In recent days and weeks, the issue of migration has dominated the headlines in the Mediterranean and the US. At times, the issue has been debated more from an emotional perspective rational perspective.
The Italian Government has decided to put its foot down and concluded they will not accept any more ships, which are operated by NGOs and pick up immigrants from the Mediterranean Sea, from docking in Italian ports. Malta has also taken a tough stand against the arrival of immigrants in this country.
Some EU member states such as Hungary have decided to refuse taking part in a scheme devised by the EU such that the burden posed by the arrival of immigrants is shared. Austria, which is about to assume the presidency of the EU, has made it very clear that it would not accept immigrants who have landed in Italy, into its territory.
Thus, as some countries have generally been reluctant to share in carrying the burden, those EU member states that are border states, such as Greece, Italy, Malta and Spain, are claiming that unless there is an effective sharing of the burden, they can no longer take on immigrants.
This week’s saga of the ship Lifeline, which ended with a number of countries offering to take the immigrants on board the ship, was probably more an exception than the rule, given the public pronouncements that were made in the last days.
The US Government has also taken a very clear stance on immigrants coming from Mexico into Southern US. The idea is that there will be pushbacks into Mexico. President Donald Trump also promised to build a wall on the Mexico – US border to stop people from crossing.
In both cases, the issue does not seem to be so much about those persons who are seeking political asylum because of the political situation in their country, but about those persons that have been labelled as economic immigrants. Various governments are claiming that such migrants are displacing local persons from their jobs. Moreover these countries are claiming that they cannot afford to host these people as in effect, it is too costly to do so.
These are political arguments that may or may not be acceptable and very often reflect local realities. However there are some economic considerations to be made and we can take Malta as an example.
Are we using the right definition of immigrants? In Malta we do not view all immigrants in the same way. Surveys show that a majority of the Maltese have a negative perception of immigrants coming from outside the EU while they have a positive perception of those immigrants coming from inside the EU. What is the difference between the two? Both types come here to work, as we note every day when we witness rubbish collection or eat at a restaurant.
The continued influx of foreign workers is no longer sustainable
According to the latest data available and published in this newspaper this week, there are almost 43,000 foreign workers in Malta and the Cabinet of Ministers has approved plans to bring thousands more from non-EU countries as it seeks to pre-empt a labour shortage problem. Figures given in Parliament on Tuesday show that there are currently 12,407 non-EU workers in Malta, along with 30,564 from the EU. The main contributor to the increase of the Maltese labour force has been foreign labour. This is because the local male working population has remained rather stagnant in absolute terms and participation can hardly increase anymore. In addition, while there has been an increase in the Maltese female participation rate, this has not been significantly large.
As such, the growth in our economy has been largely due to the influx of foreign workers. Such foreign workers would certainly be classified as economic immigrants. Other countries have a had a similar experience in the past. The best example to give is the US, which developed into the economic superpower it is today because over the last centuries it had an influx of immigrants which were essentially economic ones.
We also need to look at the work these economic immigrants are doing and the wages they earn. Many are working in jobs that the Maltese are not keen on doing. I would like us to consider who would do certain jobs, if we do not allow any more economic immigrants to come to Malta. Moreover, excluding certain very specific sectors such as the i-Gaming sector, the average wages of such persons are often lower than those of the Maltese, thereby contributing to increased competitiveness of Maltese businesses. The next point to consider is the public infrastructure. Can our infrastructure handle the influx of workers that we have today, which is expected to increase in future?
I strongly believe that unless there is heavy investment to upgrade the public infrastructure, the continued influx of foreign workers is no longer sustainable. Are such persons also posing a strain on the health and education infrastructure, such that further investment is required in these two areas as well?
We also need to quantify the benefit that such economic immigrants are making to the economy. What is the economic multiplier effect of their stay in Malta? How much of the income they earn is spent locally and how much is remitted back to their own country?
On the basis of these considerations, we need to make an objective assessment of the economic costs and benefits of the presence of economic immigrants in our country. Therefore, such assessment should go beyond issues such as the emotional reactions that their presence generates. And by economic immigrants I do mean both those coming in from Africa, which nobody seems to want, as well as those who hail from Europe, who because of EU rules have every right to be here.