Migration and Global Economy. How Countries Adapt to the New Challenge

How should we deal with migrants? The world has tried to solve this problem for many years now. Over time, models designed for assisting newcomers from other cultures often turned out to be incorrect. How can we find the most optimal modus operandi? We are past the point of wondering if we should accept the immigrants or not. The only thing we should ask ourselves is how.

When Switzerland brought in a large number of laborers from Islamic states in the second half of the 20th century, Max Frisch, a local writer, supposedly pointed out “We asked for workers. We got people instead.” This simple punchline alludes to the myriad of problems associated with migration.

In Search of a Better Life

Population movements are nothing new. The great migrations of nations led to the downfall of the Roman Empire and molded the shape of modern Europe. Geographic discoveries transformed the world and made it possible to expand civilization to the farthest reaches of the globe.

But long before that, mass migrations occurred—repeatedly. Thousands of years ago, during the Paleolithic, people roamed the land, at first in search of better spots for living due to climate change, and later on in search of more fertile land. In antiquity, the so-called Sea Peoples moved along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. Then it was the Celts, marching west, north and east from the regions along the Rhine River. Next were the Germanic tribes, advancing towards western lands of Europe, and further down the line—the Slavs flowed to the eastern and southern parts of the Old World. Eons later, in the 21st century, millions of migrants are on the move again, mostly from the less well-off countries, from the south, Africa, or Asia, in the direction of richer states in the north and west. The reason is just the same as it was in the Stone Age: to search for better places to live.

Still Searching

Modern countries targeted by migrants try to—in the name of their own interests, and, in the broad sense, their security—control the flow of human waves. The migration process is managed by decision-makers aware of the tensions that appear when different interests and values collide, e.g., humanitarianism, economy, demographics, peace, and international cooperation. Often, the policy is to simply block the influx of new arrivals. Suffice to say that nowadays countries with the biggest acceptance of new refugees are Iran, Colombia, Pakistan, Turkey, and Uganda—also called “transit countries.” It’s no secret that among millions of migrants heading there, most want to eventually get to prosperous Europe or North America.

Conscious of the fact that multitudes of people, having experienced poverty and war first-hand, dream of living in the West, the authorities of the wealthy states cherry-pick among the potential newcomers. The administration is more likely to accept people culturally similar, with better education, and of a younger age, etc. After Brexit, countries like France, Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, but also Poland, invited the English, Welsh, and Scots to move in, if they were so inclined. Germans are using different ways to draw in Poles or Romanians. Poles, on the other hand, prefer to extend their hospitality to Ukrainians or Moldovans—rather than Uzbeks, Kazakhs, or Chinese.

Making selections among migrants is sometimes sanctioned by law—in the Netherlands, even today, granting citizenship to a foreigner requires them to pass the naturalization exam… with some exceptions! These exceptions concern the citizens of the European Union, the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, the United States of America, Japan, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Integration or Isolation?

Every decision of accepting one person and blocking the entrance to another is dictated—at least in theory—by migration policy. Illegal border crossings do happen, caused, for example, by a major crisis, war, or any other extraordinary circumstances. For example, in 2015, after the biggest escalation of military action in Syria, over 2 million refugees arrived in Europe, and after hostilities escalated in Ukraine, in 2022, Poland accepted over one million Ukrainians fleeing from the warzone.

Any person who was persecuted in their own country on political grounds and managed to cross over to Europe can ask for asylum. If it is granted, they usually stay in the country that accepted their request, integrating to a greater or lesser degree with the local community. The number of refugees in Western Europe (EU states, plus Norway, Switzerland, the UK, etc.) is estimated at around 33 million, which equals 6% of the total population of countries in that part of the world.

Migration policy refers to every action undertaken by a government regarding migration to and from a given country (which means both emigration and immigration). This policy is based on a question of who can be allowed to enter a country, and—less often—who can be allowed to leave. There are different types of migration policy.

Post-Colonial Pangs of Conscience

A colonial-humanitarian model was adopted by France, Belgium, and—in part—by Great Britain. In their case, migration policy is tied to their colonial pasts. Immigrants from ex-dependent territories often have special privileges and are subject to less strict laws when it comes to entering a specific country. This is the way former colonial powers try to compensate for years of exploiting their dependencies in Africa or Asia. Usually, governments aim to assimilate the newcomers and make efforts to blend them into societies, which is in line with the effective migrant policy in the European Union.

