The new head of the U.N.'s migration agency said Monday that the private sector is “desperate” for their countries to take in migrants to mop up labor shortages, especially in the West — endeavoring to steer a narrative away from reticence and suspicion about migrants in many parts of the world.
Amy Pope, the first woman to head the International Organization for Migration, sought to play up the economic benefits of migration for rich nations with aging populations and declining workforces — in the face of “build-the-wall” rhetoric in the United States to block migrants from Latin America and right-wing movements in Europe that want to keep foreigners out.
”We hear from … the private sector globally, but especially in Europe and in North America, that they are desperate for migration in order to meet their own labor market needs and in order to continue to fuel innovation within their own companies,” Pope, who is American, told reporters.
She said the evidence was “fairly overwhelming” that migration benefits economies by filling jobs, powering innovation or “fueling the renovation or revitalization of aging communities.”
How would you achieve that? And does it really matter if it’s “natives”?
The method would include making raising children as close to a financially neutral option as possible. That includes not punishing parents for taking off time from work, and making sure business does not hold that time against parents when making decisions about promotions and other advancement.
The reason that this focuses on the ‘native’ population is that the idea is to address the population change without relying on immigration. If the population already in the country is self sustaining, then any benefits of immigration will be on top of a stable system instead of being a necessary component that deincentivises helping other countries that are common sources of immigration. Why help a neighbor if their situation is the reason that they immigrate to your country to prop up your economy?
I see what you mean, if you made housing more affordable for instance more people would be financially able to have kids. But my (completely non evidence based) assumption is that people in Europe (eg) aren’t not having kids for this type of reason. I don’t even know if I’d do it if you gave me a whole salary for it.
Honestly I don’t see your point about immigration so much. It’s not realistic that a country would get so much in aid (especially from a single country) that people won’t want to emigrate to somewhere else. People want to have a better life, and they will still want that whether or not there is some international aid coming in. And it would be pretty fucking heartless to not give necessary aid so you drive people out of their home country and into yours. I don’t think politicians are saints but that would be a special type of evil.
The alternative, imo, respects everybody’s wishes. It’s up to you if you have kids, and then just don’t turn away people who want to work in your country, contribute to society and prop up the birth rate a little. Seems like a win win.