According to (2004), policy failure can be said to occur when a policy does not achieve its stated objectives (p. 854). Failure of migration policies result from the interactions of different factors (factors arising from the social dynamics of the migratory process; factors linked to globalization, transnationalism and North-South relationships; and factors within political systems). I think migration policies often fail because of contradicting and complex political systems.
1. Political Conflicts in Emigration Countries
Some Governments support labor migration while others establish regulations for migration. However, as economies become dependent on remittances, it becomes increasingly challenging to effectively regulate migration or protect their citizens.
2. Interest Conflicts and Hidden agendas in Migration Policies
Migration policies often fail because of conflicting interests and hidden agendas. In response to the growing hostility towards immigrants and asylum seekers politicians often promise to implement anti-immigration policies while actually pursuing policies that lead to more immigration because of its importance for the labor market and economy. This helps explain the frequent hidden agendas in migration policies – that is, policies that purport to follow certain objectives while actually doing the opposite.
3. Political ability to control Migration
Migration policies often fail because the authorities lack political strength and because some state policies have different motivations.
4. Contradiction within the Policy Formation Process
Policymaking can be dominated by powerful organized interests.
September 11 probably produced a hardening of attitudes in Australia about asylum seekers. Concerns with security and the integrity of national borders were strong in Australia before Septembers 11 and they were heightened after it. The events of September 11 also made it easier for the government to keep asylum seeker issue in the forefront during the election (2002).
The September 11 attacks have limited impacts on the Canadian immigration policy. The basic goals of Canadian immigration which unlike the US include a strong and continuing emphasis on nation-building – and in broad outline the flow of immigrants and refugees, remain unchanged. The immigration planning continues to give emphasis on the economic and social impact and contribution of immigrants.
In the name of national security, US officials took extraordinary measures after 9/11. The Congress passed anti-terrorism legislation that included provisions relating to immigration on the theory that tougher immigration laws might have prevented 9/11 and might stop future attack. The United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act) was signed into law on October 26, 2001, and expanded the security-related grounds for denying admission to and for removing non-citizens. The said act also allowed for pre-charge detention for seven days of those non-citizens certified by the Attorney General as terrorist supporters. There are also several changes in the issuance of visas and the admission of non-citizens ().
Open borders is the removal of any form of migration control. The idea of open borders comes from two normally very divergent schools of thought: neoclassical economists and left-wing critics of government migration policies. The former believe that leaving regulation to market forces will optimize the benefits of migration for both sending and receiving countries and help in the long run to equalize wages between them, leading to a new global economic equilibrium. Many people on the left think that freedom of movement will eliminate discriminatory and repressive state measures and enhance migrants’ human rights. They also argue that the economies of both sending and receiving countries will benefit and that migration will not rise to insupportable levels because most people will prefer to stay at home (2004).