In the countries mentioned above, obtaining citizenship is a relatively easy task for an immigrant—in the UK, one can apply for it just after five years of continuous stay; it’s similar in France. Speaking of the latter, citizen status can be obtained by the way of marriage with a French person, and any children born in the Republic are citizens by default (the so-called “right of soil,” jus soli).

It’s worth pointing out that in recent years, especially after the 9/11 events in New York, religion became the subject of feuds and identity struggles. Due to this state of affairs, Islam came to be perceived as a source of attitudes hostile towards the West, and Muslim communities had some of their rights revoked— in France, the public display (in schools, for example) of religious beliefs is strictly forbidden.

Workforce Migration

Complementary migration policies in Canada and Australia are aimed at filling job market vacancies. With this goal in mind, approval for immigration of a given individual depends on their ability to find work in the country of admittance. In other words, the government treats the immigrants as an effective source of workforce for the national labor market.

Within this model, mass migration is not an option, and unwanted migrants—as in the case of Australia—are sent back to their country of origin with no hesitation. From time to time, global media share pictures of ships—with Indonesians on board—that are being turned away from the shore by Australian coast guards and escorted into international waters. Australians will even supply the would-be immigrants with water and food for their journey back home, but they will not let them land ashore and stay.

Canada’s migrant policy is founded on two principles. On one hand, the key value is multiculturalism (after all, the country was built by outlanders, mostly from Europe), on the other hand, loyalty towards government institutions is an unconditional requirement. The latter means that it is necessary to follow—with no exceptions—the local laws. What is not necessary though is embracing the foundations of the dominant culture—neither Anglo-Saxon, nor Francophone (in the Quebec province).

The Melting Pot of Nations

Multicultural migrant policy, based on the acceptance of competition between different ethnic groups as being beneficial for social and economic progress of a state, is pursued by the United States. The federal government controls the flow of migration to maintain what is believed to be the optimal balance between different nations. This translates into temporary preferential treatment of people from underrepresented groups (from Sub-Saharan Africa or Indochina for example).

In this model, mass migration is possible. Furthermore, legal arrivals, who pay taxes and follow the rules, don’t have to wait long (as little as 8 years) to obtain American citizenship.

Since its inception, the United States of America has remained a country founded on immigration. By this virtue alone, cultural diversity became its staple long before migration issues emerged in Europe. Unlike in Canada, however, diversity in the U.S. does not diminish the dominant status of the Anglo-Saxon culture (which is why it’s mandatory to swear allegiance to the USA upon being granted citizenship).

Useful Types Only (Some Restrictions Apply)

Residual migrant policy, which requires potential newcomers to meet many restrictive conditions, is the choice of countries like Austria or Japan. Germany also used to follow this model, though their stance seems to have changed to a more liberal one over the last dozen or so years.

In the residual policy model, approval for immigration is contingent on various requirements related to the labor market and economic needs, as well as the ability to fit the local community (assimilation). This policy leads to limiting immigration from countries with considerably different cultural norms. For example, in Japan, the number of migrants is insignificant, and as for black immigrants—there are hardly any.

Obtaining citizenship in a country that follows this kind of policy is difficult as the right of blood dictates the eligibility for citizen status. The consequence of a hard line on the matter in Austria or Germany is that you can still find third-generation migrants there (e.g., grandchildren of people who moved from Turkey) with no full citizenship. This leads to disruptions in the assimilation process and creates favorable conditions for the emergence of ghettos. On the other hand, you can’t overlook the fact that generous benefit systems in Germanic countries often compensate for many of the inconveniences migrants might experience.

Studies show that the lack of social integration correlates with lower educational attainment. Second or third generation immigrants in Benelux countries or Denmark reach a higher level of educational qualifications than their parents or grandparents. Among the 27 countries of the EU, only migrants in Austria and Italy have worse education than in Germany.

Due to numerous limitations—mostly of a legal nature—German (and Swiss) migration model is referred to as “differential exclusion.” Newcomers are allowed into selected areas of public life, but they are denied access to others, like enjoying citizenship or participating in politics. Hence, immigrants become ethnic minorities that form a part of civil society as workers, consumers, or parents, but their participation in economic, social, or political activities is limited. This might lead to discrimination and marginalization of ethnic groups, and even racism.

Today’s migrant situation in Germany, mostly associated with the integration of local Muslims, is the outcome of a political agenda introduced by the Federal Republic of Germany over 50 years ago, and aimed towards economic migrants from Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Morocco, and Tunisia. Discrimination of those people, combined with granting permits for stay and work only (valid for a limited period of time, often with regional restrictions, i.e., for working in selected Länder, or with industry restrictions), was the seedbed for later conflicts. Another aspect of the bias was the fact that German regulations made it harder for families to reunite, and acting against those regulations led to revoking of work and stay permits; in some cases, it resulted in deportations. However, on many occasions, these regulations were not enforced very strictly.

