"The data in the article runs counter to the basic complaint against CFA currency, that it causes poverty and therefore migration into Europe. Two of the highest migration sources were ex-CFA members who now use their own currency and only 14.4% came from CFA members."
You're assuming the main cause of migration is poverty, that people from poorer countries emigrate more, and that since emigration is lower the countries are less poor.
The former might be justified, but the two latter arguments are definitely false[0], in fact 'richer poorer' countries have larger emigration!
"Just the opposite: Those richer countries have three times the average emigration rate of the poorer countries.... Somewhere roughly around $7,000–$10,000 per capita, there is a turning point: Emigration from the average country starts to fall with greater economic development, as we might expect. Today’s poor countries are generations away from that level."
So the data cited does not contradict the CFA criticism that it causes countries to be more poor than they otherwise would be. Another criticism might wonder what 'voluntary' means with such power differential and historical relations.
I'm not assuming anything. That was the evidence provided by OP's sources. The other examples in the article were posed as questions, not data. Otherwise my comment is largely anti-CFA and foreign controlled currencies.
Still the 'poverty leads to migration' theory is not quite true (in fact arguably the reverse in these particular circumstances), and therefore the fact some CFA countries have less emigration than some ex-CFA countries does not show that they are less poor or that the CFA is beneficial compared to non-CFA case.
I agree with your premise and I think there are two main reasons for this behavior.
Firstly even to migrate you have to have access to information and brain cycles to process it. Real poor are too busy to have that kind of time at hand.
Secondly even illegal immigration requires spending some money upfront and of course poor don't have it.
If you in the middle income range, it does make sense to move up the ladder by immigrating to a better place. If you are super rich, you can just buy citizenship.
You're assuming the main cause of migration is poverty, that people from poorer countries emigrate more, and that since emigration is lower the countries are less poor.
The former might be justified, but the two latter arguments are definitely false[0], in fact 'richer poorer' countries have larger emigration!
"Just the opposite: Those richer countries have three times the average emigration rate of the poorer countries.... Somewhere roughly around $7,000–$10,000 per capita, there is a turning point: Emigration from the average country starts to fall with greater economic development, as we might expect. Today’s poor countries are generations away from that level."
So the data cited does not contradict the CFA criticism that it causes countries to be more poor than they otherwise would be. Another criticism might wonder what 'voluntary' means with such power differential and historical relations.
[0] https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2016/10/31/dev...