A Migration Summit To Address Shrinking Birth Rates

Russia is disappearing. So is Japan. Europe is next to go.

It's not the rising waters of global warming that threaten these parts of the world. The problem is more basic. The Russians and Japanese, as well as large numbers of Europeans, are not having enough children to replace themselves. The birth rates across a large swath of Eurasia are considerably below the replacement rate of 2.1 babies.

To prevent further shrinkage, many of these countries have instituted policies that encourage reproduction, such as more generous family leave and better child care. While such policies are essential regardless of a country's fertility rate, they are not going to solve the disappearing country problem. Birth rates continue to remain very low in Taiwan (1.14), South Korea (1.21), Japan (1.21), Ukraine (1.26), Poland (1.28), and Italy (1.31). In the 1970s, only 24 countries had birth rates of 2.1 or less. Today, over 70 countries fall into this category.

Pushing for another baby boom is also globally irresponsible. At a time of climate and energy crises, the earth simply can't take on too many more passengers. Women bearing children in the industrialized world, in particular, have an enormous impact on global warming: American women having babies generate seven times the carbon output of Chinese women having babies.

The solution lies not in the greater production of people but in their more equitable distribution. The answer to the disappearing country problem is immigration.Birth dearth countries already rely heavily on foreign workers to meet their labor shortage. Their remittances, although reduced by the current global economic crisis, have helped in a modest way to bridge the wealth gap between the developing and developed world.

But foreign workers only temporarily address a symptom of the deeper problem. Only by lowering the barriers to citizenship -- as Germany did in 2000 -- can shrinking countries revive their economies and become more dynamic international players.

It won't be easy to persuade Russians to welcome large numbers of Chinese into Siberia or Italy to embrace more Nigerians. The rancorous immigration debate in America demonstrates that fear and xenophobia can overwhelm practical considerations even in immigration nations.Demography, however, is destiny. The pull of economic need and the push of population pressures in the global south are already creating the next great migration.

Rather than watch these patterns unfold, world leaders should act preemptively. We've had global summits on population, racism, and the environment. We urgently need a migration summit to coordinate immigration policies, improve the integration of migrants, and address the inevitable xenophobic backlash.

President Obama, the son of an immigrant, should spearhead the initiative. By pushing for a migration summit, he can demonstrate that the United States is finally ready to play well with others. Such a Statue of Liberty play would be a fitting way for the president to spend the political capital of his Nobel Prize and secure his legacy as a global leader.

Cross-posted from Foreign Policy In Focus, where you can read the full post. To subscribe to FPIF's e-zine World Beat, click here.

 

Comments

[deluk]

You didn't mention the UK, while long established Britons have few children, our population is set to grow from 60 million to 70 million precisely because of immigrant birth.

Britain is a small island with a free health service and an advanced welfare state. Many of us are wondering how we are going to pay for it all.

[S1m0n]

We'll make do, as will the Russians and everyone else. No rich country is going to run out of people.

[Jason Feffer]

How does the US lowering its citizenship barrier help Japan and Russia with their long term problem? You claim that those countries (or ones like them) won't admit foreigners from Africa or China (despite Russia forcing migration during the Cold War.

Encouraging population migration doesn't solve the problem in the long run -- and you clearly have long run solutions in mind because you tossed out temporary worker migration as a solution.

People need to have more babies, but you discourage that as "irresponsible" because of your fears of Global Warming.

Do you want to pick/choose which countries should have more babies?

[John Feffer - Huffpost Blogger]

Hmmnn, a number of comments here, which I'll take one by one:

1) I didn't say that the U.S. lowering its citizenship barrier will help Japan and Russia directly. I said that the United States should spearhead an initiative to address migration issues in a global context (i.e., a summit). Migration is a global issue, but countries tend to treat it as a national issue. I think this needs to change.

2) Yes, I did say that Russia is generally fearful of Chinese migration to the Far East and Japan is notoriously uncomfortable with immigration (except for encouraging Japanese born in Latin America to "return"). The Soviet Union's policies during the Cold War of forced migration (i.e. of ethnic Koreans internally or of Jews externally) have little to do with the issue of Russia's attitude toward immigration today (except to the extent that they intersect in ethnic Russian chauvinism).

3) I don't argue that people need to have more babies. World population will continue to grow until, if we're lucky, it levels off around 2050 or so at somewhere between 8 and 10 billion. Most experts agree that the world's resource base will be hard pressed to accommodate even the lowball estimate. I don't believe that we need to encourage anyone from any country to add to that number. So, no, I don't propose picking and choosing.