A Liberal Experiment with Few Formalities

In the past decades, a new migration policy model emerged— based on liberal principles. It is now in use in countries that are in dire need of filling vacancies in their labor markets, like Spain, but also—up to a point—Poland. No exorbitant conditions are set, with the hope that the market will regulate demand and supply on its own. This model often leads to expansion of the gray economy, fueled systematically by the inundation of foreigners.

The forerunner of liberal migration policy was Sweden—a country with no colonial past but rich emigration traditions (between 1850 and 1920, over 1.5 million people left the country for good, which equaled 20 percent of all citizens). After World War II, Sweden brought in thousands of new workers to support the development of the local industry. At the beginning, these were arrivals from the neighboring countries, e.g., Finns and Norwegians, but over time others came—after the events of 1968, Poles of Jewish ancestry, as well as Czechs and Slovaks. If you also take into account some Chileans, who chose to emigrate after Pinochet’s revolution in 1973, you might say that Sweden sort of dedicated itself to accepting people persecuted on political grounds. The newcomers had no problems integrating themselves. After 1975, they were given voting rights, and generous benefits were paid out to ensure they could preserve their own traditions. There’s another aspect, too. Despite no special laws being introduced, steps were taken to facilitate learning the language, which sped up the process of blending the migrants in with the local communities.

A sympathetic attitude towards newcomers did not change in principle at the beginning of the 21st century. Sweden was and still is perceived as an exception among other Western countries that are decidedly tightening their policies of dealing with migrants. It needs to be stressed, though, that the number of accepted immigrants and the scope of benefits they are entitled to have been reduced even there.

What About Poland?

The question of which migration model is best suited for Poland remains open. The mere fact that a political stance towards migrants and migration is one of the major talking points of an electoral campaign in this country—not unlike elsewhere, in Western Europe, in the U.S., or in Australia—is a testament to the weight of the problem.

The experts from the Warsaw Enterprise Institute (WEI) advise, “to promote diligence and resourcefulness, and not the skill to navigate the net of social benefits.” According to WEI advisors, the number of foreigners in Poland has risen to 4 million, which means they now constitute about 10% of the population.

It is a generally accepted fact that in instances when unfavorable demographic trends prevail, only immigrants can allow for positive economic growth. Otherwise, as there are too few hands on deck, production potency—in this case, of Poland—will remain underutilized.

The shortage of workers is especially hitting the construction, health care, production, financial, gastronomy, and educational sectors. That gap can be filled with immigrants—not just Ukrainians but also Belarusians, Georgians, Moldovans, as well as people from India or Nepal. They would contribute not only to the growth of Polish GDP but also—of greater importance—of the country’s pension fund.

WEI experts think that the optimal migrant policy should aim to eliminate labor market shortages (this view is in line with the complimentary policy model), but should not favor the newcomers over the locals, especially when it comes to benefits. A deliberate shaping of policies in a way to align them with these goals should involve tightening the procedures for sending back illegal immigrants. Another desirable course of action would be to foster cooperation with countries that are the starting points for migration, to gain a better understanding of the reason it happens in the first place, and to devise better strategies for managing population movements.

Needs of the economy notwithstanding, we can’t omit the cultural context. For example, studies show that Poles are not ready to accept mass immigration, especially from Islamic countries. Therefore, they should become accustomed, bit by bit, to the idea. But here the experts will chime in and say there’s simply no time for that.

Many factors suggest that Poland will be an arena where elements of complementary policy—that is, importing workers for selected industry sectors—will clash with the new migration policy, in which all eager to work are accepted. If you look at the Poles of Vietnamese ancestry, who have, for the most part, blended perfectly into Polish society, it becomes apparent that when you give people a chance, they become grateful and want to return the favor. A young Vietnamese, Tao Ngoc Tu, came to Poland to study in the second half of the 1980s. And he stayed here. Twenty-five years later he made it onto the list of the top 100 wealthiest Poles.

***

It seems that, whether we like it or not, it’s almost certain that we will have to live in the presence of a growing number of immigrants. This requires every government to implement sensible procedures, but effort is needed on our side too. To paraphrase Max Frisch, when we look at newcomers, we should see people and not just workers.

Read more on Holistic News