Gender, migration, and development Tanja Bastia and Karlijn Haagsman 103 10 Remittances: eight analytical perspectives Jørgen Carling 114 11 Social remittances Ilka Vari-Lavoisier 125 12 Skilled migration Ronald Skeldon 136 13 Diasporas and development in the global age Cathy Wilcock 146 14 The informalisation of migration governance across Africa’s urban archipelagos Loren B. Landau and Caroline W. Kihato 157 15 Labour migration, poverty, and inequality: a gap in the development debate Arjan de Haan 168 PART III Families and social policy 179 16 The well-being of stay behind family members in migrant households Karlijn Haagsman and Valentina Mazzucato 181 17 Families and migration in the twenty-first century Mahala Miller, Nicholas Bascuñan-Wiley, and Erika Busse-Cárdenas 191 viii 9781138244450PRE.3D 9 [1–28] 11.11.2019 5:16PM Contents 18 Independent child migration: mobilities and life course transitions Dorte Thorsen 201 19 Ageing, migration, and development Russell King and Aija Lulle 211 20 Migration and health Melissa Siegel 221 21 Care, social reproduction, and migration Gioconda Herrera 232 22 Education and migration Başak Bilecen 242 23 So many houses, as many homes? Transnational housing, migration, and development Paolo Boccagni 251 24 Social protection, development, and migration: challenges and prospects Rachel Sabates-Wheeler 261 PART IV Policies, rights, and interventions 273 25 Rights-based approaches to migration and development Nicola Piper 275 26 Migration, the MDGs, and SDGs: context and complexity Elaine McGregor 284 27 National migration policy: nature, patterns, and effects Mathias Czaika 298 28 Global civil society, migration, and development Stefan Rother 310 29 When liberal democracy pulls apart: challenges for protecting migrants’ rights in the UK Don Flynn ix 321 9781138244450PRE.3D 10 [1–28] 11.11.2019 5:16PM Contents 30 Research and policy in migration and development: some personal reflections L. Alan Winters 330 PART V Key challenges for migration and development 341 31 Are current ‘return policies’ return policies? A reflection and critique Jean-Pierre Cassarino 343 32 From humanitarianism to development: reconfiguring the international refugee response regime Roger Zetter 33 Conflict-induced displacement and development Sarah Deardorff Miller 34 Development-induced displacement and resettlement: an overview of issues and interventions Yan Tan 353 363 373 35 Climate-change disruptions to migration systems W. Neil Adger and Ricardo Safra de Campos 382 36 Acute natural disasters and displacement Susan Martin 396 37 Trafficking, development, and the impact on migrants Mike Dottridge 409 38 On the margins: migrant smuggling in the context of development Marie McAuliffe 419 PART VI Migration corridors: large and small 433 39 The Philippines–Hong Kong migration corridor Deirdre McKay 435 40 Thailand–Myanmar international migration corridor: from battlefield to marketplace Supang Chantavanich x 441 9781138244450PRE.3D 11 [1–28] 11.11.2019 5:16PM Contents 41 The Kyrgyzstan–Russia migration corridor Madeleine Reeves 450 42 The Turkey–Germany migration corridor Nermin Abadan-Unat and Başak Bilecen 456 43 The Libya–Italy migration corridor Daniela DeBono 462 44 The Burkina Faso–Côte d’Ivoire migration corridor Hannah Cross 468 45 The Zimbabwe–South Africa migration corridor Dudu S. Ndlovu and Loren B. Landau 473 46 The Mexico–US migration corridor Diana Mata-Codesal and Kerstin Schmidt 479 47 The Bolivia–Argentina migration corridor Alfonso Hinojosa Gordonava 487 48 The Venezuela–Trinidad and Tobago migration corridor Natalie Dietrich Jones 492 PART VII Translating migration and development 501 49 Shifts in migration and development studies: a perspective from France Caroline Caplan 503 50 Migration, development, and border control: a review of the German literature Heike Drotbohm and Franziska Reiffen 515 51 Spanish studies on migration and development: areas of prestige and knowledge production Almudena Cortés Maisonave 526 52 Development as the axis of migration policy: a perspective from Brazil Leonardo Cavalcanti da Silva and María del Carmen Villarreal Villamar 536 53 Migration and development transitions: a perspective from Latin America Menara Guizardi and Alejandro Grimson 547 xi 9781138244450PRE.3D 12 [1–28] 11.11.2019 5:16PM Contents 54 Migration and the development of the Russian State: three centuries of migration management Olga R. Gulina 557 55 Internal migration and development: a perspective from China Kam Wing Chan and Xiaxia Yang 567 In lieu of a conclusion: tracing the way forward in migration and development 585 Index 588 xii 9781138244450C52.3D 536 [536–546] 9.11.2019 9:36PM 52 DEVELOPMENT AS THE AXIS OF MIGRATION POLICY A perspective from Brazil Leonardo Cavalcanti da Silva and María del Carmen Villarreal Villamar Introduction Development is a polysemic concept that contains meanings related to beliefs and values which generate multiple definitions and reflects the historical context in which it is analysed. In this regard, development carries different connotations, sometimes coinciding; other times directly opposing each other. In any of its varied meanings, development is set as an aim to be met; not only in terms of economic objectives, but also in social and cultural terms. On a historical level, the word ‘development’ derives from the Western notion of progress originating from Greece and it was later consolidated in Europe during the Enlightenment (Rist 2002). The current notion of development coined in the twentieth century and disseminated worldwide