Imagining a country without immigrants means confronting changes in wages, investment, public services and opportunity. A serious political programme must explain how those changes would happen—and who would carry the costs while alternatives are built.
At the end of 1964, the United States terminated the bracero programme, which had brought Mexican workers into American agriculture. Restricting access to foreign labour was supposed to improve opportunities for domestic workers. The expected sequence was straightforward: fewer available workers would oblige farmers to compete harder for those who remained, raising wages and employment.
The adjustment took a different course. In a study published in the American Economic Review, Michael Clemens, Ethan Lewis and Hannah Postel found no detectable improvement in domestic agricultural wages or employment attributable to the exclusion. Farmers changed technologies and crops, reorganising production rather than simply replacing departing workers with Americans on better terms. The bracero exclusion did alter the economy. It did not produce the particular labour-market dividend invoked to justify it.
That history offers a demanding starting point for anti-immigration politics. Economies adapt when access to workers changes, but adaptation has several possible destinations. Employers can raise wages, invest in machinery, reduce output, relocate activity or abandon a line of business. Households can pay more, purchase less or perform work themselves. Which response occurs determines whether a restriction creates opportunities, redistributes burdens or does both.
The familiar argument about what immigrants cost therefore leaves an essential question unanswered: what would their absence cost, and how would that cost be distributed? Listing their contributions is insufficient, too. A society does not need to preserve every existing business model or maximise its population indefinitely. It does need an account of how the economy it proposes will work.
The most revealing part of a migration programme may consequently be the adjustment it leaves unnamed. A promise to reduce dependence on foreign workers becomes meaningful when it specifies which employers must invest, which services must be funded, which prices may rise and which households will be protected. Without that account, the transition still happens. Its terms are decided through shortages, bargaining power and the capacity of some people to pass costs to others.
First, Specify Who Is Supposed to Leave
A country without immigrants is a powerful political image and an inadequate policy description. Lowering future admissions, ending a particular recruitment scheme and deporting established residents are different interventions. They affect different populations, operate at different speeds and confront different legal obligations. An argument that treats them as interchangeable cannot calculate their consequences responsibly.
Reducing future recruitment gives some employers time to change their practices, although the time available may remain shorter than the training period for replacement workers. Removing existing residents can disrupt firms, households and local demand much more abruptly. A change in student admissions has different consequences from a restriction on nurses or seasonal agricultural workers. Net migration, meanwhile, combines arrivals and departures; a lower figure does not by itself reveal which capabilities or expenditures have changed.
The categories used to describe people require equal care. Foreign-born residents include citizens, long-settled workers, refugees, students, entrepreneurs and people who have retired. Citizenship and birthplace measure different things. Citizens born to immigrant parents are not new arrivals waiting to be admitted. Statistical information about the foreign-born workforce cannot legitimately be converted into an assumption that everyone counted within it is available for removal.
There are also obligations that cannot be reduced to a labour-market calculation. Refugee protection and family life raise questions different from the recruitment of workers to fill vacancies. People do not acquire their rights by producing a favourable fiscal balance. Economic analysis can test claims about the consequences of a policy; it cannot turn a person’s entitlement to protection into a prize for usefulness.
Once the policy is specified, a further distinction becomes unavoidable. A larger economy does not necessarily make every resident better off, and a smaller economy does not necessarily make every resident poorer. Aggregate output, output per person, wages, housing costs and access to services can move differently. Neither side is entitled to choose whichever measure delivers its preferred verdict and call it the national interest.
The Worker Is Also Somebody’s Customer
The most familiar economic picture of immigration shows another worker entering competition for employment. It is incomplete because the worker also spends money. Rent, groceries, transport, repairs and other purchases support activity beyond the person’s own workplace. The departure of a resident can therefore reduce competition for some resources while weakening demand for other people’s labour.
A Norwegian study of immigrant consumption, using employment records and electronic payments data, examined workers’ exposure to demand generated by immigration alongside exposure to additional labour supply. Its authors found positive and persistent effects on the income of native workers more exposed to that spending. The findings concern a particular setting and remain part of a working-paper literature, but the mechanism is concrete: customers affect employment as well as applicants.
The relevant calculation is not a claim that every euro earned stays in the receiving economy. Residents save, buy imports and send remittances abroad. Nor does the arrival of additional consumers automatically generate enough housing, infrastructure or productive capacity to meet their needs. The point is narrower and more consequential: an assessment of departure cannot subtract a person’s demands on the country while retaining all the economic relationships their spending sustained.
