Low birth rates are cited by many conservatives as a reason for western decline, but on a country-by country-basis there is little correlation between low birth rates and non-western immigration. By far the biggest factor drawing immigrants to the West seems to be the state of the economy. This makes a lot of sense, since it isn’t land and resources that non-western immigrants are looking for, but jobs provided by westerners themselves. If low fertility rates were the decisive factor, then there would be a lot more immigrants trying to get to Eastern Europe and East Asia, where fertility rates are just as low as in Western European countries like Spain and Italy.
During the last decade Canada, the United States, New Zealand, Australia and Ireland have had relatively high birth rates by western standards, yet have also experienced high levels of third world immigration. The main difference between the Anglosphere countries and those of Eastern Europe and East Asia, is that the former have experienced a decade of relatively high rates of economic growth and low unemployment. The significance of economic growth in immigration rates in the United States for example, has been highlighted by the fall-off in immigration from Mexico and India since the start of the current recession.
Economic wealth has also been a big driver of immigration patterns between developed countries. Australia has significantly higher minimum wage rates than New Zealand, and so many blue-collar workers from this side of the pond have moved across the Tasman. Highly qualified - workers by contrast, have been more likely to move to Britain and United States.
In the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, high immigration rates has also been driven by the strength of the Pound and the Euro, which influences how much money immigrants can send home as remittances. Now that the pound is on a downward slide, fewer immigrants from Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa are looking for low-skilled jobs in London.
Among Continental countries, France has relatively high birth rates and low immigration, but also has serious economic problems with high levels of unemployment and poor economic growth. It’s non-white population is growing rapidly, but this is mainly due to high birth rates rather than recent immigration. About the only European country with low growth and low birth rates to still experience signficant immigration pressure is Italy, where opposition to non-western immigration is also relatively high.
Low fertility rates may well create problems in the future, but current immigration rates are mainly due to western businesses and governments being unable to resist the lure of cheap labour and short-term immigration-driven economic growth. This temptation is particularly strong in lightly populated western countries like Australia and New Zealand where there is still a lot of money to be made from selling land to newcomers.
Interestingly, birth rates in East Asia are now even lower than in Europe. According to the latest figures from the CIA World Fact Book, Singapore has a fertility rate of 1.09 per woman and Macau just 0.91. If English-speaking countries had these kind of fertility rates, there would be enormous pressure to open up the borders and let in more immigrants, but oriental countries don’t seem particularly concerned. One possible reason is that they can always top up their aging populations with fellow East Asians from China, whereas most western countries can only bring in immigrants from non-western countries.
Posted by mikecourtman 