within the context of the Cold War was preceded by terms that include similar ideas, such as progress, civilisation, evolution, wealth, or growth. Since then, development has been seen as a word that covers approaches such as: the theory of growth, modernisation, or underdevelopment and as an object of reformulations and critiques from other perspectives, which are more sensitive to the environment, gender, ethnic-cultural differences or to the local context (Payne and Phillips 2012). The links between migration and development have traditionally been analysed from optimistic and pessimistic perspectives (De Hass 2010; also Chapter 1 in this Handbook). Nevertheless, since the 1990s, as a consequence of the emergence of approaches such as transnationalism and new empirical evidence, the dichotomous view of the migration–development nexus was abandoned in favour of pluralist theses that accept the heterogeneity of existing relations between both variables and the contemporary presence of positive and negative effects (De Hass 2010, also Chapter 2 in this Handbook). Today, links between migration and development are a central element of global discussions concerning human mobility. In this scenario, the view concerning the migration–development nexus has become mostly optimistic and focuses on understanding how migration can affect development not only on an economic level, but also on political, social, and cultural levels (Villarreal 2017). Brazil, as a historical host country of immigrant populations, as well as an emigration nation, has not remained unaware of this phenomenon. Throughout the country’s modern 536 9781138244450C52.3D 537 [536–546] 9.11.2019 9:37PM Development as the axis migration policy history, migration policies have included ideal imaginaries and specific visions on international migrations and migrants, closely related to the current development perspective. For didactic purposes, the predominant views, outlined in the following paragraphs, are divided into four phases. In spite of the fact that the literature accepts other classifications, each phase contains various sub-phases and elements of continuity link them. The division outlined here aims solely to illustrate the key characteristics of each macro-period. First period: 1822–88 In the territory now known as Brazil, the initiative of the Portuguese population, mainly ‘white’ and ‘European’, to occupy areas bordering with Spanish colonies began in the seventeenth century and expanded during the following periods with people mainly from the Azores. These early colonisation attempts had modest results, but laid the groundwork for future colonisation projects sponsored by the state. According to Seyferth (2008), the historical event, which marks the arrival of immigrants to the country, was the opening up of ports in 1808 and the installation of the first colony of immigrants in the city of Nova Friburgo, in the state of Rio de Janeiro in 1819, which mainly included Swiss citizens. Although the settlement was a failure in terms of numbers, due to the high mortality rate among the settlers during the trip and after arrival, as well as a high rate of return, it established a precedent for the entry of non-Catholics to the national territory, which continued from then on. On 1 December 1822, Don Pedro I was proclaimed the Emperor of Brazil and, aiming to promote the modernization of the country., he decided to continue the policy of immigration and the creation of small settlement colonies developed by his father João VI (Iotti 2010). Despite opposition from some sectors, such as large landowners, there was a great interest among the liberal elites to promote immigration for purposes of colonisation, occupation, and defence of borders, as well as to create an economy based on small property holdings (Lesser 2015). In other words, the link between migration and development was positive and optimistic, although the terms used at the time were ‘progress’ and ‘civilisation’. The colonisation projects were concentrated mainly in the southern region of the country, in which the states of Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina were the most important areas. On the other hand, policies to attract labour, or ‘arms for agriculture’, were mainly in the southeast region, especially in the state of São Paulo (Vignoli 2003). The territories intended for colonisation were, in many cases, inhabited by indigenous peoples, although the land was, in practice, regarded as ‘free’ and suitable for occupation. At the same time, there was a desire to ‘whiten’ the society and the belief in the ‘civilisational ability’, ‘the promoters of progress’, or ‘superiority’, which were all supposedly innate to the European immigrant. Hence, according to some authors, such as Furtado (2001) and Lesser (2015), the idea was to privilege the arrival of non-Portuguese and non-Spaniard whites, who were considered ‘unacceptable’. In this scenario, the promulgation of the 1824 Constitution, recognising freedom of religion and citizenship to those born in the Brazilian territory, established the legal basis for the colonisation project financed by the Empire. From the first legislative acts aimed at regulating the arrival of immigrants, the correlation between the migratory policy and development was clear. Decision 80, issued on 31 March 1824, for example, declared the superior advantage of the Empire to employ ‘people who were white, free and industrious, both in the Arts and in agriculture’; in other words, Europeans linked to the industrial revolution and to modernity. Thus, the imagined and desirable immigrant was defined as one who could bring ‘civilisation’, ‘progress’, and 537 9781138244450C52.3D 538 [536–546] 9.11.2019 9:37PM Leonardo Cavalcanti and María Villarreal ‘development’ to the country. As Acosta (2018, 47) points out, this attitude was not exclusive to Brazil, but was also present in policies which attracted immigrants to Argentina and Uruguay, and to countries that received smaller numbers of immigrants such as Chile, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Venezuela. In the case of Brazil, although after the abdication of Don Pedro I in 1831 and the suspension of public funding, immigration was halted. It was, however, resumed in 1848 under different modalities: public-private agreements and private projects, which meant that the immigrants were mainly assigned to work in coffee plantations and in the agricultural sector in general. In this new context of searching for a free workforce, provinces and colonisation companies became more important, as well as entities such as the Society for the Promotion of Immigration (Sociedade Promotora de Imigração), founded in 1886. During the period 1850–89, 250 colonies were created in Brazil: 197 private, 50 imperial, and 3 provincial (Iotti 2010, 8). Despite the difficulties experienced in attracting immigrants derived from factors such as the country’s poor reputation abroad and information on the difficulties immigrants had in adapting to the new territories (Prado Júnior 1994), Law 601 of 1850 on land distribution, established that foreigners could obtain naturalisation in the country after living there for two years, thereby benefiting Europeans. Moreover, the promulgation of Decree 3.784 of 1867, which regulated the colonies and offered some advantages to immigrants, as well as the approval of a series of beneficial measures, altered the panorama favouring the entry of workers, who were assigned mainly to coffee farms in the South-eastern region of the country. In this context, the number of immigrants, mainly Italians, but also Portuguese and Spaniards, increased and marked a trend that would remain in the following years. Second period: 1888–1930 From the late nineteenth century to the early twentieth century, a transition occurred in the productive relations of Brazil, moving from a system based on slavery to one based upon a consolidation of capitalism, essentially ‘development’ as broadly understood. The most significant change, however, was the gradual abandonment of the production based on sugar-cane plantations in the Northeast region, which lost its centrality in favour of coffee production and the incipient industry established around the states of Minas Gerais and São Paulo (Scott and Cook-Martin 2014, 264–5). Slavery was officially banned in Brazil in 1888, although the system had been in place for four centuries and it was estimated that the country had between 4 and 5 million slaves at the time (Fernandes 1972), even if the exact number of African slaves was unknown. Nevertheless, the volume was of such a magnitude that today Brazil is home to the largest population of African descent in the world outside the African continent. The end of the arrival of slaves and the slow integration of former slaves into industrial production intensified the demand for foreigner labour (Fausto 1991) and, from an optimistic perspective, made the immigration process an essential factor for the development of the capitalist system in the country. Thus, the arrival of European immigrants was seen as an effective solution to address the aspirations of the governments and the ruling class. It not only supplied the labour for emerging industry and agriculture, but also, under the prevailing views of eugenics of the time, would provide the presence of a ‘civilising labour’ of ‘smart white workers’ which would improve the conditions for the development of the country as a whole (Da Matta 1987). 538 9781138244450C52.3D 539 [536–546] 9.11.2019 9:37PM Development as the axis migration policy With the beginning of the Republic in 1889, a normative framework was decisive in the consolidation of this policy of control and selectivity from a racial point of view: Decree number 528, of 28 June 1890 in its first article pointed out the guidelines of the immigration project intimately bound to the progress of the nation. Using biological criteria, this article establishes that entry into the national territory was completely free for individuals who were: ‘valid individuals’, ‘fit for work’, and ‘having no criminal records’. However, ‘indigenous people from Asia’ or ‘black Africans’, could only be admitted into the country subject to authorisation from the National Congress. In 1891, laws were also enacted that guaranteed the freedom of public worship aiming to attract even more white protestant immigrants. In the era of the ‘great European migrations’, these new policies, together with the socioeconomic transformations in Brazil, factors of expulsion in European societies and better and more accessible means of transport, allowed 2.6 million people to enter Brazil from 1890 to 1919 (Lesser 2015, 101). Thus, the Brazilian immigration project was highly selective, in which European citizens were considered to be ‘desirable’, whereas the ‘indigenous people from Asia’ and the ‘black Africans’, as well as Afro-Americans, were considered ‘undesirable’. However, the ideology of whitening and the ethnic selectivity of immigration policies contrasted openly with the myth of ‘racial democracy’ created