the level of an individual state). At the same time, the dual nature of migration policy
is clearly manifested at all three levels: internationally (as a result of contradictions
between the interests of international organizations and national interests of individual
states), and at the regional and interstate level (as the existence of opposing trends of
liberalization of migration regimes within regional integration unions and toughening
of their migration policy in relation to citizens of third countries that are not members
of this union), and on national level (as a contradiction between the demographic and
economic interests, on the one hand, and the considerations of political and social
security, on the other). The duality of the international migration policy lies, first of all,
in the fact that the interests of the international community or of individual
international organizations often come into conflict with the national interests of
individual states. As a result, many adopted documents and resolutions at international
conferences have not been in force for many years due to their ratification by a small
number of treaty countries.
At the regional level, the dual nature of migration policy is expressed in two
aspects. The first is that in the modern world, in the context of actively developing
regional integration processes, liberalization of migration policy occurs, "transparent
borders" appear within the framework of regional unions, freedom of movement of the
population and labor of citizens of the participating countries is ensured through the
internal state borders of these unions. On the other hand, in many countries around the
world, there are taking increasingly stringent measures against immigrants from "third
countries", which is due to various aspects of national security (including the fight
against the threats of international terrorism, the protection of the national labor
market). The second aspect is that the interests and tasks of the integration association
as a whole may not coincide or even contradict the interests of its individual member
states. For example, the UK's position from the very beginning of its accession to the
EU (1973) was somewhat restrictive, which was then reflected in the fact that it did not
sign the Schengen Agreement. Or in the North American free trade zone NAFTA
(USA, Canada, Mexico), freedom of movement of citizens, including migrant workers,
between the United States and Canada is greatly simplified, while the possibilities for
labor migration of Mexican citizens to these countries are substantially limited. At the
national level, the ambiguity of host countries' policies is manifested, on the one hand,
in the fact that the policy of newly arrived migrants is becoming more and more
restrictive, on the other hand, the policy of legalization of those who entered the
country before and illegally found a job. In addition, the duality of the national
migration policy also lies in economic, demographic and geopolitical contradictions.
Thus, the development of the economy, as a rule, requires the liberalization of
migration policy, while the interests of national security often insist on its tightening,
which was especially evident after the events of September 11, 2001 in the USA [1].
- 424 -