It's not immigration, it's work

The Círculo de Economía had the good idea of inviting the Dutch sociologist Hein de Haas to its annual conference and gave me the opportunity to talk with him. His book, The myths of immigration, is an essential text that should be a bible for anyone who has to make policies in this area and also for all those who chip in without the slightest idea of ​​how human movements really work. The result of extensive research and scientific rigor, De Haas puts under the microscope many of the commonplaces that have been spread by the media in recent decades. At the Cercle, he explained, for example, that during Biden's term, many more immigrants were deported than during Trump's, but the record number of expulsions occurred during none other than Obama's presidency. And this is explained by the analysis of the speeches and actions taken by both the right and the left. From what can be deduced from the information in the book, Western politicians have a rather ambivalent position regarding immigrants, and the public perception that the right is anti-immigration while the left is pro-immigration is false. The right seems tougher when it talks about control and order, but the specific measures it implements are not as forceful as we might think (leaving aside, of course, the far right). This is also explained by the fact that some sectors of the right are happy with foreign labor from countries with less established labor rights. In this regard, it's worth remembering that Aznar implemented three extraordinary regularizations. Making vehement anti-immigrant rhetoric while easing measures to control them is not only hypocritical but perverse because it pits workers against each other and creates problems of coexistence precisely where they exist: in working-class neighborhoods. As for the left, the data does not support the idea that it is more pro-immigration. In Spain, we have had notable examples that demonstrate this: Celestino Corbacho, a socialist, urged immigrants to leave when the economic crisis began. A precursor, in some ways, to Trump's initiative of self-deportation. Marlaska congratulating the Moroccan gendarmerie after brutally repressing people who tried to jump the fence also demonstrates that the left says A and practices B in this area. Not to mention the shameful episode in Tarajal. Now, even when this sector makes speeches supposedly in defense of foreigners, the use of instrumental and utilitarian arguments is striking: we need them, they say, to take care of our elderly, to clean our houses, to pay pensions, and to compensate for the low birth rate. It's offensive that they only want you to do what they don't want to do, but it's also not true. Immigration will not solve the demographic problems of Western countries, first because women everywhere are having fewer children and second because incorporation into the new society forces newcomers to adapt and also has greater control over their birth rates. As an example, my own family: my grandmothers had ten children each, my mother and aunts on both sides had five or six at most, and my siblings and I have had no more than two on average. But compensating for the aging of the population through immigration would require astronomical arrivals that are completely impossible (in France, for example, the number of arrivals would have to be between 20 and 40 times greater than the current number). The underlying issue we are not debating, De Haas concluded, is not immigration, but work and its conditions.