78) adds that the international migration of people is not a new dynamic at all; in fact migrations were “a significant phenomenon in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.” In the U.S. during the era 1901-1920 the number of immigrants admitted “exceeded that of the twenty-year period” that began in 1981, Ruccio continues, and those numbers from 1901-1920 are far greater than any numbers of immigrants in the later half of the 20th Century (p. 78).
Another author weighing in on globalization and immigration is June Edmunds; she chides those who believed that the “free circulation of goods, services and capital” associated with globalization would limit the inclination of many people to migrate (Edmunds, 2006, p. 556). But in fact, Edmunds writes, the movement of commodities appears to promote “rather than stem” the movement of people. In fact, according to Edmunds, there is so much immigration into Europe, for example, that immigration “ranked alongside the economy, crime, and healthcare” as pivotal political issues in the general election in the UK in 2005 (p. 556).
Pura Velasco adds to the topic of globalization and migration by pointing out that the United States neocolonial control over the Philippines — a globalization event that began in 1901 — has wreaked havoc on the natural resources of the Philippines. The forests, minerals, and other natural resources of the Philippines are “almost depleted” now (Velasco, 2002, p. 131). Moreover, the U.
S. military forces that are now in the Philippines are not really there to root out Al-Queda and other terrorist organizations, according to Velasco (p. 132). In fact the U.S. is in the Philippines — what he calls “these vast and fertile lands” — “to protect transnational business” including Dole (p. 132).
By allowing globalization-driven foreign governments like the U.S., Canada, Japan and European nations, to drive away small farmers and others living in indigenous communities, the government of the Philippines has basically caused seven million Filipino migrant workers to flee to other nations, Velasco asserts. “We are now seven million Filipino migrant workers involved in the nation building of 168 countries other than the Philippines,” Velasco writes (p. 132). He charges that the Philippines government encourages the exporting of millions of its people in order to keep the unemployment figures down; he sees this as a source “of national shame because of massive abuses to Filipinos by foreign employers” (p. 133).
“Labor export means survival for every Philippine administration, great income for bureaucrats and politicians” and very quick and easy cash for the private companies that profit from this export of workers through the ongoing globalization process (p. 133). If what Velasco writes is true, then globalization has turned out to be a disaster for the Philippines.
Cruz, Gemma Tulud. “Between Identity and Security: Theological Implications of Migration in.