The globalization of India's healthcare sector in recent years has significance for India's cross-border engagements in health services, including with the EU.
The fate of last year's giant cross-border engagement, between America's MCI and Britain's BT, shows the scope for misunderstanding and recrimination.
Figure 1 summarizes the hypothesized relationships between irregular legal status and Senegalese migrants' cross-border engagement.
Other variables also indicate the importance of circulating between destination and origin for ongoing non-mobile cross-border engagement.
This shows that Senegalese migrants' cross-border engagement is largely motivated by a desire to return to Senegal eventually.
Waldinger (2008) describes this process as "double capture" in which the destination state constrains the cross-border engagement of both documented and undocumented migrants.
Immigration policies are thus a crucial conditioning factor for this form of cross-border engagement: migrants who lack secure legal status experience a "territorial confinement" (Waldinger, 2008) that constrains their movement across national borders.
State efforts to control movement across borders effectively confine irregular migrants to the territory of the destination country; this constraint on physical mobility entails the progressive attenuation of the social ties that nourish cross-border engagement (Waldinger, 2008, 2015).
In this paper, we show that these two policy orientations (co-development and migration restrictions) are paradoxical, if not contradictory, by studying the constraint that irregular legal status may place on cross-border engagement.
Finally, the caging hypothesis (H4) posits that the territorial confinement of migrants with irregular statuses (H1) constrains social ties with the homeland (H3) in a way that dampens non-mobile cross-border engagement.
In finding nuanced relationships between the legal status of Senegalese migrants and a subset of their transnational activities, we have sought to demonstrate that different types of cross-border engagement are sensitive not only to the characteristics of the migrants and their homeland communities, but also to the legal constraints that they face in their contexts of reception.
