A letter to The Economist: on migration, March 16, 2023

Madam,

Without referring to any specific article in the Economist, I was curious if you might shed some light on the topics of emigration, migration and immigration, legal or illegal, in Europe and beyond. In the past two weeks news of migrant boats in Europe again made the news, one with a terrible loss of life. Your recent article also touched on the topic. As a European citizen I’m focussed on Europe, but there are comparable situations around the world.

I understand there is a focus on how receiving nations treat immigrants that reach their borders or seas. Humane treatment of people at risk of life is of course something the so-called Western or rich world wants to look at before blaming others for different behavior. It is also a legal, if not a moral obligation I guess. But the topic of immigration, especially in its illegal form, is also good for agenda setting on the hard right. It delivers gory TV footage and is a great backdrop for passionate, radical speeches. It’s also useful to the opposite side, that loves the sea taxis on the Mediterranean to appear “humane”, especially if they can drop the migrants off at other countries’ ports. I’m not aware that any rescue ship delivered migrants to Germany, where Sea Eye e.V. is from. I’d be curious to see what the Germans would say about that. The stories about the impact of buses from the Southern US border reaching New York are revealing.

Taking a step back and looking at immigration, I’m somewhat missing a more comprehensive analysis of the issue. Immigration to Europe starts with emigration from somewhere else, and migration through several places in between. At the origin of emigration is the appalling political, economic and social situation in a wide range of countries. Considering the nationalities represented on the boats that reach Europe, I’d be interested to understand what countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan or Morocco have to say about how they manage their countries, and why so many people are fleeing from there. Also, are they in any way assisting their nationals on these journeys? Are they helping with repatriation? And most importantly: are they doing anything to fix the mess they are managing that leads to a steady flow of desperate people away from it? Many of these countries receive generous funding from richer countries and international organizations. On the one hand, I’d like to know what rich donors from the Arab world think about the topic, and why they are not taking in a larger part of the refugees, given the closer cultural relationship to the countries of origin if compared to Europe. As a taxpayer in Europe I expect the recipients of our funding to account for its use, the progress they achieve and how their actions stop people escaping from their countries. Should we find that they are not doing anything with the funds to stop emigration, Europe must do something about that. After decades of weekly Economist stories about these places I can’t recall a story that investigates action in countries of origin to stop emigration. But every week I get a barrage of them about how governments there engage in all kinds of madness that will only see more people escape. I understand that the governments or regimes in these places are absolutely fine with people that don’t feel OK in their countries leaving. Vladimir Putin kept the doors open for all opposition to leave Russia, leaving him with almost no opposition to his dictatorship at home. Also Nicaragua recently got rid of a whole planeload of jailed opponents, stripping them of their nationality, and saving on prison costs. To be specific: where are the interviews with the mayors and governments of the places where the 76 dead in the 2023 Calabria migrant boat disaster came from, about their responsibility for these deaths?

The next question I’d have is about the responsibility of transit countries. Michael Winterbottom’s “In this World” (2002) depicts an ecosystem of illegality, corruption, smuggling and trafficking. I’ve been in many of the countries that feature in the movie and tend to believe what it shows. Other than the EU paying some countries like Turkey or Libya to keep migrants within their borders, I haven’t read a lot about the rest of countries doing something to stem the flow of people through them. There are stories about exploitation, death and other perils along the way, but none I can recall about government action and responsibility. The exception is Belarus, which has managed to weaponize migrants and is actively using them to destabilize its neighbors. One could say something similar about Turkey. This keeps me guessing if transit countries might either not care or even benefit from the situation. In both cases I feel the moral, and possibly legal responsibility is at least as high as the one of Europe. But where are those stories in the news? Does poverty or or failed political leadership exonerate transit countries from responsibility?

Then, once reaching the last shore before the “promised land”, there are the traffickers. There is coverage of these organizations, but I haven’t read anything about the responsibility of the governments of the countries they operate in. The boats that have reached Italy’s shores in the past weeks must have been registered somewhere. What responsibility do the countries of registry bear? What are they doing to compensate victims, compensate Europe, repatriate passengers and persecute the operators? To be specific: the responsible government official of Izmir, from where the ship to Calabria came from, is that person already in jail? Where is the accountability for registering a boat not fit for a Mediterranean crossing and allowing it to sail? Are the owner, captain and crew already in jail, or at least being sought? Is Turkey compensating the victims, repatriating bodies, compensating Italy for the trouble caused and asking for forgiveness? And how about every country between Turkey and the places of origin of the 76 dead?

As a news organization with an unparalleled reputation for quality and internationality, the Economist probably has many insights of all the aspects of migration. Also your analysis so often delights the readers by offering a perspective that differs from the conventional story in other media. I would find it extremely interesting to learn about the topics mentioned above with the same rigor as applied to the European chapter of migration, and holding ALL other governments to the same high standards as Europe.

Then, beyond the “who is responsible?” of the flow of migrants, understanding migration requires a broader perspective. To start with, an overview of the legal framework of migration would be interesting. What are the responsibilities of the countries of origin, transit and destination? Who specifically in those countries is and should be involved? Are there any legal ways for migration to work or is illegality a feature instead of a bug? A lot of what I wrote above depends on this, and I am no legal scholar. Ignorance on this topic can lead to future prime ministers going on a rant of ignorance on TV (also thanks to the appalling absence of any fact checking or questioning by the interviewer).

Equally understanding Europe’s need for immigration is a topic that needs more debate. Initiatives like MEP Damian Boeselager’s for more competitive immigration to Europe contrast with the “build a wall” approaches of some Eastern European countries. The Economist has reported on the topic already, for example from Germany, and this topic probably allows for more analysis of the differences between the various corners of Europe. With the same brilliance as the Economist recently tried to show scenarios of a Chinese war on Taiwan, it could show possible outcomes of a Europe opening up to controlled or selective immigration á la Canadienne, uncontrolled immigration (imagine Sea Eye e.V. taking over Europe’s immigration policy for example) or no immigration at all, Orban style. What would these different Europes look like? What would their role in a future world look like? And what would the countries of origin look like after a brain drain, without the current migrants, or if their emigrants can’t leave?

Migration needs to be a topic of debate in public, not just for right wing vote hunters. Blaming smugglers is convenient but won’t solve the issue. The true reasons of the problem lie elsewhere, in places that have become accustomed to ask for money no matter how irresponsible they act, and in the end blame the very donors they’re begging all day for cash.