Production creates similar connections. Workers with different skills can substitute for one another, but they can also make one another’s jobs possible. A business may need enough staff performing one set of tasks before it can profitably employ people performing another. Removing workers from the first group may leave vacancies for replacements, or it may shrink the business and reduce opportunities across the organisation.
A study of the American H-2B visa lottery helps distinguish these possibilities. Clemens and Lewis examined firms whose access to foreign workers in non-agricultural jobs was affected by lottery allocation. Firms permitted to hire more increased production and investment; the overall estimate for native employment was not statistically precise, while the study reported a positive effect in rural areas. This does not establish that every proposed recruitment programme benefits every worker. It does challenge the assumption that a foreign worker denied entry necessarily leaves an equivalent job waiting for a domestic applicant.
Even evidence about arrivals must be used carefully when discussing departures. An economy that has built businesses, supply chains and skills around an established workforce does not necessarily retrace its earlier development when that workforce contracts. Buildings, equipment and organisational knowledge remain, while some relationships break quickly and others adjust slowly. The question is how an actual economy changes from its present position, not what an otherwise identical country might have looked like had migration never occurred.
The Replacement Has to Arrive in Time
Training domestic workers is a serious response to labour shortages. So are better working conditions, higher participation, investment in technology and the recognition of qualifications already held by residents. These alternatives should be tested with the same seriousness as immigration. Dismissing them as impossible gives employers too easy an excuse for leaving their own practices untouched.
Britain’s 2025 immigration white paper explicitly linked overseas recruitment to domestic skills and workforce strategies. Its stated ambition was to reduce reliance on immigration while requiring employers to invest in workers already in the country. Whatever judgment is made of its implementation, the document demonstrates that restriction can be accompanied by an articulated alternative. Criticism must examine whether the commitments are adequate, funded and enforceable rather than pretend they do not exist.
A credible replacement strategy must nevertheless join together occupation, place and time. The existence of unemployed people nationally does not establish the availability of qualified applicants near every vacancy. Relocation requires housing and money; retraining requires accessible courses and income during study. People outside paid employment may face illness, disability or caring responsibilities that cannot be removed by declaring that their labour is needed.
The category “domestic workforce” also includes immigrants already living in the country. Improving their access to employment, recognising their qualifications or enabling them to move into better jobs can reduce the need for additional recruitment. A policy that counts these residents as part of the national labour supply when useful but treats them as outsiders in its rhetoric obscures one of its own available resources.
Technology offers another route, and the bracero case shows that it can change production substantially. That possibility is a reason to investigate automation rather than assume dependence on the existing workforce must continue. It is not evidence that each lost worker will be replaced by a machine, that investment will occur quickly enough, or that the benefits will accrue to the workers the restriction was meant to help.
Time separates a feasible destination from a workable transition. A hospital cannot treat a future graduate as a nurse available for tomorrow’s shift. An unemployed person cannot finance several years of preparation with a ministerial promise about eventual opportunity. If recruitment is restricted before alternatives can operate, the interval must be covered somehow: by existing staff, reduced provision, higher prices or people going without.
A programme to reduce immigration therefore needs more than a training target. It needs places on courses, instructors, completion rates, acceptable jobs at the end and arrangements for the years between. The central test is whether the alternative becomes operational before those who depend on the service are required to absorb its absence.
Higher Wages Are a Gain Worth Examining
The strongest economic argument for restriction deserves an honest hearing. Where employers can draw on a continuing supply of workers, reducing that supply may strengthen the bargaining position of some existing employees. It may also oblige businesses to improve conditions or invest in productivity. A defence of immigration that rules out these possibilities in advance becomes a defence of employers’ convenience.
The evidence varies by occupation and setting. A Bank of England working paper by Stephen Nickell and Jumana Saleheen found a small negative relationship between the immigrant-to-native worker ratio and average wages across British occupational groups, with the largest estimated effect in semi-skilled and unskilled service occupations. Other research identifies complementary relationships and more favourable outcomes. A national average cannot tell every exposed worker what happened to their own bargaining position.
A 2026 IMF working paper makes the potential trade-off explicit. In a model calibrated to the United States as the receiving economy and Guatemala as the sending economy, restricting less-skilled immigration raised wages for less-skilled workers in the United States and reduced wage inequality, while lowering US aggregate output and consumption. US output per person could nevertheless rise under the modelled restriction; this does not establish that every resident would enjoy a higher standard of living. These are model-dependent results, not a forecast for every advanced economy, but they expose the inadequacy of treating GDP growth as a complete answer to a distributive question.
