https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/migration-facts-versus-myths-by-ian-goldin-2025-01
The Truth About Migration
Jan 10, 2025IAN
GOLDIN
Today’s rich countries owe much of their success to
the contributions of migrant workers. Yet rising anti-immigrant sentiment
threatens to restrict migration, jeopardizing host countries that depend on
foreign labor and developing economies that rely on remittances to drive
economic development.
OXFORD – The brouhaha between the tech bros led by
Elon Musk and Donald Trump’s nativist supporters over whether to restrict
skilled immigrants reflects a deep underlying tension between the politics and
economics of migration. While Trump’s “MAGA” base sees migrants as a threat to
their jobs, company bosses recognize that there is an increasingly fierce
global competition for talent and to “make America great again” they need more
foreigners. In fact, over
60% of the
trillion-dollar tech company CEOs in the United States are foreign born,
including Musk.1
1. 
SUBSCRIBER
FAVORITE
Economics6
The Economic Consequences of Trump
2.0
SIMON JOHNSON explains
why reality is unlikely to come close to matching the US president-elect's
rhetoric.
Today’s rich economies owe much of their success to
migrants who – by choice or through coercion – labored on their plantations,
factories, mines, and homes. Even now, these countries continue to rely on low-
and high-skilled migrant workers to fuel economic growth and dynamism by taking
on jobs that native-born workers are unwilling or unable to fill.
Far from displacing local workers, migration tends
to boost employment among native-born citizens. Studies have consistently shown
that countries with significant foreign-born populations experience faster and
more sustained GDP growth. In the US, migrants paid an estimated $579
billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022,
and in the United Kingdom, official forecasts project that a 350,000 increase
in net migration will “deliver a net reduction in borrowing of around £7.4
billion” ($9.1 billion) by 2028. While impressive,
these numbers still significantly underestimate migration’s economic impact,
overlooking its longer-term contributions to growth and dynamism.
Research also shows that migration does not
negatively affect local workers’ wages. George Borjas, an economics professor
at Harvard and once a prominent immigration skeptic, has acknowledged that
while the impact of immigration on locals’ wages “fluctuates widely from study
to study,” it seems to “cluster around zero.” Since lower-skilled migrants
often take undesirable jobs, such as those involving long night shifts,
zero-hours contract work, and heavy labor, their main competitors are usually
other migrants.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter, PS Economics
Every Thursday in PS Economics, we offer a concise selection
of essential reading on the most important issues related to economics and
finance.
By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and
terms of service.
None of this seems to matter to Trump, whose unsubstantiated
claims include the charge that immigrants are taking
“Black jobs.” In reality, despite a sharp rise in migration in recent years,
unemployment among Black Americans remains at historic
lows. And that is true more broadly. Rather than
competing with native-born Americans, migrants have contributed significantly
to US job creation. Over the past two decades, immigration has increased the
wages of non-college-educated Americans while having no significant impact on
college-educated workers. It has also boosted the female workforce
participation rate, partly by making childcare and housekeeping more
affordable.
Simply put, many countries depend so heavily on
migrants that their economies would collapse without them. This is especially
true in some Gulf countries; migrants make up roughly 90% of the
labor force in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Elsewhere, foreign workers
often fill critical labor gaps, doing jobs that require specialized skills,
such as programming, plumbing, or surgery, while lower-skilled migrants handle
vital tasks that locals are unwilling to perform like fruit picking and elder
care.
Thriving economies naturally attract more migrants,
who, in turn, boost productivity and fuel economic growth. This virtuous cycle
explains why cities with the highest migrant concentrations are among the
world’s most vibrant and prosperous. While migrants may arrive in countries with
stagnant job markets, they rarely settle permanently. For example, migrants
arriving in Greece often move on to Germany and northern Europe, much like
South American migrants pass through Mexico on their way to the US.
A FISCAL
IMPERATIVE
Anti-immigration politicians often portray migrants
as a burden on public budgets. In fact, foreign workers tend to contribute more
in taxes than they receive in benefits. This is largely because a substantial
share of migrants are younger, work longer hours than native populations, and
rely less on government services like education, pensions, health care, and
elder care. Studies of the UK’s foreign-born population have found that
migrants contribute
more to government revenue than they consume in
public resources. Similarly, migrants in the US, Germany, Greece, Portugal, and
Spain are generally less dependent on social services than native-born citizens.
