Hello from London,

Just over five years ago, travel in much of the world stopped. Governments in rich countries, especially, slammed borders shut to migrants and others. That episode showed how, when needed, once-porous borders could be plugged. Where politicians cared little about the economic, social or other costs, they really could keep pesky foreigners out.

When historians parse the consequences of the covid pandemic, its effect on migration policy deserves a footnote. It revealed to voters how the previous, high levels of migration into rich countries had been a policy choice. Elected leaders who had opted to keep the migrants flowing for decades on end could, after all, opt for something else.

I have written—on and off—about migration for The Economist over a quarter of a century and now suspect we are witnessing a turning point. A couple of decades ago the foreign-born share of the population was nearly 10% in Britain, and 13% in America, near records. Though I favour the liberal argument that freedom of movement brings the greatest benefits, even then it was obvious a strong political backlash was building up. Today the foreign-born share is much higher yet: in both Britain and America it may be around 16% and rising. Meanwhile (and for various reasons) the strength of anti-immigrant, populist politicians everywhere is immensely greater.

Now politicians are adopting a much harsher approach. This has happened before. Until a century ago, America saw extremely high numbers of European and Chinese economic migrants. Then, pushed by public anxiety and politicians hostile to outsiders, the country slammed shut the doors. It took several decades, until the 1960s, before high flows resumed.

Today we report in a striking new article from the southern border that almost no illegal migrants are crossing from Mexico into America, just as the numbers being deported have surged. The change began belatedly while Joe Biden was president, but has intensified under Donald Trump in 2025. An increasingly forceful military deployment explains some of it. Europeans who might tut at such heavy-handedness should note something very similar is happening on the south of their own continent. An “invisible wall” in both places, combined with more pressure on neighbouring countries, is choking off the flow of migrants.

What if this drop lasts for years or even decades? It should become easier to defuse the anxiety of some voters if the foreign-born share of populations stops rising. And democracies have to respond to their voters. It will also be easier to fully integrate existing migrants. But the economic and social price would probably be high. Without foreigners topping up the numbers, almost every rich country would start to see their populations slump. They are already getting old fast. The median age of an American in the 1920s was about 25 years. Today it is over 39. People rely far more than before on health, pensions and care systems that, in turn, rely on foreign staff. The rotten state of public services (perhaps the biggest cause of voter unhappiness) is likely to worsen further without help from migrants. No one really knows what happens if the migrants stop coming—but rich countries may be about to find out.

Last week I asked for your examples of more hopeful stories around the world. In the days since, remarkable progress has been made towards a ceasefire over Gaza. We have published our analysis of the latest state of play: it appears that pressure from Mr Trump on Israel and Hamas is having an effect. It is possible that Hamas will release the remaining Israeli hostages while Israel may stop its assault on Gaza. Many of you sent encouraging stories, and many examples were notably of local co-operation and progress. In a fit of contrariness, however, I will give the last word to Peter Pool who argues that news—almost by definition—tends to be bad: “Good news is going on all the time in the daily activities of people being kind and caring of each other,” he says. “Bad news, in comparison, is a deviation from the normal...What has happened in recent times is an increase (not least technologically) in our ability to find and rapidly report bad news. We have become hooked on the over refined sweet delight of hearing nasty things.”

For next week I want your views on who should, or who will, win the Nobel peace prize, to be announced on Friday. Perhaps, given progress over Gaza and more, it’s not such a crazy idea to give it to America’s president after all? Write to me with your view at [email protected].