The different types of migration policies; Retention Policies, Example North Korea, Boliva, USSR and Cuba

Today and in  the next series of post, on migratory policy I’m going to work on issues related to the different types of migratory policies that Lelio Marmora describes in his book Las Politicas de Migraciones Internacionales. This author establishes five types of migration policies: for retention, promotion, regulation, recovery and incorporation, and will then be showcased (Marmora; 2004, p. 99). We’ll see each one of these migratory policies, but I’ll use my personal point of view for the analysis.

We’ll start off with Retention policies that are intended to prevent the emigration of  citizens of a particular State, that nation tries to stop the transit of people leaving. So a State can prevent the loss of human capital, the depopulation of a geographical location in particular or in general. This circumstance could be fueled by political/ideological reasons why a regime that does not let its citizens leave its national territory. People leaving a country is a fact that has strong symbolic and political charged message of failure for the regime. An example that we can use to illustrate this kind political defeat, happened to the Soviet regime when Mikhail Baryshnikov ran away from the Bolshoi Ballet tour and settled in the United States. Such a high profile figure defecting to the US at that time must have been a very hard pill to swallow for the soviets. Cuba is another classic example of a country with a retention policies but over the years it getting little more flexible for their people to travel abroad.

North Korea is one of the most well know contemporary cases of a retention policy that I can think of. This country has a very strict control of who can leave its territory, in a intriguing article called North Korea: Understanding Migration to and from a Closed Door Country (2008) written by Hiroyuki Tanaka for the Migration Policy Institute. The author explains that this nation produces two types of emigrants, refugees and temporary contract workers sent by the government.

North Korea implements a very strict migratory control on all entries and exits (in this case we will concentrate on the exits). Individuals caught try to leave the country illegally can be tried for treason and sent to penal-labor colonies. To add to this situation, to be able   transit around the country you need special permits, so getting to the frontier in the first place, is an issue unto itself. In my years reading about migratory issue, this is the first time I have come across this type of severe control in modern State.

This doesn’t mean it’s impossible for North Koreans to get out, they get help from illegal networks  that give them a hand in the logistics to escape, and some level of structural corruption make things a little bit easier, but a lot is on the line if they fail. Now it’s impossible to cross the south boarder, with South Korea because it’s highly militarized. One must not forget that North Korea never singed armistice treaty after the Korean War, so technically they in still in conflict. And in the case of the northern border, North Koreans that illigally cross into China, are not given the possibility to get residency or petition for refugee status. So basically in China theyhave no right to stay there, so they have to find a way to transit to a third country to see if they can considered them as refugees. In China the government tends to look the other way, when it comes to these people and periodically deports them when needed.                         

Another les extreme example of a retention policy can be observed, in the case of Bolivia that historically has tried to curb and control the migration of its natives through different actions. During the 1930s were approved two Supreme Decrees, one in 1937 and another in 1938, which sought to control the phenomenon of emigration. In the first decree citizens needed a passport to be able to leave the country; it was issued by the National Immigration Office. In the second set that everyone who was caught illegally leaving the country, it would be forced, forced works forced public service. (Domenech and Magliano; 2009)

In the case of Argentina, the current policy the law 25,871 almost does not address the question of emigration of Argentine citizens, it only establishes functional measures on how to control their transit, and it mentions how can nationals intending to return can bring back their thing without paying customs. There is no direct retention policy in operation in Argentine. Even though indirectly the ways that one exchanges peso to any other currency has it issues in this country indirectly hampering the intention of its nationals that want to travel aboard.   

You as a reader do you have any examples of retention policies? It would be great to hear from you.

If you like the review give me a hand and support me on Patreon at this Link that will make me, Matias Cavoti very happy to keep writing.