The Anglosphere has an advantage in immigration

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, editor of the FT, selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Is immigration good or bad for a country? This question always seems pointless to me. It depends on the country. Even if we formulate the question strictly in economic terms, things vary. Immigration adds millions to the coffers of some countries, but has a more ambiguous, if not negative, impact on others.

To give more specific examples, the rise of gun violence in Sweden, which police attribute to gangs led by second-generation immigrants, is bad. While the fact that immigrants and their children are consistently overrepresented among the founders of successful companies is a good thing. The Covid-19 vaccines, not to mention the technology underlying them, were the fruits of immigration.

But a striking pattern emerges when you look at where these different effects are clustered: almost everything looks better in English-speaking countries. Immigrants and their descendants in Britain, the US and so on tend to be better educated, have better jobs and often earn more than natives, while those in continental Europe fare worse. In terms of budget impact, immigrants pay more than they spend in the US, Britain, Australia and Ireland, but are net recipients in Belgium, France, Sweden and the Netherlands.

Language and geography undoubtedly play a role. English-speaking countries benefit from being able to draw on a huge global pool of educated English speakers, and having fewer land borders, allowing for more control over who enters the country. But outcomes for immigrants and for the societies they settle in do not depend solely on the language and skills upon arrival. Some countries are much better at creating environments where people from different backgrounds can integrate into the economy and wider society.

Education policy expert Sam Freedman points out that in Britain, second-generation children from the poorest Bangladeshi communities achieve better school results than the average white British student, while black Britons are more likely to go to university than their white counterparts. In the U.S., black high school graduates are now just as likely to enroll in a four-year college program as their white counterparts. In France, by contrast, students of North African descent are still far less likely to progress in education.

Even more striking is how things have changed over the generations. The children of immigrants in Britain, the US and Canada all had smaller racial wage gaps than their parents, but most second-generation immigrants in France and Germany suffered declines. Similarly, poverty rates among immigrants have fallen over the past decade in Britain, the US, Australia and Canada, but risen in France, Sweden and the Netherlands.

This large difference can be linked to the failed integration policies in much of Europe. In France, decades of social exclusion and hostile policing have created deep-seated inequalities. In Sweden, one policy placed all immigrants on welfare by default, while housing policies promoted segregation. Today, Swedish immigrants have three times the unemployment rate of natives, the largest gap of any developed country.

Research shows that this lack of progress between generations is particularly damaging. First-generation immigrants are less involved in crime than natives. But in her book Unwanted: Muslim immigrants, dignity and drug traffickingGerman ethnographer Sandra Bucerius describes how, while second-generation immigrants in the US and Canada still had lower crime levels than native-born immigrants, crime among the second generation in Germany skyrocketed.

International comparisons show that people with immigrant backgrounds tend to be incarcerated at the same or higher rates as natives, except in the US, Britain, New Zealand and Australia, where they are underrepresented in the prison population, a sign of successful integration.

On everything from education to employment, from income to crime, the Anglosphere seems to have figured out how immigration can work at least reasonably well. This is reflected in public opinion: continental Europeans are more likely to say that immigration has been bad for their country, according to figures from Focaldata.

To be clear, the ongoing, unconstructive debates over immigration to Britain and the US show that even when successful, immigration remains controversial. The tangible evidence may point to benefits; A large part of the public is still not convinced. But in a world where countries increasingly compete for skilled migrants to provide demographic and economic boosts, the Anglosphere seems well placed.

[email protected], @jburnmurdoch