Migration is a win-win game that can be turned into a double blessing
Today, our planet is home to about 8 billion people—eight for each one alive in his times. Yet, it's no exaggeration to say that for the vast majority of us, if not everyone, our quality of life is far superior to anything seen in previous centuries. Far from being a bane, population is now seen as a vital enabler of greater prosperity. Indeed, the pendulum has swung the other way.
Also Read: India's population can be an asset in the world's war against climate change
Today's fear is not of a runaway headcount, but of numbers failing to keep pace with the needs of economies, especially in the rich world. This is the result of fertility rates falling faster than mortality rates, a gap that has skewed the age profile of many countries upwards, making it harder for them to support the ageing. The trend of fewer births and longer lives is global enough to mean that in various ways and stages, the world is in the throes of a profound shift: Population growth is no longer driven by fertility and mortality, but by its third driver: migration.
The motives of migration are mostly economic, with people venturing out for better lives.
Also Read: Gender and Age: We need a female perspective on ageing populations
According to the UN's World Population Prospects 2024, immigration is projected to be the main driver of population growth in 52 countries and areas through 2054. This group includes Australia, Canada, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the US. The West is in the midst of a migration boom unlike any before.
The IMF estimates that America's foreign-born labour force is 9% higher than at the start of 2019. In the UK, Eurozone and Canada, it is around a fifth higher. The US insurge means that its economy will be 2% larger over the next decade than had been forecast.
But the impact of migration goes beyond the favour it does GDP; it extends to inflation, living standards, public budgets and even to the realm of a society's intangible social fabric.
The pressure on public goods—think of roads, schools, hospitals, public housing—combined with the complexities of local absorption often puts migration at the risk of a backlash. For political leaders looking for a scapegoat at which they can direct public anger, migrants are soft targets. The rise of right-wing extremism in large parts of the US and Europe is evidence of this.
Sadly, distrust of incomers is not limited to cross-border migrants. Within India too, we see people in more prosperous states displaying xenophobic attitudes towards migrants from other parts of the country.
Also Read: Population decline is not a problem but hungry kids are
The long-term answer is better-balanced regional development. But in the short-term, governments in states with large migrant populations must address the inevitable demands made of public provisions.
The contribution of migrants to the local economy must be matched with more spending on transport, housing, health, etc, so that migrants don't find themselves in a scramble with locals for scarce public goods and everyone can rub along in harmony. This, plus a vigil on parochial behaviour, could be a win-win game for all states, be they sources or recipients of migrants.
Migration, as Portia said of mercy in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, is twice-blessed: 'It blesseth him that gives and him that takes." Countries and communities would do well to remember that.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Does Vladimir Putin speak English? Languages the Russian President knows as he meets Trump in Alaska
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have landed in Alaska for high-stakes talks on the Ukraine war. The two leaders shook hands on the tarmac, exchanged pleasantries, and posed for photographs before heading to the venue of the historic summit in Anchorage. Russia's President Vladimir Putin speaks as he meets with President Donald Trump Friday, Aug. 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska.(AP) As images of their meeting circulated online, many on social media began to ask a familiar question: Does Vladimir Putin speak English? According to the Daily Express, Putin is fluent in English and has a strong grasp of the language, but he rarely speaks it in public or during official engagements. Instead, he typically uses a translator for interviews and political discussions with world leaders. Dmitry Peskov, the spokesperson for the Kremlin, explained, 'In free discourse, at the sidelines of summits, he often speaks in English by himself. But during negotiations and when he is conducting an official meeting, of course he communicates through a translator. However, he practically understands English completely and sometimes even corrects the translators,' according to the outlet. The outlet adds that Putin likely prefers using a translator because he feels more comfortable speaking in his native language. What languages does Putin speak? In addition to his native Russian, Putin is fluent in German, a language he learned during his time as a KGB officer stationed in East Germany in the 1980s. He has used German in diplomatic conversations, notably with former German Chancellor Angela Merkel.


