DISCLAIMER: all opinions in this article reflect solely the views of the author, not the position of STAND UP FOR EUROPE.
By Drakoulis Goudis
27/11/2024
Over the past decade, no issue has sparked greater controversy or provoked more intense debate in Europe than immigration. It has been weaponized by far-right movements, exploited by populist leaders, demonized by the most unsavory elements of society, and mishandled by mainstream political parties. This contentious topic has fueled friction, unilateral actions, and deep disagreements, emerging as a persistent threat to the European integration project.
Why do we need immigration?
Shortly, because Europe is aging.
The European post-WWII social welfare model needs a sustainable ratio between retirees and working age individuals. The model operates on a (simplified) principle: taxes on production generate revenue to fund pensions and social welfare programs like unemployment benefits. This old-age dependency ratio is already too high and continues to rise.
Currently, the EU average (Eurostat data) stands at 33%: meaning there are only 3 working individuals for every retiree—a significant increase from 24% in 2002, when the ratio was roughly 4:1. The situation is even more concerning in the EU's largest economies—Germany, France, and Italy—which have higher-than-average ratios. Importantly, this already includes the mitigating effects of immigration; without it, the ratio would be even worse. A shrinking workforce coupled with a growing proportion of non-productive individuals threatens the sustainability of the welfare state. Without intervention, governments face increasing deficits, forcing unpopular measures like raising the retirement age or taxes.
Reversing these demographic trends is not feasible. People are living longer, financial incentives to have large families are limited, accidental pregnancies have decreased, and societal progress on gender equality in Europe means women are (thankfully) no longer viewed as baby-producing machines. Despite far-right voices (e.g. Elon Musk) advocating for a return to outdated gender norms for "demographic reasons," such a reversal is neither desirable nor realistic.
Immigration is therefore essential to sustain economic growth, generate GDP, and support the welfare system without resorting to drastic, unpopular policies.
What about unemployment? Doesn’t immigration take jobs from locals?
No. Immigrants typically fill low-wage, unskilled labor positions that native workers often avoid due to poor conditions and low pay. Quoting Greek PM Mitsotakis: “Who is going to pick our olives? We are a continent that is shrinking, and we all recognize that to maintain our productivity, we will need labor, unskilled or skilled.”
In sum, immigration is not just a necessity—it is a cornerstone for maintaining Europe's economic vitality and social stability in the face of an aging population.
What do the numbers really say?
According to data from Eurostat, the percentage of residents born outside the EU typically falls within the 10-15% range across most European countries. This figure includes individuals under temporary protection, such as Ukrainians, as well as citizens from non-EU European countries like the UK and Russia. These statistics mean that any claims about so-called “population replacement,” based on numbers pulled out of a magic hat or by Twitter posts of Patriots for Europe sympathizers, are complete nonsense and should be treated as such. For further insights into migration trends, Eurostat's database provides comprehensive details on various indicators.
Who opposes immigration?
A striking pattern emerges from electoral maps over the past decade: the bastions of anti-immigration parties tend to have the fewest immigrants. This trend suggests that opposition to immigration is often detached from lived experiences of diversity. In contrast, people in multicultural urban centers—who interact more closely with immigrants—are generally less swayed by anti-immigration rhetoric. Germany offers a compelling example in the following comparison its electoral map with Statista’s map depicting percentage of immigrants in each state:
Similar patterns appear in other countries like France, Belgium, Austria, and Denmark. While the East-West divide in Germany is a unique historical phenomenon, the broader trend holds true across Europe: capitals and larger cities are less receptive to anti-immigration arguments. Polls consistently indicate that the average anti-immigration voter is typically male, in his 40s or 50s, living in a rural or small homogenous town, and lacking a university degree. This voter is opposed to the idea of immigration.
Why?
Opposition to immigration stems from several underlying factors, which can be broadly grouped into three categories:
- Cultural Conservatism.
Individuals who live in homogenous communities and are inherently suspicious of anything foreign. This tribal mindset fosters a conservative outlook, which in its extreme forms manifests as overt racism. Among these groups are religious conservatives, particularly Christians, who often view immigration through the lens of Islamophobia. Despite significant similarities between the most dogmatic followers of both religions—such as their views on women and sexual minorities—this opposition remains deeply rooted in cultural and psychological biases (a psychological evaluation of the religious conservatives is not in the scope of the article). Engaging with these groups is challenging, often unproductive, and honestly barely worth the resources and the effort as their rigid views make even the most patient, optimistic orator lose faith in democracy. Fortunately, they represent a minority in most societies, though their influence can grow if they successfully align with other disaffected groups.
