A low birth rate in the Netherland and Europe could lead to an increase in immigration from elsewhere, said NSC leader Pieter Omtzigt in a recent lecture. But apart from stirring up xenophobia, his “solution” will not make the Netherlands less dependent on foreign workers, says Leo Lucassen, a professor of Global Labour and Migration History at Leiden University.

Pieter Omtzigt, who delivered this year’s HJ Schoo lecture, named his contribution “Thinking in solutions”.  “With limited net migration in the Netherlands and Europe the population will shrink relatively quickly unless the birth rate grows significantly and long-term,” Omtzigt said, implicitly suggesting that one of those solutions is for Dutch women to have more children or mass immigration from Africa awaits. In a country like Ethiopia, more children are born than in all European countries put together, after all, not to mention Nigeria.

This makes this problem “with geopolitical implications which it would be difficult to underestimate” clear, according to Omtzigt. What he is saying is that too few Dutch-born children to make up for a lack of workers will result in the imminent mass immigration from Africa which will disrupt Dutch society.

This spectre has been raised before. In his apocalyptic The Camp of the Saints in 1973, French author Jean Raspail described a future in which millions of immigrants from “the third world” disrupt France and the rest of Europe. It’s a scenario that, thanks to Omvolkung (replacement) theory adepts such as Anders Breivik and Renaud Camus, has entered the political mainstream.

The solution proposed by Omtzigt is to boost the fertility rate but it doesn’t seem a very realistic one. It is well below the 2.1 level in every European country. In most countries, including the Netherlands it is 1.5 with the occasional peak to 1.8 (France) and fall to 1.1 (Spain). Nowhere does it come anywhere near the 2.1 needed to fill up the gaps. In short, the margins are narrow and the chance that Europe will be able to do without immigrants is negligible.

Not only are children expensive, but the women who have them are often the ones who take on the bulk of their care. The choice between having a child or more children and having money to spend often comes down on the side of consumerism. And even if the rate were ratcheted up it would still take another 25 years to make a difference.

Xenophobia

Omtzigt is right. The Netherlands and other European countries will continue to depend on immigration.  But his solution is based on wishful thinking which also puts a xenophobic mortgage on the future. Instead of thinking about the kind of economy we really want and the place of immigration and integration in it, he is giving the spectre of mass immigration another outing. And that is a real obstacle in a realistic debate about demographics and migration and, in its wake, a proper solution.

With Omtzigt’s suggestion come unfounded but thinly disguised associations of hordes of Africans amassing on Europe’s borders. Although Africa’s population has tripled (from 400 million to 1.5 billion)  since Raspail wrote his book, their share in the European population is modest.

Their arrival is largely the result of the recruitment of workers from North Africa, the decolonisation of European colonies such as Algeria and some other West-African countries and the devastating war (fought with Russian and European arms) that has been plaguing the Horn of Africa. Most Africans move within their own or another African country.

Changes to the economy

If Omtzigt really wants solutions then let him take these facts as his starting point and target the excesses of farming and the jobs agency lobby which has gotten completely out of hand thanks to the VVD’s flexibilisation drive. In other words, fewer slaughterhouses (because of fewer cows, pigs and chickens), fewer polluting bulbs and fewer super energy-intensive greenhouses.

He could also look at cleaning up the distribution sector, which is largely dependent on cheap and exploited East European labour migrants. But even if he did, the Netherlands would still be dependent on immigration, in the high-tech sector as well as in the care and building sectors.

If Omtzigt wants to mitigate the effects of immigration on social cohesion he should come up with a long-term strategy which is based on the indisputable fact that the Netherlands is an immigration country.

So stop the scapegoating politics and give status holders and their families better opportunities much more quickly. Also, fill up the staffing gaps at the depleted labour inspectorate so it can tackle abuse. And, lastly, it would help if the minimum wage were increased, not just to improve the livelihood security so championed by Omtzigt of Dutch workers and newcomers, but which will also boost labour-saving innovation.

This article first appeared in the NRC.