by national elites or the idea that Brazil was a miscegenated population, a result of the fusion of Europeans, Africans, and indigenous people living in perfect harmony and equality (Scott and Cook-Martin 2014, 259). The contrast between myth and reality found different forms of expression in Brazil. For example, Decree No. 4.247 of 6 January 1921, listed those foreigners considered undesirable, including in this category people with physical disabilities, who were mentally ill, ‘subversive’ or considered ‘harmful’ to the national security (anarchists and transgressors of legal and moral laws), prostitutes, and criminals, but apparently excluding ethnic selectivity criteria (Feldman-Bianco 2014). According to Scott and Cook-Martin (2014), the denial of racism, the strength of the myth of racial democracy over local elites, and the defence of Brazil’s international image caused the ethnic selectivity to be publicly denied on a number of occasions. However, in practice, the selection was common practice and the ‘undesirable’ category served above all to exclude those that did not promote the ‘improvement’ and ‘whitening’ of the local population. In this respect, an emblematic example was the cancellation of concessions and the denial of entry to the Afro-American members of the Brazilian American Colonization Syndicate who had obtained land concessions in the state of Mato Grosso. (Scott and Cook-Martin 2014, 274). Ultimately, European immigration was seen as an ideal part of the promotion of the national development project driven by agriculture for export, especially coffee and emerging industry. However, during this second phase, the arrival of unexpected groups that deviated from the ideal occurred (see Table 52.1). These groups included Arabs (from countries like Lebanon, Syria, Turkish, Iraq, Egypt, and Palestine) and Jews from the Middle East and Eastern Europe that worked in business and trade in states like São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais, and Rio Grande do Sul, as well as Japanese, supported by their government, that went into coffee production, especially in São Paulo and Santa Catarina, but also Mato Grosso and the North and Northeast of the country (Lesser 2015, 215). Additionally, the preferences among ‘desirable’ immigrant groups changed. In fact, if in the first immigration stage, the preferred ones were the Northern Europeans (mainly Swiss and Germans), and then the Southern Europeans: Spaniards, Italians, and Portuguese, in the second stage, the selection criteria were modified because Southern Europeans were seen to comply with the three essential criteria required by the newly created Brazilian state: 539 9781138244450C52.3D 540 [536–546] 9.11.2019 9:37PM Leonardo Cavalcanti and María Villarreal Table 52.1 Immigration in Brazil by nationality (1884–1939)* Nationality Number of immigrants German Spanish Italian Japanese Portuguese Syrian and Turkish Others Total 170,645 581,718 1,412,263 185,799 1,204,394 98,962 504,936 4,158,717 Source: Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE 2007). * The data includes information about decadal periods (1884–93) (1924–33) and annual periods (1934–39). they were white, Catholic, and spoke Latin languages. Thus, they were more assimilable to an imagined Brazilianness and national identity (Seyferth 2008). These biological and ideological preferences became the main features of the migratory policies of this period and, as a result, immigrants from southern Europe increased exponentially. In order to consolidate this policy, until approximately 1930, the Brazilian government offered subsidies to European immigrants, either in the form of grants to help with travelling costs or by handing out small properties of land for agriculture in the south and southeast regions of the country (Bassanezi 1995; Levy 1974). However, political activism and the desires for improving life conditions led these immigrants to promote diverse political and trade union activities, as well as struggle for their rights, giving rise to concerns from Brazilian authorities. These events produced, once again, a change in the ideal of the desired immigrant for the national political and economic development project. Third period: 1930 until the late twentieth century During the First Republic (1889–1930), there was growing concern from various sectors in Brazil, about those immigrants considered ‘undesirable’ as well as those groups seen as ‘not very assimilable’, often referred to as ‘ethnic entrenchment’, particularly in the case of the Japanese and Germans, but also the Italians. In this context, in 1930, after accusations of electoral fraud, there came what in Brazilian history became known as the ‘1930 Revolution’, which was an armed movement led by the states of Rio Grande do Sul, Minas Gerais, and Paraíba that supported the coup headed by Getúlio Vargas. The rise of Vargas to the presidency took place in a social and political climate influenced by the 1930 economic crisis, growing restrictions on immigration in countries such as the United States and Argentina, and political protagonism of anarchist and socialist groups with migrant participation. At this time, existing xenophobic and nationalist positions led to the imposition of a restrictive turn in the national migration policy (Lesser 2015). This change was reinforced by the establishment of the dictatorial regimen of the ‘New State’ (Estado Novo) (1937–45), also led by Vargas. 