- Economic Misconceptions.
Many people lack a clear understanding (or any understanding) of economics and mistakenly believe that reducing immigration would solve issues like unemployment, housing shortages, and low wages. This simplistic view assumes that “less competition” from immigrants would lead to better opportunities for locals, ignoring basic facts of how the globalized 21st century economy works: for example, removing immigrants from the equation will not lead to better opportunities for factory workers, but to the whole factory relocating to a country with cheaper labor.
- Resentment and Scapegoating.
A significant portion of opposition comes from those who feel left behind by globalization. Western blue-collar workers, particularly, have seen their economic prospects stagnate, and many view immigrants as convenient scapegoats for their frustrations. Their anger is often compounded by a sense of abandonment by mainstream politicians and fueled by misinformation on social media. This resentment has allowed anti-immigration rhetoric to enter mainstream political discourse and has propelled far-right populist parties into positions of power or influence in several countries.
Are any of the concerns legitimate?
Some concerns about immigration are based on real challenges. Official data shows higher crime rates among certain immigrant groups, failures in integration leading to the creation of isolated parallel societies, and an already strained housing system in European cities facing additional pressure from growing populations.
However, the key is to recognize that immigration itself is not the root cause of these issues—poor policies and societal attitudes are. Take ghettos and crime as an example: if immigrants are unwelcome in most neighborhoods, they are likely to concentrate in the same disadvantaged areas. This segregation limits interactions with the local population, hinders integration, and creates social tensions. Children raised in these isolated communities may remain within an ethnic bubble, adopting their parents’ values on e.g. secularism and gender equality rather than integrating into the progressive social norms of the host country.
Addressing these challenges requires collaboration between society and political leadership. No policy can achieve 100% success—if that were possible, crime, poverty, and discrimination would have been eliminated long ago. Instead, a pragmatic, inclusive approach can yield better outcomes for all groups involved.
Looking for Leadership
True leadership means guiding the public toward the right side of history, not merely echoing fleeting popular opinion. In the context of immigration, European leaders must avoid short-sighted, damaging actions while taking decisive, forward-thinking steps.
What European leaders should avoid:
- Normalizing Far-Right Narratives.
Forming coalitions with far-right politicians, like Geert Wilders, is deeply harmful. When centrist or liberal parties (e.g., VVD in the Netherlands) align with extremist rhetoric, it shifts the Overton window, legitimizing xenophobia and entrenching far-right ideologies in the public mindset. Such alliances are opportunistic, irresponsible, and erode trust in democratic principles.
- Undermining Schengen.
Reintroducing border controls within the Schengen Area, as seen with Germany’s recent actions (quickly copied by other countries), signals a breakdown in European unity. This approach reinforces the perception of immigrants as a burden to be redirected, not integrated, and fosters a damaging “every country for itself” mentality. When writing “looking for leadership”, we obviously weren’t thinking of Olaf Scholz.
- Defying European Laws and Values.
Ignoring EU regulations to offload immigration challenges onto other member states (Schengen border states in particular) sets a dangerous precedent. This behavior perpetuates the narrative that immigration is a “problem” to be avoided rather than a manageable reality that, with the right policies, benefits society.
What European leaders must do:
- Control the Social Media Narrative.
Leaders must actively engage with and shape the discourse on social media, either by competing within the existing framework of social media platforms and winning or by regulating them to prevent manipulation. Allowing tech billionaires to dictate the rules of public debate is unacceptable, especially when the stakes involve combating far-right extremism.
- Deliver Tangible Improvements.
Addressing pressing issues, such as soaring rents in European capitals, demonstrates that leaders are focused on improving citizens' lives. This shifts public discourse away from scapegoating immigrants and toward more substantive issues.
- Confront Bad Faith Actors.
Taking firm action against leaders like Viktor Orbán sends a clear message: xenophobia, bigotry, and 1930s nationalist rhetoric have no place in the EU. Tolerating such behavior undermines European unity and values.
- Invest in Integration.
Concrete integration policies, coupled with consistent engagement from local to European levels, are essential. Open dialogue, collaboration, and clear expectations ensure smoother transitions for both immigrants and host societies.
The Path Forward
Immigration has always been a fundamental part of human history. The EU must engage in an honest, open discussion about it—one that rejects prejudice, improves laws and procedures, and reframes immigration as the net positive it truly is. There is no more space in the room for an elephant.