With declining birth rates and an ageing population, Europe is facing the threat of a demographic decline by the middle of the century. Facing similar challenges, the US has recently moved to reform its immigration policies, thus allowing greater numbers of migrants to encourage growth. Sarah Wolff argues for similar reforms for European immigration policies, which until now, have been focused on the promotion of intra-European immigration, whilst securing the EU’s external borders and organising the return of irregular migrants.
‘Now is the time’ hammered out President Obama in his January speech on immigration reform. Time has come to act upon migration as a golden opportunity for US economic recovery. Time has come for migration to benefit the American society as a whole. The reform should ‘provide more ladders of opportunity to those who are willing to work hard to make it into the middle class’.
This ‘common-sense’ reform includes a facilitated access to citizenship for US Green Card holders and the regularisation of undocumented migrants under a number of conditions. The assumptions of the Obama administration are that migrants’ consumption boosts the economy and creates jobs. According to the Migration Policy Institute, in the 1990s, half of the growth in the US came from new immigrants. Migrants are a boon for an ageing society like the US, and a growing birth rate constitutes a safety net for future pensioners and for the long term sustainability for Medicare reform.
This bold US agenda is at odds with Europe’s restrictive migration policies. Europe is stuck in a narrative of ‘now is the time of crisis’, where electoral short-termism comes first over what should be an essential migration strategy to meet Europe’s growth objectives. Rather, the crisis is a handy scapegoat for restraining migration. While the US blueprint plans to staple a US green card to foreign graduates who get their diploma in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, the UK government is clamping down on overseas students by restricting their access to the UK labour market. In Spain, a promised land for many Latin Americans in the last decade, unprecedented unemployment rates have led 800,000 migrants to return home since 2011. Around 120,000 Spanish people have also decided to emigrate.
Yet, like the US, Europe is facing similar economic and demographic challenges. In many crucial sectors of the economy, European businesses have problems recruiting doctors, nurses, IT specialists and engineers. According to the Migration Observatory, two third of care assistants in London are migrants. In Spain, migrants have contributed to 30 per cent of GDP-growth in the past 15 years. Europe is also an ageing continent, where migrants will be key to the preservation of welfare states. By 2050, there will be only two active citizens per retiree, down from four to one today. This is unsustainable.
Joel Fetzer has recently shown that European public opinion is not more opposed to migration than in the US. So what can explain the blindness of European governments and the lack of ambitious policies?
First, unlike in the US where the ‘melting pot’ is constitutive of nation building, Europe’s migration history is multiple and as diverse as 27 narratives. Second, the European single market is disconnected from migration policies. If much has been achieved on intra-European migration, ambitious labour migration policies for non-EU nationals are now lacking. So far, the European consensus has built around an image of ‘Fortress Europe’. Except for relatively liberal asylum policies, the focus has been on securing the EU’s external borders and organising the return of irregular migrants.
Little has been achieved on labour migration. The European Blue Card, modelled on the US Green Card and adopted in 2009, falls short of high-skilled migrants’ expectations. Not only are a recognised diploma and three years of professional experience required, but the prospective migrant also needs to earn 1.5 times the member states’ annual average gross salary. Unlike the US, citizenship is also not guaranteed as it depends on EU member states’ good will. The UK, Ireland and Denmark have also opted-out of the scheme. It is no wonder that Europe is no longer attractive to many. High-skilled migrants from Northern Africa and Middle East prefer to try their luck in the US, Canada or the Gulf countries. In 2010 a CADMUS research report confirmed that around 80 per cent of Egyptians who had migrated to an OECD country in 2008 were living either in the US or in Canada.
The threat of an ageing Europe, waning worldwide competitiveness and poor innovation levels should act as a wake-up call for European politicians, businesses and universities who should not shirk their responsibilities. More knowledge on the benefits of migration should be spread around Europe. Lampedusa, near Sicily is the most beautiful beach only for Europeans, not for those dying to reach it as refugees from Northern Africa. The stakes are high for Europe’s future.
