Jump to content

Answers are generated by AI using sources suggested by humans. Help improve answers by adding links to the Suggested Sources section.

Why has there been so much immigration to Western nations?

From FACTFAQ

Overview

Immigration to Western Europe, North America and Australasia has risen sharply since the mid-1960s. The increase can be traced to a mixture of “pull” factors inside receiving countries, “push” factors in sending countries, and a series of policy and normative changes that made large-scale movement both legal and practicable.

Major pull factors inside Western states

Economic demand for labour: Post-war reconstruction in Europe, the 1960s U.S. boom, and later the shift to service and technology sectors created chronic labour shortages that native work-forces could not cover. Employers and many economists argued that immigration filled the gap and reduced wage-push inflation [1] [8]. Demographic ageing: Fertility fell below replacement level in most Western countries after the 1970s. Governments came to see migrants as a way to stabilise the ratio of workers to retirees [8]. Liberalised entry rules: The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished the old national-origins quota system and prioritised family reunion and skills [4]. Canada’s 1976 Immigration Act replaced discretionary admission with a points system that explicitly welcomed non-European applicants [5]. Australia dismantled the “White Australia” restrictions between 1966 and 1973 [6]. Cheaper travel, better information: The jet age and later the internet dramatically reduced the cost of moving and the uncertainty about work and life in destination countries [8].

Key push factors in sending regions

Civil conflict and state failure: Wars in the Middle East, Africa and parts of Latin America produced large refugee flows. Strategy analysts note that civil wars have become more “regionalised,” pushing people toward the relatively secure West [3]. Global income gaps: The wage differential between low-income and high-income states remains several hundred per cent; even low-skill migrants can multiply earnings by moving [8]. Environmental stress and population growth: Rapid population increases in parts of Africa and Asia coincided with climate-related shocks, adding to out-migration pressures [8].

Normative and legal shifts

De-racialisation of admission law: UNESCO’s post-1945 campaign against biological race concepts eroded the legitimacy of openly exclusionary policies [7]. Human-rights regime: The 1951 Refugee Convention, later integrated into Western domestic law, obligated signatories to admit people with a “well-founded fear of persecution.” Post-colonial ties: Citizens of former colonies often received preferential entry or already possessed language skills and social networks that eased settlement [4] [5].

Public discourse and areas of disagreement

Mainstream economists, international agencies and many governments highlight growth, innovation and fiscal contributions from migrants [8]. However, recent polemics argue that the profession underestimated distributional and social costs:

The Substack essay “The Failure of Economists…On Migration” claims that models too often ignored congestion, housing, and cultural externalities; the author calls this “criminal intellectual negligence” [1]. “Economics: A Discipline Committing Suicide?” echoes the charge, saying that by neglecting real-world social cohesion issues, economists have undermined the credibility of their advice [2].

In short, while there is broad agreement on the factual drivers of migration—policy liberalisation, demographic demand and global disparities—their net impact remains contested. Critics fear civil-strife spill-overs and cultural fragmentation [2] [3], whereas supporters point to long-run economic dynamism and humanitarian obligations. The intensity of the debate reflects both the scale of post-1965 immigration and the divergent metrics observers apply when judging its consequences.

Sources

  1. “The Failure of Economists…On Migration Has Been So Bad, It May Amount to Criminal Intellectual Negligence,” Not On Your Team (Substack, 2025). (Opinion; critical of mainstream economics)
  2. “Economics: A Discipline Committing Suicide? Science, Reality and Social Decay,” Lorenzo from Oz (Substack, 2025). (Opinion; critical of mainstream economics)
  3. H. M. E. “Civil War Comes to the West,” Military Strategy Magazine (2023).
  4. “Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965,” Wikipedia.
  5. “Canadian Immigration and Refugee Law – Immigration Act, 1976,” Wikipedia.
  6. “White Australia Policy,” Wikipedia.
  7. “Changing the Concept of Race – On UNESCO and Cultural Internationalism” (2020 PDF).
  8. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, International Migration 2020 Highlights (UN DESA, 2020). (Provides data on global migration and demographic trends)

Note on disagreements: Sources 1–2 criticise pro-immigration economic claims; sources 4–6 and 8 describe liberalisation and economic benefits more neutrally; source 3 raises security concerns.

Suggested Sources[edit]

Retrieved from "https://www.factfaq.com/index.php?title=Why_has_there_been_so_much_immigration_to_Western_nations%3F&oldid=959"