Note : Just some ideas for a long-standing question that has exploded again in many parts of the world.
Area of Discussion 1 :
Migration should be encouraged to renew the population, for the future workforce and for defence
>> to fill in the gaps in sectors of the workforce that locals cannot or do not want to fill
>> to increase talent for innovation
>> to keep the domestic economy vibrant since migrants are consumers too
Area of Discussion 2 :
Another argument in support of migration is any apprehension towards it can actually be managed.
>> migration should be encouraged as long as there is an element of selectivity
>> problems of poor integration can be overcome
>> problems of perceived prejudice against locals can also be overcome (including the issue of the different possible statuses that migrants can have. Will they be citizens, permanent residents, expatriates or transient workers? )
Area of Discussion 3 :
Any action against migration has to be due to very specific, unique circumstances such as that the country or city is small and the strain on resources would be evidently overwhelming.
Area of Discussion 4 :
What can be made of the refugee crises that have contributed to the mass movement of people ?
The discussion is complex.
To begin, no country should outwardly encourage such mass movements for pragmatic reasons
>> Do they have the infrastructure and policies in place to absorb the numbers & promote integration?
>> Would these mass movements contribute to other problems originating from the countries from where they escaped ? If the reasons for leaving are political (as most are), would countries receiving refugees also be allowing those foreign political problems to creep in ?
Wrap-Up : Yet, such migration on humanitarian grounds, by countries that can, should be encouraged, as long as sufficient preparations are made, and with the view of developing human potential that makes the encouragement of migration a win-win situation for the migrants and the countries that embrace them.