An economic migrant is a person who moves to another country voluntarily, mainly to find work or earn a higher income. They are not fleeing danger — they choose to move in order to improve their standard of living.
An asylum seeker has fled their home country and applied for official protection in another country, but their application has not yet been decided. They are still waiting for a decision.
A refugee has been officially recognised as needing protection because they were forced to flee war, violence, or persecution. Their status has been confirmed and they are legally protected.
Accept any two of the following:
- War, conflict, or persecution — violence makes life dangerous and unsafe
- Unemployment or poverty — no jobs or very low income
- Natural disasters such as floods, droughts, or earthquakes that destroy homes and farmland
- Poor access to healthcare and education
- Political instability or government oppression
Accept any two of the following:
- Better job opportunities and higher wages
- Safety, peace, and political stability
- Better healthcare and education systems
- Family reunification — joining relatives who have already moved
- Higher overall quality of life (better housing, freedom, and services)
Destination country: United States of America (USA)
Brain drain is when skilled and educated workers — such as doctors, engineers, and teachers — leave the country of origin in search of better opportunities abroad.
One negative effect: the country of origin loses the trained professionals it needs to develop its economy and public services. For example, if doctors leave, there are fewer healthcare workers to treat the remaining population. This weakens the country’s healthcare system and slows down long-term economic development.
Remittances are money sent home by migrants working abroad. They are a positive impact because they boost household incomes and help families in the country of origin pay for essential needs such as housing, healthcare, and education — things they might otherwise not afford.
In the Mexico → USA case study, Mexico receives over \$50 billion in remittances per year — one of the highest amounts in the world. This money significantly supports the living standards of families left behind and contributes to the wider local economy.
1. Pressure on public services: A large number of migrants arriving in a short time increases demand for housing, schools, and healthcare. If the infrastructure cannot keep pace with this growth, services become overcrowded and harder to access for the existing population as well as new arrivals.
2. Social tension: Differences in language and culture between migrants and the existing population can lead to misunderstanding or conflict if they are not managed well. This social tension can create difficulties within communities in the destination country.
Border controls (such as walls and patrols) try to stop migrants at the border, but they do not address the root causes of migration. The push factors in origin countries — poverty, conflict, lack of jobs — still exist, so the pressure to migrate continues.
Development aid, on the other hand, invests in reducing poverty, improving security, and creating jobs in origin countries. By reducing the push factors at the source, it decreases the reasons why people feel forced to leave in the first place.
This makes it more sustainable: it aims to reduce migration pressure over the long term by tackling the root causes, rather than simply managing the consequences. However, results are slow — development takes decades — and aid must be well managed to be effective.
Positive impact: Migrants gain access to higher wages and an improved standard of living. They can also access better healthcare and education for themselves and their children — opportunities that were limited in Mexico.
Negative impact: Migrants face a dangerous border crossing, with risks of extreme heat, dehydration, and exploitation. Once in the USA, undocumented migrants face an uncertain legal status and the risk of deportation, as well as language barriers, cultural adjustment, and possible discrimination.
- (a) What type of migrant are the members of this family?
- (b) If their application is approved, what type of migrant do they become?
- (c) Explain two reasons why people in this situation might find the journey or the waiting period difficult.
They are asylum seekers. They have fled their home country and applied for protection, but their status has not yet been officially decided.
They become refugees. Once their application is approved, they are officially recognised as needing protection and are legally protected in the new country.
Reason 1 — Dangerous journey: To reach safety, migrants often cross hostile environments. They may face extreme heat, dehydration, and exploitation, particularly when crossing borders without authorisation. The journey itself can be life-threatening.
Reason 2 — Uncertain legal status during the wait: While their application is being reviewed, asylum seekers do not know whether they will be allowed to stay. This uncertainty is very stressful. They may also be separated from family left behind, face language barriers, and struggle to adjust to a new culture — all while their future remains undecided.
- (a) Describe two strategies that governments use to manage international migration.
- (b) Choose one of those strategies. Evaluate its effectiveness by giving one strength and one limitation.
Accept any two from the following (with a brief description of each):
- Border controls and physical barriers — governments build fences, walls, and checkpoints and deploy patrols to control who enters the country
- Visa and work permit systems — migrants must apply for official permission to enter and work; countries select migrants based on their skills, qualifications, and job offers
- Refugee camps and asylum processes — international organisations set up camps near conflict zones to provide temporary shelter, food, and medical care; countries also operate legal asylum processes for those seeking protection
- Integration programmes — destination countries offer language classes, job training, housing support, and cultural orientation to help migrants settle and contribute to society
- Development aid to origin countries — wealthier countries invest in education, jobs, and infrastructure in origin countries to reduce the push factors that drive migration
Strength: Border controls are effective at reducing illegal border crossings in the short term and give governments immediate control over who enters the country.