540 9781138244450C52.3D 541 [536–546] 9.11.2019 9:37PM Development as the axis migration policy Within this context, policies for the assimilation of immigrants increased, even banning schools, press, or cultural activities in languages other than Portuguese. Under the influence of North American legislation (Scott and Cook-Martin 2014, 284), the Brazilian Constitution of 1934, and subsequent decrees, also established entry quotas, with severe restrictions on specific groups such as Jews, Japanese, political activists, or people with any disability (Koifman 2012). Thus, the state sought to guarantee the eugenic ideals then present in European and American scientific thinking until the first half of the twentieth century. In practice, these measures by themselves did not reduce immigration and were not always followed; the main aim was to provide the imagined Brazilianness through an assimilation policy for those that had already entered the country. The policy also provided advice on visa requests to favour people with acceptable ‘physical and moral’ qualities (Koifman 2012; Seyferth 2008). During World War II, immigrants began to be seen as a potential military threat. In parallel, internal migration, previously favoured only in case of need, increased as a consequence of the regional development processes: the promotion of industry, and the building of infrastructure to link the north with the south of the country. Additionally, during the Vargas era, a policy was established to protect national labour, which in the context of the decreasing population flows from abroad, meant that internal migration substituted international flows (Koifman 2012). In fact, from the second half of the twentieth century, a sharp reduction in migratory flows took place and, by 1939, immigration ceased almost completely, since there were no favourable conditions for maritime traffic. After World War II, and especially from 1960, immigration resumed, but to a lesser extent and mainly as a consequence of external factors associated with the reconstruction and development in Europe. In 1964, through a military coup, a military dictatorship came to power and governed until 1985. The dictatorial government promulgated institutional acts that abolished the Federal Constitution and allowed the suspension of political rights. Imprisonments, exile, torture, and often murder, became the fate of those who opposed the new regime (Gaspari 2002). Within this framework, Law 6.815 of 1980, also known as the ‘Statute of Foreigners’ (Estatuto do Estrangeiro), was promulgated to regulate the rights and duties of immigrants during the dictatorship and at the height of the Cold War. This law was guided by the idea of national security with foreigners considered a threat and had to be monitored and controlled. On an economic level, the national government wanted to protect the labour of the local citizens. However, it was during this period that an ‘ideal’ immigration, bound to the idea of development, was also conceived. In fact, Article 16 of the ‘Statute of Foreigners’ stated: immigration will primarily aim at providing skilled labour to the various sectors of the national economy, seeking to implement the National Development Policy in all its aspects and especially in relation to the increase of productivity, the assimilation of technology and obtaining resources for specific sectors. (Brasil 1980) However, the political uncertainties of the return to democracy and the economic crisis of 1990 did not encourage immigration from Europe. Rather, new origins emerged with migrants coming from neighbouring countries, such as Bolivia as analysed by Silva (1997). This period also saw the opposite phenomenon: the emigration of Brazilians. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MRE 2015), the Brazilian Diaspora is made up of more than 3 million people dispersed mainly in the USA, Japan, and Europe, especially in Italy, 541 9781138244450C52.3D 542 [536–546] 9.11.2019 9:37PM Leonardo Cavalcanti and María Villarreal Portugal, the United Kingdom, and Spain. Apart from their presence in other countries such as Canada and Australia, emigration to neighbouring countries such as Paraguay, Argentina, and Bolivia has also been noticeable. In this new scenario, the Government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, created a support programme for Brazilian citizens living abroad (1995) and approved various measures for the protection of citizens abroad, the recognition of dual-citizenship, and maintenance of their political rights (Patarra 2009; Reis 2011). Thus, discussions concerning the relation between migration and development began to consider emigrants, given the potential of their remittances and the growing importance of this group in Brazilian life. Fourth period: beginning of the twenty-first century From the 1980s, and the arrival of non-traditional immigrants from South America, Asia, and Africa, the profile of migration in Brazil began to change and this trend strengthened in the early 2000s. Moreover, the economic crisis that began in 2007 in the USA, and also greatly affected Europe and Japan, added to growing restrictions on immigration imposed by Northern countries, which caused shifts in the immigration in and to South America. In the Brazilian case, the economic and social development of the country and its geopolitical repositioning, the last few years have seen a radical diversification in the patterns of migration. Today, Brazil combines different scenarios: it is a country of emigration and return, but also continues to be a receiving territory of flows that are increasingly heterogeneous and mainly