In 2015, more than a million people, from violence-ridden countries such as Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea and Iraq, packed their meagre possessions and left for Europe to seek refuge. Countries receiving this influx of refugees included Germany with more than 476,000 asylum applications, as well as Hungary, Italy, Turkey and the United Kingdom amongst others. The ongoing European refugee crisis, or ‘migrant’ crisis as it is termed, is a perturbing global emergency. It is not only the problem of those seeking asylum, but also those receiving asylum seekers. This is less because of the costs refugee immigration constitutes, and more because of the costs denying asylum involves. Therefore, it is imperative that countries receiving asylum applications accommodate these refugees while others play their role in providing aid to these unfortunate masses.
Before any strategy is considered or undertaken, however, the implications of using the terms ‘refugee’ and ‘migrant’ interchangeably need to be analyzed. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the distinction between these two terms is significant for both populations: “Refugees are persons fleeing armed conflict or persecution…. These are people for whom denial of asylum has potentially deadly consequences….” Migrants, on the other hand, choose to move not because of a direct threat of persecution or death, but primarily to improve their standard of living by finding better jobs and education, or other reasons such as family reunion. Unlike refugees, migrants face no obstacle in returning home and will continue to receive the protection of their government. As important as the dissimilarity between these two terms is, refugees continue to be regarded as migrants. Additionally, the usual means used by these refugees to reach the host country are illegal. Hugh Eakin writes in his article, “….since the EU [European Union] imposes strict visa requirements on most non-EU nationals, and since it is often impossible to get a European visa in a Middle Eastern or African country torn apart by war, the rules virtually require those seeking protection to take a clandestine journey, which for most would be impossible without recourse to smugglers.” Hence, these refugees are not only immigrants, but they become illegal immigrants and have been, for the most part, dealt with accordingly.
With such an influx of asylum seekers, it seems favorable for a host country to turn these refugees away. However, host governments do acquire benefits if they allow refugees sanctuary in their country. Firstly, these refugees bring multiple economic advantages to the host country. In her article, Dalia Dassa Kaye writes how Syrian refugees constitute the largest group of new entrepreneurs in southern Turkey, establishing more than 1,000 businesses in 2014 and setting up new schools to serve Syrian children. She also points out that international aid programs for these refugees benefit the host country as well. Also, many of these refugees are well-educated, skilled labor that can contribute substantially to the host country’s economy. Brandon Stanton, an American photographer, blogged a series of photos that told the story of a Syrian scientist who is a refugee, responsible for remarkable research work. One of the refugee’s inventions is currently being used on the Istanbul metro to generate electricity from the movement of the train, and that is only one of his many achievements. His story encapsulates that of many refugees who have enormous potential to contribute to the development of the host country.
Another advantage that refugee immigration brings to the host country is the positive change in its demographics. This is a long-term impact on the host country’s development. For example, Germany, which has one of the highest proportions of settling refugees, is facing serious demographic issues of an aging and shrinking population. The country relies on immigrants to fill the working age population and to stabilize the state pension system as more Germans retire. With increasing amount of dependents and declining numbers of the population to support these dependents, Germany is doing not only the moral, but the wise thing by opening its doors to the refugees.
Despite these advantages, why are refugees considered more of a bane than a boon? This is because the refugee crisis faced by Europe does impose severe challenges. Even if these can be overcome, it is important to address these difficulties. Time and again, refugees are denied asylum on the basis of the concomitant economic pressures of their arrival. Refugee immigration is termed an ‘invasion’ by the hosts, with accusations of utilizing already scarce resources and increasing competition for jobs. Cali and Sekkarie, Senior Economist and Consultant at the World Bank respectively, respond to these allegations by quoting some statistics. To provide healthcare and education to refugees, the Turkish government has spent nearly 5.37 billion euros, entirely funded through its own fiscal resources – without any indication that this spending has jeopardized the country’s fiscal sustainability. The writers argue how “this should be even more the case for the EU, whose economy is 23 times larger than Turkey’s”. In addition, the argument of increased population causing economic instability is rendered unviable as the total of 513,580 asylum applications received by the EU constitute a mere 0.37 percent of its entire population. Refugee immigration, in turn, increases tax receipts, local demand and production, consequently leading to GDP boosts and increased employment opportunities.
Another argument against accepting asylum seekers is the social impediment they entail. Host countries have often argued that these ‘illegal immigrants’ increase crime rates, cause discord and are a source of insecurity for the residents. Even if these refugees are accommodated, integrating them into the domestic environment becomes a daunting challenge. Fear of terrorism also influences decisions to deny refugees. Although crime exists amidst refugee masses, it is untrue to say they increase the level of criminal activities. The German Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) announced that crimes committed by refugees stood at the same level as those committed by native Germans. Also, economic and social integration of refugees is an integral part of the multiculturalism that most European countries have adopted, or aspire to adopt. Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) researchers have concluded that ambitious integration policies do work, and that countries with “inclusive integration policies” tend to provide the best conditions for social cohesion, to the benefit of both newcomers and general society. Moreover, people who have risked their lives and that of their families to escape their own homeland and travel to a new, and often unwelcoming one, are unlikely to jeopardize that by engaging in crime.
Even if all arguments in favor of accepting asylum seekers stand invalidated, there is one that will endure: it is the right thing to do. Beyond economic advantages, positive demographic influences and social gains, accommodating refugees is a moral responsibility. And not just of a few countries as is the situation presently, but of each country, with more capable countries accepting more responsibility. The plight of these refugees, many of whom have lost their possessions, homes and loved ones, is one that appeals to the entire humankind. The extent of their desperation to escape was displayed in the image of a dead Syrian child, Aylan Kurdi, who drowned in one of the refugee boats attempting to reach the Greek island of Kos. The image instigated international uproar with the public expressing horror and sympathy for the refugees. The image was just one instance of many; the terrors of the refugee crisis are far-reaching and heartbreaking.
Given the urgency of this dilemma, and the need to cope with it, what can the refugees and the host countries do? The most important part of the refugee crisis is to realize this is a global phenomenon, not restricted to a particular region. Therefore, Europe needs to accept more refugees, especially countries like the United Kingdom that have a strict quota on granting asylums. The EU would solve the global refugee crisis if it followed Turkey’s example and took in 2.6 percent of its own population as refugees. It is time for Europe to share in the responsibility, as neighboring countries are already doing their part. Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt have already taken in 4.1 million refugees, representing over 82% of the total number of refugees. However, Europe alone is not to bear the duty of the refugees. Instead, it should follow a relocation policy of the asylum seekers, with relocations done from areas receiving a higher influx of refugees to those with a lower influx to reduce pressure on one particular country such as Germany. Relocation should not only be limited to within EU but also outside, to developed nations such as the United States, which have the capacity to accommodate the refugees. The EU, as well as leading world nations, need to work together to devise solutions to this problem mutually. As Elizabeth Matsangou points out in her article, “EU leaders are still struggling to organize a joint response, and only through collective action can such a large problem be solved.” Funding should be channeled to receiving countries, and this should not only be a short-term capital inflow but also a long-term investment that would allow host countries to sustain their economies and capitalize on the opportunities created by immigration of asylum seekers. With that all being said, the simple reason to open doors for arriving refugees should be humanity. It is an ethical obligation upon all those privileged with the fulfillment of basic human needs, as these refugees are deprived of even those. Their desperation, which calls out to every human, is summed up in their own words: “shoot us or help us”.
