 |
| Anti-immigration protestors in New York, USA – a country built from immigrants. |
Immigration, huh: what is it good for?
Economically and socially speaking, in fact, really quite a lot.
The most common argument against open borders and free migration is one of xenophobia. People are scared of things they don’t understand; hence the belief that all Muslims are terrorists; and all Eastern Europeans are here to scrounge benefits and take from the economy.
The former belief, surrounding Muslims and Middle Eastern immigrants, which is based largely on ignorance and inaccuracy (although fueled in part by the ever-reliable tabloid press), is easily debunked by simple statistics: 6% of American terror attacks are carried out by Muslims; this number drops to 2% in Europe. Terrorists make up less than 0.00009% of the global Muslim population, and 5 out of the past 12 Nobel Peace Prize recipients have been Muslims.
But what of the argument surrounding economic migrants: those who travel to this country to work, allegedly stealing jobs and benefits – and driving down wages – from the already squeezed British public. An ITV News poll showed that 46% of the British public felt that Eastern European migrants receive more in public services and welfare than they contribute in taxes. Only 14% expressed the opposite opinion that, in fact, hard-working migrants are a positive influence on this country.
Prof. Chris Dustmann, a leading expert in the field of immigration economics and a professor at University College London, believes these 14% are correct – immigration is economically beneficial, and he has the research to prove it. His analysis from 2007 to 2011 found that there was a huge disparity between the amount that natives and immigrants contribute to society. Developing on work from three years prior, his 2013 paper concluded that the average native person lost the state a net total of £1,900 per year. Conversely, immigrants were found to contribute a net average of £2,610 per year. Clearly, the urban myth that Eastern European workers are lazy is just that; a myth.
Michael Clemens, head of the Migration and Development initiative at the Centre for Global Development, offers an international perspective on the benefits of migration. Economically, he explains, there are two labour markets that are affected by any instance of mass migration: the country receiving workers, referred to as the host country, and the country being left behind, referred to as the country of origin. In the host country, more workers arrive. Due to the basic laws of supply and demand, an influx of workers ought to cause a sharp drop in wages – theoretically, the host country should lose out because of immigration – but this is not what economists and analysts are observing.
A negligible decline in wages is seen amongst low-skilled workers, but other areas of the labour market are unaffected, and wages sometimes appear to increase. Reasons given for this vary: some argue that the education gap between immigrants and natives mean that immigrants do not challenge natives for jobs and rather unlock new markets; others believe that immigrants can drive certain areas of the economy into a boom, and this provides new jobs for native workers. For example, mass migration from Albania to Spain in 1991, following the collapse of the communist regime in Albania, led to the expansion of the construction industry in Spain. Indeed, this revolution of contruction gave rise to a popular Spanish urban legend that the word for builder, ‘albañil’, stems from the word for an Albanian, ‘albanés’ (linguists believe it actually stems from the Arabic, بَنَّاء , meaning ‘bricklayer’).
Unlike the almost unnoticeable effect on the labour market in the host country, the country of origin sees a huge change in wages. The labour force shrinks greatly following a mass migration exodus, meaning that demand for workers rises and wages go up. The government then receives higher tax revenues from these well paid workers; this money is usually spent on infrastructure projects and public service expansions. Overall, therefore, those who stay in the country of origin receive higher wages and experience a higher quality of life than before the mass migration event.
In conclusion, immigration is beneficial both socially and economically. Socially, it challenges prejudices; antisemitism was common in Britain until the aftermath of the Holocaust forced the British to accept Jews into their society as refugees, at which point antisemitism seemed to disappear. A similar experience of acceptance and a down-beating of prejudice could hopefully occur with immigrants today. Economic consensus today rests around the shrine of the free markets, yet for some strange reason, governmental policy does not allow free movement; this is a direct contradiction. Further, allowing mass migration appears (from numerous studies) to be beneficial to all – in an interview with ITV News, Professor Chris Dustmann states that “when you take recent immigrants as a group, the country is better, not worse off”. Immigration, huh, what is it good for? Well, as it turns out, really quite a lot.
