Among four essential features of globalization, which have been identified by the International Monetary Fund, immigration and leaving fatherland, has an important place, because it is about the human capital, which is the basis for social motion, organization, and evolution. During the last three decades of the 20th century, and continuing through the first two decades of the 21st century, there has been an increasing inflow of immigration to the world’s most highly developed countries. Parallel to the said move, brain drain, as well, is defined as the migration of educated workers in search of higher salaries, better standard of living and quality of life, access to advanced technology and more stable political circumstances in different places around the world. Limited career structures, poor intellectual stimulation, lack of research funding, threats of violence; and absence of good schooling are among the well-known motives for migration. By the way, brain drain has long been regarded as a serious restraint on the development of poor countries. While early literature supports the view that skilled migration is definitely damaging for those left behind, there are several recent studies that suggest that migration may in fact foster human capital formation and growth in sending countries. Before globalization, psychological problems of immigrants, like acculturation, had already a specific place in psychiatry. Now, while with increasing number of migrants, new accommodations and programs for responding to psychosocial complications of this huge number of refugees, outcasts, or valid émigrés seems more mandatory than before, the move toward universal measures, diagnoses and treatments of mental illness is inconsistent with the belief that mental distress is culturally and socially mediated. In the present article, the aforesaid circumstances, with reference to developing societies, have been surveyed from different perspectives.

Though the topic of migration is not a new chapter in social life of human beings, its dynamism is reinforced during recent decades thanks to various reasons, including globalization. Geopolitical fight, socioeconomic disaster, ideological battle, inaccessible wishes, adventurous charisma, looking for better life or perusing personal dreams, and sometimes just a series of miscalculations or wrong assumptions, were, until now, among the main motives for scheduling relocation. But globalization, in new epoch, seems to have categorized the said subjective plan more legitimately and communally than before.  Before globalization, psychological problems of immigrants, like acculturation, had already a specific place in psychiatry. Now, with increasing number of migrants, universally, new accommodations and programs for responding to psychosocial complications of this huge number of refugees, outcasts, or valid émigrés seems more mandatory than before. Disregard to archetypal immigrants, who were often in search of better life and in many occasions, also, from high-income countries, the new-fangled immigrants, are generally struggling for survival and from low-income or middle-income countries, with palpable psychiatric problems in many of them, due to countless psychosocial stresses. In the present article, the aforesaid circumstances, with reference to developing societies, have been surveyed from psychosocial and sociobiological perspectives. 

A) Immigration and Brain Drain:

While a full picture is yet to be established, UNHCR estimates that global forced displacement has surpassed 80 million at mid-2020, and developing countries host 86 per cent of the world’s refugees [1]. Also, in 2000 almost 175 million people, or 2.9% of the world’s population, were living outside their country of birth for more than a year [2]. Brain drain is defined as the migration of educated workers in search of higher salaries, better standard of living and quality of life, access to advanced technology and more stable political circumstances in different places around the world [3]. This migration of trained workforces for better chances, both within nations and across universal borders, is of growing concern worldwide because of its influence on developing countries [4]. In this regard, the distinction between ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors have been acknowledged. Whereas continuing disparities in working circumstances between poorer and richer countries offer a greater ’pull’ towards the more developed states, the role of régimes and recruitment agencies in steadily encouraging the migration of expert workers rises the pull [5, 6]. Moreover, some scholars from developing countries refer to other motives for not returning after training, which include: poor facilities; limited career structures; poor intellectual stimulation; lack of research funding; threats of violence; and absence of good education for kids in their motherland [7]. While persons with little or no education usually have limited access to international migration, for nearly all countries, the highest migration rates are for persons with more than 12 years of schooling [4]. On the other hand, though many countries strengthen their efforts to attract and retain foreign students, which increases the risk of brain drain in the sending countries, in poor countries, this transferal can change the skill construction of the workforce, cause labor deficiencies, and affect financial policy [8]. So, though a concern for rich countries, the brain drain has long been regarded as a serious restraint on the development of poor countries [8]. While some scholars believe that the impact of the brain drain on a source country’s development and welfare can be helpful or harmful, the evidence suggests that there are many more losers than winners among developing countries [8], and early literature supports the view that skilled migration is definitely damaging for those left behind [9, 10]. In contrast, there are several recent studies that suggest that migration may in fact foster human capital formation and growth in sending countries [11, 12]. 

