3 Addressing challenges

In this final section we address some of the key concerns about the ultimate goal of global free movement.

Would free movement reduce jobs and wages?

The argument is intuitive and simple: more migrants means more competition for jobs and fewer jobs for native workers. Moreover, if migrants are willing to work for longer hours or for less money they will push wages down. It’s an argument used by anti-migration politicians across the world from Nigel Farage in the UK (“What we have got is a massive oversupply in the labour market which has driven down wages”),93 to Donald Trump in the USA (“They’re taking our jobs. They’re taking our manufacturing jobs. They’re taking our money. They’re killing us”),94 to Tony Abbott in Australia (“It’s a basic law of economics that increasing the supply of labour depresses wages”).95 Many on the left also repeat this logic. For example, in the UK former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has expressed concerns about “employers being able to import cheap agency labour to undercut existing pay and conditions”96 and in the US, Senator Bernie Sanders has argued that “there is no question in my mind that [open borders] would substantially lower wages in this country”.97

There is, however, a large body of evidence on how migrants affect jobs and wages, with the consensus being that migration typically has a small or neutral effect. In the UK, a key report is a government-commissioned review of 12 studies.98 It found that migration has “no or little impact” on employment, and “the evidence shows that it as a small short-term negative effect on low-paid workers”. The report suggests that those on medium and high incomes enjoy a small positive increase in wages. This is because new workers can be complementary, stimulating new work, innovations and productivity among native workers.

Similarly, recent work in Australia99 and the US100 has not found any profound impact of migration on wages or unemployment. The US study examined hundreds of papers, finding a positive impact

of immigration on the US economy in the long-term. Among its findings that skilled migrants might increase wages for some citizens, it also found that existing immigrants and high school drop-outs could see a very small wage reduction. This is partly because new migrants often work in the same low-paid jobs as these groups. Existing migrants are most likely to be affected by any negative wage shifts partly because newer immigrants have a similar set of skills and provide direct competition.101 Nonetheless, even the small effects identified by academics are expected to dissipate in the medium to long term.102

We should also note the overall economic benefits that can be expected from free movement. The economist Michael Clemens has argued that the introduction of global open borders could as much as double world GDP, adding trillions of dollars to the global economy.103 Although rapidly increasing global GDP would come with many issues, not least in terms of environmental impact, the significance of Clemens’ study is to challenge the view that increased migration is economically harmful. Many have emphasised the positive net economic contribution migrants can make, and the economic damage reducing migration might cause.104 Thus, the existing evidence suggests that claims about the negative impacts of free movement on jobs and wages is typically hyperbolic and misleading, while free movement also presents an opportunity to increase overall prosperity and well-being.

Does free movement create ‘brain drain’?

Concerns around ‘brain drain’ are often used as an argument against free movement. The idea is that poorer countries tend to lose some of their brightest and most skilled people to rich countries through migration, thus depriving the sending countries of vital human resources. The sending countries shoulder the costs of training and education, while seeing few of the benefits.

There is some evidence behind this argument. For example, around 70% of all university graduates in the Caribbean migrate to rich countries.105 These migrants come from some of the lowest income countries in the world such as Haiti. Similarly, one study found that the UK is home to almost as many Malawian doctors as Malawi, with the majority of Malawian doctors moving abroad to work.106 This contrasts with the severe shortage of doctors in Malawi, with only one college of medicine in a country of around 17 million people.107

But there are several strong counters to the brain drain argument, too. Firstly, migrant workers send huge amounts of money back. In 2018 alone, $529 billion worth of remittances (money sent by migrant workers to family or friends in their country of origin) were sent to lower and middle income countries – a comparable figure to the total foreign direct investment into the global south of $671 billion.108 Unlike foreign investment, which under many liberal investment rules is often repatriated as the profit of foreign companies, remittances largely go directly into the pockets of people living in developing countries and are spent on crucial areas. For example, studies show that remittance money is largely spent on education and healthcare in India109 and education in Ghana.110 Likewise, remittances have been shown to lead to a slight reduction in inequality and poverty in 10 Latin American and Caribbean countries.111

