The concept behind replacement migration (and yes it is a real term: https://bit.ly/2FrcnzN) is that the welfare state requires the taxation of the productive youth to sustain the elderly, the sick and those unable to work, and since the Europeans are of low fertility, the apparent solution is simple, import young people from [wherever] to generate taxation instead, thereby allowing the welfare state to trundle on, one presumes indefinitely.
There are several problems with this theory:
1: Immigrants also consume welfare, and will themselves have healthcare and schooling costs, even when young.
2: The low fertility of the Europeans is not addressed – yet it’s cause lies in the high taxation and high barriers to family formation (housing,costs, low wages and inflation) brought about by welfare statism and governmental overreach. Increasing European birth rates may be simple enough, were it pursued with vigour.
3: Immigrants themselves will age, and will expect pensions – who will provide?
4: Automation will remove many of the low skilled jobs immigrants will naturally work in, within the next decade.
5: It is not obvious that migrants will feel the bonds of kin and blood that traditionally encourage the care of the older generations.
One would assume that migrants have elderly relatives in their own lands whom they care for first. It is racist and eurocentric to presume that they will forget about their own kin as they direct their productivity and resources to the European elderly to whom they have no connection.
The nation is the family in large, and families care for each other, migrants indeed have their own families, and their own nations – and it is only fair to expect them to wish to serve their own first.
6: The infinite interchangeability and fungibility of human labour is not proven. Logic would suggest that workers from non-Western country [X] are not as productive as western workers, otherwise country [X] will be of the same economic tier as a western country. Such realtalk veers into high risk conversations on IQ and social trust. Humans may not be interchangeable work units that can be sloshed around the world to fill in the troughs of the international labour market.
7: If IQ is one of the highest predictors of economic success, and the average IQ of the nation is one of a nation’s greatest natural resources, is it morally defensible to extract the highest IQ people from non-western countries to serve an aging population in the West? Forget the theft of resources such as oil, ivory or gold – the theft of the smart people who are the change makers from non western countries is by far the greatest and cruelest form of imperialism. Is it moral to take the doctors, engineers and administrators from a country in dire need of them?
8: Depending on the origin and cultural nature of the migrant, the cost of integration can be high. Low social trust and dissimilar socio-business preferences can increase the cost of doing business and imposes costs on the economy at large. This is even without the cost of outright civil unrest which is not uncommon at the interface between disparate cultures. Northern Ireland would be a prime example of this, despite the obstenable similarities.
Forced integration of a foreign population into a host nation without democratic discussion on the matter is likely to cause difficulties in the long run. The natives will feel they have a claim on their nation (The social, cultural and historical capital) and that their claim was not respected with discussion or with analysis. Regardless of the PC narrative on how people ought not to feel regarding ownership of these things, the fact is they do claim ownership, and are prepared to bear costs in defence of the same.
9: Other costs associated with immigration are often not considered in this argument. The costs of integration services such as translation and healthcare, not to mention housing and schooling, can often eliminate any productivity gains brought via immigration.
The welfare state is an inherently unsustainable practice to begin with and exists only through taxation of productive people and creation of fiat currency through debt. Debt is already mathematically unsustainable and will end in collapse and default, likely soon. To ensure a sustainable social and economic system, society must return to a minimal government with generous private charity to fill in the gaps, all backed by a sound monetary system. And if additional people are required, it is indeed a trivial, plausible and occasionally pleasurable matter to make them ourselves.