Germany, Mass Migration and the Lesson for America
One of the most cautionary tales about immigration comes from Germany. When Syria collapsed into civil war, Chancellor Angela Merkel proclaimed an open-door policy for Syrians who could make it to Germany. The plan was to use these migrant waves as a way to stave off population decline in Germany while boosting its working-age population. Despite concerns from some experts, that this would not be an economic boost, their warnings were ignored.
Germans were reassured that this wave of migrants could only be a good thing for the economy. The World Economic Forum stated that migrants to Germany would boost the economy by “increasing entrepreneurial activity.” The migrants could plug Germany’s dependency ratio of workers to retired people. The German government even introduced special apprenticeships to train the new migrants. Did this prove to be the economic boost the German people were promised? In fact, the opposite occurred.
German government statistics showed a 169 percent increase in migrants claiming government benefits, and the government sheepishly admitted the need to spend 93.6 billion Euros on migrant welfare, a figure higher than total spending on the German military. Less than a decade after Merkel’s promise migrants would boost the German economy, Germany’s own government admits its economy is the “sick man of Europe”, with its economy actually shrinking. So, why is this relevant to America?
The reason is that what happened in Germany is happening here. The U.S. is now seeing huge waves of migrants headed towards the border from troubled countries. In the case of Germany, it was Syria, in the case of the U.S., it is countries like Venezuela, Ecuador, and most recently Haiti. As was the case with Germany, commentators reassure the American people that waves of migrants from troubled societies can only be an economic benefit. The media commentators are very insistent.
The U.S. cheerleaders for open borders continue to push the claim that weak border security is somehow good for the economy. The Washington Post stated “The economy is roaring. Immigration is a key reason.” CNBC stated that migrants were “taking pressure off the job market” and one think tank linked to a former President stated that “The Benefits of Immigration Outweigh the Costs.” The idea is that whatever other impacts migration may have — such as national security, crime or social cohesion — can be overlooked if there at least is some measurable economic gain. But is this a valid argument?
The claim the economy is “roaring” is questionable, and far from “taking pressure off” the job market, migration has muscled American-born workers out of jobs, especially for the poorest Americans. The professional and management jobs that really drive economies are still mostly done by U.S.-born workers. The idea that the benefits of immigration outweigh the costs is also not true. FAIR has found that while illegal aliens contribute over $31 billion in taxes, they impose a net cost of at least $150.7 billion on the taxpayers.
The open borders advocates continue to claim that mass migration is good because of its alleged economic boost. They had claimed mass migration would boost the German economy, only for it to creak under the strain of welfare provision for the same migrants. Years on from Angela Merkel’s experiment, Germany has become the “sick man of Europe”. The claimed benefits of mass Venezuelan migration for host societies in Latin America similarly failed to materialize. The lesson for the U.S. is that large-scale migration from troubled societies is not a good strategy for economic success.