Even undocumented migrant workers make significant
contributions to government finances. In the US, they are more
likely to be in paid employment than native workers
or documented migrants. Afraid to reveal their status, they rarely access
welfare benefits, resulting in a substantial net contribution to the public
purse. An estimated $2.3
trillion has accumulated in “suspense files,”
representing Social Security contributions from individuals unable to claim their
benefits, most of whom are undocumented migrants. These unclaimed funds are eventually earmarked for other spending.
Given their economic significance, reducing
migration will inevitably stifle GDP growth and result in massive job losses.
In 2022 alone, migrants to the US spent about $1.6
trillion on goods and services, and the federal
government projects that migrant workers will contribute $7
trillion to US GDP over the next decade.
Refugees, unlike economic migrants, can sometimes
become a burden on social systems. But this is largely due to restrictive
immigration policies in countries like the UK, where asylum seekers are
prohibited from working and forced to rely on public services.
Increased migration also offers clear demographic
advantages. Most advanced economies, as well as many developing countries,
including China, now have birth rates below replacement levels, which, combined
with rising life expectancy, have led to rapid population aging. By 2050, the
number of people aged 60 and older worldwide is expected
to double to more than two billion. Workers will be
required to pay the taxes that sustain social systems and perform the growing
range of jobs that cannot be automated or done remotely, like elder care,
personal services, and hospitality.
But there appears to be little correlation between
demographic realities and public attitudes. Countries with the world’s lowest
fertility rates – such as Poland, Hungary, Japan, and South Korea – are among
those most opposed to migration. Nevertheless, public attitudes toward
migration can and do change as people grow more accustomed to foreigners in
their midst and begin to recognize the necessity of migrant labor. Even as
Trump threatens to carry out mass deportations and close the US-Mexico border,
business and civic leaders in Midwestern states – including those Trump won
during the presidential election – have been calling for
more immigration.
That is not surprising. Faced with an aging
population and a shrinking workforce, a diverse swath of the US economy – from
farming and health care to retail and manufacturing – has been experiencing
severe staff shortages. The Republican governors of Indiana and Utah have highlighted the
consequences of the congressional stalemate on immigration, writing that it
“hobbles both parties and, more seriously, endangers America’s long-term
well-being.” It is worth noting that Rust Belt states, where migrants are
crucial to revitalizing local economies and reversing population decline, would
be hit particularly hard by stricter immigration policies.
Moreover, migration provides two key ingredients of
a dynamic economy: a growing pool of highly educated workers and a diverse
workforce that fosters innovation and entrepreneurship. In the US, for example,
immigrants are 80%
more likely than native-born citizens to start a business
and, among people with advanced degrees, three
times more likely to file patents. Half of all venture
capital-backed firms in Silicon Valley have at
least one immigrant founder, and more
than 50% of US “unicorns” – startups valued at $1
billion or more that have yet to go public – were started by immigrants. And
migrants are significantly overrepresented among Nobel laureates, National
Academy of Sciences members, and Oscar-winning film directors. In the UK,
migrants account for just
16% of the
population but account for one-third of all
Booker Prize-winning authors.
RHETORIC AND
REALITY
To be sure, not all migrants are exceptional or
even law-abiding. Even so, criminality rates among migrants are typically lower
than those of native-born citizens. This can be partly attributed to the
inherent challenges of migration, as people who decide to uproot their lives
and move to another country tend to be more ambitious, creative, resourceful,
and determined.
Trump’s own grandfather is a case in point.
Friedrich Trump was himself a migrant who escaped poverty in his native Bavaria
to become a successful businessman in the US. During the 1896-99 Klondike Gold
Rush, Friedrich ran a restaurant and provided other services to the
prospectors. After returning to Germany to marry, he was deported back to
the US for evading conscription and began buying up land in Queens, laying the
foundation for his descendants’ real-estate empire.
But if migration offers such clear benefits, why do
so many people and politicians oppose it? The disconnect between economic
reality and political discourse is reflected in surveys showing that
people tend
to overestimate the size of their countries’ migrant
populations and in the anti-immigrant rhetoric of parties
across the political spectrum. Politicians, often assisted by audience-hungry
media, have learned that sensationalized images of foreigners “flooding” or
“swamping” their countries attract those who confront job insecurity, limited
access to public services, or unaffordable housing. Even immigrants and their
descendants are not immune to the influence of such messaging.
