When people call for a ‘balanced’ debate about immigration what they usually mean is that we should consider both the pros and cons for the host country. What they probably don’t mean is any consideration of the impact on the country of origin.
As Gordon F Sander explains in an article for Politico, that impact can be extreme. His focus is on Latvia, a former Soviet Republic and current member of the European Union:
“…nearly a fifth of the nation has left to work in more affluent EU nations: The U.K., Ireland, Germany.
“In 2000, Latvia’s population stood at 2.38 million. At the start of this year, it was 1.95 million. No other country has had a more precipitous fall in population — 18.2 percent according to U.N. statistics. Only Latvia’s similarly fast-shriveling neighbor, Lithuania, with a 17.5 percent decrease, and Georgia, with a 17.2 percent drop, come close.”
As Sander points out, emigration compounds other demographic factors:
“…economic migration is not the only reason for the country’s declining population. The small Baltic republic’s comparatively low birth rate and high mortality rate are also contributing factors.”
A detailed map of population changes across Europe, shows rapid declines over large parts of eastern Europe, and marked gains across much of western Europe – yet another manifestation of the EU’s east-west inequality.
But does this matter? Indeed, isn’t it a good thing that people are free to move to where their labour attracts the highest reward? If the EU is viewed as a market (and the free movement of workers is one of the four freedoms of the European Single Market) then one can see the population shift from east to west as a great success.
However, if one views the EU as nations and communities, then there’s a point at which population loss becomes an existential threat:
“‘Latvia is already a country with low population density,’ said Otto Ozols, a prominent journalist and television commentator. ‘At this rate, in 50 years or so, Latvia may cease to be a nation.’
“‘It’s five minutes to midnight for us,’ he said.”
As always with migration, it’s worth looking at the fine detail. Even within a small country like Latvia, the changes are far from uniform. For instance, the population of Riga – the capital city – is now edging upwards. However, that means the losses are all the greater in other regions:
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe