Home truths about immigration

Ralf Dahrendorf Member British House of Lords Project Syndicate

Something strange happened in Europe's election campaigns this year. In France and Germany, Holland and Sweden the subject uppermost on many people's minds -- immigration -- was either ignored or exaggerated. Established parties seem almost to have an unwritten pact to play down the significance of immigration.

"We must keep this sensitive subject out of the campaign" seemed to be the prevailing attitude, as if the period of heightened political awareness that elections provide should not be used to debate serious controversies. As a result, fringe parties stepped in with slogans about countries being "swamped" by immigrants and the need to preserve the "purity" of nations. Can one blame voters for being suspicious of the silence of the political majority, and even for being taken in by the fringe's blustering?

It is high time -- indeed, past time -- for those who believe in liberal and enlightened political discourse to present their case. Some home truths about the migration of people need to be remembered and the necessary consequences drawn. Here are five such truths, or at any rate, five issues for debate:

First, emigration is no fun. As a rule, people do not leave their homes on a whim or out of adventurousness. Typically, they want to escape conditions of hopelessness, as many Europeans did when they left their homes in the 19th and 20th centuries, usually for America. Whether migrants are responding to political oppression or economic destitution, it is important to understand that the price they are prepared to pay is as high as the push to leave is strong.

Second, immigration is a great compliment to those countries that migrants choose as their final destination. The answer to the question, "Where do we go if we have to leave?" is not usually China or some African country, nor is it any longer much of Latin America. Countries that are magnets for migrants tend to be rich and free. Canada has become a dream for many, but so are the countries of Europe. They should be proud -- and a little humble -- about their magnetic quality, as the U.S. was for a long time.

Third, it is misleading to argue for a certain amount of immigration in terms of the need to fill certain high-tech or other positions. Gaining a few Indian computer specialists is a bad reason for allowing "green card" access, if only because such migrants are likely to remain a tiny minority of newcomers.

Rich countries need immigrants nowadays in order to fill the jobs that Adair Turner, in his book Just Capital, calls "high- touch" jobs. Getting your hands dirty is what most people in rich countries no longer want to do. From restaurant kitchens to care for the elderly, from harvesting cotton to laboring on building sites, people in rich countries want to consume services that they are no longer willing to provide themselves. It may not be dignified to expect immigrant workers to do these "dirty" jobs, but to these workers such jobs offer a step on the ladder of hope as they help to keep advanced economies and societies functioning.

Fourth, no one has yet thought through the full implications of today's demographic and attendant social changes, but the fact is that without immigrants the welfare state in advanced countries will become unaffordable. This is not pleasant to say. Using migrants to provide for the needs of natives, but without letting the migrants share all the benefits, is morally unattractive. There may be ways to mitigate the result, but without immigration social benefits across Europe will have to be reduced massively within a generation.

Fifth, immigration can be treated either as a step towards the full integration of migrants, or as a transitional phase in their lives. Both possibilities need to be on offer, but there is a lot to be said for the second. Italians (and later Turks) who worked in Northern Europe and then returned home with sufficient assets to start small businesses made a double contribution; they helped their host countries and then helped their home countries.

The fact that countries can be turned around is a reason for hope. Portugal, and above all Ireland, are prime examples. For more than a century, Ireland was an emigration country par excellence. Now Ireland is so prosperous that it attracts immigrants even from Britain. This is not the only way forward. Integration of immigrants makes much sense; but it is desirable to help create sustainable conditions in troubled countries with the help of a generation of emigrants who first transfer resources and then return themselves.

Many consequences follow from such home truths about immigration, not least a more rational debate. Viewed from the perspective such truths provide, the European Union's eastward enlargement, for example, is highly desirable not despite but because it may lead to migration from the new member states to the old. In this way, more Portugals and Irelands can be created as the wealth of already prosperous regions is sustained.