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics.
Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/Z899cA
_________________________________
About the author
Sarah Wolff – Queen Mary, University of London
Sarah Wolff is a Lecturer in Public Policy, at Queen Mary, University of London. She is also Senior Research Associate Fellow at the Netherlands Institute for International Relations. Her research focuses on Justice and Home Affairs cooperation between the EU and its Mediterranean neighbours. Her most recent book is The Mediterranean Dimension of the European Union’s Internal Security (Palgrave, 2012).
Greetings,
I disagree with offered solution.
First we should address the cause of the problem. What is causing declining birthrates?
Declining birthrates are caused by the interplay of cultural and economic factors.
Second, we should consider if we can have an effect upon the cause.
If we accept that economic factors affect birth rates and if we accept that economic conditions are pliable, then we should be able to accept that we have the power to modify birth rates.
Third, we should ask how we would have an effect upon the cause.
People are highly motivated by financial incentives. All that should be required is for an appropriate financial incentive to be offered to any citizen that has a child.
It is difficult to determine what financial incentive would be effective. Perhaps a small amount could be promised in the beginning and that sum would gradually rise until the desired effect was produced.
Thank you for reading this.
Avraam J. Dectis
If I may further comment:
The bigger question is why do we accept economic systems that are not conducive to life?
Biological populations have a natural tendency to grow. If a population is declining it should be clear that it exists in an environment that is not conducive to life.
Refusing to support the declining native population and keeping the companies running with immigrants seems to suggest that the wellbeing of the stockholder is more important than the wellbeing of the citizen.
Thank you.
Avraam J. Dectis
The argument regarding demographics is valid, but it leaves out too much of the equation, in my view and according to my experience of observing what happens in countries across Europe.
It is not enough to just let people in to have more people working; you have to be able to effectively integrate them into the labour market. Look at Belgium for example, immigrants are, to a grotesque degree, disproportionately represented among the unemployed. Look at Sweden; immigrants and children of immigrants are just not considered Swedish and are not allowed to progress on the labour market. And a long so on and so on.
To be clear, I’m not blaming this on the immigrants, so much as saying the mechanisms and value structures for integrating them – particularly in terms of the labour market – are just not good enough. One needs only look at the results across Europe (e.g. the French banlieues, German ‘guest workers’ become a permanent sub-class etc. etc. etc.). Respectfully, this is where a LOT of work needs to be done. Letting people in, even through a system of criteria regarding qualifications etc., is relatively easy to do.
.
In short, Europe has to learn how to make the most of its human capital, and to create ‘New Europeans’ (‘New Germans’ ‘New Swedes’ etc.).
.
If modesty permits, I would mention that we tried to adress this issue in the following project:
http://realise2020.wordpress.com/
And in this publication’s conclusions:
http://realise2020.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/realise-final-publication-for-partners.pdf
.
Regards
Ian Goldring
Thematic Coordinator, REALISE & DIrector ProjectWorks
Why does the author leave productivity and the finiteness of natural resources out of the equation? An aging, declining population can very well maintain its well-being if its productivity keeps up through technological and scientific advances.
On the other hand, if it allows in immigrants to keep the total population constant, the original population will ultimately be completely replaced by the immigrants.
This is just basic math. (Hint: immigrants tend to get older as well.)
I was hoping for more rigor from a lecturer at this reputed institute.
There’s a slight disjoint here because the problem isn’t one of overall numbers, but balance. A large boom in births after the Second World War combined with later dwindling birth rates and improved medical care has skewed the age balance of the population. We don’t need to replace the population with immigrants indefinitely, we just need to rebalance the population now so that we don’t burden younger generations with the higher taxes required to sustain people in retirement (not to mention the effect on our competitiveness – note that technological advances are unlikely to help here because they’ll be replicated in other countries as well).
A declining population isn’t so much of a problem if it’s done gradually while maintaining the population balance.