MARK ANGELIDES
The mass influx of migrants to Europe is not only a response to a crisis of war but also part of a larger and longer game plan to “shore up the aging population.” Politicians across Europe, encouraged by the EU Commission have decided that to deal with the twin evils of an aging population and low birth rates that the best possible option is to ensure that the next generation of Europeans is African.
Leaving aside the obvious fact that importing a replacement generation will eventually mean that yet another generation of migrants will be needed to pay the pensions and provide the social care for the last group (migrants age, too), it fails in every way to examine WHY there is a decline in births among (mostly) Westernized nations. The idea that they can solve an unexamined problem with an untested (and economically illiterate) plan should give us cause for concern.
When a nation’s birth rates begin to fall, it is worth considering whether the reason or driving force behind it is cultural, economic, or caused.
The “caused” answer would be more noticeable; it’s either war, disease, or a restrictive policy — like China’s one child law — that results in fewer children in general, or fewer females to actually produce the next generation. Thiswas the case in China with a large amount of gender selective abortions.
Cultural reasons can include environmental factors. If any area is secluded enough that it has few trade ties, or abuses its natural resources, the lack of food, shelter, water, can lead to lower birth rates. But this is not something that impacts modern countries.
So that leaves economic factors. People are not having children because they simply cannot afford the associated costs. It could be argued that perhaps people are more selfish and that they would rather not take on the responsibility, but a study by the Center for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) tells a different story.
According to CEBR’s research, in the UK since 2003, the cost of raising a child has increased by 63%; and 44% of families have had to make significant cuts in their lifestyle to pay for their child. The average total for a first child (which is traditionally the most expensive) is £227,266 over their period of dependency.
185,824 abortions were carried out in the UK last year (so it is likely not a physical problem); more than 70% of these abortions were for women who are either married or with a partner.
And in fact, polls show that more than 75% of people would like to have “at least two children.” Less than 5% of respondents said they did not want any.
So, people want children, people are capable of having children, but the cost is prohibitive. The very rich can afford to have as many as they like, the middle classes limit themselves based on expenditure and cost, so that leaves the poor.
In most modern (or 1st world) nations, there is a welfare system in place. This welfare system allows those with few resources to have children that they couldn’t otherwise afford; in some cases, it actually pays to have more children in terms of access to benefits and housing. And this is why replacing a population will ultimately fail.
Either the new migrants will be “welfare dependent” (as is the case in Sweden where it predicted that more than 75% of the new migrants would never work a single day), or they will work and end up not being able to afford children. So the problem will remain for the next generation to solve.
Instead of population replacement, the governments need to be looking at ways to alleviate the financial cost of having children: it will be far cheaper in the long run. But of course, European politicians already know this. The reality is that they don’t want people to be able to afford children by themselves; they want a population that is dependent on “government resources” as this allows them more power and purview. The day that they can grant licenses for children will be the day they have achieved their aim. And therein, lies the problem.
