Demoralizing immigration (Part 2)

In the last edition of this column, I put forward the following idea: in the abstract, immigration is neither good nor bad—it shouldn't even be the subject of a moral stance. It depends, rather, on how it occurs and the specific circumstances of each country.

In the case of the United States, it helped transform the country into what it is today: the world's greatest superpower. The United States was built by immigrants and has continued to attract all types of immigrants: the low-skilled, in pursuit of the American dream and essential to ensuring the country's functioning; and the highly skilled, from Einstein to Nikola Tesla, who contributed cutting-edge science and innovation that still benefits the world today.

In Portugal's case, it arose from necessity. Industry relies heavily on immigrants. This situation is not, in fact, exclusive to industry. The hotel, restaurant, agriculture, and especially construction industries all complain about the same thing: enormous difficulty in hiring and vacancies that can only be filled by immigrants.

The idea that hiring is difficult because wages in these sectors are low is fragile: the truth is that most Portuguese, especially younger generations who have studied and specialized, are not willing to go pick blueberries in Sever do Vouga or make food deliveries, even if they received a 20 or 30% salary increase. I'm not passing judgment on these choices—just noting what is evidence of a highly qualified generation. They prefer to emigrate.

Immigration, even if it involves few qualifications, solves a problem if properly regulated from a labor market perspective: entry presupposes an employment contract, so people enter precisely to meet the country's needs.

However, this hasn't been the case in recent years. The highly permissive immigration policy has allowed anyone to enter Portugal and only then regularize their status.

As a result, the labor market may have become unbalanced: there was a significant influx of people, which, understandably, can put downward pressure on the wages of the least skilled. Marx called the unemployed the reserve army of labor, an army that contributed to keeping wages low. The rationale is simple: if there are many unemployed people available for work, the greater the likelihood that someone will, in desperation, accept a low wage.

A high rate of unskilled immigration can have precisely the same effect that Marx accused capitalists of causing (incidentally, unemployment rates today are much, much lower than they were in Marx's time, which means either Marx was wrong or capitalists are bad at exploiting labor). That is, it can cause downward pressure on wages, contributing to their not rising as much or even falling in real terms.

The social impact is also quite asymmetrical and may even be regressive: highly qualified Portuguese people benefit from cheaper services and the labor of these unskilled immigrants, while less qualified Portuguese people compete for the same jobs and may even see their wages stagnate.

Beyond its economic impact, immigration can also pose challenges from the perspective of assimilation and/or cultural integration. Here, it's important not to collectivize immigrants: they are all individuals and unique, and cannot be treated equally. However, they must embrace our founding values, otherwise integration becomes impossible. I'll discuss this aspect of immigration, perhaps the most important, in my next column.