Immigration: The necessary evil!

August 2013. I was leaving Italy with a suitcase and zero certainties, heading to Germany. Perhaps the most difficult choice of my life. Even today, I don’t know if I did the right thing or not! But how did I end up moving from potentially the most beautiful country in the world to the land of Wurst and sandals worn with white socks? I’ll try to keep it brief.

Ever since the real estate crisis hit the United States in 2008 with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the Italian economy—which wasn't exactly in great shape to begin with—took a brutal hit; one might call it a classic "Fatality" worthy of Mortal Kombat. Thousands of jobs were lost, companies stopped hiring out of fear or lack of security, and no one was giving anyone an opportunity.

I was 16 at the time and my life was simple. I was still in school, living through my teenage dramas. The news was something I perceived as distant, which was only natural: at 16, I didn't have to pay taxes and I had more pressing problems, like trying to make out with the girl I liked. That crisis hit my parents harder than me, given that my father was retired and we lived solely on that income. Watching the news, I thought things would be settled by the time I graduated. Spoiler: I was wrong!

Looking back at that period, the economic situation was grave. Radical reforms were needed, but no one ever pulled the trigger. Between 2008 and 2011, every government—which seemed to change every six months—was more concerned with polls than the work at hand. While Europe was slowly climbing out of a dark crisis and returning to growth, Italy remained stalled, suffering more than it should have.

In July 2011, I graduated. My grades weren't sky-high, but they weren't horrible either. Let's say my final result was comparable to a mid-table football team that avoids relegation comfortably but can't dream of playing in international tournaments or winning anything nationally. It wouldn't have been a problem if Italy had a healthy economy. Too bad it had already been "2008" for three years: young people (like myself) were stuck at home and companies were hiring very little, and only the best. People like me were condemned to find nothing of substance. The only thing I found in the spring of 2012 was an eighteen-month internship at 500 euros a month for 40 hours a week. As I said, nothing good. It was a highly useless experience that ended abruptly after only six months.

By autumn 2012, I found myself with very little money, living at my parents' house, without a job or a prospect. It wasn't a great period, but it was about to change. The turning point was my sister. During that time, she moved to Germany to study at university, looking to rebuild her life because, like many others, she had experienced horrible work environments in toxic settings in Italy. As soon as she heard I had lost that job, she insisted I move in with her, knowing perfectly well that Italy was a dying country (which it still is). My choice at that point was between hoping for an economic miracle or leaving and trying something different.

At the end of 2012, I made up my mind to move, and in August 2013, I found myself in Germany, where I still live today, starting a new life.

Why have I talked about myself until now? Because the theme of immigration hits close to home for me. Since that distant August 2013, I have lived the life of an immigrant. Even though I am a European citizen, I am always a "foreign body" in a society different from the one I was born in. Seeing now that the world hates immigration, or sees it as the root of all problems, is truly very sad.

But I understand this mentality. How can one be happy about immigration if it has become an element that, in certain cases, brings death?

The question I ask myself now is: stripped of social media populism—the "stay in their own country" rhetoric—can we actually do without immigration? In other words, are those shouting "the country belongs to its citizens" right?

Second spoiler, the answer is a giant "NO." Follow me.

Necessary Immigration.

Pensions.

Let’s start with a fact as simple as it is fundamental: pensions must be paid. If we want the elderly to have a dignified life, they must have a monthly income. Who pays for it? The workers. The only problem is that there are too few workers compared to pensioners.

How did we get here? Well, we Westerners are having fewer and fewer children. Partly because the economic conditions are missing, and partly because professional fulfillment—rightfully sought by women—often clashes with a system that doesn't protect motherhood, unintentionally risking the entire social structure.

The real collapse will happen in the coming years when the Boomer generation and the one immediately after retire en masse. If for every newborn we have five people who stop working, the system collapses. Period.

This is where, fortunately, we have immigration. Immigration is not an ideological "whim," but a classic patch to cover the hole. Foreigners are the ones who immediately enter the workforce and take the place of those retiring, keeping the engine running at a negligible cost to the State compared to the billion-dollar investments necessary to relaunch the birth rate. You only need to read the publicly available data. A state without immigration, in current conditions, cannot survive in the long run.

Economy.

The economic impact of an immigrant in a country is hard to see, partly because the native citizen and the immigrant live in two different social spheres.

Those born here live with all the privileges of a developed state. Between education, technology, and money, those born in the State seek the best possible path from the height of their education. Therefore, they will seek office jobs with prestigious, well-paid positions. The idea is, "I deserve it because I have a piece of paper that proves it." This reasoning is more than legitimate. Unfortunately, however, this shift brings two effects.

The first is unemployment. Since there might be ten candidates for one office job, one wins and nine lose. In this case, those who lose think, "I lost the battle, not the war! Surely new opportunities will open up!" Doing "humble work" is out of the question because it’s not consistent with their degree. At this point, there are only two paths: remain unemployed or try to go it alone. Since entrepreneurship is a brave and costly act, many will remain unemployed or continue studying until the "right moment" arrives.

The consequence of this upward movement is that many low-level jobs will be left without people to do them. Obvious, isn't it? If we all want to be engineers, who will be the bricklayer? We all want to be CEOs, but who cleans the offices? Who prepares the food in company canteens? Who maintains the equipment? Or if we all want to be surgeons, who changes the sheets, draws blood, and feeds the patients?

I’ll tell you who does it: the immigrant. They are the ones who will cover the needs left vacant by those who want more and prefer to stay unemployed while waiting for their chance, or those who start their own business and struggle for survival. If there is a feeling that the foreigner is stealing jobs, they aren't: they are simply doing what the "more advanced" society doesn't want to do.

The Security Problem.

Having established that immigration is necessary (until women start getting pregnant en masse), the problem is as follows: how can we ensure that immigration is a resource and not a burden or even a threat? As useful as the mechanism is (obtaining labor at a very low training cost), not all that glitters is gold. The uncontrolled immigration we are currently experiencing hides within it the mother of all problems: crime. Every day we read about an immigrant committing a violent act against property or people.

On one hand, we need immigration; on the other, we don't want additional unnecessary crime. What can be done? Is there a way to make immigration sustainable and a resource to be exploited?

Closing the Borders.

I know it sounds like a right-wing extremist, populist, and conspiracy theorist take, but it is exactly what must be done. In Europe, for years, the illusion of "let them all in" has reigned. Officially, we were moved by images of refugee camps offering sub-human living conditions. While it is a beautiful gesture of aid (aid that wouldn't be necessary if we hadn't battered those same countries), it is a double-edged sword: for every hundred decent people who arrive to work, ten enter ready to strike and destabilize our society. We have seen it too many times.

A State cannot afford to welcome anyone without filters. Just as we wouldn't let a stranger into our home without first looking through the peephole, the State must protect its citizens before the immigrant even crosses the threshold.

Borders must be strictly controlled. It's ugly to say, but in a period of such anger and hatred, the innocent population must be protected before the immigrant enters. Whether at stations, airports, or customs on roads and highways, everyone needs to be checked. Those in compliance enter; those who aren't stay out. We already deal with internal crime; a State cannot afford to add work to internal security just because preventive checks aren't being performed.

I would go further: those who want to enter legally should undergo a psychological test. We must ensure that those arriving are not fanatics or unstable individuals ready to sow death. Is it discriminatory? Perhaps. But in an era of anger and tension, the priority must be security. I prefer an excess of caution that guarantees an orderly country over a policy of blind hospitality that ends up sweeping us away.

Background Checks.

Even if the immigrant is in and has everything in order, they should still be checked periodically. They are still a foreign body about whom nothing is known and whose customs are unfamiliar. They could be the best person in the world, the most heinous criminal, or anything in between. A State must protect the safety and order of its citizens.

Legal entry is only the first step. To protect the safety of citizens and the stability of public order, it is fundamental that the State maintains a constant channel of verification for those being hosted. Instead of blind trust, a periodic monitoring system is needed to evaluate an individual's actual integration. It is necessary to ensure that pockets of isolation or illegality do not form. This type of continuous "background check" serves to distinguish those who truly want to contribute to society from those who do not respect its foundations, thus ensuring a peaceful coexistence based on mutual respect for the rules. I'm not talking about whether the immigrant has a job or not—as they could easily support themselves without working—I'm talking about respect for the culture, customs, and traditions of the host country in public places.

Only with control at the source and continuous monitoring can we truly guarantee the security we want so much but have lost over the years. This is what can be done. There is nothing else a State can do. Especially since we must have immigration. That constant flow of foreigners is necessary; otherwise, everything collapses.

And what if we didn't want immigration?

But let's go further. Out there are those who say that foreigners are not welcome and that a State can do without immigrants.

I want to play a little game. Let's suppose we wanted to completely eliminate immigration. How can we survive?

The only three ways a State has to avoid immigration are: removing pensions, limiting education, or making strollers pop up like mushrooms. Let’s take them one by one.

Personal Pension.

Before moving forward, we must understand how the pension system works. It is based on the concept that everyone puts a part of their salary into a huge account, and then pensions are paid out from that account. It’s like a lake with an inlet and an outlet: as long as the inlet (the workers) is larger than the outlet (the pensioners), the lake (the pension system) holds up great; in fact, one could even think about increasing pensions. In times of drought, when the inlet struggles and the outlet stays the same or grows, the lake dries up.

Now imagine that from one day to the next, pensions are no longer paid because, without immigrants, the social pension system is unsustainable. All the elderly in the country stop receiving money from the State. Immediately, there would be two positive effects.

The first is that without pensions, employers or workers would have more money because they no longer have to pay contributions for current pensions. The second is that there wouldn't be the problem of finding new workers (and thus incentivizing immigration) to pay for pensions. Now the question is: how will an old person survive in the subsequent decades if they aren't working?

