Immigration
Opening the door
Oct 31st 2002
From The Economist print edition
Whom to let in to the richer countries and why
A POSSIBLE conflict in Iraq; deteriorating economies in South America; famine in sub-Saharan Africa; turmoil in Indonesia; political instability in the Balkans. And in many developing countries, persistent crime, lousy education and a lack of opportunities for energetic people to prosper without graft and political connections. No wonder so many people want the chance of a better life in the stable, meritocratic economies of the rich world. No wonder they risk their life savings, or even their lives, to buy the hope of higher earnings, fairer treatment and better opportunities for their families.
This movement of humanity brings undoubted gains, and not just to the immigrants. The gap between earnings in the poor and rich worlds is vastly greater than the gap in the prices of traded goods. As our survey in this issue argues, the potential economic benefits to the world of liberalising migration dwarf those from removing trade barriers. Where populations are ageing and economies are sluggish, the benefits are especially great. Immigrants, unlike natives, move readily to areas where labour is in short supply, so easing bottlenecks. They bring a just-in-time supply of skills, too, which is why hospitals want to hire foreign doctors and nurses; farmers, spare hands to pick fruit and vegetables; and wealthy couples, nannies for their children. In many cases, immigrants also pay more in taxes than they cost in public spending.
But voters in rich countries often don't see things this way. Like other forces of globalisation, immigration is disruptive, and at the most intimate level. It changes the neighbourhood. People in the street speak odd languages; the neighbours' cooking smells strange. So immigration often meets passionate resistance. Even in countries built on immigration, like the United States, politicians hesitate to press for easier entry. America has refused to strike a deal with Mexico to let in more legal migrants. In Europe, hostility is deeper and can be more dangerous. In the past year, the far right has gained in elections in France, Denmark, Austria and the Netherlands.
The hostility may well increase. Immigration has boomed in the past decade partly because rich countries have created lots of jobs. If the economic slowdown persists, unemployment is sure to breed greater resentment. Another terrorist attack along the lines of September 11th 2001 would, rightly or wrongly, increase fears that immigrants threaten security. And, as HIV spreads in the poor world, rich countries will fret about the threat to their health services and the risk of AIDS.
How then to square the conflicting pressures of politics and economics? The first essential is to accept that the voters' right to a say about who and how many can enter must take precedence over the rights of those unlucky enough to be born in poorer parts of the world. The task of politicians—and of employers—is to persuade voters that immigration is not only inevitable but also in their long-term interests.
That will be possible only if migration is managed carefully. Voters resent illegal immigration, and not merely because illegals are particularly likely to undercut the pay of natives (and of other immigrants). Illegal migration, currently running at about 500,000 a year into both the United States and the European Union, indicates a breakdown of government control. However, tougher border controls are unlikely to help much. More important is a willingness to take stronger measures to force employers to check workers' credentials.
With legal migration, governments need to persuade voters that they are accepting immigrants who will be good for the country, rather than simply those who manage to find a way through the entry rules. Some legal routes have become particularly prone to abuse. They include two that are especially sensitive in liberal democracies: asylum claims and family reunion. In particular, a United Nations convention (on refugees) more than half a century old is surely no longer a strong enough basis for deciding whether to admit tens of thousands of people each year.
Better ways
A workable policy would be more selective, not more restrictive. Countries could, for instance, freely admit the citizens of any country with broadly the same income per head as theirs, letting them work or stay as long as they liked. It makes no sense for America to limit the working opportunities of young Australians, or for EU countries to keep out Canadians.
In the case of migrants from the poor world, countries should give preference to those who seem to integrate most readily. That would often mean favouring not just the skilled (who already get preference everywhere) but those from culturally similar backgrounds. It might mean insisting that migrants learn the local language quickly; that they abide by local standards of tolerance and good behaviour; that they are wary of demanding special treatment in matters of dress or religious observance. Race and religion must be a part of the public discussion of migration. To pretend that they do not affect attitudes makes policy more restrictive than it should be.
What about the unskilled? No country's entry policy welcomes them. However, rich countries need them: to look after the old, to staff restaurant kitchens, to pluck chickens or gut fish. Better, surely, to create legal ways for some to enter—perhaps by an annual auction or lottery of places—than to leave them only the option of the back of a truck.
Making immigration policy less restrictive brings a further benefit. Draconian border controls discourage migrants from going home and facing a second dangerous and expensive trip when they next want to work abroad. Yet inexpensive travel means that the natural pattern of movement now is more one of circulation than of the one-way crossing of the emigrant ship. If immigration policy forces people to return, it will fail; if it facilitates and promotes return, all will gain.
If voters see that immigration is managed for their benefit and not for that of strangers, they may even learn to enjoy some of the changes it brings. It is the mix of colours and cultures that gives such exuberance to New York and London. Open the door, and let in new ideas, new foods, new businesses and a new buzz along with those eager new faces.
Copyright © 2002 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.