Europe Says No to Immigration, But Might Very Well Need It Soon
What if we start seeing immigration as the solution, instead of the problem?
The anti-immigration rhetoric is becoming increasingly mainstream in European politics. Although xenophobic sentiments have been apparent in European political discourse for a long time, in the past these movements have generally been on the fringes. In cases where parties with such ideologies did gain traction, they were largely boycotted by the status quo. Coming into Europe - and staying there - as an immigrant is becoming more difficult as political leaders from the far-right are appointed and legislation is tightened. Yet, seeing how Europe’s demographic is aging (according to estimates by Eurostat, there will be close to half a million centenarians in the EU by 2050), immigration might be exactly what Europe needs.
The anti-immigration bill in France
A little over two weeks ago, a bill was passed in France that further restricts immigration. Conditions for access to welfare benefits and family reunification are toughened, and people born in France to foreign parents will no longer automatically receive French nationality upon turning eighteen. The bill caused much controversy, as it is much stricter than the initial text. Marine Le Pen, party leader of the far-right Rassemblement National (RN), even claims the passing of the bill as an ‘ideological victory’. Macron, well aware that he has to thank his 2022 victory over Le Pen to left-leaning Frenchmen casting a strategic vote, assured his supporters he has “not betrayed voters who rallied behind me to stop the far right”, according to this Aljazeera article, but that it was simply a matter of compromise.
Still, this law does something more than just complicate lives of immigrants in France: it promotes the idea that immigration is a threat to French nationals and has to be kept in check to protect them. “With this law, we have accepted the far-right vision of immigration as a danger”, says Jean-Yves Camus, political analyst who specialises in nationalist movements in Europe.
The vote for anti-immigrant policy in The Netherlands
The Netherlands also collectively chose anti-immigration this past November when the far-right Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV), led by Geert Wilders, won the national elections with a landslide. Wilders is mostly known for his anti-islamic and populist views, but appeared milder in the run-up to the elections in this regard. His focus on restricting immigration however, remains steadfast. The title of the PVV’s party programme is ‘Dutch people as number one again’ (Nederlanders weer op 1). The text describes how The Netherlands needs to be ‘conquered back’ and that borders need to be closed to prevent ‘any more fortune seekers from other cultures’ to enter the country. (Fortune seeker, or ‘gelukszoeker’ in Dutch, is a popular term in the anti-immigrant discourse in The Netherlands).
Restricting immigration was also an important topic in the campaigns of many mainstream Dutch parties, such as the right-wing VVD (which is Mark Rutte’s party, who has been the Dutch prime-minister for the last thirteen years). Their campaign slogan was: ‘Give space. Set Boundaries’ (Ruimte geven. Grenzen stellen.). The topic of migration is exactly what caused the previous government, led by Rutte, to fall. This possibly caused a feeling of distrust among voters concerned about immigration issues, causing them to look elsewhere to cast their vote. Moreover, new VVD party leader Dilan Yeşilgöz opened the door to forming a coalition with the PVV before the elections, making the PVV seem more mainstream. In the past, parties resisted collaborating with Wilders’ party because of his ideology. Lastly, seeing as many parties focused on immigration in their campaigns this election, voters might just have concluded to go with ‘the original’, Katya Adler writes in this BBC article.
Whatever motivated the Dutch to vote for the PVV en masse this past November, the outcome is the same as the passing of the anti-immigration bill in France: the far-right and anti-immigration rhetoric moved into the mainstream, and the idea that immigration is threathening Europe is accepted.
A country’s ‘own’ people first?
However large the impact of both the anti-immigration bill and the PVV’s victory may be, they are just two examples of the rise of the influence of far-right parties with the same kind of rhetoric. According to data from Europe Elects, parties on the far-right are doing well in the polls Europe-wide. In the chart below you can see at what percentage the leading hard-right parties of EU countries are polling.
Has the sentiment of xenophobia become that much stronger in Europe? Not neccesarily. Many young Dutch people voted for Wilders’ PVV: if only people under 35 had gone to the polls, he would have won even more votes. Yet for them it is often not about his islamophobia or anti-immigration policies. “We know in many countries young people are more pro-immigration than older voters”, says Catherine de Vries, a political scientist at Bocconi university to The Guardian. “They have not become xenophobic. But their lives are more precarious. These are often votes for what in this Dutch elections was called ‘livelihood security’.” The Dutch word ‘bestaanszekerheid’ refers to a stable job, a home, access to healtcare and education and a social safety net. Relieving the overloaded healthcare system and securing access to housing are important points in Wilders’ party programme. Many young people in The Netherlands are feeling frustrated for not being able to afford housing and immigrants are often pointed at for taking up part of that precious housing. Issues like climate change also take a backseat if it’s up to this particular group. “Young woke people - sorry, but that’s what we call them here - are shouting that the climate is important, but I just want a home and to make sure I can afford everything”, says 29-year old Darjon to EenVandaag. He is from Veenendaal, a small city in the centre of The Netherlands. “I am thinking about the here and now, not the future.”