B) Globalization:

Contemporary Social Theory defines globalization as increased possibilities for interaction between and among people in situations where latitudinal and longitudinal location seems unimportant to the social activity at hand, although geographic location remains essential for many activities [13]. Thus, region in the sense of a traditional sense of a geographically classifiable location no longer sets up the entire of “social space” in which human action takes places. In this prime sense of the term, globalization denotes to the spread of new forms of non-territorial social activity [14]. Social theorists associate globalization, first, with deterritorialization, according to which an increasing number of social activities takes place irrespective of the topographical location of contributors. As is obvious, global events can happen almost at the same time everywhere and anywhere in the world – by means of audiovisual media, digital computers, telecommunication, rocketry and the like [15].  Secondly, recent theorizers consider globalization as linked to the growth of social interconnectedness across existing political and geographic borders. In this view, deterritorialization is a decisive aspect of globalization [16]. Thirdly, globalization, also, refers to the velocity or speed of social activity. High-speed technology plays a key role in the rapidity of human affairs [17]. Fourthly, even though analysts disagree about the contributing powers that engender globalization, most approve that globalization should be considered as a relatively long-term process [17]. Fifthly, globalization should be understood as a multi-pronged process, since deterritorialization, social interconnectedness, and acceleration prove themselves in many different (cultural, economic, and political) grounds of social activity [18]. The emergence of “around-the-world, around-the-clock” monetary bazaars, where major cross-border fiscal dealings are made in cyberspace at the blink of an eye, signifies a familiar example of the commercial face of globalization [18]. Political experts usually label the inclination towards ambitious forms of supranational organization (the North America Free Trade Association, for instance, or European Union) as important modern manifestations of political globalization [19]. In a cosmopolitan mode, some academics claim that globalization dictates the extension of liberal democratic foundations (including the rule of law and elected representative institutions) to the transnational level [20]. At least, globalization advises that speculative theorists in the rich countries of the West should pay closer attention to the ignored voices and logical customs of peoples with who our destiny is interweaved in ever more intimate ways [21]. In a globalizing world, the lack of democracy or justice in the global setting inevitably impacts sincerely on the pursuit of justice or democracy at home. Indeed, it may no longer be possible to achieve our normative ideals at home without undertaking to do so transnationally, as well [22, 23]. Practically, globalization is the process of interaction and integration among people, corporations, and regimes worldwide. As a multipart and multidimensional phenomenon, globalization is considered as a form of commercial expansion which entails the integration of home-grown and nationwide economies into a global, free market economy [24, 25]. In 2000, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) identified four basic features of globalization: ‘Capital and Investment movements’, ‘Trade and Transactions’, ‘Dissemination of Knowledge’, and the ‘Migration and Movement of People’, [26]. Further, environmental challenges such as air pollution and global warming are linked with globalization [26]. Theoretical literature usually subdivides globalization into three major zones: economic globalization, political globalization, and cultural globalization [26].

C) Immigration, Mental Health, and Acculturation Stress:

During the last three decades of the 20th century, and continuing through the first two decades of the 21st century, there has been an increasing inflow of immigration to the world’s most highly developed countries [27]. Migration has been a very sensitive subject for centuries, morally, politically, and emotionally, for the source countries, as well as, for the receiving countries [28]. From the time of the first major surge of immigration to the developed countries the main national sentiment toward immigrants was that they should acculturate to the normative behaviors and values of the most or mainstream culture of the host population, which is typically a unidirectional process. The intensity of acculturation stress experienced by immigrant has been directly proportional to the openness of the host society. The four possible outcomes of acculturation stress include: rejection, integration, assimilation, and marginalization [29]. Culture is defined as a set of meanings, norms, beliefs, values, and behavior patterns shared by a group of people. Culture plays a significant role in the perception of severity of symptoms, the disruption of the individual’s functionality, and his/her quality of life. The assessment of severity is also the result of the meanings attributed to causal or pathogenic factors of psychopathology. Therefore, judgments about level of dysfunction and the quality of a patient’s life involve the elusive description, content, and meaning of concepts such as happiness, well-being, and peace of mind [30]. While culture may be a pathogenic agent in the construction of a clinical picture, it may contribute to the production of symptoms [31]. Frequently, immigrants in the host country not only find themselves in a minority status, but often face prejudice and discrimination and their psychological consequences [32]. Numerous studies have shown that self-perceived discrimination is associated with impaired mental health [33] (Table 1).

Table - 1 Conceivable codes in DSM-5 that may include immigrants and can turn into predisposing, precipitating or perpetuating factors for earlier or later psychiatric disorders.

Discrimination, whether real or self-perceived, may lead to affective reactions; it may shape a person’s appraisal of the world; lower self-esteem; engender hopelessness; and contribute to the internalization of negative stereotypes [34]. So, discrimination has not only been shown to increase the risk of depression and anxiety disorders, but also has been shown to increase the incidence of schizophrenia in minorities [35, 36]. Furthermore, culture influences transference and countertransference in the clinical relationship between persons seeking psychiatric care and their treating clinicians [37]. Mental illness among immigrants and refugees may have been present before exodus, may have developed during the migration process, or presented for the first time in the country of arrival. The settlement process and pre-migration trauma may precipitate exhibition of underlying symptoms or result in exacerbation of a pre-existing illness. Moreover, traumatic life events are not limited just to refugees and asylum seekers [38]. In contrast, while, the phenomena of globalization, directly affected by migration of all kinds and by technological advances, resulted in creating new forms of hybrid identities, the move toward universal measures, diagnoses and treatments of mental illness is inconsistent with the belief that mental distress is culturally and socially mediated [39].

