VIVIENNE VERMAAK | How many immigrants are too many?

“People are going to be doing what they always do when the economy tanks — blame immigrants and poor people.”

The famous sentiment from the economic comic drama The Big Short is well known for its truism but quickly forgotten when the actual economy tanks and it becomes true. Certainly, neither poor people nor foreigners are anything new when it comes to running a country.

The UK and South Africa are both experiencing strong anti-immigration sentiments, leading to violent protests and fears of instability. To what extent are either country’s woes to blame on the immigrants? How many of them are too many? Governments, economists, and populations have been scratching their heads to determine the exact number at which “immigrants” become a problem, especially in liberal democracies where freedom of movement and multiculturalism are popular ideals.

Some researchers and commentators have proposed numerical thresholds between 10% and 20% of a population as problematic. Others suggest that a specific annual flow rate between native-born and foreign-born populations becomes an issue if it exceeds 1% a year.

These formulas are highly contested, as they are poor predictors of outcomes across countries. Japan, for example, has low immigration levels yet still faces demographic and economic challenges. About 5% of South Africa’s population is reported to be foreigners, so really not that many, compared with the UK at 19%. So, if not absolute numbers, what is the actual problem?

A mathematical formula for calculating your country’s optimal immigration influx could be: Sustainable immigration = Economic capacity + Institutional capacity + Integration capacity + Public legitimacy. How does South Africa fare on this math?

Adding complexities such as legal vs illegal and ugly expressions of racism and other “isms” muddy the waters. Perhaps making the calculation based on economic absorption and institutional capacity is more helpful. Rather, ask whether the labour market can absorb newcomers and whether fiscal costs would exceed taxable income for long periods. Can your education and health system cope with increased pressure?

In this framework, growing economies with stronger institutions would be able to absorb a much higher number of immigrants than those without, regardless of what absolute numbers reflect. South Africa might be a good expression of this phenomenon.

Sociologists tend to approach it from a standpoint of levels of trust, shared norms and social capital in a society. Where demographic change is swift, and cultural integration is low, xenophobia and disquiet in the total population can emerge. This is not due to a census body count but operates on a psychosocial level, where relatively minor events can cause huge upheavals. What is happening in the UK seems to be an example of this.

Some scholars argue that every political community requires a degree of shared identity, which brings stability. Demographers note that wealthy societies often become immigration societies naturally. Here, homogeneity is established by income levels. Under this framework, the practical limit may realistically be determined by how many immigrants can be successfully integrated, rather than how many are needed. Immigration levels should be compatible with maintaining a sense of national solidarity that supports democratic institutions and welfare systems.

Using these inputs, a mathematical formula for calculating your country’s optimal immigration influx could be: Sustainable immigration = Economic capacity + Institutional capacity + Integration capacity + Public legitimacy.

How does South Africa fare on this math? Our absolute numbers of immigrants are not that bad. Our economic capacity is poor, though, with a GDP growth rate of about 1% — when it should be closer to 5%. Our institutional capacity in terms of housing, education, health care, safety, and infrastructure is buckling or failing to the extent that opposition politicians can literally zipline over the gaps in service delivery. We don’t have a formal naturalisation programme, like the US, where new legal citizens are taught the civic values and cultural practices of the new host country. Furthermore, foreigners are routinely treated as invaders who must be rooted out violently, a situation fomented by political parties on all fronts.

‘Love thy neighbour’ is regarded as the golden rule, but in modern times the lustre seems to have faded.

Many of South Africa’s problems can be laid at the feet of the government, which simply lacks the will and capacity to enforce current border control and immigration laws. It is fair to suggest that our institutions have not been taken care of as they could have. Should we then extend the movie quote to the following: “When the economy tanks, blame poor people, immigrants, and government.” Regardless of who you blame, it is always the same people at fault — “them”, regardless of who “they” are.

What of individual liberty and free enterprise? What about voting the government out? What of the agency of the individual who has the capacity to shift governing landscapes and build their own lives and industry? Marching and marching can be argued to be as effective as voting in putting pressure on government, as well as on the immigrants, but this level of agitation and aggression causes its own cycle of problems. At some stage, the fingers have to point back to the citizens and natives of the country.

A famous thought leader once instructed us to “love thy neighbour”. It is regarded as the golden rule, but in modern times the lustre seems to have faded. If love, compassion, and tolerance are not in our playbook, we could perhaps invest a bit of time simply talking to our neighbours and showing them how to register to vote, perchance convincing them to vote differently, so we can put pressure on the pesky government to do something about the even peskier foreigners.

We could also vote ourselves. And if that is too much effort or too difficult, there are always the immigrants to blame. It is obvious that it doesn’t really matter how many of them there are; one might be too many. Just blame them. Never mind the potential jobs they do for less money than local labour suppliers, or the important population supplementation they do in Europe; their most important contribution is to give us someone to blame. Bless them for this service. And be gone with them.

• Vermaak is an award-winning journalist and public speaker. She is an associate of the Free Market Foundation. She writes in her personal capacity.