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Pakistan's Ayub Khan sought US help to annexe Kashmir after Indus Treaty in 1960
A new book reveals Ayub Khan's attempt to gain US support for capturing Kashmir after the Indus Waters Treaty. Khan linked water rights to territorial claims. He warned that US aid to India would be wasted without resolving the Kashmir issue. Kennedy offered a compromise, but Khan insisted on securing water resources. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Following the signing of the Indus Waters Treaty in 1960, the then Pakistani President Ayub Khan sought US President John F Kennedy 's support to capture Kashmir from India, a new book on the treaty has 'Trial by Water: Indus Basin and India-Pakistan Relations ', author Uttam Sinha, an expert on international water issues and IDSA senior fellow, recounts how, in July 1961-months after signing the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)-Khan arrived in Washington, already bristling over America's generous aid to a reception in his honour at Mount Vernon, tastefully arranged by First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, Ayub's displeasure was clear. In protest, he had suspended CIA's covert flights from airbases in East Pakistan, which supported Tibetan rebels, as well as U-2 flights over China from West Pakistan.A private garden walk with Kennedy thawed the frost. Ayub agreed to reopen the airbases; Kennedy, in turn, promised that the US will not supply any military equipment to India, according to the later in the Oval Office, Ayub, like a campaign general, spread out maps to press Pakistan's security concerns. The first showed Indian troop deployment-of the 1.5 million soldiers, only 15% faced China, while 85% were positioned against Pakistan. The second detailed 80,000-90,000 Afghan troops on the western border, armed with Soviet-supplied equipment. The third mapped Pakistan's thin defences against both neighbours. Throughout, Ayub insisted that without Kashmir, "Pakistan would be up the gum tree" if attacked from India or Afghanistan, Sinha pointed out in his and his advisers doubted the alarmism but recognised Kashmir as the litmus test of Indo-Pak peace. Kennedy proposed a compromise that the then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru might accept. Ayub's answer was calculated. India could keep Jammu, but Pakistan needed "some miles" across the Chenab to secure water resources . His logic was simple-if the Indus Treaty gave Pakistan rights to the western rivers, and those rivers flowed from Kashmir, adjoining territories should belong to suggested Nehru, politically spent and out of touch with Kashmiris, was now ready for settlement. Without resolving Kashmir, he warned, US aid to India was wasted. Kennedy countered that US assistance was aimed at keeping India free from communist influence, not to buy loyalty, Sinha pointed out in his the meeting closed, Ayub made one final ask-if Kennedy's effort to sway Nehru during the latter's planned November 1961 Washington visit failed, and Pakistan returned to the UN over Kashmir, would the US back it?"Yes," Kennedy replied - an episode that, as the book makes clear, showed how deeply water and territory were entwined during the Cold War era's South Asian book also recalls how Nehru faced internal criticism over the IWT. He was described as an umpire in a cricket match-was how one MP described the PM during a fiery Lok Sabha debate on the treaty in November and December 1960. The charge, recorded in the book, captured the frustration of parliamentarians who believed India was giving away too much, too the treaty was signed on September 19, 1960, and debated in the House on November 30, the mood was anything but celebratory. Criticism came from across the political spectrum, including even the Congress benches. Ashok Mehta of the Praja Socialist Party famously called it a "second partition."


Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Pakistan's Ayub Khan sought US help to annexe Kashmir after Indus Treaty in 1960
A new book reveals Ayub Khan's attempt to gain US support for capturing Kashmir after the Indus Waters Treaty. Khan linked water rights to territorial claims. He warned that US aid to India would be wasted without resolving the Kashmir issue. Kennedy offered a compromise, but Khan insisted on securing water resources. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Following the signing of the Indus Waters Treaty in 1960, the then Pakistani President Ayub Khan sought US President John F Kennedy 's support to capture Kashmir from India, a new book on the treaty has 'Trial by Water: Indus Basin and India-Pakistan Relations ', author Uttam Sinha, an expert on international water issues and IDSA senior fellow, recounts how, in July 1961-months after signing the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)-Khan arrived in Washington, already bristling over America's generous aid to a reception in his honour at Mount Vernon, tastefully arranged by First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, Ayub's displeasure was clear. In protest, he had suspended CIA's covert flights from airbases in East Pakistan, which supported Tibetan rebels, as well as U-2 flights over China from West Pakistan.A private garden walk with Kennedy thawed the frost. Ayub agreed to reopen the airbases; Kennedy, in turn, promised that the US will not supply any military equipment to India, according to the later in the Oval Office, Ayub, like a campaign general, spread out maps to press Pakistan's security concerns. The first showed Indian troop deployment-of the 1.5 million soldiers, only 15% faced China, while 85% were positioned against Pakistan. The second detailed 80,000-90,000 Afghan troops on the western border, armed with Soviet-supplied equipment. The third mapped Pakistan's thin defences against both neighbours. Throughout, Ayub insisted that without Kashmir, "Pakistan would be up the gum tree" if attacked from India or Afghanistan, Sinha pointed out in his and his advisers doubted the alarmism but recognised Kashmir as the litmus test of Indo-Pak peace. Kennedy proposed a compromise that the then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru might accept. Ayub's answer was calculated. India could keep Jammu, but Pakistan needed "some miles" across the Chenab to secure water resources . His logic was simple-if the Indus Treaty gave Pakistan rights to the western rivers, and those rivers flowed from Kashmir, adjoining territories should belong to suggested Nehru, politically spent and out of touch with Kashmiris, was now ready for settlement. Without resolving Kashmir, he warned, US aid to India was wasted. Kennedy countered that US assistance was aimed at keeping India free from communist influence, not to buy loyalty, Sinha pointed out in his the meeting closed, Ayub made one final ask-if Kennedy's effort to sway Nehru during the latter's planned November 1961 Washington visit failed, and Pakistan returned to the UN over Kashmir, would the US back it?"Yes," Kennedy replied - an episode that, as the book makes clear, showed how deeply water and territory were entwined during the Cold War era's South Asian book also recalls how Nehru faced internal criticism over the IWT. He was described as an umpire in a cricket match-was how one MP described the PM during a fiery Lok Sabha debate on the treaty in November and December 1960. The charge, recorded in the book, captured the frustration of parliamentarians who believed India was giving away too much, too the treaty was signed on September 19, 1960, and debated in the House on November 30, the mood was anything but celebratory. Criticism came from across the political spectrum, including even the Congress benches. Ashok Mehta of the Praja Socialist Party famously called it a "second partition."