While in recent years, transnational migration has accelerated, the consequences for countries of origin and destination have increased attention of scientists, politicians, and worldwide organizations. The said phenomenon will probably develop in the coming years as a part of the world globalization process. So, the worldwide community must be equipped to address the troubles raised by the increasing movement of labor force [40]. On the other hand, brain drain has been a long-standing concern, which we need to understand at a global level [41]. Maybe the oldest query in economics is why countries have different levels of wealth [42].  The outcomes of latest studies, has put new emphasis on the role of human capital as a cause of production, and on increasing returns to knowledge (often identified as accumulated human capital) as a cause of long-run variances in income levels across nations [43]. It follows from this work that low levels of education is a chief contributing factor to poverty, and that efforts to increase schooling opportunities in developing countries should lead to faster rates of growth and higher income levels [44, 45]. As said earlier, among four essential features of globalization, which have been identified by IMF [26], immigration and leaving fatherland, has an important place, because it is about the human capital, which is the basis for social motion, organization, and evolution. While many people in unindustrialized realms assume that maybe they would satisfy their aspirations if they could move to the well-known developed countries, which, according to them, have a series of planned and guaranteed welfare, until latest epochs, except in specific circumstances, like war, they would not actually bring that desire into effect, because humans have intellectual faculty, and no force could suppress their true love of hometown. For them mother country was more than merely the place of birth or origin. It had a cultural-historical implication, full of familiar networks and memorial representations, which could set up their identity in detail. Such uniqueness in social and individual distinctiveness could boost their toleration as regards everyday troubles. Native land resembles tree’s trunk and people as its branches; metaphorically, if cutting branches leads to their annihilation, exodus, too, may lead to self-alienation and identity diffusion. The said uniqueness does not turn automatically into supposing commonness, but tension and diffidence, which are the usual end-result of destabilized identity in new surroundings, build an imperceptible break between motherland’s characteristics and new-fangled condition. On the other hand, the said gap, which demands enough time and resource for making a durable bond between the former condition and later position, is not an assured process. Additionally, increasing number of refugees, who are usually in obligatory search of safety, food and shelter, due to geopolitical clashes or socioeconomic calamities, has speeded the global process of immigration, which is usually purposely and in thoughtful search of subjective aspirations. However, many times, asylum seeking and migration run parallel to each other and find joint destinies due to similar contenders. Also, since the refugees may pass the conventional borders and restrictions more easily than official immigrants, sometimes, quantitatively, it precedes the later one. In any case, who are, today, the usual candidates of immigration in developing countries? Skilled work forces, élite people, educated administrators, intelligent youngsters, sociopolitical dissidents, social activists, political radicals, extraordinary talents, whether artistic, athletic or else, and any other person, who due to any reason demands extra chance for further activity, protection, evolution, or learning, which, according to him or her, is not enough in the homeland.  Another important factor in recent decades is the arrival or revitalization of political fundamentalism, which has appeared rather simultaneously with contemporary globalization in the last decades. Radical, governmental or administrative fundamentalism, which has been theorized and categorized, culturally-historically [46-49], not geopolitically or socioeconomically, by the political scientist, Samuel P. Huntington, who believed that in the evolving post-cold war international system conflict between several large world civilizations was replacing battle between states or philosophies  [50], and the most important political distinction among developing countries concerns not their system of regime but their degree of control, while neither economic nor social development could proceed without political order and the real experience of developing countries being one of increasing social and political disorder or instability because of urbanization, rising expectations due to literacy, education and the spread of media, etc. [51] , has stirred the process of immigration and asylum seeking more than before in the related geopolitical areas. Governmental fundamentalism due to its intrinsic ideological and administrative inflexibility, cannot embrace unorthodox community groups, criticizers or opponents. So, actively or passively, inspire them to leave their native country, if they cannot act in accordance with the existing system and arranged routines. So, while often a lesser amount of untraditional people come into challenge with the current system, majority of them consider relocation, preferably. Due to lack of patriotic outlooks in fundamental philosophy, the said chauvinistic bonds to the motherland may fade to a large extent, especially if the people have been challenged similar to outsiders. Perpetuation of such a state of affairs has turned the motivation of relocation, from fatherland to a foreign country, which was acknowledged before and from a nationalistic perspective an abominable or banned impulse, into an established incentive and subculture. Additional or unpredicted happenings, like geopolitical conflicts or socioeconomic mayhem, which may start out thanks to the aforesaid stubbornness, boost the aforementioned course, immensely. Anyway, the most important point is that such relocation is practically always from developing and unindustrialized societies to developed and industrialized countries; that is to say, it is generally a unidirectional migration from low or middle-income nations to high-income states, not else. Therefore, the scheme of immigration on a global measure will be unavoidably in the best interests of technologically advanced nations. From a sociobiological point of view, when élite people constitute most of emigrants, the end-result of such a gloomy cycle, after a few generations, is nothing except than incessant weakening of gene pool and genetic fitness of the residual nation, and reinforcement of the