Politicians in the United States and Europe are devoting much energy to stopping illegal migrants. But this will achieve little unless they also tackle the key drivers of migration: poverty, conflict, and climate change. If they don’t, politics in the rich world will become increasingly toxic.
The fear of uncontrolled migration is one of the most divisive issues in Western democracies. It could help Donald Trump win this year’s U.S. presidential election. The former reality TV star last week encouraged Republicans in the Senate to vote down a bipartisan attempt to tighten border controls with Mexico.
Migration will also be a big issue in June’s European Parliament elections. It has already fuelled the rise of far-right nationalist political parties in countries including Germany, France and the Netherlands - and was one of the factors that led to Britain voting to leave the European Union.
There’s a growing consensus among politicians on both sides of the Atlantic that countries need stronger controls against illegal migration. But while mainstream parties want to combine this with policies to welcome genuine refugees and expand routes for legal migration, far-right politicians increasingly just want to put up barriers and deport anybody who slips through the net.
It’s necessary for politicians to manage illegal migration better. Many voters don’t like undocumented migrants living in their midst, of which there are around 11 million in the United States and 4 million - 5 million in Europe. What’s more, people across the political spectrum are unhappy about chaos at their borders. For example, a majority of both Republicans and Democrats are critical of the Biden administration’s handling of the U.S.-Mexico border.
It is also necessary to create better legal pathways for people to travel to the United States and Europe for work. Rich countries need more employees as their own populations age and face labour shortages. With no immigration, the European Union’s population would fall by nearly a third to 320 million by the end of the century.
But such action would not be enough. The horsemen of the apocalypse in the 21st century - war, poverty and climate change - are driving increasing numbers of people from their homes.
TRIPLE NEXUS
Both global warming and war are on the rise. Last year was the hottest on record. The World Bank estimates climate change could displace 143 million people in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and Latin America by 2050. While the vast majority will move within their own countries, some will find their way to richer nations.
Meanwhile, the number of deaths in armed conflict in 2022 was the greatest since the Rwanda genocide of 1994. The bloodiest war was in Ethiopia, followed by Ukraine.
The world is facing a “triple nexus”, where climate change feeds conflict and then drives migration, says Andrew Gilmour, author of “The Burning Question: Climate and Conflict – Why Does it Matter?” a thought-provoking book on the links between global warming and war to be published later this month.
One example is how drought in Syria in the first decade of this century led to the collapse of agriculture and the radicalisation of former farmers. That paved the way for the Syrian civil war and the rise of Islamic State. Syria is the world’s largest source of refugees: 6.5 million in total.
Growing desertification is also a factor behind a string of recent coups affecting a band of African countries between Sudan and Guinea. Again, this can boost migration. For example, Niger’s new junta has repealed a law which banned transporting migrants through the country on their way to Europe because locals who had benefited from the trafficking complained.
The best solution to a world of conflict would be the rule of law. But this doesn’t look promising given the superpower rivalry between the United States and China, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Israel’s war in Gaza.
That said, wealthy countries need to win friends among nations in the so-called Global South as part of their standoff with the People’s Republic. So the Group of Seven rich democracies have a strong incentive to press ahead with their $600 billion plan to help developing nations build sustainable infrastructure.
On a more micro level, Gilmour says one of the best ways to stop climate-induced migration is by introducing sustainable agriculture. He points out how a new way of producing rice has increased yields while conserving water in countries such as Mali and Afghanistan.
MIGRATION HUMP
A potential objection to helping poor countries develop is that this initially leads to increased migration. Extremely poor people can’t move far from home. But when they get a little money, they can afford to pay traffickers to get them to Europe or the United States.
But a policy of letting people languish in poverty isn’t just ethically questionable. It ignores the fact that people don’t leave home so much if their countries continue to develop. What’s more, migrants often then return home - bringing back skills and capital that fuel a virtuous cycle of growth, says Andrew Geddes, director of the Migration Policy Centre at the European University Institute.
This phenomenon - where migration initially goes up as a country gets richer and then flattens before falling - is known as the “migration hump”. Andrew Selee, president of the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute, argues that South Korea and Poland are both examples of countries that got over the hump and are now economic successes.
If wealthy countries were enlightened, they would help poorer countries get over the hump as fast as possible. They would marry that with policies to attract legal migrants with necessary skills, while also adopting firm but fair policies to control their borders. At the same time, they would do more to fight climate change and stop conflicts.
Failure to do these things will lead to more people fleeing their homes and desperately making their way to rich countries. And that will stoke nationalistic politics that could tear those societies apart.
Follow @Hugodixon on X
