https://www.economist.com/open-futu...convince-sceptics-of-the-value-of-immigration
Openness to immigration is a good thing, as I hope you agree. But how can we persuade moderate sceptics? Presenting rational arguments and evidence is important but often insufficient.
The liberal case for immigration is simply put. Openness to newcomers is morally right, economically beneficial and culturally enriching.
The freedom to move is fundamentally important. It enables people to flee persecution, seek a better life, be with the ones they love or simply broaden their horizons. The biggest determinant of someone’s life chances is not their talent or hard work but where they were born, so allowing an African to move to America is life-changing.
The economic case for migration is equally compelling. Just as labour mobility is desirable within national borders, so too across them. Allowing people to move from poorer countries to richer ones that have more capital, superior technologies and better institutions boosts their productivity and that of the global economy.
Although the biggest benefits go to migrants and their children, countries that receive them gain, too. This is largely because migrants are different from natives of a country, and their differences tend to complement local needs and conditions. Some are more willing to do jobs that locals spurn, such as picking fruit or caring for the elderly. Others have skills that natives lack, such as medical training or fluency in Mandarin.
Their diverse perspectives help spark new ideas. More than three-quarters of patents generated at top American universities involve a migrant inventor. In both America and Britain migrants are twice as likely to start a business as locals. Around half of Silicon Valley startups, including Google, LinkedIn, Tesla and Stripe, were co-founded by immigrants.
Overall, a 1% rise in the immigrant share of the population tends to raise income per person by 2%. It’s not Donald Trump who makes America great, it’s the country’s openness to newcomers.
Migrants’ countries of origin tend to benefit too. The money migrants send home—$466bn last year—dwarfs rich-country governments’ aid and is often better spent. Remittances go straight into people’s pockets, pay for better education and health, and are used to start businesses. Migrants who return home also bring with them capital and new ideas.
Migration is culturally enriching too. Along with often providing a greater range of restaurants in an area, it also leads to more creativity in art and music, more exciting football teams and a wider range of friends and partners.
Even so, many people oppose immigration—and not all are irredeemably racist and xenophobic.
They may be ignorant; sceptics worried about the scale of immigration tend to vastly overestimate it.
They may have genuine misperceptions. It may seem like common sense that immigrants take local jobs, until you realise there isn’t a fixed number of jobs, and that migrants also create jobs when they spend their wages. It may also seem obvious that immigrants lengthen hospital waiting lists, although in countries such as in Britain they tend to pay more in taxes than they take out in benefits and services, see a doctor less often and are disproportionately doctors and nurses themselves.
Beyond dispelling ignorance and misperceptions, here are six quick suggestions to try to win over sceptics.
* Personal stories. People generally relate more to personal stories—such as that of Paulette Wilson, a retired cook who previously worked at the House of Commons, who was wrongly arrested and threatened with deportation by the British government—than to dry statistics.
* Social contact. Fear of “the other” tends to dissipate when people get to know each other. So getting people to mix more would help.
* Appeal to emotions. Opponents of immigration whip up fear and hate. As well as appealing to compassion for immigrants, supporters could tap into patriotism, arguing how openness makes a country great.
* Emphasise what unites us. Diversity is great; so is what people in a particular place have in common.
* Appeal to other people’s values. Liberal values such as individual freedom and equal rights leave some people cold. But Trump voters may be swayed by stories about immigrants who fought for America; traditionalists may be persuaded by highlighting how Latino immigrants share their family values.
* Address people’s underlying concerns. As well as pointing out that immigrants aren’t to blame for unemployment, stagnant wages or stretched public services, politicians need to implement policies to address these problems. here.
Openness to immigration is a good thing, as I hope you agree. But how can we persuade moderate sceptics? Presenting rational arguments and evidence is important but often insufficient.
The liberal case for immigration is simply put. Openness to newcomers is morally right, economically beneficial and culturally enriching.
The freedom to move is fundamentally important. It enables people to flee persecution, seek a better life, be with the ones they love or simply broaden their horizons. The biggest determinant of someone’s life chances is not their talent or hard work but where they were born, so allowing an African to move to America is life-changing.
The economic case for migration is equally compelling. Just as labour mobility is desirable within national borders, so too across them. Allowing people to move from poorer countries to richer ones that have more capital, superior technologies and better institutions boosts their productivity and that of the global economy.
Although the biggest benefits go to migrants and their children, countries that receive them gain, too. This is largely because migrants are different from natives of a country, and their differences tend to complement local needs and conditions. Some are more willing to do jobs that locals spurn, such as picking fruit or caring for the elderly. Others have skills that natives lack, such as medical training or fluency in Mandarin.
Their diverse perspectives help spark new ideas. More than three-quarters of patents generated at top American universities involve a migrant inventor. In both America and Britain migrants are twice as likely to start a business as locals. Around half of Silicon Valley startups, including Google, LinkedIn, Tesla and Stripe, were co-founded by immigrants.
Overall, a 1% rise in the immigrant share of the population tends to raise income per person by 2%. It’s not Donald Trump who makes America great, it’s the country’s openness to newcomers.
Migrants’ countries of origin tend to benefit too. The money migrants send home—$466bn last year—dwarfs rich-country governments’ aid and is often better spent. Remittances go straight into people’s pockets, pay for better education and health, and are used to start businesses. Migrants who return home also bring with them capital and new ideas.
Migration is culturally enriching too. Along with often providing a greater range of restaurants in an area, it also leads to more creativity in art and music, more exciting football teams and a wider range of friends and partners.
Even so, many people oppose immigration—and not all are irredeemably racist and xenophobic.
They may be ignorant; sceptics worried about the scale of immigration tend to vastly overestimate it.
They may have genuine misperceptions. It may seem like common sense that immigrants take local jobs, until you realise there isn’t a fixed number of jobs, and that migrants also create jobs when they spend their wages. It may also seem obvious that immigrants lengthen hospital waiting lists, although in countries such as in Britain they tend to pay more in taxes than they take out in benefits and services, see a doctor less often and are disproportionately doctors and nurses themselves.
Beyond dispelling ignorance and misperceptions, here are six quick suggestions to try to win over sceptics.
* Personal stories. People generally relate more to personal stories—such as that of Paulette Wilson, a retired cook who previously worked at the House of Commons, who was wrongly arrested and threatened with deportation by the British government—than to dry statistics.
* Social contact. Fear of “the other” tends to dissipate when people get to know each other. So getting people to mix more would help.
* Appeal to emotions. Opponents of immigration whip up fear and hate. As well as appealing to compassion for immigrants, supporters could tap into patriotism, arguing how openness makes a country great.
* Emphasise what unites us. Diversity is great; so is what people in a particular place have in common.
* Appeal to other people’s values. Liberal values such as individual freedom and equal rights leave some people cold. But Trump voters may be swayed by stories about immigrants who fought for America; traditionalists may be persuaded by highlighting how Latino immigrants share their family values.
* Address people’s underlying concerns. As well as pointing out that immigrants aren’t to blame for unemployment, stagnant wages or stretched public services, politicians need to implement policies to address these problems. here.
