It seems a conversation is to be had on the correlation of foreign aid and immigration. Perhaps more research could be conducted on whether proactive or retrogressive techniques impact on migration flows. The recent movements from some countries towards the Mexico-US border is a case in point. Where support is readily available at conflict areas, or places of substantial discomfort, there would probably be less incentive to disconnect from ties in business, family, homes. It remains to be said the need to also balance protecting sovereignty and collective banding of ‘prospective nations to be affected’ for a somewhat political-economic surgery. The punitive approach to punish, restrict, or threaten to stop assistance may be a double whammy.
Structures that strengthen efforts would invariably curb the suffering till the disasters abate- therefore there is need to revisit collectively and magnanimously the efforts of home States and host communities in solving mainly hunger-prone migration. The perils of the journeys is mind-numbing to read. Nation-States pulling together to send grants after major displacements, or stopping aid for failure to forcefully restrain migrating families fleeing home-grown difficulties, may be avoiding the real conversation, of possible generational instabilities, failing desire and responsibilities to cater for needs. There is need for more research in this area. Neither is it conducive or conclusive that emigration flow is entirely dependent on this criterion of emergency aid support. However, it would seem plausible that communities can be reached where they are before situations escalate, making the enticing and difficult decision to take often unevaluated risks more unlikely and unattractive.