9 September 2015
[h=1]Why welcoming more refugees makes economic sense for Europe[/h] Europe's leaders are under pressure to accept 130,000 more refugees, mostly from Syria. It's not just the right thing to do, it makes economic sense
Help is at hand (Image: Mauricio Lima/The New Times/Redux/eyevine)
A PICTURE really is worth a thousand words. For more than a year, world news has reported desperate refugees, most from war-torn Syria, dying in their attempts to reach Europe. Most governments refused to let them in.
That changed last week with the photo of 3-year-old Alan Kurdi, dead on a beach in Turkey after a boat taking his family to Greece capsized. Now Europeans are demanding more help for asylum seekers. EU governments had agreed to resettle only 32,000 across Europe; on Monday 14 September they will debate upping that to 160,000.
Already this year 362,000 illegal migrants have arrived in Europe and thousands continue to pour in, says the International Organisation for Migration. An estimated 80 per cent are refugees from violence; Europe is legally obliged to give them asylum.
Yet Europe – and the rest of the world – are giving precious little. Researchers who study human migration say countries offer two reasons: fear that letting in some refugees will encourage more, and that migrants will be an economic burden. Yet the evidence shows both beliefs are false.
The EU’s asylum laws were designed in the 1990s to handle small numbers of people. They don’t necessarily require people to stay in the first country they arrive at – where the fingerprints of refugees are held in the EU’s Eurodac database, says Madeline Garlick of the Migration Policy Institute Europe. But countries apply that rule, she says, because it is an administratively easy way to grant refugee status.
That means thousands of people have accumulated in squalid camps in Greece, Italy and Hungary. A 2001 directive empowers the EU to bypass this system and admit asylum seekers rapidly in cases of “mass influx”. In July, EU member states used it to agree a voluntary plan to relocate 32,000 people stranded in Italy and Greece, roughly according to the receiving country’s size, GDP, unemployment rate, and how many refugees it has already.
Apart from that, the EU has never used its emergency plan, says Garlick, because “member states fear this will be a pull factor for other people from the same country”. Observers say this is why the UK refuses migrants who have already entered Europe – it would encourage more to come. “No existing sound research substantiates the political claim that giving people asylum in Europe stimulates more flow,” says Alexander Betts, head of the Refugee Studies Centre at the University of Oxford. “Nearly all refugees want to go home. They don’t sit in refugee camps calculating where they can get the best benefits.”
“Nearly all refugees want to go home. They don’t sit in camps calculating where the best benefits are”
“There is no evidence of a pull factor,” agrees Ian Goldin, head of the Oxford Martin School on global challenges. “If you halved the risk of death, would that make more come? Desperate people don’t make that calculation.”
Any pull is insignificant compared to push – such as the ever-increasing hardship in Middle-Eastern refugee camps, Goldin says.
One EU country seems unfazed: Germany says it can take 800,000 asylum seekers this year. It counts on immigrants to replenish its ageing workforce and the EU’s emergency asylum rules say resettled refugees can legally work. Germany had 200,000 more deaths than births in 2012, more than compensated by 391,000 immigrants. In contrast, UK prime minister David Cameron bowed to public pressure and this week said the country would take just 20,000 Syrian refugees by 2020.
Even without a worker shortage, migrants needn’t be a burden. On 4 September the World Bank, the UN’s International Labour Organization and the OECD club of rich countries issued a report concluding that “in most countries migrants pay more in taxes and social contributions than they receive.”
In a study last year, researchers at University College London found both European and non-European immigrants to the UK more than pay their way. Non-Europeans living in the UK since 1995 brought £35 billion worth of education with them. Those who arrived between 2000 and 2011 were less likely than native Brits to be on state benefits, and no more likely to live in social housing. Unlike natives, they contributed a net £5 billion in taxes during that period.
That is partly because most migrants are young and need relatively little in the way of benefits. Their economic impact approaches that of natives as they age and assimilate. But the positive effect can be substantial: Carlos Vargas-Silva of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford reported this year that letting in 260,000 immigrants a year could halve the UK’s public debt 50 years from now. “There are more than a dozen good studies now that point to a net positive effect of migrants on the economy,” says Goldin.
“A dozen good studies now point to a net positive effect of migrants on the economy”
“Most data shows the economic impact is generally positive,” agrees Betts, especially when immigrants are well educated, as most Syrians are. “Unlike ordinary migrants, refugees didn’t choose to come,” says Betts, potentially making their impact slightly different.. But that means they will go home if they can, or if not, adapt like other migrants.
“There can be local negative effects on jobs, but that can be managed,” says Betts. For example minimum wages can stop immigrants undercutting locals.
Some studies show migrants create jobs for locals, says Mathias Czaika of the International Migration Institute at the University of Oxford. “An influx of migrants can depress wages, but mostly for other migrants, and only 1 to 3 per cent. Mostly the impact on wages or jobs is neutral or positive.”
Germany has no doubts. “Every euro we spend on training migrants is a euro to avoid a shortage of skilled labour,” German state governments declared last week. Otherwise, they say, they would have to spend more on benefits, as the labour shortage hurts industry and jobs.
So why do doors stay shut elsewhere? The reasons, say the researchers, are not economic, but fear of the cultural impact of foreigners. In August, for example, Slovakia said it would take only Christian Syrians.
But Europe will have to learn how to deal with cultural differences, and get its asylum rules in order, because more refugees are coming. The situation for Syrian refugees in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon is worsening, so more may be forced to look elsewhere, says Betts. “They and other countries with large numbers of refugees, like Kenya, need more help, or the entire refugee regime will collapse.”
Climate triggered the crisis in Syria, so the world must brace itself for more climate refugees in the years to come.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...aign=hoot&cmpid=SOC%7CNSNS%7C2015-GLOBAL-hoot
[h=1]Why welcoming more refugees makes economic sense for Europe[/h] Europe's leaders are under pressure to accept 130,000 more refugees, mostly from Syria. It's not just the right thing to do, it makes economic sense
A PICTURE really is worth a thousand words. For more than a year, world news has reported desperate refugees, most from war-torn Syria, dying in their attempts to reach Europe. Most governments refused to let them in.
That changed last week with the photo of 3-year-old Alan Kurdi, dead on a beach in Turkey after a boat taking his family to Greece capsized. Now Europeans are demanding more help for asylum seekers. EU governments had agreed to resettle only 32,000 across Europe; on Monday 14 September they will debate upping that to 160,000.
Already this year 362,000 illegal migrants have arrived in Europe and thousands continue to pour in, says the International Organisation for Migration. An estimated 80 per cent are refugees from violence; Europe is legally obliged to give them asylum.
Yet Europe – and the rest of the world – are giving precious little. Researchers who study human migration say countries offer two reasons: fear that letting in some refugees will encourage more, and that migrants will be an economic burden. Yet the evidence shows both beliefs are false.
The EU’s asylum laws were designed in the 1990s to handle small numbers of people. They don’t necessarily require people to stay in the first country they arrive at – where the fingerprints of refugees are held in the EU’s Eurodac database, says Madeline Garlick of the Migration Policy Institute Europe. But countries apply that rule, she says, because it is an administratively easy way to grant refugee status.
That means thousands of people have accumulated in squalid camps in Greece, Italy and Hungary. A 2001 directive empowers the EU to bypass this system and admit asylum seekers rapidly in cases of “mass influx”. In July, EU member states used it to agree a voluntary plan to relocate 32,000 people stranded in Italy and Greece, roughly according to the receiving country’s size, GDP, unemployment rate, and how many refugees it has already.
Apart from that, the EU has never used its emergency plan, says Garlick, because “member states fear this will be a pull factor for other people from the same country”. Observers say this is why the UK refuses migrants who have already entered Europe – it would encourage more to come. “No existing sound research substantiates the political claim that giving people asylum in Europe stimulates more flow,” says Alexander Betts, head of the Refugee Studies Centre at the University of Oxford. “Nearly all refugees want to go home. They don’t sit in refugee camps calculating where they can get the best benefits.”
“Nearly all refugees want to go home. They don’t sit in camps calculating where the best benefits are”
“There is no evidence of a pull factor,” agrees Ian Goldin, head of the Oxford Martin School on global challenges. “If you halved the risk of death, would that make more come? Desperate people don’t make that calculation.”
Any pull is insignificant compared to push – such as the ever-increasing hardship in Middle-Eastern refugee camps, Goldin says.
One EU country seems unfazed: Germany says it can take 800,000 asylum seekers this year. It counts on immigrants to replenish its ageing workforce and the EU’s emergency asylum rules say resettled refugees can legally work. Germany had 200,000 more deaths than births in 2012, more than compensated by 391,000 immigrants. In contrast, UK prime minister David Cameron bowed to public pressure and this week said the country would take just 20,000 Syrian refugees by 2020.
Even without a worker shortage, migrants needn’t be a burden. On 4 September the World Bank, the UN’s International Labour Organization and the OECD club of rich countries issued a report concluding that “in most countries migrants pay more in taxes and social contributions than they receive.”
In a study last year, researchers at University College London found both European and non-European immigrants to the UK more than pay their way. Non-Europeans living in the UK since 1995 brought £35 billion worth of education with them. Those who arrived between 2000 and 2011 were less likely than native Brits to be on state benefits, and no more likely to live in social housing. Unlike natives, they contributed a net £5 billion in taxes during that period.
That is partly because most migrants are young and need relatively little in the way of benefits. Their economic impact approaches that of natives as they age and assimilate. But the positive effect can be substantial: Carlos Vargas-Silva of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford reported this year that letting in 260,000 immigrants a year could halve the UK’s public debt 50 years from now. “There are more than a dozen good studies now that point to a net positive effect of migrants on the economy,” says Goldin.
“A dozen good studies now point to a net positive effect of migrants on the economy”
“Most data shows the economic impact is generally positive,” agrees Betts, especially when immigrants are well educated, as most Syrians are. “Unlike ordinary migrants, refugees didn’t choose to come,” says Betts, potentially making their impact slightly different.. But that means they will go home if they can, or if not, adapt like other migrants.
“There can be local negative effects on jobs, but that can be managed,” says Betts. For example minimum wages can stop immigrants undercutting locals.
Some studies show migrants create jobs for locals, says Mathias Czaika of the International Migration Institute at the University of Oxford. “An influx of migrants can depress wages, but mostly for other migrants, and only 1 to 3 per cent. Mostly the impact on wages or jobs is neutral or positive.”Germany has no doubts. “Every euro we spend on training migrants is a euro to avoid a shortage of skilled labour,” German state governments declared last week. Otherwise, they say, they would have to spend more on benefits, as the labour shortage hurts industry and jobs.
So why do doors stay shut elsewhere? The reasons, say the researchers, are not economic, but fear of the cultural impact of foreigners. In August, for example, Slovakia said it would take only Christian Syrians.
But Europe will have to learn how to deal with cultural differences, and get its asylum rules in order, because more refugees are coming. The situation for Syrian refugees in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon is worsening, so more may be forced to look elsewhere, says Betts. “They and other countries with large numbers of refugees, like Kenya, need more help, or the entire refugee regime will collapse.”
Climate triggered the crisis in Syria, so the world must brace itself for more climate refugees in the years to come.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...aign=hoot&cmpid=SOC%7CNSNS%7C2015-GLOBAL-hoot
