When war, oppression, and political repression are at issue, human life cannot be sacrificed to calculations of long-term self-interest.
In developed countries, fertility rates are declining, life expectancy is increasing, and the ratio of the working-age population to retirees is falling. According to the OECD, the old-age dependency ratio rose from 19% in 1980 to 31% in 2023, and is projected to reach 52% by 2060. Consequently, migration is frequently presented as a “solution” for aging societies. However, this issue is not as simple as it might seem: Migration presents both opportunities and serious challenges for both destination and source countries (https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2025/07/oecd-employment-outlook-2025_5345f034/full-report/component-6.html).
The strongest argument in favor of migration is the labor shortage. Many developed countries rely on immigrant labor across sectors such as healthcare, elderly care, construction, agriculture, logistics, and technology. As the working-age population shrinks, tax and social security revenues decline, while expenditures on pensions and healthcare rise. The European Commission’s 2024 Aging Report demonstrates that aging populations exert long-term pressure on spending related to pensions, healthcare, and long-term care (https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/publications/2024-ageing-report-economic-and-budgetary-projections-eu-member-states-2022-2070_en).
Furthermore, migration is not merely an economic issue, but a humanitarian one. People are compelled to leave their home countries due to war, oppression, poverty, the climate crisis, or restrictions on academic and political freedoms. From the perspective of academic solidarity, academics, physicians, journalists, and students in exile are not merely “labor”; they are human beings whose rights have been violated. Opening our doors to them is, first and foremost, a human rights responsibility—one that takes precedence over demographic calculations.
Nevertheless, it would be incorrect to assert that migration constitutes a solution under all circumstances. The United Nations’ discussions regarding “replacement migration” have demonstrated that while migration can serve as a tool to offset population decline and aging, doing so may necessitate extremely high and sustained levels of immigration. Immigrants, too, age over time; they become integrated into the social system, bringing with them their families, children, and their own educational and healthcare needs. Consequently, “more migration”—taken in isolation—does not constitute a sustainable demographic policy (https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/unpd-egm_200010_un_2001_replacementmigration.pdf).
Migration also entails societal costs. Rapid and unplanned migration can place significant strain on the housing market, schools, healthcare services, and local government institutions. Without provisions for language training, professional credential recognition, equitable employment opportunities, and robust measures to combat discrimination, integration efforts are liable to fail. Such failure not only victimizes the immigrants themselves but also fuels anti-immigrant sentiment within the host community.
Another critical issue concerns the countries of origin. When affluent nations attract physicians, nurses, engineers, and academics, poorer or more fragile nations risk losing their skilled human capital. The World Bank notes that while migration can yield benefits for countries of origin—such as remittances and the transfer of knowledge—it may simultaneously heighten the risk of a “brain drain” in certain nations. Particularly in countries with weak healthcare systems, this loss can be a problem not merely economic but one that directly impacts human lives (https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2023).
It is also necessary to examine the rationale behind anti-migration policies. Each country’s capacity for integration, housing availability, public services, and social equilibrium must be taken into account. Unplanned, uncontrolled migration can create problems for both the local population and migrants themselves. However, it would be incorrect to conclude from this that we should simply “close the doors.” Refugee protection is both an international and a moral obligation. Portraying migrants solely as a burden or a threat distorts reality and fuels xenophobia.
In reality, migration is not without alternatives; yet, a solution entirely devoid of migration is equally unrealistic. To achieve a fairer migration policy, migrants must not be viewed merely as economic instruments. Partnerships in education, healthcare, and science should be established with countries of origin, and “brain circulation”—rather than “brain drain”—should be encouraged. Support should be provided to enable migrant academics and experts to maintain ties with their countries of origin, undertake collaborative projects, and contribute to knowledge transfer.
In aging societies, migration can be part of a broader social policy package. It is natural for host countries to consider factors such as female employment, healthy aging, education, technology, family support, and their responsibilities toward countries of origin. However, forced migration—driven by humanitarian and political imperatives—occupies a distinct category. Here, on one side lie the acute concerns of human life, liberty, and security; on the other, the long-term economic and demographic interests of states. Naturally, countries must take into account their own capacities, societal equilibria, and potential for integration. Yet, the immediate preservation of human life cannot be sacrificed to long-term calculations of self-interest. Consequently, when issues such as war, persecution, political repression, the suppression of academic freedoms, or the violation of fundamental human rights are at stake, supporting migration is not merely a choice, but a moral imperative. The fundamental challenge lies not in evaluating migration solely through a cost-benefit analysis, but in making it more equitable, humane, and responsible for both host and origin societies.