The idea that is at the core of many of these increasingly popular far-right parties is indeed that the country should, first and foremost, be for it’s ‘own’ people. This idea manifests a little different in every country; Wilders’ speaks of ‘reconquering the Netherlands’ and ‘putting the Dutch people first’, Italy’s prime minister Giorgia Meloni’s chant is ‘Italy and the Italians first’, Le Pen has her ‘préférence nationale’ (the legitimisation of discrimination against foreign nationals with regards to social safety nets, housing, and employment). Yet behind the words lies the same meaning. As Benoît Bréville writes in an article for Le Monde Diplomatique, this préférence nationale is a response to the phenomenon of “reflexive chauvinism that arises in times of crisis, when resources are scarce.” The rise in anti-immigrant rhetoric in politics is an answer to the state of crisis of Europe. Considering the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, the cost of living crisis and the war in Ukraine, Europeans are looking for someone who promises to solve their problems. The restriction of immigration is offered as such a solution (or rather, as the solution). But what if immigration itself could be the solution?
Europe’s ageing demographic
24% of the Italian population is aged 65 or over. Not only that, the population of the boot-shaped country decreases by around 180,000 people per year. This creates an obvious problem: all those seniors want to enjoy their pension, a promise they’ve worked for their whole life. But Italy’s work force cannot carry that financial burden. As a response, Meloni is trying to nudge young Italians to start families. She’s halved the tax on diapers and baby milk and has even appointed an anti-abortion minister in this attempt. But, as Tobias Jones points out in his article for The Guardian, even if she should succeed, those newborns won’t be ready to enter the workforce for at least the next eightteen years.
Italy is not alone. According to Eurostat, 21.1% of Europe’s population was aged 65 or older in 2022, which is not much lower than Italy’s percentage. Half of Europe’s population was older than 44 years old. ‘Consistently low birth rates and higher life expectancy are transforming the shape of the EU’s age pyramid’, it reads in the Eurostat article. This will cause Europe to transition towards a much older population structure. This is already apparent in many EU countries.
This Europe-wide ageing demographic is spurred by extremely low fertility rates (with 1.49 children per women, the fertility rate in The Netherlands is at an all time low) and an overall increasing life expectancy. Migratory patterns influence the population age as well in some cases, in countries that are popular among retirees. Statistics Netherlands (CBS) links the low fertility rate in The Netherlands to the socioeconomic position of women. Women who do start families on average get the same number of children as before, yet there is a larger number of women who do not become mothers at all. Especially women with a lower education level decide not to get children because of financial insecurity.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, Europe is seeing a rise in job vacancies. In the Eurostat chart shown above, the decline in vacancies during the pandemic in 2020 is clearly visible, as well as the sharp increase in demand in 2021. This shortage of workers adds to the problem of the ageing demographic.
Jones offers a solution. What he proposes goes against all that Meloni’s party stands for (or Wilders’, or Le Pen’s, for that matter): why not stimulate immigration? “We need migrants”, Linda Laura Sabbadini says, a director of Istat that Jones spoke with. “Only with more migrants of working age will the population grow immediately and guarantee the pension payments of a rapidly ageing population.”
The debate on X
On January 4th, Wilders and Elon Musk had a debate over on Musk's platform X. Musk had posted that “the biggest problem that humanity faces is population collapse.” Wilders disagreed and stated that it is in fact the collapse of “our own culture and Western values”. As a cause he points to mass immigration and the influx of “non-western asylum seekers”. Musk goes on to explain that even countries with few immigrants are experiencing a collapse in population. And what the PVV-leader says then is interesting. He says: “but the population in Africa will grow from 1.4 billion today to more than 4 billion in 2100. Almost a third of all African migrants live in Europe already. We’re not able to absorb many more from Africa/MiddleEast/Asia, financially nor culturally.”
Two aspects are striking about this comment. First and foremost, Wilders states that the influx of more African migrants will be financially unsustainable for The Netherlands/Europe. Yet, should these migrants be allowed to work in Europe, the influx wouldn’t be financially unsustainable at all. Rather, it would support Europe’s declining work force. Yet, Wilders does not acknowledge this possible opportunity. Because in doing so, he would risk ‘the collapse of our own culture and Western values’. It seems he values the conservation of the culture and values he speaks of higher than the potential solution immigration offers. The resistance to other cultures is stronger than the willingness to solve the problem he claims to want to solve.
If we want it
Poland has already shown the possibile positive effects of incorporating immigrants into their work force, by allowing Ukrainian health care professionals, who came to the country as refugees, to work. This aided in Poland’s shortage of health care workers due to strikes and work stoppages. Besides adding to the working population and solving shortages, allowing immigrants to work could also ease their integration into the host country due to an increase of contact with natives. Simplifying the process of finding and starting work for migrants is possible, if we want it. Another example comes from Germany, were the process of getting Ukranian refugees onto the job market is being fast-tracked. The country is launching job centers that aid refugees in finding work and is even appointing a senior official to oversee the process of integrating refugees into the job market. At the centers, refugees who have completed integration courses (including language learning) will meet with officials every six weeks to get help in finding a job. According to Labour Minister Hubertus Heil, 132,000 Ukrainians have already found jobs in Germany and there is a potential for another 400,000.
The far right is claiming that immigration will be the fall of Europe and is working hard to restrict it. But immigration might be exactly what will keep Europe upright. These examples show that it is possible and indeed beneficial to include immigrants into the work force of European countries quickly. Europe just has to make up its mind whether it is willing to stop using immigrants as scapegoats and start seeing the possibility of a collaboration.
You might like this article https://www.peacejusticestudies.org/chronicle/migration-with-dignity-a-framework-to-manage-climate-change-and-prevent-conflict/