Immigration: To be or not to be

The great immigration debate has to become the great rethinking and restructuring debate. Charlie Brown is right when he says: “No problem is too big and complicated that it can’t be run away from.”

In both the US and EU, the focus is increasingly on the problem of immigration. President Donald Trump talks of them being criminals, drug traffickers and scroungers. He wants to build a very expensive wall on the border, separating countries that for a long time have not countenanced a war or terror against each other (there is a funny Mexican joke: “Yes, it’s a good idea to build the wall; it will keep Trump out”). 

There are good reasons to allow low-skilled immigrants in (I use the word “immigrants” to include refugees). Shikha Dalmia, senior analyst at the Reason Foundation, gives several good reasons. Firstly, Americans are the customers of low-skilled immigrants, buying services from them, everything from hospital cleaning and childcare to house repairs.

Secondly, these immigrants are mobile since they rent rather than own, so they can move to where the work is. Right now, they are being encouraged to move to Detroit, where much of the population has fled the city’s decay and the mayor is trying to revitalize it.

Thirdly, they are good for American and European women. Often nannies, they enable many women to work. Many of them are highly skilled, and thus contribute a good deal to society.

Fourthly, immigrants cost the state less than ordinary workers. They often do not qualify for benefits. They cost the state when it comes to schooling or medical care, but then they pay taxes (unless they are illegals).

Fifthly, they create jobs. They reduce costs of production, and make American or European goods more competitive with Latin American, Chinese, Indian and African exports. Some economists argue that immigrants pull the wages of the host community down, but Dalmia says they have got it wrong. She says it is a win-win situation, since immigration works to maximize the potential of the economy across the board. This lifts all boats.

Sixthly, as long ago as the 1960s, research work done in London made the point — supported by academic work today — that immigrants, apart from refugees, only journey to a country if they hear on the grapevine that lots of jobs are available. If not, they do not come.

Seventh, a 2005 World Bank report found that if wealthier countries allowed a 3 percent rise each year in the size of their labor forces through easier immigration, the gains to developing countries over time would be about $300 billion. Fully open borders would double the world’s national income in a few decades, virtually eliminating global poverty.

John Stuart Mill, the great 19th century economist, wrote that migration was “one of the primary sources of progress.” Renowned economist Adam Smith also opposed restrictions on immigration.

Ironically, it was Karl Marx who seemed to be against immigration. He wrote that England’s decision to absorb the “surplus” Irishmen driven out by the famine was a ploy by the English bourgeoisie to “force down wages and lower the material and moral position of the English working class.”

But there are arguments for limiting the flow in the future. In my book “Conundrums of Humanity: The Big Foreign Policy Issues of Our Day,” I argue that there are enough immigrants already (apart from refugees, who should not be refused).

Those who readily argue for more are the middle and upper-middle classes, who not only benefit from their jobs, but enjoy the food and music that immigrants bring with them. It is the lower-middle and working classes who often live cheek by jowl with immigrants. It is they who see their schools and health facilities becoming overcrowded.

Moreover, immigrations put on hold older problems society should have been forced to confront earlier. It has put off the day when menial jobs should have been altered, improved and paid better to attract unemployed natives.

Why should older workers be thrown on the scrapheap when they are 65? There is plenty of work to be done for those with experience. If they are not put to good use, as the population ages millions of immigrants will be needed in Europe and the US. Can one expect societies to adjust uncomplainingly when they feel the country is slipping away from the natives?

• Jonathan Power is a British journalist, filmmaker and writer. He has been a foreign affairs columnist for the International Herald Tribune for 17 years.