The End of International Migration? The Case of North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there are exceptions (forced migration and retirement migration, for example), international migration is largely driven by people of working age. Population forecasts to the year 2100 show that the numbers of people of working age (20-64) will diminish in North America (Canada, Mexico, and the United States), and dramatically diminish among those of the younger working ages (20-34 and 35-44). Underlying this expectation is the fact that North America, like the world as a whole, will have completed the demographic transition or be very close to completing it within 75 years, which means this region of the world will have an aged population. This process will diminish the number of people prone to migrate across national borders. Given expected population ageing trends and no dramatic reversals in fertility levels, the continued diminishment of the age-related sources of migration may well lead to the result that international migration will not play much of a role as a component of national population change after the year 2100. This paper examines this possible outcome in the form of a case study of North America that examines data (population projections by age from 2025 to 2050 and 2100) and graphs (population pyramids for 2025, 2050, and 2100) in terms of the expected changes in the working age population in the years 2050 and 2100 relative to 2025. We conclude with a discussion and suggest that the effect of population ageing on international migration flows deserves more than the scant attention it has received. Keywords: International Migration, North America, ageing DOI: 10.7176/RHSS/15-8-01 Publication date:September 30th 2025
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".