Across the West, immigration has increasingly been framed as a cultural threat or a political liability, a stance most visibly associated with Donald Trump but echoed in varying degrees across Europe and other advanced economies. What this debate often ignores is a hard demographic and economic reality: without sustained immigration, much of the Western world faces a shrinking workforce, rising dependency ratios, and long-term stagnation.
Senior journalist Robin David, writing in The Times of India, situates the issue squarely within global demographic trends. Citing United Nations projections, he notes that “Europe and Northern America are projected to reach peak population size and begin experiencing population decline in the late 2030s,” a milestone barely a decade away. This is not a distant abstraction. Aging populations mean fewer young workers supporting a growing elderly population, placing pressure on welfare systems, productivity, and growth. David points out that the gap is likely to be filled from countries in Asia and Africa, where youthful populations are expanding and where a demographic surplus coincides with rising levels of education and skills. As he argues, “the possibility of the developed world looking for skilled manpower in the future is high,” even if political rhetoric today suggests otherwise.
These concerns are echoed in global labour market assessments. The World Economic Forum’s Future of Work Report 2025 observes that employers in higher-income nations are increasingly pessimistic about talent availability because aging populations are “raising concerns about long-term labour availability.” At the same time, lower-income economies may experience a demographic dividend, creating a mismatch between where young workers are and where jobs and capital are concentrated. Immigration is the most direct mechanism to bridge this divide, yet it remains politically contested.
Policy expert Mohan Guruswamy approaches the issue from a European vantage point, grounding it in both personal observation and long-term data. At a conference dinner in Milan, he recounts that a German policy expert readily agreed with him that “the sudden influx of Syrian and African refugees was actually a lifeline thrown to a drowning Europe,” especially for countries facing acute demographic decline. By contrast, a Polish economist at the same table objected, railing against “the dilution of culture and economic and social costs,” illustrating how even experts diverge sharply when cultural concerns are pitted against economic imperatives.
Guruswamy lays out the demographic arithmetic: Europe’s 0–15 age group is already shrinking, and most EU member states will soon see more deaths than births. By 2050, the median age in the EU is expected to rise to 48 years, with about 40% of Europeans over the age of 60 and roughly 60% of the working-age population falling into that cohort. The size of the working-age population in the EU (those aged 15–64) was 317 million in 2005, projected to decline to 302 million by 2025 and to just 261 million by 2050. In contrast, the United States is expected to add over 80 million people by 2050 and will have a working-age population that grows by approximately 42% between 2000 and 2050, largely due to sustained immigration. Meanwhile, because of falling fertility rates, working-age groups in China are set to shrink by 10%, in Europe by 25%, in South Korea by 30%, and in Japan by more than 40% over the same period.
In Europe’s former Soviet bloc, the situation is even more acute. Bulgaria’s population—about nine million in 1990—had fallen to 7.2 million by the time it joined the EU, and it is projected to lose another 12% by 2030 and 28% by 2050. Romania is expected to lose 22% of its population by 2050; Ukraine and several other Eastern European states face similar declines. Without immigration, these losses translate directly into fewer workers, fewer taxpayers, and slower economic growth.
Both David and Guruswamy converge on a central paradox. Western countries are resisting immigration at precisely the moment when their demographic trajectories make it indispensable. Political narratives that portray migrants as burdens obscure the reality that migrants are increasingly the backbone of future labour markets. Europe’s earlier experience with “gastarbeiters” in Germany—initially welcomed to address labour shortages and later becoming integral to the economy—illustrates that immigration has long been a structural necessity rather than an exception.
What leaders such as Trump, and many of their counterparts in Europe, fail to acknowledge is that demographic decline is not reversible through rhetoric or border walls. Fertility rates in advanced economies have remained low for decades, and there is little evidence that they will rebound sufficiently to offset aging populations. Immigration, therefore, is not simply a social or moral question; it is an economic and strategic imperative.
As Robin David suggests, if current projections hold, “the drawbridges will come down” in the future, when labour shortages become acute and growth falters. The irony may be that the same societies pushing migrants away today will compete aggressively for them tomorrow. The challenge for the West is whether it can recognize this reality early enough to design immigration policies that are orderly, inclusive, and economically rational, rather than reactive measures taken under demographic and fiscal duress.
Comments