Moreover, the stark figures around the emigration of skilled workers only occur in a minority of countries. The majority of large labour exporting countries, including Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Brazil, send less than 10% of their university graduates abroad.112 What’s more, the emigration of skilled workers, such as health workers, does not necessarily do detriment to the sending country and the results are more of a mixed picture. For some countries, the export of health workers, even at a rate of 40%, does not appear to affect child mortality or other health indicators such as measles vaccination rate, prevalence of respiratory infection or HIV infection rates in the long term.113 Indeed, emigration of health workers has been found to lead to a greater production of health workers and is indicative of a ‘brain gain’ effect resulting from emigration.114 The Philippines, for example, exports the highest number of nurses in the world – but has more nurses per capita at home than Britain.115

A variety of factors have been suggested to explain these findings, which may seem counter-intuitive. First, foreign demand is likely to encourage more people to go into training and more institutions to offer it. Some countries, such as the Philippines, have an active and explicit policy of training skilled workers so that they can work abroad and send back money.116 Furthermore, the prospect of emigration can encourage people to stay in education for longer in order to boost their chances of success in their new country. For example, one study in Cape Verde finds that the more likely someone is to migrate, the more likely they are to complete primary education.117

Free movement may even encourage a ‘brain circulation’ effect where those who have been working abroad create the networks and knowledge needed to inspire new types of economic activities in their countries of origin. For example, one study found that “a 10% increase in immigration from exporters of a given product is associated with a 2% increase in the likelihood that the host country starts exporting that good ‘from scratch’ in the next decade”.118

However, because the costs of training skilled workers are high, sending countries would still stand to lose a significant amount of income under free movement. For instance, just nine countries in sub-Saharan Africa collectively lose around $2.2 billion in training costs for doctors who work abroad. At the same time, the UK gains $2.7 billion in doctor training bills it doesn’t have to foot; low-income countries are effectively subsidising the health service of high-income ones.119 One proposal to mitigate this damage is to have the high-income countries compensate low-income countries for training costs. This could occur through a “restitution fund”, paid for by the receiving country, for the “reconstruction and support of health care” in the sending country.120

Would everyone come at once?

Global free movement would represent such a dramatic transformation of our society that there is no way of confidently stating the levels of migration it would lead to. However, the concern that wealthy countries would be ‘flooded’ with migrants does not rest on rock-solid foundations. Historically free movement has seldom led to an immediate mass movement of people. This fear did not come to pass in Germany in 2012 when restrictions on Polish migration were lifted, the US in 1986 when its borders opened to Micronesia and the UK in 2014 when restrictions on Romanian migration were lifted.121 While it is true that Polish migration to the UK was greater than predicted after Polish accession to the EU in 2004, the numbers need to be kept in perspective: net Polish migration to the UK was under 30,000 per year from 2004 to 2012 – substantial, but not a ‘flood’.122

It is also worth noting that much of the world’s migration today occurs within, rather than beyond regions, including 63% of all African migration and 55% of that in Europe and Central Asia. Roughly a third of migrants in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia also remain within their regions.123

A 2018 global Gallup poll found that, while large numbers of adults worldwide (15%) would like to move to another country if they had the chance, the majority would move within their region.124 Meanwhile, in 2017, the International Organisation for Migration found that less than 10% of the people who express a general desire to migrate actually have any plans to do so within the next 12 months. Of these, even fewer, only 3%, have taken any kind of steps to make that plan a reality.125 If anything, it is a sudden closing of borders that can result in mass migration. For instance, in 1975 Suriname became independent from the Netherlands, stopping free movement between the countries. In the run up to independence, there was a surge in migration with around 40% of the entire Surinamese population migrating.126 A policy of permanently open borders, by contrast, would contain no such spur for a rapid surge of people moving.

To coincide with the inauguration of Donald Trump as president of the US, people around the world hung banners on 200 bridges with messages of peace, equality and tolerance. This banner was hung from North Bridge in Edinburgh.

Could our public services cope with open borders?

A frequent misunderstanding concerning migration and public services is that it is a zero-sum game, that there is a simple equation where more people necessarily means increased demand and pressure on public services. Actually, migrants are often crucial to the running of public services, particularly in high-income countries with ageing populations placing increased demand on health and social services. One study found that migrants consisted of 25% of UK public sector workers between 2008 and 2010 and 40% in health and social work.127 Immigrant workers in the public sector tended to be younger and better educated than native workers. The need for migrant workers in health and social care in countries with ageing populations will only increase with time. It is unsurprising, therefore, that the UK’s NHS has been pressuring the government to ease restrictions on migrants.128

Moreover, while many migrants staff public services and pay taxes to ensure they keep running, they are often less likely to use them. EU migrants have been found to contribute on average £2,300 more to UK public finances than they use per year.129 Though non-EU migrants contributed less than they consumed, these figures will be skewed by the high proportion of forced migrants among them. Similarly, hospital admission rates in England were found to be lower for international migrants than the native population, even when age is considered.130 In Australia the government’s own report states that “migrants are estimated to have a positive fiscal impact since they are predominantly of working age when they arrive”, contributing around 9.7 billion Australian dollars (£5.4 billion) to the Australian economy.131 Humanitarian migrants and the family of skilled migrants were the categories which, understandably, proved an exception to this trend.

In addition to these points, it is important to recognise that free movement means abolishing the category of the ‘illegal immigrant’, which may well reduce pressure on public services as they would be able to access the full range of primary health care. The European Agency for Fundamental Rights looked at what would happen if Germany, Greece and Sweden allowed undocumented people full access to health services related to high blood pressure, as opposed to

only emergency access. They found that it would result in a 9% cost saving after one year as it would help prevent many hundreds of strokes and heart attacks.132 Similarly, allowing women full access to prenatal care would result in savings of up to 48% in Germany and Greece. This is because it would help prevent many health issues related to low birth weight.

What about nationalism?

To build support for free movement, we need to develop persuasive arguments and methods of communication to win people over in large numbers. This is no easy task. Thus, the ideas presented in this report are beginnings, and better approaches may well be developed through more research and experience.

One of the key changes needs to be in how we see nations and citizenship. Arguments for free movement need to encourage people to primarily identify and make decisions through non-exclusive communities which transcend nations; communities which new migrants are free to join and help shape.133 This already happens to a limited extent, with cities such as London where it is not uncommon for people to identify themselves as a Londoner first, and British/English/ European second.134 Thus, free movement advocates can usefully use arguments around the devolution of power from the centre and capitals of countries to regions and other cities. This line of argument is related to the attempts by activists in 1949 in France to set up a network of global towns and cities. Their movement enjoyed some short-term success with 300 small ‘global cities’ established in the province of Lot.135

Nation states are set up to protect the privileges of their citizens, to be exclusive and to violently enforce their borders.136 Arguments for free movement need to move people beyond this exclusionary politics. In 2008 the socialist president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, enshrined in the constitution “the principle of universal citizenship, the free movement of all inhabitants on the planet and the progressive extinction of the status of alien or foreigner”.137 This article was part of efforts to resist racism and xenophobia. The constitution itself was wide-ranging, including articles on gender, the environment, economic resources, fair trade, and food sovereignty.138 Correa won the argument for

the constitution, and hence free movement, by arguing for people’s autonomy to live their lives as they wanted. And he promised to provide people the social assistance and opportunities needed to realise this. The focus on economic justice may have helped win the argument against exclusionary politics. So too, might the framing of autonomy, a natural counter to nativist worries about globalisation.

In a more visionary vein, in a world of free movement national citizenship might be superseded by a global citizenship and ideas of universalism. Promoting ideas of global citizenship can help win the argument as well as prompt practical changes. A world passport does currently exist in a limited form. It is issued by the World Government of World Citizens, a campaign for free movement. Almost 750,000 have been distributed, they are accepted in Mauritania, Tanzania and Togo, and have been used by forced migrants as identification documents to open bank accounts or to rent accommodation.139

We also need to guard against the rise of nationalism in left-wing and progressive movements. In Germany, the new left-wing Aufstehen (‘Stand Up’) movement formed in 2018, has adopted a nationalist and anti-migrant politics. Its leader, Sara Wagenknecht, has criticised Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to accept more than 1 million refugees and argued that anti-capitalist politics requires border controls: “All successes in restraining and regulating capitalism have been achieved within individual states, and states have borders.140 Meanwhile Jean-Luc Melenchon’s latest political vehicle, La France Insourmise, has been critical of mass migration, with Melenchon claiming that migrants are “stealing the bread” of French workers.141 And in the US, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders explicitly came out against open borders, citing familiar right wing arguments about being overrun by migrants.142

Ultimately, we need to reach a point where progressive politicians can confidently state the reasoned case for more open borders. Social movements have a key role to play in creating the conditions for that to be possible. The youngest ever female US senator, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, points the way. She argues that people have to “respect the right of human mobility”, stating that all Latinx people should be able to freely migrate to the US.143