ABSTRACT

It is by now a truism that international migration is a process, not an event. As evidenced by the contributions to this handbook, the cultural, demographic, economic, political, and social causes, content, and consequences of international migration as a process are well documented. However, there remain lacunae and among all the processes embedded within international migration, the complexities of the reciprocal relationship between the sending state and its emigrants has recently begun to receive the detailed attention and critical analysis that it deserves (Gamlen 2008; Fitzgerald 2009; Délano 2010, 2011; Kapur 2010; Joppke 2011). Despite a weakening in new migration flows across the world because of the global economic

crisis that began in 2008, more than 215 million people (3 percent of the world population) were living outside their country of origin in 2010 (World Bank 2011). The Mexican-US migration, corridor is the world’s largest with 11.6 million migrants in 2010.1 These migration flows are a relatively recent phenomenon. For most of history, subjects of a polity could not leave their polity or could only do so with great logistical and legal difficulty. These barriers to exit were slowly eradicated with the agricultural, industrial, and urban revolutions and the emergence of states, nation-states, and concomitant new forms of social, political, and economic organization and institutions that gave rise to dramatically changed views on and patterns of international migration. While international migrants have historically maintained socio-economic and emotional ties to

their nations of origin (Shain 2005), the post 1945 era has been one of increasing nation-states’ awareness of and concern for their citizens and communities abroad and the various political,

economic, and socio-cultural roles and impact these communities may play and exert in their countries of origin (González Gutiérrez 2006; Agunias 2009). As Kapur succinctly summarizes “the impact of emigration on the sending country depend critically on the selection effects: who leaves, how many leave, why they leave, the legal basis on which they leave, where they go, how they fare, and how long they have been gone” (Kapur 2010: 7). The migration of highly skilled professionals from the “undeveloped south” to the “devel-

oped north,” massive outflows of undocumented migrants, the closed borders of Eastern Europe during the Cold War, the increasing importance of remittances to local economies, and the role of emigrant exiles and expatriates in the development of perceptions with regard to their country of destination have all served to focus the attentions of the state on its emigrant population. Similarly, dramatically improved transportation and travel systems and infrastructures, along with radical advances in information technology and media enabled emigrants to communicate easily and affordably with their families, communities, and related constituencies in their countries of origin. Governments in sending countries have struggled to understand, control, and direct the impact of their diasporas on their political, social, and economic institutions and infrastructure. This struggle is deeply intertwined with the rapidly changing political, cultural, technological, and socio-economic practices and processes subsumed under the term “globalization.” Globalization’s elusiveness as a concept adds to the complexity of understanding the rela-

tionship between sending states and their emigrants. Often viewed as a primarily economic phenomenon, globalization represents the increasing interaction, or integration, of national economic systems through the growth in international trade, investment, capital, and labor (migration) flows. This economic interpretation when combined with the rapid increase in cross-border political social, cultural, and technological exchange that has created extensive world-wide transnational human and social networks sets the stage on which we may survey the relationship between the sending state and its emigrants. States’ connection to, communication with, and control of their emigrant expatriate populations are conditioned by the new circumstances of globalization. Following an historical overview, which includes a discussion of the different forms and

structures that states have used to maintain or reinforce the relationship with their diasporas and a brief examination of emigration as a human right, we discuss the relationship between sending states’ and economic development with a particular focus on the function and impact of migrant remittances, both economic and social, and of alternative mechanisms of capital flows. Further, we analyze the implications, opportunities, and challenges for the sending state of brain drain, its corollary brain gain, and their change to brain circulation, and we assess the reciprocal political relationship between emigrants (exiles and expatriates) and their state of origin. We conclude with some assessment of how states, emigration, and concepts of citizenship are interlinked and we offer some suggestions for future research on the relationship between the state and its emigrants.