First of all, it should be noted that France has been, for many years now, one of the developed countries that accepts the fewest immigrants and one of those where the proportion of immigrants in the population is the lowest.
In the economic and social arenas, immigration has an ambivalent effect. Firstly, it can contribute in the short term to increasing unemployment as well as pressure on wages and working conditions, as new immigrants are often willing to accept lower employment conditions than those sought by residents.
This is one of the main reasons why business leaders are generally in favor of significant economic immigration. Similarly, in a context where there is a shortage of housing, the arrival of new immigrants can exacerbate tensions in this market.
Contrary to what is often claimed, immigrants also play a fairly favorable role from the perspective of funding social systems.
On the other hand, immigrants and their families bring an increase in consumption to the host country, which supports activity. And contrary to what is often claimed, immigrants also play a fairly favorable role from the perspective of funding social systems, as they are generally young people who, when legally employed, contribute to funding the pensions of residents.
Moreover, in recent years, the majority have been qualified individuals who have tried their luck in developed countries. This indeed poses a problem: the desire of developed countries to favor solely the immigration of qualified individuals (IT specialists, nurses, doctors…) worsens the situation in the countries of origin.
Finally, immigrants are often, in the medium term, an important source of economic dynamism and renewal of the business fabric, due to a more pronounced desire than in other social groups to progress in social status in the host country.
Ultimately, the economic impact of immigration on host countries greatly depends on the policies implemented in these countries. In a context where public policies promote the regulation of the labor market, support social housing and social protection, immigration can contribute to accelerating activity without harming the well-being of residents.
Conversely, in a country where there is a strong push to liberalize the labor market and cut public spending at all costs, it risks contributing to worsening the situation of the lower social classes.
In a world where climate change is redrawing the areas suitable for human activities, can we reasonably avoid significant migrations?
But the question that arises today is rather: do we have a choice? In a world where demographic disparities are significant and where climate change is redrawing the areas suitable for human activities, can we reasonably avoid significant migrations?
And wouldn’t it be better, in such a context, to try to adapt to it under the best conditions, for both residents and new arrivals, rather than vainly attempting to block the flows while fostering a large-scale criminal economy, as is always the case with prohibition policies?
Immigrants indeed pose less of a problem to host countries, particularly concerning social dumping, when they are not staying illegally and are not condemned to working underground.
