"Don't be silly!" – these words escaped me when I learned that my acquaintance, a budding orthopedic dentist from the suburbs, had signed up for German language courses and now stays up late every evening cramming a textbook. She even fell out with her boyfriend over it.
"Why do you need German? Where will you meet a German here? Do you want to marry a foreigner? Better learn English," I advised her.
"You're the fool. I'm going to live in Switzerland," she retorted.
I should note that, judging by her beautiful almond-shaped eyes, there is not a drop of German, let alone Swiss, blood in my friend.
"Who's waiting for you there? Who needs our dentist there? They have plenty of their own!" I tried to reason with her. It ended up with her falling out with me too.
My acquaintance, it seems, does not realize that it will become increasingly difficult for her to move to Switzerland every year. "Switzerland is becoming uncomfortable," state immigrants who have moved to the Central European country from third-world countries. On October 21, the next elections to the confederation's parliament took place. The victory went to Christoph Blocher's Swiss People's Party, which has a reputation as a nationalist politician. Running under the slogans of restricting immigration, it garnered almost 29% of the vote – a record for Switzerland.
Although official assessments of the situation from EU representatives paint a fairly favorable picture, the success of the Swiss People's Party shows that the problem of "us vs. them" will remain one of the most acute in the European Union for many years to come. And this despite the fact that virtually no expert denies the positive, at least short-term, impact of migration on the EU economy. "Finding a new balance" is how Liam Byrne, the British Minister for Immigration, recently articulated the task facing the UK immigration authorities.
The Hospitality Index
The success of European countries in integrating foreign labor is assessed using the Migration Integration Index (Mipex). The index is the result of a consortium of 25 organizations, including universities, non-governmental organizations, and analytical groups. The compilation of Mipex is coordinated by the British Council and the British organization Migration Policy Group. The index was first compiled in 2004 and received high praise from both official EU bodies and a wide range of human rights organizations. The efforts of 28 European countries (25 EU members plus Norway, Canada, and Switzerland) to create favorable conditions for immigrants to participate in European societies, and, as the culmination of this participation, obtaining citizenship of the host country, are evaluated according to 140 criteria. The criteria are designed to provide an objective picture in six main areas that affect the successful integration of migrants: access to the labor market; the possibility of family reunification; the possibility of obtaining long-term residence; the possibility of participating in the political life of the country; the possibility of obtaining citizenship; and anti-discrimination legislation.
The ranking based on Mipex is topped by Sweden, which scored 88 out of a possible 100. In this country, according to researchers, migrants (especially labor migrants) are provided with the most favorable conditions for integration into Swedish society. The Scandinavian country scored the highest in almost all six areas. The compilers of Mipex acknowledge that only Sweden can be classified as a fully favorable state for the integration of migrants. Meanwhile, other countries that also have certain successes have significant gaps in at least one of the six areas. Only nine countries pursue policies towards migrants that can be called partially favorable.
The lowest position in the ranking is occupied by Latvia. According to the index's compilers, the authorities of this Baltic country restrict the rights of foreign workers and practically do not allow them to participate in the political life of the country. Five European countries with the largest immigrant communities – the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, Italy, and France – are in the upper part of the ranking. Among them, Italy has risen the highest – it is in seventh place. The United Kingdom, which continues to be considered the number one destination for immigrants from both Europe and the rest of the world, is in ninth place. However, as experts believe, it has every chance of moving lower in the next ranking if the migration control measures proposed by its authorities find widespread support in society.
Welcome…
At first glance, there is no basis for anti-immigrant sentiments. At least, not when it comes to the economy. As data from a recently published report by the UK Home Office, "The Economic and Financial Impact of Immigration," shows, migration adds about £6 billion to the country's GDP annually. In the 2003-2004 financial year, taxes from immigrants accounted for about 10% of all UK government revenues, while only 9.1% of government spending in this area was used to meet the social needs of this category of the population. The report cites an estimate of the "value of a labor migrant" conducted by American economists in 1997. Thus, the average immigrant ultimately brought $80,000 in profit to the country (in 1996 dollars). This figure varies from $180,000 for highly skilled migrants to a negative value of -$13,000 for migrants with incomplete secondary education.
According to an estimate by the British National Institute of Economic and Social Research, about a fifth of the United Kingdom's economic growth in 2004 and 2005 can be attributed to immigration. Data from the UK Department for Work and Pensions also indicate that although the share of immigrants in the country's labor force has nearly doubled over the last decade (to 12.5%), this has had no impact on wage levels and unemployment among the local population. Moreover, since 2001, the average weekly wage of a native Briton has increased, while the same indicator for an immigrant worker has declined. According to ministry experts, this is because recent immigrants tend to occupy less well-paid positions than in the past.
In any dynamic and flexible economy, there will always be a shortage of labor in various sectors. And in some, this shortage will always be more effectively filled through migration. Of course, it can be done without it; the economy will continue to function and eventually find a balance point, but as a result it will become less flexible, less productive, and less dynamic. "In other words, for our country and its public purse, the future with immigration is better than the future without it," Liam Byrne is confident.
...But Outsiders Not Allowed
Against this backdrop, it may seem strange that entry rules for Foggy Albion are being tightened. Last year, the number of migrants deported from the country who were denied refugee status exceeded the number of rejected applications for that status for the first time. Over the past five years, 180,000 illegal migrants have been removed from flights bound for the UK – that is about two jetliners a week. Over the past 12 months, 16,000 illegal immigrants have been deported from the country – one every half hour.
But, as the country's government believes, the measures currently being taken are insufficient. Over the next year, the British immigration system will undergo the most radical overhaul in its history: "In 12 months, the system will be transformed beyond recognition," says Liam Byrne. First of all, in four months, a points-based system for selecting labor migrants will come into effect, similar to the one used today by Australia and New Zealand. "It will guarantee that only those people whom the country really needs will get into Britain for work and study." In addition, a mandatory fingerprinting procedure will be introduced for 3/4 of those wishing to obtain a British visa. All foreigners will be issued special identification cards. The government also plans to create a single agency with broad powers that will be responsible for the security of British borders.
The point is that besides the benefits received from migrants, the English economy also faces serious costs. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the influential non-governmental organization Migrationwatch UK, believes that migration in the proportions observed today has an impact on society whose economic justification is very insignificant. "The Ministry's report once again confirms that the native population feels hardly any benefits from immigration. The increase in GDP that immigration provides almost coincides with the growth of the country's population due to it," says the former British diplomat. Sir Green especially emphasizes the need to reduce the number of immigrants from non-EU countries: "We can do nothing about Eastern Europeans because they are in the EU. And as the economic situation in their home countries improves, their numbers will decrease. But three-quarters of migrants come to Britain from other parts of the world."
Thus, as globalization processes gain momentum, the governments of developed countries around the world are forced to solve a delicate political task – finding a balance between the need of local economies for foreign labor and the fear of change among local residents. The latter are increasingly demanding from their governments guarantees that only "right immigrants" will enter the country, that is, those capable of rapid and painless integration, bringing economic dividends to the host country and not becoming a burden on local social welfare systems.