Globalist Magazine Admits Migration Cuts Wages

Migration cuts local wages even as it expands the economy for investors, the globalist pro-migration Economist magazine admitted.

“A [migration] clampdown would also benefit GDP [Gross Domestic Product] per person—the yardstick by which economists usually assess living standards,” the magazine admitted Sunday and added:

As immigration surged in 2022 and 2023, GDP per person in Britain fell. It has tumbled in Germany. In Canada it remains nearly 4% off its high in 2022. This has happened in part because the latest arrivals are on average less skilled than the resident population, meaning that they cannot command high salaries.

“Reducing immigration could stop the [wage] slide in the short term,” the magazine acknowledged under the reluctant headline “The rich world revolts against sky-high immigration.”

The admission comes amid a flood of other establishment admissions that the federal policy of Extraction Migration hurts Americans’ wages, housing costs, and productivity. For example, the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City reported in May that “Sectors with some of the highest immigrant workforce growth, such as construction and manufacturing, saw the sharpest deceleration in wage growth (specifically, average hourly earnings) from 2021 to 2023.”

The admission by a pro-migration publication is a useful vaccine against continued claims by reporters at pro-migration media outlets that migration is good for Americans. For example, Jonathan Weisman, a politics writer for the New York Times, wrote a July 18 article scoffing at Sen. JD Vance’s criticism of U.S. immigration policy, saying:

Decades of economic research have also raised doubts that immigrants — especially undocumented immigrants — really suppress domestic wages. Most immigrant labor goes to work Americans don’t want, like in farm labor and meatpacking. Legal immigrants are often highly skilled, imported specifically for industries where skilled Americans are in short supply.

“The theory that immigrants drive down wages and employment opportunities for the native-born has been repeatedly tested,” Eric Levitz at Vox.com wrote on July 17. “The consensus of the empirical literature suggests they generally do not,” he insisted without checking Goldman Sachs or the White House’s economic advisors.

RELATED: 27 Illegal Immigrants Found Inside Horse Trailer During Traffic Stop

Still, the Economist‘s admission that migration cuts wages is only a tactical concession.

Most of the article was a plea to keep recent illegal migrants in the U.S. and Europe so they can continue working for, consuming from, and renting from the magazine’s elite readership of investors, CEOs, and C-suite executives.

“Radicals want mass deportations …could prove immensely damaging to economies,” the Economist magazine claimed as it frightened its readership with threats of rising wages and declining rents:

Those close to Mr Trump argue that “Operation Wetback”—Dwight Eisenhower’s derogatorily named policy in the 1950s which expelled thousands of undocumented Mexicans—shows mass deportations can work without ill effect …. There is little doubt that Mr Trump’s proposal would cause economic chaos, as entire industries would be forced to find new staff [likely at higher wages] …

There is greater uncertainty about the effects of more moderate anti-immigration policies, even if they are still likely to be damaging. In the short term, efforts to bring down sky-high migration would probably reduce inflation in the housing market. Research by Goldman Sachs, a bank, suggests that in Australia each 100,000 decline in annual net migration reduces rents by about 1%. As migration to Britain has slowed in recent months, so has the pace of rent rises (other factors are playing a role, too). In time, though, falling migration would probably push up other inflation. As labour supply declined, wages might grow faster than otherwise, raising the price of services such as hospitality.

Extraction Migration

Since at least 1990, the federal government has quietly adopted a policy of Extraction Migration to grow the consumer economy after it helped investors move the high-wage manufacturing sector to lower-wage countries.

The migration policy extracts vast amounts of human resources from needy countries. The additional workers, white-collar graduates, consumers, and renters push up stock values by shrinking Americans’ wages, subsidizing low-productivity companies, boosting rents, and spiking real estate prices.

The little-recognized economic policy has loosened the economic and civic feedback signals that animate a stable economy and democracy. It has pushed many native-born Americans out of careers in a wide variety of business sectors, reduced Americans’ productivity and political clout, slowed high-tech innovation, shrunk trade,v crippled civic solidarity, and steadily reduced working Americans’ share of the economy.

Donald Trump’s campaign team recognizes the economic impact of migration. Biden’s unpopular policy is  “flooding America’s labor pool with millions of low-wage illegal migrants who are directly attacking the wages and opportunities of hard-working Americans,” said a May statement from Trump’s campaign.

The secretive economic policy also sucks jobs and wealth from heartland states by subsidizing coastal investors and government agencies with a flood of low-wage workers, high-occupancy renters, and government-aided consumers. Similar policies have damaged citizens and economies in Canada and the United Kingdom.

It has also expanded government poverty programs, and allowed government officials and progressives to ignore the rising death rate of discarded, low-status Americans.

The colonialism-like policy has also damaged small nations and has killed hundreds of Americans and thousands of migrants, including many on the taxpayer-funded jungle trail through the Darien Gap in Panama.