coming from the Southern parts of the world (Cavalcanti et al. 2015; Handerson 2015). In addition to factors such as significant economic growth generating a wide range of jobs, improvements in political and social conditions, and greater institutional stability, the increasing number of arrivals, especially since 2007, is closely related to Brazil attaining the position as an emerging or rising power (Reis 2011; also Chapter 2 in this Handbook). The country’s aim to become a global player, for example, generated significant results. Brazil managed to position itself as part of the BRICS group; it became a serious contender to a permanent seat on the UN Security Council; is a member of the G20; and from 2004 to 2017, conducted the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH). Its representatives have been in senior positions in international organisations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). Brazil has hosted events of global importance, such as the Football World Cup and the Olympic Games and has also participated in different discussion forums in regions in Asia and Africa. All these factors not only positioned the country globally, converting it into a pole of attraction for international migration, but also allowed Brazilian diplomacy to adopt a protagonist role in regional and multilateral spaces in favour of migration and emigrants’ rights. The country’s migratory tradition and, once again, the myth about racial democracy played a predominant role (Scott and Cook-Martin 2014). In this new scenario, the migration–development link appears again in the country’s migratory policy in two ways. First, the Brazilian government resumed its selective approach towards immigrants through the idea of ‘qualification’ and ‘investment ability’ for strategic sectors of the Brazilian economy, which expanded and became increasingly international thanks to foreign investment. The desirable immigrants are, therefore, the qualified or skilled immigrants, ‘useful’ to the national development (Brasil 1997, 2004a, 2004b, 2008a, 2008b) and those at the level of being able to invest their own resources in productive activities (Brasil 2009). For example, in 2010 as much as 54 per cent of foreigners working in Brazil 542 9781138244450C52.3D 543 [536–546] 9.11.2019 9:37PM Development as the axis migration policy were graduates; although this situation changed in following years, showing a decreasing trend, although the ratio continued to be high and was equivalent to 30 per cent in 2016 (Cavalcanti, Oliveira, Araujo and Tonhati 2017, 83). Second, the National Immigration Council, also encouraged the entry of ‘non-qualified’ but ‘necessary’ manpower, for sectors such as agriculture and services (Brasil 1993). For example, from 2011 to 2016, as many as 52,429 work permits were granted. From this total, 92 per cent were granted to working-age people between 20 and 49 years old, while, 83 per cent of the permits were given to people with no reported education levels (Cavalcanti et al. 2017, 39). This group can be illustrated by Haitians, who are involved in labour market activities, both formal and informal, in sectors such as construction, hotel and cleaning services, and the meat industry. At the same time, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in agreement with other public bodies or local governments, created various policies to favour Brazilian returnees and return from the Brazilian Diaspora regarding, for example, the promotion of entrepreneurship, productive investment project remittances, or cooperation networks with their country of origin. At the same time, and under pressure from Brazilian communities living abroad, migrant associations, activists and other groups for the defence of human rights, advocated for the need to update migration laws, particularly anachronistic features of various provisions in the ‘Statute of Foreigners’. Therefore, in addition to the amnesties of 1981, 1988, 1998, and 2009, Normative Resolutions and humanitarian visas, specially designed for groups, such as Haitians (2012), Syrians (2013), and, more recently, Venezuelans (2017), have been approved. Other actions that advocated a view of the immigrant as an individual with rights demanded social integration policies for migrants and saw the realisation, in July 2014, of the First National Conference on Migration and Refugees (COMIGRAR). The social mobilisation campaign entitled ‘Here I live, here I vote’ lobbied for immigrants to vote in municipal elections; Reference Centres for Immigrants were created in the states with the greatest migratory inflows; and awareness campaigns in defence of the rights of immigrants emerged. No less important, were the advances and recognition of rights for South American migrants resulting from bilateral or multilateral agreements, such as the Mercosur Residency Agreement or the discussions on regional citizenship held within the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) (Villarreal 2018). The culmination of these activities was the creation and discussion of new legislative projects that allowed the approval of the Senate Law (PLS) 288/2013. After various changes on 24 May 2017, the then President, Michel Temer approved the new Immigration Law 13.445/ 2017 which, in spite of receiving 20 presidential vetoes, considered immigration as a right and was no longer a national security issue. Although lines of continuity with previous migration policies exist, in terms of migration and development, the new law overcomes unidirectional approaches and reflects