ARE MASS MIGRATIONS THE NEW NORMAL?

Few recent international developments have been as contentious and politically charged as the response to mass migration and the plight of refugees. Politicians and actual policy makers on all sides of the ideological spectrum have chimed in on the issue, and multiple administrations in the U.S. and the E.U. have been forced to include the subject in their respective agendas. From the very beginning of his election campaign, past President Donald Trump made clear that opposing uncontrolled migration was a prominent element of his electoral program. Most of us will remember his descent from the escalator chastising Mexico for bringing people to our border that were bringing drugs, crime, were rapists, and some were assumed to be good people. His obsession with building a wall on our Southern border continued to dominate his political objectives. President Biden's administration was forced to respond quickly when a flood of migrants, mostly Haitian nationals, began sheltering near Del Rio, Texas. The numbers were overwhelming. Ultimately, 30,000 were apprehended or expelled. About 8,000 willingly returned to Mexico, and 12,000 were allowed to enter to have their request for asylum evaluated. Meanwhile another 19,000 were waiting to cross the border into Panama. And few interested observers will forget the European refugee crisis, which began around 2011, and peaked in 2015 when more than 1.3 million refugees, mostly Syrians, entered Europe and destabilized the E.U. in the process. While much of this may be new to the casual observer, mass migration has gone on for centuries. The current movement of people is minuscule by comparison. Between the 16th and 19th centuries, during the slave trade, 12.8 million Africans were shipped across the Atlantic. Beginning in the 1840s, the so-called "Great Atlantic Migration," brought in more than 3 million immigrants from Ireland and Germany. And between 1880 and 1910 an additional 17 million Europeans, mostly from Eastern Europe, followed. All in all, between 1820 and 1980, 37 million Europeans reached our shores. Over a period of 400 years, from the late 1600s through the 20th century, the northern half of Asia and parts of Africa were colonized by European migrants. The overseas migration of Europeans during this period exceeded 60 million people. Within recorded history, human migration transformed the entire aspects of lands and continents, and the racial, ethnic, and linguistic composition of their populations. Until fairly recently, there was a consensus among target countries that migration was a good thing - a central value to Western society. It was a given that letting immigrants in was beneficial for the society and the economy. Proponents saw increased economic growth, more flexible labor markets, filling vacancies in unpopular jobs. However, during the past decade or so, these principles are now being questioned - especially in the U.S. and Europe. New cultures, languages and economic demands of immigrants have roiled western societies during the past decade, making migration a new focus of international concern. Much of this seems to stem from a growing identity crisis among native born populations which are beginning to see dramatic shifts in their cultural composition as a result of an influx of non-white groups into their demographic make-up. Recent election results, dominated by populist candidates, reflect a growing reaction of predominantly white majorities in the U.S., France, the U.K. and Germany to their own demographic demise. While migration is a complex story, many are beginning to see it in simplistic terms. There are "natives" who belong, and "foreigners" who don't. In the U.S. and Europe we are now seeing the rise of openly anti-immigrant parties that are willing to pay fairly high costs in order to "regain control of their borders." Brexit in the U.K., Lega-Nord in Italy, Alternative for Germany (AFD), and the Party for Freedom in The Netherlands are just a few. In the mean time, autocrats are attempting to weaponize migrant movements, organizing or threatening to organize a sudden influx of refugees into another country with the intent of overwhelming its borders or causing political discomfort. Belarus dictator Aleksander Lukashenko is doing just that on the country's border with Poland. And almost daily we are confronted with the human tragedy of hundreds of desperate migrants drowning in the Mediterranean or languishing in detention camps. The current global estimate is that, in 2020, there were around 281 million international migrants in the world. This amounts to 3.6% of the global population. While this may be the culmination of what could be considered the new normal, it is not too much of a stretch to suggest that, at some point, we could foresee a substantial turnaround in popular attitudes. The western world is getting older. The replacement fertility rate is dropping, especially in developed countries. Populations are not being replaced as needed. Soon we will be looking again for younger, skilled workers to keep our economies healthy. Multiple countries are already revising their immigration policies. We may have to come to grips with our identity problems out of necessity. Theo Wierdsma

EUROPEAN UNION BACK IN CRISIS MODE

The 27 member European Union, the strongest economic community in the world, is approaching a new set of predicaments - an imminent leadership crisis, and what amounts to a management dilemma reminiscent of the 2016 Brexit crisis. After 16 years in office, highly competent, authoritative, marginally charismatic German Chancellor Angela Merkel is retiring. As the dominant force in European politics for much of that time, Ms. Merkel's exit creates a significant power vacuum in the Union, which is rich in functionaries but light on visionaries, with few legitimate leaders to take her place. French president Emmanuel Macron will doubtlessly attempt to take over where the chancellor is leaving off. He has always shown a desire to be the dominant force in the EU, proposing multiple ideas for a more independent and integrated Europe. However, his leadership style has not always been well received, and he could be vulnerable domestically. Mr. Macron will be up for reelection in April next year, again facing opposition from far-right Marine Le Pen, leader of the "National Rally," a perennial euro-skeptic. His focus will most likely be predominantly on challenging domestic issues. Angela Merkel's potential replacements as chancellor are lesser known, unfamiliar players in European politics. Olaf Scholz, until recently Germany's finance minister in Merkel's coalition government, leader of the Social Democrats which won the last election, is the odds on favorite to take her place. His only conceivable rival is Armin Laschet, Ms. Merkel's successor as leader of the Christian Democrats, which lost the election by 1.6%. Neither one comes with significant EU credentials. By virtue of its dominant economic position within the EU, Germany's leadership is essential to the Union. Without Merkel's guidance, its influence will almost certainly diminish, leaving the organization potentially rudderless. This development comes at a time when the organization faces critical challenges on its eastern border. So much so that the term "polexit" has crept into the vernacular used in Warsaw and Brussels alike. While Poland's departure from the EU may still be unlikely, its government's six year long feud with EU leaders remain very real. Poland joined the EU in 2004. It has probably benefited more from this Union than any other member. However, in 2015, the conservative nationalist "Law and Justice" party took control of its government, and rapidly became an irritant to EU leaders in Brussels. The dispute originated largely over changes to the Polish judiciary system designed to give the ruling party greater control over the courts, seeking to "reform a corrupt and inefficient justice system." The European Commission believed that the changes would actually erode the country's democratic system of checks and balances. In 2019, the Supreme Court of Poland warned that the judicial reforms planned by the ruling party could result in Poland having to leave the EU, as it undermined the independence of its judiciary and challenged the primacy of EU law - a key condition for membership. Earlier this year, Poland's Constitutional Court, dominated by ruling party loyalists, challenged the notion that EU law supersedes the laws of the 27 member states with a ruling that some EU laws are incompatible with the nation's own constitution. And on October 7 of this year, its Constitutional Tribunal bluntly rejected the primacy of EU law. In response, Ursula von der Leyen, head of the European Commission, stated that: "This ruling calls into question the foundation of the European Union. It is a direct challenge to the unity of the European legal order." The legal battle between Poland and the EU has escalated into a full blown political crisis, even bigger than Brexit back in 2016, because it undermines the entire foundation of the EU. Thus far, as punishment, the organization has withheld about $42 billion in grants and loans from its coronavirus recovery fund. And last month, it asked the European Court of Justice to impose daily fines on Warsaw for defying its rulings. What counters the largely right-wing endorsement of a Polexit is that the EU remains overwhelmingly popular among Polish citizens. A national public opinion poll conducted in October found that 64.4% of those interviewed wanted to stay in the Union. Only 14.8% expressed a desire to leave. A majority, 42.6% to 36.9%, did indicate a preference for a 2nd national referendum. Poland's population generally seems to recognize that a departure from the EU would come with significant economic consequences. In 2018, 80% of its exports went to member states, while 58% of imports came from EU countries. Since 2004, the country has received an infusion of $127 billion - more than any other member. More than 2 million Poles have taken advantage of the freedom to work abroad. And, politically, its ties to NATO removed it from the influence of the Kremlin, something that could well change if the country returned to "unaffiliated" status in the harsh political reality of Central Europe. Poland is not alone in its challenge to the EU. Viktor Orban, Hungary's prime minister, has backed the "Law and Justice" party's position rejecting the supremacy of EU law, strongly suggesting that the EU must respect member states' identity. Adam Bodnar, a former ombudsman for citizens' rights, and law professor at the University of Warsaw, submits that the government may be in favor of European integration, but that it should just be economic - it is "not so interested in all the other aspects, such as political union and having respect for European values." Needless to say, the European Union has its hands full. Theo Wierdsma