Migrants don’t steal jobs or bring down wages. Rather, they’re more likely to bring dynamism and prosperity
our years ago, Europeans were shocked by the photograph of the drowned three-year old Syrian refugee
Alan Kurdi.
Now, Americans are similarly horrified by pictures of El Salvadorans
Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his daughter, Angie Valeria, dead on
the banks of the Rio Grande. Meanwhile, in the UK we are struggling with
what our immigration policy should look like after Brexit, with Boris
Johnson trying to have his cake and eat it with the promise of an
“Australian-style points system”.
Few subjects are more politically charged than immigration. However,
like free trade, it unites most economists, regardless of their
politics. Immigrants
don’t take our jobs, nor do they have much
impact on wages.
Just look at the UK, where sustained high levels of immigration have
coincided with unemployment falling to its lowest level in 40 years.
More importantly, immigration makes economies more dynamic and is
generally
positive for productivity and prosperity. Even legitimate concerns about “brain drain” from developing countries turn out to be
exaggerated, with such countries often gaining from remittances and new economic connections.
The economic and political forces driving immigration are only likely to
intensify, in both Europe and the rest of the developed world. They
will be powered by “demand” – demographic pressures, with every single
country in
Europe
having a fertility rate below replacement level – and “supply” –
population growth in developing countries, especially in Africa, and
perhaps climate change. So the number of people seeking to move
countries, whether through economic migration, refugee flows or a mix,
will continue to grow. At the same time, we will need migration; even
Japan, long resistant, has recently begun to liberalise policy.
If the economic benefits are clear, what explains the recent political backlash? What is the connection between the election of
Donald Trump,
the Brexit vote and the rise of far-right populists in continental
Europe? A decade on from the financial crisis, the political foundations
of the postwar (and post-cold-war) liberal order appear to be
crumbling.
But while anti-immigrant rhetoric and sentiment are common themes,
the circumstances of individual countries are very different. In the US,
Trump’s focus is on irregular migration from Mexico and Central America
and its supposed impact on crime and security, although there is little
or no evidence, in the US or elsewhere, to substantiate his claims. In
the UK, the ostensible focus of the Brexit campaign was on EU free
movement, predominantly by white eastern Europeans, although future
migration from Turkey and points farther east was also a strong theme.
In western European countries such as Sweden,
Germany,
France and Italy, rightwing populists were boosted by public reaction
to refugee and migrant flows from Syria and Africa. And in Poland and
Hungary, while immigrant flows are extremely small, parties in power
have successfully appealed to nationalist sentiments by focusing on the
threat of Muslim immigration overrunning “Christian” Europe.
Twitter is full of lunatics who talk about “race replacement” or
“white genocide”. But more respectable versions of much the same
argument can be found in the mainstream press. London’s population is no
longer majority “white British”, but most of us were born in the UK and
even more identify as British (white, black, Asian or mixed) and have
British citizenship. Nevertheless, the eminent economist Paul Collier
claims that the “indigenous British [have] become a minority in their own capital”.
Spectator writer Douglas Murray, who argues for reducing or eliminating Muslim immigration,
says London has become a “foreign country”.
Eric Kaufmann, a political scientist and author of
Whiteshift,
suggests that we should favour immigrants from ethnic or cultural
backgrounds who are easier to “assimilate” into the white majority. The
favourite philosopher of some Conservatives, Roger Scruton,
thinks
it’s impossible for the (British-born) children of Muslim immigrants to
be loyal British citizens. So the view that only white people can be
“really” British, and that black or Asian Britons are still somehow
alien and threatening, remains prevalent in some elite circles.
Some argue that if progressive politicians fail to accommodate these
views, they will drive their traditional voters to the populist right.
But there’s little evidence that this will help those most vulnerable to
the lure of rightwing populism or improve public perceptions of
immigration. Instead, countries such as Ireland, Canada, and Spain have
combined relatively open policies with public consent by building a
pro-migration coalition across much of the political spectrum.
Germany offers a particularly striking example. Amid the panic about the refugee influx in 2015, I wrote that
it was an opportunity more than a threat. But many argued that it would
be impossible, economically, socially or politically, to absorb so many
people from supposedly “alien” cultures. But three years on, while far
from perfect, the balance sheet appears mostly positive.
Refugees are learning German and getting jobs. Although the far right
continues to try to whip up anti-immigrant hysteria, crime is at its
lowest level in almost 30 years.
Brexit, paradoxically, offers a window of opportunity. The most
illiberal and restrictionist prime minister in living memory is about to
depart. Public concern about immigration has fallen sharply and
attitudes towards its effects are more positive than for many years.
Both Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, as well as the home secretary, Sajid
Javid, have signalled that they want an immigration policy better
attuned to the needs of the UK economy.
Politicians could make the case for liberal policy not just on
economic grounds but much more broadly, defending the rights of
immigrants, eg EU citizens resident in the UK, UK-born children of
immigrants who are denied British citizenship, UK citizens who marry
people from abroad, and so on. This would also include a more positive
approach to the impacts of immigration on communities and services at a
local level – by promoting integration and channelling funding to areas
where there are pressures resulting from population growth. There is a
chance for a “reset moment” not just in policy but in our wider public
and political attitudes to immigration and immigrants: we should not let
it slip away.
Read more: Tragedy is inevitable if we fear migration rather than celebrate its benefits | Jonathan Port
The Digest Group
Almere-Digest
EU-Digest
Insure-Digest
Turkish-Digest
For additional information, including advertising rates - e-mail:Freeplanet@protonmail.com