said dynamics in the next one. Reproduction of residual ones, also, cannot guarantee any apt restitution with respect to, especially, talented emigrants, because socioeconomic development demands more experienced workforces, and socioeconomic regression, causes further migration. Besides, while many of the emigrants may not meet their planned personal goals in their ideal new country, they can undertake the unoccupied odd jobs there, though possibly at a lower level, in comparison with the native land. On the other hand, is the lost human capital retrievable? As a general rule, in short-term at all; but in long-term it depends on many factors. While developing countries are commonly more exposed to social, political or economic complications, their chance for proper overhaul of enforced or self-inflicted problems is generally not great, because their resources are not countless. Moreover, if they were influential enough they could save their human capital for themselves, instead of free silent auction. In today’s civilization, while turning into a simple worker needs around two decade’s patience after birth, nutrition, rearing, and schooling, too, are not without charge. Metaphorically, every emigrant is equal to a list of expenses that have been paid out already in the fatherland. So, it seems that releasing appreciated human capital, in long-term, is an irretrievable loss. On the other hand, providing safety, job, food, shelter, education, and health for citizens is the crucial responsibility of every regime, whether developed or developing, which should consider them according to their formal or national political economy outline. Aptness between number of inhabitants and socioeconomic advancement may prevent uprising of migratory tendencies, if sufficient funds, proper platforms, skillful workforces, apposite settings and suitable contextual culture are matching with each other; otherwise, socioeconomic deficiency, at the outset, and sociopolitical conflict, after that, are thinkable results. On the other hand, if a developing state could make available all abovementioned elements, then maybe it should be recognized as a developed country.  Current media and advanced communicative technology, especially internet network, too, has increased public anticipations so greatly that nobody can resist against his or her yearnings painlessly. Maybe, nowadays, the fraction of migration or mass departure can be considered as a useful measure for assessment of national stability, in the absence of other socioeconomic and health statistics; annual increment of which can be indicative of a backsliding or worsening condition. Unfortunately, though many of developing states have made significant investments in infrastructure and education, they have not achieved the scientific development, technological and innovative capability either to keep or to recover the human capital that they have generated. On the other hand, while some of the scholars believe that educational subsidies in poor countries may have stronger growth-enhancing effects if they are targeted to basic education as opposed to higher education [4], it does not seem to be an apt problem-solving strategy about brain drain in developing nations, which is more related to highly educated workforces. Also, in contrary to Cinar and Docquier [59], enhancement of domestic enrollment in education, and higher investment in human capital with increased migration opportunities, for boosting growth and economic performance, does not seem a guaranteeing agenda. While fitness between numbers of residents and community resources may promise an evener social progression, the same rule is true about number of graduates and existing job positions, which demands careful monitoring by the associated administrators. Superfluous graduates are not equal to extra human capital for external export or interior usage, but bring about more jobless complainers, additional emigrants, and at times internal clashes. It is a fact that graduates from developing nations, in comparison with alumni from developed states, are less lucky for transnational employment. Also, relying on returning of migrants after gathering more knowledge and skills [60] and the creation of business and trade networks [61] , which is achievable by systematized national abroad scholarship and expedition, too, while promising and necessary for transfer of science and technology, cannot be an ideal substitution for in-house setting up of human capital. Likewise, while according to some scholars the opening up of international borders for goods and labor, a key strategy in the current liberal global economy, is accompanied by a linguistic shift from ‘human capital flight’ and ‘brain drain’ to ‘professional mobility’ or ‘brain circulation’ [62], in reality, such a presumption is not tangible in many of the developing countries due to lack of comparable and reciprocated advantages. Moreover, in contrary to some academics [8, 12], it has more curse than boon for developing countries. Nonetheless, while there is a need to reassess the social, political, and economic motives behind the exodus, and to provide safety and opportunities for further development locally, lowering of principles should not be accepted; instead local settings should be revised and remedied [3]. Last but not least, it should not be ignored that decreasing fertility and birth rate, from one side, and increasing senility, on the other hand, in advanced societies, which may be imagined as the common aftermath of industrial development, economic growth, and social change, has necessitated industrialized countries to seek extra human capital, if further progression and expansion is mandatory. So, in such set of circumstances, human capital is a bit like manufactured goods, which can be swapped in global marketplace; a Darwinian game that often lacks adequate smart players on the side of developing countries.

While relocation of human being has a history as long as the hominoid evolution, after development of modern societies it was organized in the frame of official borders and protocols. But in recent decades and in globalization era, amid a general confusion as regards the concept of ‘homeland’, migration has turned into a scheme, which though trumpets liberty and free choice, is sometimes indistinguishable from asylum seeking, persuasion of overseas skilled workforces and gifted people, or, in brief, draining other countries’ human capital. On the other hand, more psychological problems among immigrants, in comparison with general population, due to many understandable psychosocial stresses that are connected with willingly or unwillingly, knowingly or reflexively, relocation, demands more systematic studies, better accessibility of mental health facilities, and enhancement of psychiatric helps on behalf of newly displaced labor forces.