> Migration greatly helps the people who migrate, more than other forms of foreign aid. It also helps their relatives back home due to remittances. It helps th

> Migration greatly helps the people who migrate, more than other forms of foreign aid. It also helps their relatives back home due to remittances. It helps the people who migrate and their families, at the cost of the development of the nation they're leaving behind who lose skilled workers, and it also hurts those left behind in the country that aren't receiving remittances as the influx of foreign cash raises costs and prices. > More people means more customers. And more workers (putting downward pressure on wages). More customers offsets that slightly by increasing demand for products, but between the effects of increasing labour supply and cash leaving the country (those remittances you brought up), is it a net positive for both sides? There are losers, where's the equilibrium? > The question is whether and how to take all this into account in your cost-benefit calculation. It doesn't seem at all obvious to me, without actually doing the math Of course you take everything into account when doing the maths. The problem is that those who make decisions are swayed by corporations and lobbyists, so they optimise for what's best for corporations, not necessarily citizens. > Conclusion: this stuff is complicated. Very. I studied it in university, it doesn't get simpler the deeper you go. And the answer of 'migration is always positive' is a simple answer, and doesn't take into account the winners and losers.