The Age of Mass Migration

"This is a great book. Williamson and Hatton are two great economic historians. What it highlights is just the scale of that immigration. At times a third of Ireland, a third of Sweden, a third of southern Italy, was migrating. It also highlights how many went‑—not only to the United States—but to South America, the mass migration to places like Argentina, which is often forgotten. It also highlights how many came back later, when conditions changed. For some of these destinations, in later years, a third of people returned. And it highlights the role of technology in all of this: it was really the steamship that allowed it to happen. It was the combination of the push— pogroms, famines, political conflicts in Europe—and then the steamship suddenly enabling it to be a much safer, quicker, and cheaper passage. If you think we’ve got mass migration now, you have to read this book. It’s nothing compared to that period. I find it fascinating. The book also highlights how there were no passports in that period. Yes. And of course, in Europe, there were far fewer countries. Immigration is, by definition, the crossing of a border and it’s become tighter and tighter. Don’t worry about the equations! This is not a book for specialists. Anyone can read this book. Yes. You’ve got to think who you’re talking about here. A lot of these people would have died. A lot of us wouldn’t be here without this age of mass migration in the 19th century. People would have died in the pogroms, they would have died of famine in Ireland. There are different reasons people emigrate, but generally it’s to survive and to improve their own lives and those of their families. Support Five Books Five Books interviews are expensive to produce. If you're enjoying this interview, please support us by donating a small amount . That’s true, in great part, for refugees, who are a very specific legal category of immigrants. For them, the other option is death or persecution. You just have to look at the pictures of Aleppo to get a sense of what they’re leaving behind. So it’s certainly good for them. 95% of them are going to neigbouring countries — to Turkey, to Lebanon, to Jordan. We’re getting a tiny, tiny fraction in the UK. Germany is accepting a million refugees this year, which is quite extraordinary. In the UK, we’re accepting less in two years than they’re accepting in two days. You should look at the GDP numbers for Germany. Germany is predicting higher GDP growth this year — because of the refugees. But, by the way, I’m not so naive as to recommend a world without borders. There are two opposite corners to this. There’s total control: think North Korea, for what you’ll end up like. Total openness is, I think, a bit utopian. Europe—and the Schengen zone, which I strongly believe in—is the first experiment we’ve seen, in the 20th century, of removing borders. And it worked fantastically. It’s not leading to mass migration — even though unemployment levels are 60% for youth in Greece or the south of Spain. As far as I know, there are very few unemployed Greek or Spanish kids on the streets of London or anywhere else. That’s because, basically, people stay at home. So yes, but it’s idealistic. Like free trade, it’s an endpoint — rather than a place we can get to in the near term. Nobody would dispute that. Lots of studies have shown that."