kathimerini.gr
Economist Predicts Negative Economic Impact of Restricting Immigration in 2025
The Economist predicts that in 2025, many countries will attempt to restrict immigration to appease voters, which will negatively impact their economies; however, countries like Japan plan to welcome immigrants to address labor shortages.
- What are the predicted economic consequences of restricting immigration in 2025, specifically in the US?
- The Economist predicts that in 2025, countries will attempt to keep foreigners out to appease voters, resulting in negative economic consequences. The US, for example, could see its economy shrink by 1.2% in 2028 if 1.3 million undocumented workers are deported.
- How are countries with aging populations, such as Japan, planning to address labor shortages and demographic changes?
- Restricting immigration is economically detrimental; the US stands to lose 7.4% of its GDP if all undocumented workers are deported. Conversely, countries like Japan are proactively addressing demographic challenges by planning to welcome 800,000 immigrants to fill labor shortages in construction and caregiving.
- What are the long-term consequences of a global trend toward restricting immigration on economic growth, innovation, and social progress?
- The long-term impact of restrictive immigration policies includes a stagnation of innovation and economic dynamism, as talented individuals choose to immigrate elsewhere. Countries that embrace immigration will benefit from a more diverse workforce and economic growth. Conversely, countries that restrict immigration will suffer.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames immigration primarily as a positive force, highlighting its economic benefits and portraying restrictive policies as inhumane and economically unsound. The headline (if any) and introduction likely emphasize this positive framing.
Language Bias
The article uses emotionally charged language to describe restrictive immigration policies as "inhumane," "backward," and "economically scandalous." While making a point, this language lacks neutrality. Alternatives could include "restrictive," "protectionist," or "fiscally challenging."
Bias by Omission
The article focuses on the economic benefits of immigration and the negative consequences of restrictive policies, but omits discussion of potential negative impacts of immigration, such as strain on public services or cultural clashes. It also doesn't explore alternative solutions to address the underlying issues driving migration, such as economic inequality or lack of opportunity in origin countries.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between open borders and restrictive immigration policies, neglecting the possibility of more nuanced approaches to manage migration.
Gender Bias
The article mentions women from various countries working in caregiving roles, which could be interpreted as reinforcing gender stereotypes. However, this is not a major focus and the text doesn't explicitly promote gender stereotypes, only implicitly touches upon it.
Sustainable Development Goals
Immigration contributes to economic growth in receiving countries by filling labor shortages, particularly in sectors like healthcare and elder care. The article highlights examples of how immigrants fill crucial roles in healthcare systems in countries like Germany and Greece. Restricting immigration would negatively impact economic growth, as evidenced by The Economist's projection of a significant reduction in US GDP if undocumented workers were deported.