Limitation: They are very expensive to maintain and can be criticised as inhumane. Most importantly, border controls do not address the root causes of migration — the push factors in origin countries still exist, so the underlying pressure to migrate continues. Determined migrants often find alternative routes.
- (a) Describe two push factors and two pull factors that explain the movement of people in the case study from your notes.
- (b) Describe two impacts of this migration on the country of origin. Include at least one positive and one negative.
Accept any two push factors and any two pull factors from the following:
Push factors (Mexico):
- High poverty levels, especially in rural areas where wages are very low
- High unemployment, particularly for unskilled workers
- High crime rates and gang violence in some regions, making daily life unsafe
- Limited access to quality healthcare and education in rural areas
- Droughts and natural disasters affecting agriculture and food supply
Pull factors (USA):
- Strong demand for labour in agriculture, construction, and service industries
- Significantly higher wages — even for unskilled workers
- Greater personal safety and political stability
- Better healthcare and education systems
- Family reunification — a large, established Mexican-American community makes settling easier
Positive: Mexico receives over \$50 billion in remittances per year. This money helps families pay for housing, healthcare, and education, and supports the local economy. This is one of the highest remittance amounts in the world.
Negative: Brain drain — Mexico loses skilled workers such as doctors, engineers, and teachers, weakening its workforce and slowing long-term economic development. Rural communities are also left with ageing populations as young people leave, and family separation causes long-term emotional and social problems.
- (a) The migrants themselves
- (b) The country of origin
- (c) The destination country
Positive: Migrants gain access to higher wages and an improved standard of living. They can also access better healthcare and education for themselves and their children, and enjoy greater personal safety compared to life in Mexico.
Negative: Migrants face a dangerous border crossing with risks of extreme heat, dehydration, and exploitation. Once in the USA, undocumented migrants live with uncertain legal status and the risk of deportation. They may also experience language barriers, cultural adjustment difficulties, discrimination, and separation from family left behind in Mexico.
Positive: Mexico receives over \$50 billion in remittances per year. This money helps families fund housing, healthcare, and education, and contributes to the local economy. Migration also reduces pressure on the job market in areas with high unemployment.
Negative: Brain drain — Mexico loses skilled workers such as doctors, engineers, and teachers, weakening its workforce and slowing long-term development. Rural communities are left with ageing populations as young people leave. Family separation causes long-term emotional and social problems in communities.
Positive: Mexican migrants fill vital labour shortages in agriculture, food processing, construction, and hospitality — jobs that are difficult to fill otherwise. Migrants pay taxes and spend money, contributing to economic growth. Mexican culture has also enriched American society through food, music, and community life.
Negative: The large number of migrants puts pressure on housing, schools, and healthcare in border states. There is ongoing political controversy around undocumented immigration and border security. Social integration can also be challenging where language barriers and cultural differences are not well managed.
“Stopping migrants at the border is not enough — governments must also tackle the reasons why people migrate in the first place.”
- (a) Describe one short-term strategy used to manage international migration and evaluate its effectiveness.
- (b) Describe one long-term, sustainable strategy and explain why it is considered more effective in the long run.
Description: Governments build fences, walls, and checkpoints and deploy border patrols to control who enters the country. This aims to reduce illegal border crossings and manage the flow of migrants into the destination country.
Strength: Effective at reducing illegal crossings quickly, giving governments immediate control over who enters the country. It can reduce numbers in the short term.
Limitation: Very expensive to build and maintain. It can be criticised as inhumane. Most importantly, it does not address why people migrate — the root push factors (poverty, conflict, lack of opportunity) still exist in the origin country. Determined migrants often find alternative routes, so border controls do not solve the underlying problem.
Description: Wealthier countries invest in education, jobs, and infrastructure in countries that send large numbers of migrants. The aim is to reduce poverty, improve security, and create economic opportunities in origin countries — directly reducing the push factors that drive people to leave.
Why it is more effective long-term: Instead of trying to stop migrants at the border, development aid reduces the reasons why people feel they need to leave in the first place. As conditions in the origin country improve, fewer people are forced to migrate. This addresses the root causes rather than just managing the consequences, which is why it is considered the most sustainable approach.
Limitation: Results are very slow — development takes decades — and the strategy requires long-term funding and commitment from wealthier governments.
