Its easy to sit up in an ivory tower and say immigration is always good because of the economic benefits; however, turning a blind eye to the social implications of immigration would be irresponsible in a well-rounded discussion. Here’s what Canada and Germany have going on:
Canada jumped on the immigration train fairly early in order to counteract their demographic decline. This influx of young immigrants helped stabilize the population, boosted labor productivity, and brought in more taxes than it cost in benefits. Butttt Canada’s social fabric is rapidly changing due to this new (and growing) population of immigrants.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have Germany and they’re not exactly known for their history of immigration. Over the past few years, the Germans have brought in large numbers of refugees from places like Bosnia, Syria and Ukraine. That has created some hefty social challenges, which will only continue to grow as Germany must bring in millions of young immigrants annually to balance its demographics.
While there is a strong economic case for immigration, we must also consider the social and political costs that it comes with. No amount of money can make a round peg fit in a square hole…
Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:
First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.
Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.
And then there’s you.
Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.
Hey, everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from the top of the Grand Canyon of the 12. I’m in Yosemite, just below Glen Allen. This is where I’m going to be hiking for the next couple of days. Not bad!
Today, we are taking an entry from the Ask Peter Forum, and the question is: Could you go through the numbers on the pros and cons of mass immigration into countries, specifically like Canada and Germany?
People always talk about the economic upside and the tax benefits, but they rarely mention the downsides, like crime and social identity. It’s a reasonable question, especially as we see more and more countries aging. Since we have more nations basically aging out, immigration is often brought up as one of the few, if not the only, possible patches or even solutions.
Let’s start by saying Canada is a special case. Canada knew 30 years ago that they were headed for a German-style demographic implosion. Under the Harper government and later under the Trudeau government, they made the decision to open the floodgates and become an immigrant country. You’ve probably had, I mean, they didn’t count the statistics the same way we do in the United States, but roughly 3 to 4 million immigrants have come in and become Canadians during that period.
Most of these immigrants were in their 20s and 30s, as Canada specifically targeted younger people, unlike the migrants they had received in earlier years. This managed to stabilize the numbers, but only so long as they keep those inflows coming, because native Canadians, to use a church term, still have a very, very low birth rate. There’s no replacement coming from within the population, so a new social fabric is developing.
The numbers, which I don’t have top of mind, I apologize, are unequivocal: the new migrants, especially those under age 40, generate far more in tax payments than they take out over their lifetime. It’s a definite net fiscal benefit. In terms of jobs, as a rule, the people who migrate tend to be the more aggressive, skilled, and educated of their countrymen. This gives you a boost in labor productivity. Not everyone is an Elon Musk, but you get the idea.
Third is crime. Unequivocal data shows that in every country that tracks these statistics, crime committed by immigrants is significantly lower—typically at least a third lower—than crime committed by the native-born population.
Fourth, there’s something people usually don’t think about: education. In the United States, it costs over $150,000 to graduate a kid from high school. That’s just the government cost for education, not the societal cost of raising the child from birth to age 18, including healthcare. One of the benefits of migrants is that, you know, another country has already paid those costs, and now you’re benefiting from their labor. Economically, it’s a very easy case to make.
Two things to keep in mind. Number one: not all migrants are the same. Take the United Kingdom, for example. Indian migrants and family reunification—basically, the UK would bring in one person from India who meets all of these criteria we’ve discussed. But then they bring in their extended family, and all of a sudden you’ve got 60 Indian Brits, half of whom are over 60. It’s a different story if you’re bringing in new retirees; the cost to society can be very, very high.
Also, in the German case, the migrants from Syria—about a million of them—were 80–90% male. So, you’re not getting much of a demographic boost there because there weren’t enough women to have more children.
The second complicating factor is social cohesion. If immigration has been a part of your social fabric for decades or even centuries, absorbing people from different places is relatively easy. Countries like the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada have done this in phases for a long time, so if someone says their parents are from a different country, most Americans won’t even blink. People in the U.S. assimilate very quickly.
But if your country doesn’t have that culture, like Germany, and you suddenly open the floodgates, things start to look very different. The first real wave of migration into Germany happened during the Bosnian wars in the 1990s. Germany did the right thing for the right reason by taking in refugees, but it changed the social character of the country. They did it again in the 2000s with Syrians, and now they’re doing it with Ukrainians. If you wait too long, until there are more people in their 40s than in their 30s, 20s, 10s, or even newborns, you’ll end up with a very different place.
This is the situation that Canada will face—not right now, but in 20 or 30 years. They waited until late in the day to start bringing in millions of people. If it happens over a long enough period, society can adapt. But in Germany’s case, this has all happened relatively quickly. To maintain their demographic standing, Germany may have to bring in 2 to 2.5 million people under age 30 every year for the next 20 years, just to stay where they are. By then, those people will form the majority of the country, which will make it a very different place.
If you look at immigration purely as a numbers game, a fiscal issue, or an economic growth issue, it’s a slam-dunk case. But we don’t live in that world. And you know what we call the gap between the ideal and reality? Politics.