A worker benefiting from higher pay need not regard a fall in aggregate output as a refutation of that benefit. Equally, the wage increase is not the end of the calculation. Its value depends on employment, working hours, prices and public services. Somebody can gain as an employee and lose as a tenant, taxpayer or person arranging care for a parent.
The incidence of the increase matters too. Firms with substantial margins might absorb higher wage costs. Others may charge more, reduce activity or close. In a publicly financed service, improved pay may require higher government expenditure if service levels are to be maintained. There is nothing inherently objectionable about choosing to pay care workers more and financing the choice collectively. The dishonesty begins when the wage improvement is promised while the corresponding financing decision is omitted.
The burden of proof runs in both directions. Employers claiming that any restriction would be disastrous should disclose what higher pay, better scheduling or investment could achieve. Politicians promising that restriction will restore prosperity should show which workers gain, how durable the gain is and who bears the adjustments elsewhere. Workers deserve an argument about their circumstances rather than conscription into somebody else’s preferred national average.
When Care Leaves the Payroll
Long-term care brings these relationships into unusually sharp focus. Older people need assistance with activities that remain necessary regardless of the labour available to provide it. Some tasks can be made less demanding through equipment and better organisation. Others require attention, judgment and physical presence. The need does not disappear when a provider cannot fill a vacancy.
The OECD’s evidence on long-term care workers documents both the growing role of migrants and persistent problems with pay, employment conditions and retention. Across the European countries covered, the foreign-born share of the workforce increased over the preceding decade, although national patterns differed considerably. Those differences matter: a finding about a heavily dependent care system cannot simply be applied to every country.
Improving domestic recruitment is possible, but the service must be able to pay for the improvement. Where public authorities fund care at rates insufficient to sustain acceptable jobs, restricting foreign recruitment does not itself repair the funding arrangement. A provider can face an obligation to offer better wages while lacking the income to maintain the same number of places.
One possible adjustment happens outside the provider’s accounts. If formal care becomes unavailable or unaffordable, relatives may supply more of it. That can mean reduced paid hours, earlier retirement or damage to the carer’s health. OECD research on informal care associates intensive caring with adverse effects on mental health and labour-market participation. A saving within one institution can thus become a cost in another household.
This possibility complicates programmes that simultaneously promise less migrant labour and greater employment among existing residents. Family members cannot always enter paid work while also replacing care that the formal economy no longer supplies. The contradiction is not universal, and better services or support for carers can mitigate it. But a participation target that ignores care obligations counts the same hours twice.
Nor can immigration permanently resolve population ageing. Migrants age, their needs change, and sustainable provision requires domestic training, retention and productivity improvements. The OECD’s migration outlook accordingly treats recruitment as one component of a broader care response. The choice is between different combinations of labour, funding, technology and household responsibility, each with costs.
The implications also cross borders. Recruiting a nurse from another country can ease one health system’s shortage while worsening another’s. The WHO’s guidance on bilateral agreements for health-worker migration places workforce mobility alongside the needs of source-country health systems and the rights of workers. A receiving country cannot call its own dependence a necessity while treating the country supplying staff as an inexhaustible resource.
The Town Paying for the National Gain
Migration’s costs and benefits do not necessarily appear in the same place or at the same time. Additional workers can contribute to national revenues while a municipality faces immediate pressure for school places, housing or transport. An assessment that finds a favourable long-term balance can coexist with a local service that genuinely lacks capacity.
The US National Academies’ assessment of immigration makes this distinction particularly clear. Its findings separated federal effects from those at state and local levels, including the costs of education and the later contributions of children when they became adults. The results depended on assumptions and varied across jurisdictions. Their broader lesson is about the organisation of public finance: the authority paying an immediate bill may not receive a corresponding share of the eventual revenue.
That mismatch creates room for political exploitation. A national government can promote recruitment without transferring sufficient resources to receiving communities. An employer can obtain workers while leaving public authorities to address the demand for homes and services. Residents then encounter a visible population change alongside an institutional failure whose decisions may have been taken elsewhere.
The pressure is not imaginary because it is exploited. More households can intensify competition for a limited housing stock, and reducing demand growth may provide relief under some conditions. But the size and duration of that relief depend on construction, location, household formation and the workers available to expand supply. It is possible to reduce the number of people seeking homes while also reducing the workforce able to build them.
