The pursuit of a better life

I don't think that I will ever forget the 2015 photograph of 3 year old Alan Kurdi's body laid out across a Turkish beach, following his family's failed attempt to reach European shores from Syria. It is a haunting image of the consequences of desperation to reach a better life. More recently, it has been difficult to watch some of the emotionally charged videos of children being reunited with their parents on the American border, after their families were torn apart when they illegally entered the United States. The immigration debate is in full force across the Western world. In Europe, Italy's new, right-leaning government are the first to close their shores to migrant ships. In the US, the debate that started with the deportation of Dreamers has since turned into the morality of detention centres, filled with Latin American children caged and crying out for their parents. Whichever way you slice it, it is hard to recognise this world in which we now live.

Once you clear the emotion, however, it is easier to see that the immigration debate may not actually be as clear cut as we would all like it to be. I am lucky to have opinionated friends; sometimes we agree and at other times we debate on opposite sides. Recently, one such friend took the opposite side to me on immigration. The crux of his argument was that illegally crossing the border is a crime and that there is a process for legal migration, which allows countries to balance the population impact, and ensures that those entering the country contribute to the economy in the same way as legal citizens. It is not a flawed argument by any means. As a British born child of parents who legally migrated to the UK, I am a believer in legitimate entry and the rewards it can reap, both socially and economically. However, what if my parents had not been granted a place in the UK? What if there wasn't any space and their entry had been denied; where would I be then? It is very easy to sit from a position of privilege and make the judgement that there is a legal process for people to follow. We are the fortunate ones. We are born into a country with a rule of law, with basic infrastructure, with a democratic government, and with opportunity (albeit, I acknowledge that our own society has its own flaws as written about in a previous blog entry). If we were to spend a day in the shoes of today's migrants, can we confidently say that we wouldn't make the same choices as them? Wouldn't we risk everything for a better life as well?

This is where the debate reaches a road block as we can all appreciate both sides of the argument. So what is the answer? In the short term, I cannot see a solution that will reduce the stream of people trying to illegally immigrate, regardless of the consequences that decision may bring to them and their families. Middle Eastern countries have been destroyed by war; it will take decades to bring back some sense of normality there. South American governments continue to be built on corruption and violence; we are no closer to changing such ingrained behaviours. Meanwhile, the rich world continues to get richer, and with it the allure for migrants is unlikely to fade in the near term. In reality, sometimes we have to accept that it's okay for us to play the long game. We can start to make changes that might not impact today, but will impact in the decades to come, and potentially give our children and grandchildren a different story to tell.

Determining what action we should be taking must first start with identifying why people are leaving their home countries in the first place. Those who migrate do not hate their countries; most love their country and home, but they fear a life with no opportunity. There are various reasons for the lack of opportunity, from lack of basic education to the absence of simple amenities. In the Western world, it falls upon the government to provide these things. However, the temptation of corruption in the developing world often distracts their governments from serving their people. This opens up a gap which charities have historically tried to fill. Unfortunately, the impact of non-profits has been in question for some time. I do believe that there is a place for charity, but I often struggle to see the longevity of a charity's impact since its resources are not endless. To me, there is a place for the private sector to fill that gap and take responsibility. Enter social entrepreneurship.

In the age of the millennial, social enterprise is becoming a more frequently used term. For those new to the idea, a social enterprise is a for-profit company whose objective is not to maximise profits, but to maximise social impact. The reason I like the idea of social enterprises is that, since they are for-profit companies, they will not need an everlasting flow of handouts to continue to have an impact. The profits of the company allow for the sustainability of the venture, hence providing much greater longevity to its impact. Add to that the job creation that a private company will have, and suddenly you are providing opportunities for the people of these countries, and allowing them to help bring positive change themselves. The breadth of problem that a social enterprise can tackle is very wide and the approach can be very innovative. For all the bad press that millennials take, their ability to approach decade old problems with a different vision, unabated energy, and technological insight may well be the turning point in this story. It is far too early to tell, but if millennial talent continues to shift towards solving social issues, rather than corporate advancement, then maybe we can create a future where people don't need to leave their homes, and put their families at risk, in pursuit of a better life.