They won't survive. If we care about our grandparents or parents, pensions are unfortunately fundamental. But the problem remains: without immigrants, there aren't enough workers to pay for them. What can be done? Let's change the pension system.

Every worker looks out for themselves. As soon as they enter the workforce, the young person opens an account with the institution that manages pensions and decides for themselves every month how much money to deposit. The worker will have complete access to that account, deciding to take part of those savings, add more money, or invest them. When the worker retires, that account is closed and the money is paid to the retiree, who can decide whether to take it all at once or in "monthly installments." In this case, you don't need "four people for every pensioner" because everyone looks after their own pension and the State doesn't need to fill personnel gaps, because there wouldn't be any, at least not for the pension.

This is the "fastest" and most economical solution, but also the least "social" one, because it is a completely private pension system managed by the worker. If the worker manages it poorly, they will live under a bridge.

More Children.

The other idea, the absolutely most expensive one, is to give women or couples the possibility to have children.

With more children, and therefore more future labor force, the "social" pension system can be maintained, and immigrants would no longer be an urgency; because if three or four children are born for every couple, that inlet river would be larger than the outlet river.

However, there are enormous problems with this project.

The first is quite evident: money. To give a woman even just one opportunity to have children, billions must be spent. All those mechanisms, structures, and tax advantages must be created to allow a woman both to take care of her child in complete peace and to continue her career, as it’s not right that a woman should be forced to give up everything to become a mother. The State must provide everything a mother needs to be a good parent. Then, a new mother can also decide to drop everything and dedicate herself to her children, or she can organize with her partner or family—but this must be a purely personal choice.

Gynecologists, psychologists, physiotherapists, personal trainers, and nutritionists are needed before and during pregnancy. At birth, facilities for pre-birth, birth, and post-birth care are needed that allow a woman to stay for several days in a protected and medically controlled place. After birth, psychologists, pediatricians, and perhaps still nutritionists and personal trainers are needed to get back in shape quickly. Do you know how much it costs to maintain such a structure? Billions.

The second problem is demographic. Suppose every woman in a country has at least two children. Do you have any idea how many millions of children that is? These children need to eat, dress, and go to school. Then, once they finish school, they need a job and will want to buy a house, a car, and live their lives to the fullest.

A high birth rate is an economic burden that a State doesn't want to afford. When we talk about children, we only think about schools. There is a whole world behind it. You have to invest in the economy, boosting production and logistics; you have to train teachers and build schools and housing and ensure the economy expands for the next 40 years.

I know someone might say, "Oh, there’s money for war, but not for the family!" I completely agree. But I want to ask you a question anyway. Suppose there is the money for family reform; the State still finds itself facinng a big problem: what is more economically remunerative? Spending billions on children who might never even come, or taking foreigners for FREE and filling the gap immediately?

Because it's not guaranteed that a woman will have children. The rhetoric is always the same: "My body, my choice." A rhetoric that gives women the power to choose not to have children.

The situation would be this: on one hand, you have a bet that might not pay off, because women still might not have children even if the State gave them everything they needed; and on the other, a certainty—the immigrant ready to work immediately. What would you choose?

Limited Education.

As we saw earlier, with compulsory and accessible education, the working population is gravitating toward certain sectors, often linked to an office and decision-making responsibilities. What is being left aside are all the "humble" jobs that keep an entire society alive and healthy.

There is also a theme related to education. Even if we had a birth boom, an imbalance would remain: today, society pushes every young person toward academic paths and office jobs. But a nation needs everything. If we all had a degree in urban planning, who would work on construction sites? If we were all surgeons, who would handle practical patient care? Without immigration to cover these roles, the State would have to totally rethink the training system, incentivizing technical and professional paths much more than academic ones. Otherwise, we would find ourselves in a paradoxical situation: thousands of unemployed graduates and a paralyzed economy because no one wants to 'get their hands dirty' anymore.

Or, a less extreme alternative, the unemployed should be forced to accept certain jobs regardless of their degree. In this case, the gaps would be filled and there would be no immigrants around. However, from a political point of view, forcing someone to do "humiliating" work would be a coercion, and thus one less vote at the next election.

Do you think that’s feasible?

Final Reflections.

Immigration is not a "peaceful ideal," it is a shortcut. It is the cheapest, fastest, and least politically risky solution to plug the holes of a system that doesn't want to reform itself. On one hand, we don't want to give up public pensions and we don't want to send our children to clean the streets; on the other, the State doesn't want to spend billions on the birth rate.

When I hear people shout "stay in their own country," I smile bitterly. Because those shouting it are often the same ones who wouldn't make it to the end of the month without the contributions paid by that foreigner, or who wouldn't find assistance for their elderly parents.

Do we really want to do without foreigners? Fine, but are we ready for the consequences? Are we ready to see our system collapse or to give up our office aspirations?

I have lived in Germany for thirteen years. I am an immigrant contributing to keeping this country standing. Am I treated as a "foreign body"? Sometimes, yes. But I know that without me, and without millions of people like me, this splendid "lake" would have dried up long ago.

M.