Is there a formula for dealing with these pesky foreigners? How many are too many? They are always marching in and out, across borders and into economies. People are having sex with them, exchanging cultural expressions, and, God forbid, some people are even employing them.
This nonsense has been going on for thousands of years and needs to stop. Or does it?
Someone needs to sit down quietly, look at the available historical and statistical input and work out a blueprint for a good immigration policy. That is what I did the past week.
The Roman method
How did they do it in ancient Rome, a model of the finest civilisation that ever existed? The era is associated with a flourishing empire, technological advancements and arts and culture. Nice roads too; very few potholes by the look of it, so ten extra points.
The city of Rome comprised between 500,000 and a million inhabitants at its peak during Julius Caesar’s time: the first major city to do so. That is about the same as the core city of Pretoria for comparison.
A substantial proportion, at times more than half, were not native Romans; they included Italians from across the peninsula, Greeks from the Mediterranean, Syrians, Egyptians, Jews, Iberians, North Africans and Gauls (excluding Asterix and Obelix), plus merchants, diplomats, craftsmen, and labourers.
By Caesar’s time, perhaps 30% of the population may have been enslaved, many captured abroad, so not only did Rome seemingly welcome immigrants, but forced them in. Some citizens and historians of the time were happy with the slavery aspect, but complained about it resulting in so many foreigners.
Always a bloody niggle, isn’t there?
The caution here is that what counts as a reasonable solution in a time of conquest, with relatively few people in one global focal point, is not necessarily transferable to a densely-populated planet where people have become accustomed to freedom. The reverie of returning to Rome (in which every dreamer is presumably Caesar himself and not a slave’s family) is every bit as much a rainbow dream as is one of a perfect South Africa.
Absolute Number principle
Trying to work out an absolute number of locals vs foreigners is similarly problematic. For instance, both the UK and SA are currently experiencing strong anti-immigration sentiments, leading to violent protests and fears of instability. To what extent are the countries’ woes the fault of the immigrants? How many of them are too many?
Some researchers and commentators have proposed numerical thresholds of 10% to 20% of a population as problematic. Others suggest that a specific annual flow rate between native-born and foreign-born populations becomes an issue if it exceeds 1% a year. These formulas are highly contested, and they are poor predictors of outcomes across countries. Japan, for instance, has low immigration levels, yet still faces demographic and economic challenges.
Roughly 5% of South Africa’s population is reported to be foreigners, so this is not that many, compared to the UK at 19%. Working things out on paper with numbers feels alluring and objective. It masks biases, but it is neither well-considered nor applicable to liberal democracies where freedom of movement and multiculturalism remain popular ideals. A more strenuous branch of mathematics needs to be used here.
A more complex calculation
Adding terms like legal vs illegal, and ugly remarks about racism and other ‘isms’ muddy the waters. Perhaps making the calculation based on economic absorption and institutional capacity is more helpful.
Rather, ask whether the labour market can absorb newcomers, and whether fiscal costs would exceed taxable income for long periods. Can your education and health system cope with increased pressure? In this framework, growing economies with stronger institutions would be able to absorb a much higher number of immigrants than those without, regardless of what absolute numbers reflect. SA might be a good example of this phenomenon. Our economy and institutions cannot handle needy newcomers.
Sociologists tend to approach this from a standpoint of levels of trust, shared norms and social capital in a society. Where demographic change is swift and cultural integration is low, xenophobia and disquiet in the total population can emerge. This is not due to census body count, but operates on a psychosocial level, where relatively minor events can cause massive upheavals. What is happening in the UK seems to be an example.
Some scholars argue that every political community requires a degree of shared identity which brings stability. Demographers note that wealthy societies often become immigration societies naturally. Here, homogeneity is established by income levels. Under this framework, the practical limit may realistically be determined by how many immigrants can be successfully integrated, rather than how many are needed.
Immigration levels should be compatible with maintaining a sense of national solidarity that supports democratic institutions and welfare systems. So, what would a formula look like if we factored it all in?
A good immigration formula
A decent algorithm for an immigration policy might look like this:
Sustainable immigration ≈ Economic capacity + Institutional capacity + Integration capacity + Public legitimacy
An excellent example of this in action might be Monaco, whose population includes around 75% foreigners. The French are the largest expat group, with British and Italians adding a solid chunk. Germans, Americans, Belgians and Swiss are a good sprinkling while Monacan residents try to blend in. Isn’t it marvellous how large wads of cash simply seem to brush away any cultural, religious, or language differences?
For South Africa, where income disparity is huge, even a knotty formula like this is too simple. Is there another way to approach it?
The golden rule
A famous thought leader once instructed us to ‘love thy neighbour’. It comes on the back of an even more famous instruction to ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. It is regarded as the golden rule, but in modern times, the lustre seems to have faded. The problem with this type of rule, when it comes to governance, is that it is so unclear.
What, exactly, is meant by ‘neighbours’? Do they have to be legal or not? Does ‘love’ include giving them free healthcare? A further caution when taking this type of rule too seriously is that it was written by nomadic pastoralists whose idea of property rights was pitching a tent in the desert and then moving along when things got tough.
If you want to get technical about it, we should factor into the equation that the rule was written by illegal immigrants themselves, who added to the conundrum by simply invading other neighbours, and claiming that God promised their land to them. Perhaps it is one of those ideological concepts that, like communism, is a good idea but just hasn’t been ‘done properly yet’.
Up to the conscience of the individual
For those with firm ideas of individualism, liberalism, and libertarianism, the fingers automatically need to stop pointing fingers outwards at ‘them’ and ‘government.’ This worldview requires ultimate responsibility for your own life satisfaction and freedom, while granting others the same. This includes freedom of movement, freedom of expression and free enterprise. It gets tricky, doesn’t it, when you must grant others that which you want for yourself, as the good book suggests?
It is difficult to be human, in this era or any other. South Africans and people trying to live in South Africa have their own set of rules. We live in a highly complex system which is continually adapting, with emergent qualities. There are no designs or drafts. We are it. There are no neat solutions, only messy trade-offs.
An imperfect formula is to try to figure out what you can change and what you can’t. Approach this with tolerance, compassion, and gentle firmness. Keep your own side clean. That includes not writing or distributing ideas that might foment hatred or violence, getting out of the thought caves we’ve been stuck in, handling alternative points of view, and showing up to vote. Bring a friend.
Viva!
[Image: The Continence of Scipio by Nicholas Poussin, 1640, Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=22007004]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend