A possible conflict in Iraq deteriorating economies in South Americas famine in sub-Saharan Africa turmoil in Indonesia political instability in the Balkans. And in many developing countries, persistent crime, lousy education and a lack of opportunities for energetic people to prosper without graft and political connections. No wonder so many people want the chance of a better life in the stable, meritocratic economies of the rich world. No wonder they risk their life savings, or even their lives, to buy the hope of higher earnings, fairer treatment and better opportunities for their families. This movement of humanity brings undoubted gains, and not just to the immigrants. The gap between earnings in the poor and rich worlds is vastly greater than the gap in the prices of traded goods. As our survey argues, the potential economic benefits to the world of liberalizing migration dwarf those from removing trade barriers. Where populations are aging and economies are sluggish, the benefits are especially great. Immigrants, unlike natives, move readily to areas where labour is in short supply, so easing bottlenecks. They bring a just-in-time supply of skills, too, which is why hospitals want to hire foreign doctors and nurses farmers, spare hands to pick fruit and vegetables and wealthy couples, nannies for their children. In many cases, immigrants also pay more in taxes than they cost in public spending. But voters in rich countries often don't see things this way. Like other forces of globalization, immigration is disruptive, and at the most intimate level. It changes the neighbourhood. People in the street speak odd languages the neighbours' cooking smells strange. So immigration often meets passionate resistance. Even in countries built on immigration, like the United States, politicians hesitate to press for easier entry. America has refused to strike a deal with Mexico to let in more legal migrants. In Europe, hostility is deeper and can be more dangerous. In the past year, the far right has gained in elections in France, Denmark, Austria and Netherlands. The hostility may well increase. Immigration has boomed in the past decade partly because rich countries have created lots of jobs. If the economic slowdown persists, unemployment is sure to breed greater resentment. Another terrorist attack along the lines of September 11th, 2001 would, rightly or wrongly, increase fears that immigrants threaten security. And, as HIV spreads in the poor world, rich countries will fret about the threat to their health services and the risk of AIDS. How then to square the conflicting pressures of politics and economics? The first essential is to accept that the voters right to a say about who and how many can enter must take precedence over the rights of those unlucky enough to be born in poorer parts of the world. The task of politicians—and of employers is to persuade voters that immigration is not only inevitable but also in their long-term interests. The word 'meritocratic'(Paragraph 1) is closest in meaning to