The Water Cooler
A refreshing gulp of reports and ramblings from policy-central.
Weighing Pros and Cons in the Immigration Debate
Summary:Article in The Economist shows the benefits far surpass the downsides of immigration, but argues that politicians find it easier to exploit electorates' xenophobias than to explain the sound rationale that should have people calling for MORE immigration.
This
article in The Economist argues an outlook that I have often
forwarded in posts on The Water Cooler in months past. For
example, there was the
post in
which I reacted to the overtly racist and cheaply populist
electoral campaign of the Swiss People's Party in October.
Basically, it is the view, supported by raw data, that immigration brings economic prosperity and other benefits not only to the poor countries people are emigrating from, but also to the rich countries they go to.
Where many voters in the latter argue the risks of terrorism and social degradation brought by foreigners entering their countries, they often fail to realize that the protectionist reflex of marginalizing immigrants only heightens the chance that those newcomers will pose a threat to the fluid functioning of their societies.
While certain sectors experience a shift of jobs into the hands of newcomers when there a new wave of immigration brings people with the right kinds of skills from abroad, the adjustment this requires an economy to make is certainly more beneficial domestically than an outsourcing of those jobs would entail. Immigration helps an economy grow, and in the long run this benefits even those that have been put out of work in the short run.
An resulting important dimension to this debate is the one I think carries the most relevance for policymakers: countries that do a good job of integrating immigrants are effectively harnessing the energies of dynamic, and incredibly motivated and entrepreneurial people who want nothing more than to improve their plight by hard work.
So, conclude the savvy authors at The Economist, "to preserve these great benefits in the future, politicians need the courage not only to speak up against the populist tide in favour of the gains immigration can bring, but also to deal honestly with the problems it can sometimes cause."
Source: Paul Shoul, Gonomad.com
Basically, it is the view, supported by raw data, that immigration brings economic prosperity and other benefits not only to the poor countries people are emigrating from, but also to the rich countries they go to.
Where many voters in the latter argue the risks of terrorism and social degradation brought by foreigners entering their countries, they often fail to realize that the protectionist reflex of marginalizing immigrants only heightens the chance that those newcomers will pose a threat to the fluid functioning of their societies.
While certain sectors experience a shift of jobs into the hands of newcomers when there a new wave of immigration brings people with the right kinds of skills from abroad, the adjustment this requires an economy to make is certainly more beneficial domestically than an outsourcing of those jobs would entail. Immigration helps an economy grow, and in the long run this benefits even those that have been put out of work in the short run.
An resulting important dimension to this debate is the one I think carries the most relevance for policymakers: countries that do a good job of integrating immigrants are effectively harnessing the energies of dynamic, and incredibly motivated and entrepreneurial people who want nothing more than to improve their plight by hard work.
So, conclude the savvy authors at The Economist, "to preserve these great benefits in the future, politicians need the courage not only to speak up against the populist tide in favour of the gains immigration can bring, but also to deal honestly with the problems it can sometimes cause."
Source: Paul Shoul, Gonomad.com
Mexican migrant workers: a
powerful engine to the Americaneconomy
1 Comment
Brodie Ross
Great post Sean,
There certainly are benefits and drawbacks to immigration but it seems to me that many of the drawbacks to immigration are political in nature. As you have mentioned, efforts to immigrate new citizens into a society have failed on many fronts. Perhaps the greatest barrier to effective integration of new citizens is language. I wrote a paper about the political economy of immigration and by and large language poses the greatest challenge to integrating new immigrants. They often cluster in diaspora communities and never need to learn that native language of the country they moved to severely limiting their potential for prosperity.
Another big challenge I see is how the immigration debate is framed. Often we hear of "illegal" immigrants or even worse "illegal aliens." Many of these "illegal aliens" may have legitimate claims to be in a particular country but because of the way the media and politicians spin the discourse public sentiment quickly turns against these people. I suspect this is part of the "populist politics that you speak of but I think it i even more basic than that. It reminds me of the nationalism that has led to many wars and civil conflicts in the past. Framing debates in terms of "us" versus "them" colors a grey world in a black and white fashion which unfortunately harms those in between the clear cut positions.