a more pluralistic view of the nexus between these two variables. Thus, in Article 3, the new norm considers Brazil’s migration policy as based on Brazil’s economic, tourist, social, cultural, sports, scientific, and technological development; on the integration and development of border regions and promoting the link between migration and human development in the place of origin, as inalienable rights of all people (Brasil 2017). Final considerations The approaches adopted in the various migration policies in Brazil reflect not only the ideal views concerning development and migrants, but also the changes concerning the links between migration and development itself. Therefore, during the first and second migratory phases, optimistic, but selective, views of migration were established, mainly those based on ideological beliefs and eugenic theses. In fact, development was understood as economic 543 9781138244450C52.3D 544 [536–546] 9.11.2019 9:37PM Leonardo Cavalcanti and María Villarreal growth, progress, and modernisation, although, at the same time closely related to the promotion of what the elites understood as ‘enhancement’ and ‘civilisation’ of the society. Thus, in spite of the imagined view that Brazil was a country with racial democracy, in practice, as a result of the ‘whitening’ ideology, the local elites promoted the selective entry of those considered ‘ideal immigrants’, who were seen to be white and European, since these were considered the only ones qualified to meet the objectives. Later, the country experienced a third nationalist and restrictive period in which, under the Doctrine of National Security, foreigners were considered a threat. In this phase, the link between migration and development was inward looking, with the exception of skilled labour. This period coincided with the internalisation of the migration process and its contributions to the project for national development. That is, although development continued to be understood as economic growth and progress, the objective could only be reached through the contribution of local workers and with the exclusive participation of ‘desirable immigrants’, comprising specific groups of foreign labour, no longer defined by ethnic characteristics, but trained and skilled in line with the aims of national development. At the same time, due to the increasing emigration of Brazilians, the government is taking measures to attract contributions from this group, such as remittances, but also contacts and knowledge, as a means of promoting Brazil’s development. In the present stage, the selective nature of immigration policy, preferring skilled migration or people with investment capacity is maintained. Nevertheless, inward-looking perspectives of development have been abandoned in favour of a hybrid approach that accepts both disadvantages, as well as benefits in international migration. In this new scenario, the concept of the ‘ideal immigrant’ becomes flexible without becoming lost, while the concept of development assumes specific connotations (human, local) and expands to include contributions of both immigrants and emigrants and their impacts on the economic, social, technological, scientific, and cultural spheres. References Acosta D. (2018). The national versus the foreigner in South America. 200 years of migration and citizen law. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Bassanezi M. (1995). “Imigrações internacionais no Brasil: um panorama histórico”, in Patarra N. (ed.), Emigração e imigração internacionais no Brasil contemporâneo. São Paulo, FNUAP, pp. 1–38. Brasil (1850). Lei N. 601 de 18 de setembro de 1850. Coleção de Leis do Império do Brasil - 1850, Página 307 Vol. 1 pt. I. _______ (1867). Decreto N. 3784 de 19 de janeiro de 1867. Coleção de Leis do Brasil - 19/1/1867, Página 31 Vol. 1 pt II. _______ (1890). Decreto N. 528 de 28 de junho de 1890. Coleção de Leis do Brasil - 1890, Página 1424 Vol. 1 fasc.VI, Brasília. _______ (1980). Lei N. 6.815 de 19 de agosto de 1980. Presidência da República, Brasília. _______ (1993). Decreto N. 840 de 22 de junho de 1993. Câmara dos Deputados, Brasília. (www2. camara.leg.br/legin/fed/decret/1993/decreto-840-22-junho-1993-449205-publicacaooriginal-1-pe. html) Accessed 1 September 2017. _______ (1997). Resolução normativa N. 1 de 29 de abril de 1997. Concessão de visto para professor ou pesquisador de alto nível e para cientistas estrangeiros. (www.icmbio.gov.br/sisbio/images/stories/ instrucoes_normativas/RN_CNImg_01_1997.pdf) Accessed 10 December 2017. _______ (2004a). Resolução Normativa N. 61 de 08 de dezembro de 2004. Disciplina a concessão de autorização de trabalho e de visto a estrangeiro sob contrato de transferência de tecnologia e/ou de prestação de serviço de assistência técnica, de acordo de cooperação ou convênio, sem vínculo empregatício ou em situação de emergência. (www.legisweb.com.br/legislacao/?id=101131) Accessed 10 December 2017. _______ (2004b). Resolução Normativa N. 62 de 08 de dezembro de 2004. Disciplina a concessão de autorização de trabalho e de visto permanente a estrangeiro, Administrador, Gerente, Diretor ou 544 9781138244450C52.3D 545 [536–546] 9.11.2019 9:37PM Development as the axis migration policy Executivo, com poderes de gestão, de Sociedade Civil ou Comercial, Grupo ou Conglomerado econômico. (www.legisweb.com.br/legislacao/?id=101129) Accessed 10 December 2017. _______ (2008a). Resolução normativa N. 82 de 3 de dezembro de 2008. Disciplina a concessão de visto a cientista, professor, pesquisador ou profissional estrangeiro que