Immigration Imperative

Civil wars this century in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Venezuela and other countries generated huge refugee flows. According to an early 2016 BBC report, more than a million migrants and refugees crossed into Europe in 2015. With these refugee flows, and United States policy changes starting in 2017, migration took center stage in international policy debates.

International migration has brought an estimated 272 million people to live in a country other than where they were born. In today’s world, ninety percent of movers are deemed economic migrants by the United Nations, with most of the rest being refugees. Estimates based on census data suggest that over seven million people leave their native country for another country each year.  A periodic Gallup World Poll survey most recently conducted between 2015 and 2017 reported that 15% of the world’s adults would move to a different country given the opportunity. That represents over 750 million people.

Protecting refugees is mandated by the United Nations Convention of 1951; in practice, accommodating sudden, large flows of refugees has been negotiated among countries capable of absorbing or housing them, at least temporarily. For those migrating for economic reasons, acceptance of migrants is optional and governed by each country’s laws.

For many countries, accepting economic migrants can fill voids created by aging populations. Economic migrants are mostly of working age with many productive years in the labor force ahead of them. But even for countries not facing labor shortages, the argument for accepting migrants is overwhelmingly positive; migration works not only to the advantage of the migrants, but also for the countries accepting them, and for the communities they leave behind.

Economic benefits of migration are many. Developed countries have better technology, machinery, reliable electricity and clean water. Workers moving from lower productivity countries to developed countries mean immigrants can earn twice as much coming from Mexico, five times as much coming from India and fifteen times as much coming from Nigeria, according to estimates from a libertarian think tank.  Immigrants are more likely to start businesses than the native-born.

Migrants’ earnings benefit family members left behind in their home countries. Money sent home, referred to as remittances, total three times as much as low- and middle-income countries receive from foreign aid, according to World Bank estimates. These funds go directly to family members, rather than being filtered through government agencies. If the migrants later return to their home countries, they take with them the skills they acquired to start businesses of their own.

Despite the overall benefits migrants bring to the destination country, a local concentration of immigrants can undeniably impact people currently living in those locations. A World Bank report, recognizing the “often painful economic burdens and dislocations” suffered by those people, acknowledges the need for policies to manage transitions to the benefit of both citizens and migrants.

A recent New York Times article looked at population and migration by state from April 2010 to July 2019. Nine states would have lost population over that period had they not had immigrants arrive from foreign countries. “In Michigan … where 190,000 immigrants arrived, the population over all grew by 100,000, meaning the state would have shrunk without immigration.” The other states recording growth only because of foreign immigration were Mississippi, New York, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Hawaii and Massachusetts. From an economic growth perspective, international migration is making the difference between growth and decline.