Migration is an old phenomenon in human history. It takes place for various reasons, which have been roughly grouped into "push" and "pull" factors. Migrants have always faced harsh conditions either in transit or on arrival, from the environment and the citizens of their destinations. Of recent, migration has increased due to globalization, which has increased the access of people in sending countries to "pull" factors through the media. However, more recently, stiff regulations have been put in place by the receiving countries to curb immigration, partly as part of the global "war on terror"", but partly as a political measure to contain intolerance of foreigners in their societies.
In a special way, international migration of skilled labour has come under increased scrutiny over the recent years. It has been argued that for the sending/losing countries, it leads to a brain drain and depletes national resources spent on training. It also denies the remaining population the opportunity to benefit from their highly skilled compatriots usually educated at the public's cost. Proponents argue that it is the right of individuals to look for the working conditions acceptable to them, in order to earn acceptable income for themselves and their families. They argue that, moreover, migrant workers send back remittances to their relatives. In fact, in some countries like Uganda, remittances are the leading source of foreign exchange. Such countries have therefore started policies to export skilled labour or to support the return of remittance with a view tap into the wide base of remittances for public use.
This paper discusses the pros and cons of migration and concludes that international migration is inevitable but should be managed in a way that is beneficial for both the sending and receiving countries. It ends on a prophetic note that current intolerance to foreigners will end spontaneously in the course of a generation.
