The United States and Great Britain are currently in the eye of similar political storms over how to control the surge in migrants.
One thing is clear. border controls are only part of the answer.
Why did we write this?
A story that is focused
In the US, as in Britain, the economic imperative is more for immigration and the political imperative less so. Can governments reconcile this paradox?
The issue of migrants is not a short-term problem. Twenty years ago, about 175 million people around the world lived outside their home countries. that figure is now approaching 300 million. And America, like Europe, is aging. Their economies need workers in a variety of services and industries.
These challenges can be met at the policy level. But the problem is not politics. It is politics, where an increasingly partisan, populist, nationalist tone now colors the immigration debate in the US, Britain and other Western democracies.
Real economic pressures may ultimately push politicians on both sides of the Atlantic toward policies that mix a better-funded, better-organized system of migration control with economically targeted admissions for immigrant workers.
The last time America had a bipartisan immigration policy, Ronald Reagan was president. His legislative success provides a template, but he believed that immigration was “a great force in the lives of every generation of new Americans.”
It’s a reminder of how dramatically US politics and Mr. Reagan’s own Republican Party have changed over the past 40 years.
The topography could hardly be more different. nearly 2,000 miles of cityscape and desert separate the United States from Mexico, while Britain’s southern coast, famous for the White Cliffs of Dover, is washed by the frigid, choppy waters of the English Channel.
However, both the US and Britain are in the eye of similar political storms. about how to control the surge of migrants who are willing to risk imprisonment, deportation, violence, even their lives to flee their homelands.
That control may be feasible if difficult. But the scramble for a short-term policy fix masks deeper, longer-term challenges facing the US, UK and other European countries.
Why did we write this?
A story that is focused
In the US, as in Britain, the economic imperative is more for immigration and the political imperative less so. Can governments reconcile this paradox?
Two challenges with a clear policy message. Border control is only part of the answer.
The number one challenge is that the “migrant issue” is not a short-term problem. At the end of the millennium, about 175 million people worldwide lived outside their home countries. That figure is now approaching 300 million. It is a tide that has swelled from wars, persecution, the brutality of autocrats, dysfunctional or collapsed states, the intensifying effects of climate change, and simply the lack of basic economic opportunity in much of the world.
The second challenge is that developed countries are aging. Their economies need workers in a variety of service and industry sectors; a need that also fuels inflation and raises interest rates. And a 21st-century economy where innovation is critical also benefits immigrant researchers and entrepreneurs, who contribute disproportionately to the achievements of their new countries.
Addressing those twin challenges can also be doable, if difficult.
Garrett Fuller / PA / AP
The problem is not politics. There is a broad central consensus about what is needed. immigration policies that welcome newcomers with useful and necessary skills for their new host countries; a migrant policy that combines strong border security with an effective system for processing their cases; and initiatives to improve conditions in the countries they are fleeing.
What stands in the way of such an approach is politics. an increasingly partisan, populist, nationalist tone now colors the immigration debate in the US, Britain and other Western democracies.
This is reflected in some politicians’ talk of an “invasion” of migrants, a term used by UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman last year. And while many people are genuinely concerned about the changing ethnic mix of their communities, those concerns are exacerbated by conspiracy theories such as the so-called Great Replacement, the idea of ​​a shadowy international scheme to replace white, Christian natives with mixed-race relations. and beliefs.
The result? a toughening of the treatment not just of migrants arriving in rubber boats on the south coast of England or of migrants crossing the Sonoran desert on foot, but of immigrants in general.
In Britain last week, Ms Braverman, who is Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s chief law and order minister, forced him not only to keep his pledge to “stop the boats” bringing desperate migrants to British shores, but to cut back on his pledge. sharply on all immigration.
Net migration to the UK hit a record high of almost half a million last year and is still rising. Ms Braverman wants to at least bring it in line with her Conservative Party election promise of four years ago, about 270,000 a year.
It’s a daunting task for Mr. Sunak. The main selling point of Brexit, when Britons voted to leave the European Union, was that London would be able to keep out Eastern European plumbers, construction workers and seasonal fruit and vegetable pickers who enjoyed the right as EU citizens. work in Britain.
The new non-EU inflows, mainly from India, the Philippines, Nigeria and Zimbabwe, simply reflected market realities. These jobs still need to be done, and the British either can’t or won’t.
PA Images / Reuters
In America, too, the partisan debate over the southern border has undermined prospects for consensus on broader immigration issues.
Former President Donald Trump won in 2016 by negotiating hard on border security. His closest Republican challenger for the 2024 nomination, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, is taking a similarly tough line. Speaking last weekend, Mr. DeSantis said he would “close the border immediately.”
Still, real-life pressures are likely to eventually push politicians toward policies that mix a better-funded, better-organized system of migration control with economically targeted admissions for immigrant workers.
In Britain, Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt is pushing back against Ms Braverman’s call for wholesale cuts to immigration, arguing it would harm economic growth. In fact, he said this week that he is open to expanding the list of “shortage occupations” — jobs where businesses are pressing for more immigrant workers.
But the increasingly partisan divide in the US is likely to derail any bipartisan breakthrough on immigration, at least for now. The last time it happened was in 1986, under then-President Ronald Reagan. a crackdown on illegal immigration coupled with amnesty for the tens of thousands of immigrants already in America.
In his final speech as president, Mr. Reagan chose immigration as a theme. Calling it “the great vital force of every generation of new Americans,” he said America’s strength rests on attracting people from “every country and every corner of the world.”
“If we ever close the door to new Americans,” he warned, “our leadership in the world will soon be lost.”
Mr. Reagan’s legislative success provides a possible template, but also a reminder of how dramatically US politics and his own Republican Party have changed over the past 40 years.