Governments are ignoring the real costs of migration
Jonathan Power says effects on immigrants' offspring are often overlooked
The big immigration debate is often the big obscurantism debate. The wool is pulled over our eyes and obtaining clarity is not easy.
The vested interests in continued immigration are enormous - first and foremost, the migrants themselves who are seeking an escape from poverty and lack of opportunity at home.
The great migration of Mexicans to the US is now a trickle - mainly because of fast-growing work and educational opportunities at home
They are supported by governments at home who look at the remittances that bail out their balance of payments problems without looking at the other side of the balance sheet - the loss of the "best and brightest" from their own economies, the often sad and destructive impact on family life, and migrants spending, when they do come home, on a house and consumer items rather than on investment either in their farm or a small business.
Likewise, governments and employers in receiving countries tend to look at immigration in a lopsided way. For them, it is a short cut - to keeping wages down, to filling the jobs that locals won't do, to working night shifts, dangerous jobs on building sites or filling the shortfalls in seasonal labour on farms.
It is the easy way out. Job retraining on a massive scale, persuading companies to initiate work methods that attract native workers, and raising the retirement age so that older members of society can continue to contribute, are more daunting.
Receiving countries have long taken a simplistic view of the long-term costs of immigration. First-generation immigrants are young and vigorous, prepared to work long hours at unpleasant jobs, pay taxes and draw less on social funds and health services. Their crime and unemployment rates are low, and they dream of retiring back home.