Research on declining housing affordability in Europe identifies increasingly important supply constraints and a disproportionate burden on lower-income urban renters. Housing costs can also obstruct the movement of workers towards places with jobs. These relationships make both simple narratives inadequate: migration cannot explain every housing failure, and housing scarcity cannot be dismissed as a distraction from migration’s aggregate benefits.
Fiscal contributions likewise vary with employment, age, earnings and access to services. Those outcomes are affected by policy. A resident prevented from using existing qualifications or facing persistent barriers to employment will produce a different balance from the same person able to work productively. OECD analysis of fiscal effects identifies employment integration as an important determinant. A ledger shaped by institutional choices should not be presented as a permanent attribute of an origin group.
The appropriate response may therefore involve changing the number or pace of arrivals, expanding local provision, improving integration, redistributing revenues—or several together. The analysis should establish what each measure would accomplish. Blaming immigrants for every failure absolves governments of decisions about supply and finance; invoking national growth without repairing local shortages asks residents to accept benefits they may never receive.
Employers Do Not Get an Exemption
Some businesses benefit from recruitment systems that reduce their incentive to improve jobs. That is a legitimate subject of scrutiny. But the relevant distinction is not between foreign and domestic workers as people; it is between employment arrangements that permit bargaining and those that make refusal costly or dangerous.
Recruitment debt, uncertain status and dependence on intermediaries can make workers vulnerable to abuse. The International Labour Organization’s fair-recruitment principles address such risks through protections against abusive recruitment, respect for employment contracts and a prohibition on charging recruitment fees to workers. These are economic institutions as well as safeguards. They affect whether an employer must compete to retain a worker or can rely on restrictions that weaken the worker’s ability to leave.
A debate conducted only through admission numbers can miss that distinction. Reducing entries while preserving coercive dependencies may do little to improve the position of migrants already employed. Expanding recruitment without enforcing standards can sustain practices that harm them and undermine better employers. A claim to defend domestic wages should therefore include the treatment of the workers with whom domestic employees share a labour market.
Responsibility for training needs similar precision. A company that recruits abroad instead of developing skills locally may be avoiding a cost. It may also face a genuine immediate need that training cannot meet in time. Policy has to distinguish those situations and determine what obligations accompany recruitment: investment in apprenticeships, compliance with labour standards, contributions towards training or other verifiable commitments.
Employers’ declarations of indispensability should be treated as claims by interested parties, not independent verdicts. A business may be indispensable to a community, profitable only under existing wage conditions, or capable of adapting if required. Those are different propositions. The fact that a company would struggle under a restriction does not settle whether the restriction is wise, just as a company’s ability to survive does not prove that affected workers and households would escape harm.
The same standard applies to governments. If elected officials want better-paid services, somebody must finance them. If they want firms to replace recruitment with investment, they must examine access to capital, technology and training. The promise becomes credible when it changes the incentives and resources of the institutions expected to deliver it, rather than relying on a border decision to perform the work of an industrial or social policy.
Put the Transition in the Programme
A society may choose lower immigration even where the choice entails a smaller economy or more expensive services. Economic growth is not the only legitimate political objective. But informed choice requires an honest description of the alternatives, including the people likely to gain and those expected to absorb the loss.
The programme should therefore identify the populations and sectors affected, the period over which change will occur and the replacement capacity expected to become available. Wage promises need financing assumptions; training promises need completion and retention expectations. Where removals are proposed, administrative and enforcement costs belong in the assessment alongside the effects on production, demand and households. A preferred outcome is not a plan until the route towards it can be examined.
Uncertainty does not excuse the absence of that work. Forecasts will be imperfect, and a model calibrated to one country cannot determine another’s future. Governments can nevertheless publish their assumptions, explain the range of plausible outcomes and specify what they will do if recruitment or investment falls short. They can also reveal whether a claimed saving means a lower public bill, a higher private payment, reduced provision or more unpaid work.
Nor should exposing those dependencies turn migrants into people entitled to remain only while somebody needs their work. The claim that an economy relies on their labour cannot justify trapping them in badly paid occupations, and a loss of employment cannot erase their humanity. Economic accountability is demanded of the programme because it makes economic promises, not because human worth can be established through a balance sheet.
A serious alternative to present migration policy would say which forms of production should change, which jobs should improve, which services deserve more money and which costs the public is prepared to share. It would make employers and governments answerable for the transition rather than leave households to discover its terms after the decision. The standard is demanding because the promise is demanding: a country cannot reduce its reliance on other people’s work merely by deciding that those people should be elsewhere.
Read also:
Who Pays for Other People’s Resilience?
