Immigration cannot be discussed without also discussing emigration.

This week I started thinking again about Portuguese emigration. Not for the reason that dominates the public sphere. On the contrary. Everyone talks about immigration. But it's impossible to talk about immigration without talking about those who left before.

Portugal experienced the largest wave of skilled emigration in its democratic history during the 21st century. According to the Emigration Observatory, "the proportion of emigrants with higher education has increased consistently in the last decade." And the most cited estimates point to around 194,000 young Portuguese graduates who emigrated between 2014 and 2023. These figures are discussed by researchers, associations, and think tanks—they are not a footnote.

There's one aspect that shouldn't be confused: it's legitimate, and even commendable, for someone to want to leave to grow, learn, gain experience, and gain context. Mobility is a natural part of an open society. What worries me most isn't the act of leaving—it's the inability to facilitate a return.

The structural issue is not individual freedom. It's the lack of a collective strategy.

Because the numbers exist. The accumulated public investment in the training of these graduates has been estimated at around 19 billion euros in the last decade, when direct education costs and future replacement costs are added together. This is equivalent to a year's health budget.

This is not rhetoric, these are numbers. The country finances human capital, and this human capital generates GDP in other countries.

The personal motivations for emigration are real and legitimate. But the structural consequence is simple: we lose average qualifications in the labor market.

By losing graduates, Portugal loses potential productivity. And it loses its capacity for innovation. Economist Ricardo Paes Mamede has repeatedly stated that "without qualifications there is no productivity, and without productivity there are no wages" (TSF interview, 2022). This chain of events is factual.

There is also a second effect: the accelerated aging of the resident population. Those who leave are younger. Those who remain are increasingly concentrated in the age groups with higher healthcare consumption and lower participation in economic activity. This has a direct effect on the National Health Service and public finances.

And then we discuss immigration as if it were an independent variable. When, in fact, it's a replacement mechanism: filling the void left by the departure of skilled labor with low-skilled labor.

The topic of immigration is important. But its relevance doesn't stem solely from the number of entries. It stems from a prior decision: the inability to retain immigration.

What the public discussion lacks is the understanding that this is an economic and strategic issue, and not just a "sociological trend."

The serious question isn't why young people want to leave—that's perfectly natural. The serious question is why we haven't managed to become a country where returning is worthwhile.