pretenda vir ao país para participar de conferências, seminários, congressos ou reuniões na área de pesquisa e desenvolvimento ou para a cooperação científico-tecnológica, e a estudantes de qualquer nível de graduação ou pós-graduação. (https://sistemas. mre.gov.br/kitweb/datafiles/Viena/pt-br/file/rn_20081203_82.pdf) Accessed 10 December 2017. _______ (2008b). Resolução Normativa N. 80 de 16 de outubro de 2008. Disciplina a concessão de autorização de trabalho para a obtenção de visto temporário a estrangeiro com vínculo empregatício no Brasil. (www.usp.br/drh/novo/legislacao/dou2008/mteresnormativa802008.html) Accessed 10 December 2017. _______ (2009). Resolução Normativa N. 84 de 2009. Disciplina a concessão de autorização para fins de obtenção de visto permanente para investidor estrangeiro -pessoa física. (www.legisweb.com.br/legis lacao/?id=111486) Accessed 10 December 2017. _______ (2017). Presidência da República. Lei N. 13.445/2017 de 24 de maio de 2017. Brasília. Cavalcanti L., Oliveira A. T., Araújo D., and Tonhati T. (2017). Relatório anual. A inserção dos imigrantes no mercado de trabalho brasileiro. Série Migrações, Observatório das Migrações; Ministério do Trabalho/Conselho Nacional da Imigração e Coordenação Geral da Imigração, Brasília, DF, OBMigra. Cavalcanti L., Oliveira A. T., and Tonhati T. org. (2015). “A inserção dos imigrantes no mercado de trabalho brasileiro”. Cadernos do Observatório das Migrações Internacionais, Ministério do Trabalho e Previdência Social/Conselho Nacional de Imigração e Coordenação Geral de Imigração. Brasília, DF, OBMigra. Da Matta R. (1987). Relativizando: uma introdução à antropologia social. Rio de Janeiro, Editora Rocco. De Hass H. (2010). “Migration and development: a theoretical perspective”, International Migration Review, v. 44, n.1, pp. 1–38. Fausto B. (1991). Historiografia da Imigração para São Paulo. São Paulo, Fapesp. Feldman-Bianco B. (2014). “La libre circulación de las personas debería ser considerada como una utopía”, Crítica y Emancipación, v. año VI, n.11, pp. 613–626. Fernandes F. (1972). O negro no mundo dos brancos. São Paulo, Difusão Europeia do Livro. Furtado C. (2001). Formação Econômica do Brasil, 30 Ed. São Paulo, Editora Nacional. Gaspari E. (2002). A ditadura envergonhada. São Paulo, Companhia das Letras. Handerson J. (2015). “Diáspora. Sentidos sociais e mobilidades haitianas”, Horizontes Antropológicos, v. 21, n.43, pp. 51–78. IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística) (2007). Brasil, 500 anos de povoamento. Rio de Janeiro, IBGE. Iotti L. (2010). “A política migratória brasileira e sua legislação (1822-1914)”. X Encontro Nacional de História. Santa Maria: ANPUH-RS, anais. Koifman F. (2012). Imigrante Ideal. O Ministério da Justiça e a Entrada de Estrangeiros no Brasil (1941-1945). São Paulo, Civilização Brasileira. Lesser J. (2015). A invenção da brasilidade. Identidade nacional, etnicidade e políticas de imigração. São Paulo, Editora UNESP. Levy M. (1974). “O papel da migração internacional na evolução da população brasileira (1872 a 1972)”, Rev. Saúde Pública, São Paulo, v. 8, pp. 49–90. Ministério das Relações Exteriores (MRE) (2015). Estimativas populacionais das comunidades brasileiras no mundo. Recuperado de: www.brasileirosnomundo.itamaraty.gov.br/a-comunidade/estimativas-populacio nais-das-comunidades/Estimativas%20RCN%202015%20-%20Atualizado.pdf Accessed 11 October 2017. Patarra N. (2009). “Governabilidade das migrações internacionais e Direitos Humanos: o Brasil como país de emigração”, in Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão (FUNAG) (ed.), I Conferência sobre as Comunidades Brasileiras no Exterior, Brasileiros no Mundo. Brasília, Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão (FUNAG), pp. 187–211. Payne A. and Phillips N. (2012). Desarrollo. Madrid, Alianza Editorial. Prado Júnior C. (1994). História Econômica do Brasil, 41 Ed. São Paulo, Brasiliense. Reis R. (2011). “A política do Brasil para as migrações internacionais”, Contexto Internacional, v. 33, n. 1, pp. 47–69. Rist G. (2002). El desarrollo: historia de una creencia occidental. Madrid, Catarata. 545 9781138244450C52.3D 546 [536–546] 9.11.2019 9:37PM Leonardo Cavalcanti and María Villarreal Scott F. David and Cook-Martin D. (2014). “Brazil. Selling the myth of racial democracy”, in Scott F. D. and Cook-Martin D. (eds.), Culling the masses. The democratic origins of racist immigration policy in the Americas. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, pp. 259–298. Seyferth G. (2008). “Imigrantes, estrangeiros: a trajetória de uma categoria incomoda no campo político”. Trabalho apresentado na Mesa Redonda Imigrantes e Emigrantes: as transformações das relações do Estado Brasileiro com a Migração. 26ª Reunião Brasileira de Antropologia, realizada entre os dias 01 e 04 de junho de 2008, Porto Seguro, Brasil. Silva S. (1997). Costurando sonhos. Trajetória de um grupo de imigrantes bolivianos em São Paulo. São Paulo, Paulinas. Vignoli F. (2003). “A imigração e a formação do mercado de trabalho”, in Rego J. and Marques R. (eds.), Formação Econômica do Brasil. São Paulo, Saraiva, pp. 112–134. Villarreal M. (2017). “Replanteando el debate sobre migraciones internacionales y desarrollo: nuevas direcciones y evidencias”, Revista Interdisciplinar de Mobilidade Humana (REMHU), v. 25, n. 51, pp. 181–198. _______. (2018). “Regionalismos e Migrações internacionais na América do Sul. Contexto e perspectivas futuras sobre as experiências na CAN, no Mercosul e na Unasul”, Revista Espaço Aberto, v. 8, n.2, pp. 131–148. 546