Walls and fences have long been a favored tool of
anti-immigration politicians. But while they serve as powerful symbols of
sovereignty, physical barriers are often counterproductive. Instead of
deterring migration, they tend to trap as many people within a country’s
borders as they keep out, forcing the most desperate migrants to risk their
lives trying to circumvent them.
Trump’s “big,
beautiful wall” on the border with Mexico, for example, is merely
the latest iteration of a decades-old idea. In the 1990s, President Bill
Clinton ordered fences to be built to prevent migration to US border towns. His
successor, George W. Bush, expanded this project, adding more fencing than any
previous administration. Barack Obama added more than 100 miles to the border
fence, and Trump, in turn, added just 47 miles but reinforced roughly
400 miles of existing barriers.
Recent US administrations have also sought
increasingly sophisticated and costly surveillance technologies and enforcement
capacity. By 2022, funding for US Customs and Border Protection and Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had ballooned to $22
billion. But despite the rise in arrests, the judicial
system remains underfunded. Roughly 500
asylum cases were processed daily in 2023, leading to a
rapidly growing backlog. While waiting for their cases to be heard, many
applicants remain in the US, often getting lost in an opaque and labyrinthine
system. Meanwhile, the ongoing fortification of the US-Mexico border has driven
migrants toward increasingly perilous routes. In 2022, an estimated 686 people
died or disappeared trying to cross the border, making it the most
dangerous land border in the world.
A SHOT IN THE
FOOT
Anti-immigrant rhetoric reached a fever pitch
during the 2024 US presidential election. Just as he did during his 2016
campaign, Trump repeatedly vilified Latinos and other immigrants as criminals
and pledged to restrict their entry while deporting 11-21
million people.
Among Trump’s many unverified claims was his bizarre
assertion that Haitian migrants in Ohio (whom live
there legally) were abducting and eating their neighbors’ pets. Despite lacking
any evidence – and ignoring pleas
by local authorities – Trump’s allies and supporters amplified
these dangerous lies. Senator Ted Cruz, for example, shared a meme of
kittens urging
voters to turn out for Trump “so Haitian immigrants
don’t eat us.”
There are currently more than 13
million undocumented workers in the US, many of whom have been in
the country for decades. Deporting them en masse would undermine the economy,
harming US-born workers in the process. Industries like construction, agriculture, and meat
processing, where undocumented workers account for a
significant share of the labor force, would be hit particularly hard. The
result would be sharp increases in housing and food prices, as well as the
costs of elder and infant care, hospitality, and other services.
Furthermore, implementing a mass deportation
program would face enormous legal,
logistical, and economic obstacles that would likely take years to overcome.
According to the American Immigration Council, the direct costs alone
could exceed
$315 billion – a “highly conservative estimate.” The
long-term damage to the economy would be far
greater.
But US policies have long been shaped by the
tension between the economic necessity of foreign labor and the political
incentives to appear tough on immigration. In 1954, Operation Wetback – a
derogatory term referring to Mexicans who swam across the Rio Grande into the
US – deported 1.3
million undocumented migrants. The resulting labor
shortages sparked an outcry from businesses, prompting the government to allow
Mexican workers to enter the US legally.
Trump’s deportation plans – the latest iteration of
this tension – would have disastrous consequences not just for the US economy
but also for Mexico. The sudden influx of millions of workers, coupled with the
costs of repatriating non-citizens, would place enormous strain on Mexican
resources. This burden would be compounded by the loss of remittances, which
amounted to more
than $60 billion in 2023, nearly double foreign direct
investment.
Central American and Caribbean countries would be
hit even harder. In El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Jamaica,
remittances account for more than 20% of the
national income. These funds are primarily spent on essentials such as food and
medicine, with the remainder invested in education and housing. Research suggests
that for every 10% increase in the number of Mexican and Central American
migrants working in the US, the share of people living in extreme poverty in
their countries of origin
declines by 9%.
BRAIN DRAINS AND GAINS
Much of the migration debate is focused on the
impact of migrants on the countries that receive them, but, as the example of
remittances suggests, the effects on the countries they leave are equally
important – and not necessarily positive. While India, China, and the
Philippines produce the
largest number of educated migrants, regions like Sub-Saharan Africa, the
Caribbean, and Central America lose a far higher proportion of their university
graduates. Roughly 20% of Sub-Saharan degree-holders live abroad, and more
than half of university graduates from a number of Caribbean and Central
American countries leave their homes.
In more populous countries, like India, where
emigrants make up a small fraction of the educated workforce, the impact of
migration is relatively limited. By contrast, in Sub-Saharan Africa,
where only
9.4% of the population is enrolled in tertiary
education, the departure of skilled professionals can impede economic development,
implying a strong case for destination countries to compensate the countries
that educated them.
But the emigration of highly skilled workers can
have unexpected positive effects. Many aspiring migrants pursue higher
education to boost their chances of landing jobs abroad. The success of those
who leave often motivates
those who remain to invest in their own education, while
remittances provide the resources needed for increased investment in education,
health, and infrastructure. This can lead to reductions in poverty and
increases the number of students and skilled workers – even as more graduates
emigrate.
Likewise, as migrants gain skills and income, they
often channel these resources back to their home countries, bringing both
expertise and investments that foster economic development. Most notably,
migrants collectively send home more than $1 trillion annually (the World
Bank estimate of over
$880 billion in 2024 does not include substantial flows through unrecorded
informal channels). In many developing economies, remittances sent by migrants
abroad exceed aid and investment combined. In Lebanon, they
account for 28% of GDP, and between 32% and 48% of GDP in Tajikistan,
Tonga, and Samoa. These funds have a transformative impact,
supporting investments in education, health, housing, and productive assets
such as seeds, tractors, and sewing machines. Consequently, communities with
high migration rates are often better off economically than they would be
otherwise.
For the migrants themselves, the reality is more
complicated. While studies show that migrants tend to achieve at least some of
their aspirations, many face abuse and danger even after they reach their
destinations, enduring social and economic exclusion, xenophobia, loneliness,
and violence.
Moreover, migrants often take on dangerous jobs
that local workers avoid, such as shift work in slaughterhouses. During the
COVID-19 pandemic, precarious working conditions led to disproportionately high
death rates among migrant workers. Migrant women, in particular, are frequently
employed as cleaners, cooks, and caregivers – isolated and insecure jobs often
lacking basic protections.
BETTER MIGRATION
The idea of open borders may seem politically
suicidal nowadays, but they were largely the norm until the twentieth century.
The European Union’s Schengen area, which allows free movement across member
states, demonstrates how such systems can work effectively. Over the years,
migration within the EU has proven highly responsive to economic conditions,
with open borders enabling both repatriation and circular migration.
As with trade liberalization, the costs of
migration are often immediate, visible, and concentrated in a small number of
communities, while the benefits tend to be widely dispersed, less tangible, and
slower to materialize. To unlock the full economic potential of migration,
governments must take steps to alleviate the burdens faced by directly affected
communities. This could include building more affordable housing in areas
experiencing population growth or investing in public transportation and
infrastructure to meet increased demand.
Supporting these communities is economically
prudent as well. Nearly 20 years ago, the World Bank estimated that
global GDP could grow by more than $356 billion within two decades if rich
countries increased their workforce by just 3% through immigration.
The anti-immigration sentiment sweeping the US and
many other countries contrasts with the growing recognition among economists
that cross-border migration, when managed properly, can benefit host and source
countries alike. So far, the economists have been ignored. Increasingly
restrictive policies targeting migrants from developing economies have
jeopardized an essential lifeline for those seeking to escape poverty,
conflict, and destitution while damaging the economies that shut the door on
them.
Crafting a more humane and open immigration system
– one that maximizes opportunities while mitigating costs – remains one of the
biggest challenges facing policymakers. One possible solution is to develop a
clear policy framework that ensures safe passage for migrants, enforces minimum
wage and workplace safety standards, and provides portable pensions and social
security benefits to those returning to their home countries. At the same time,
migrants would be required to obtain proper documentation, pay taxes, and
adhere to their host countries’ laws.
But first, voters and political leaders must
acknowledge that migration is – and always has been – a fact of life. Its
history is one of profound loss and sorrow, but also of new opportunities and
extraordinary progress. Time and again, migration has driven human advancement.
With the right policies, it will continue to do so.
IAN GOLDIN
Writing for PS since 2011
11 Commentaries
Ian Goldin is Professor of
Globalization and Development at the University of Oxford and the author
of The Shortest History of Migration (Old
Street Publishing,
