Forced Migration: A harsh reality

Executive Director of the Planetary Development Institute

06/04/2016

Europe is experiencing one of the most significant influxes of migrants and refugees in its history. Pushed by civil war and terror and pulled by the promise of a better life, huge numbers of people have fled the Middle East and Africa, risking their lives along the way.

More than a million migrants and refugees crossed into Europe in 2015, compared with just 280,000 the year before. The scale of the crisis continues, with more than 135,000 people arriving in the first two months of 2016.

Among the forces driving people to make the dangerous journey are the conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. The vast majority - more than 80% - of those who reached Europe by boat in 2015 came the troubled countries like Syria, Libiya, Iraq.

Poverty, human rights abuses and deteriorating security are also prompting people to set out from countries such as Eritrea, Pakistan, Morocco, Iran and Somalia in the hope of a new life in somewhere like Germany, Sweden or the UK.

But as European countries struggle with the mass movement of people, some have tightened border controls. This has left tens of thousands of migrants stranded in Greece, raising fears of a humanitarian crisis.

Europe is worth saving. But can Europe save itself? This is the existential quandary that confronts the 28 member governments of the European Union as they struggle with three linked crises that threaten to unravel the work of 70 years. One of these problems – the future of the euro and the eurozone – is in abeyance, for now, after last year's Greek bailout, but fundamental weakness, arising from largely unaddressed high levels of indebtedness, could upset the apple cart again. There can be no doubt that the integrity of the eurozone, a totemic EU achievement, may be one of the first casualties if the current volatility in world markets triggers a lasting global economic downturn.

Far from slowing during the winter months, the influx continues at a pace , with 35,000 people arriving in the first three weeks of 2016. Many suffer terribly; at least 42 people drowned on the Greek shores. Mark Rutte, the Dutch prime minister, whose country holds the EU presidency, said migration problems were pushing Europe to breaking point and suggested the Schengen agreement on free movement of people, which underpins the EU single market, was on a brink of collapse . “We can’t cope with the numbers any longer. We need to get a grip on this,” he said.

People show their true colors in times of crisis; the same is true for countries. The E.U. is made up of many countries that come in many colors. These 5 facts explain Europe’s schizophrenic response to the migration crisis so far.


1. Germany
Just a month ago, Germany was under fire for mismanaging Greece and the entire financial crisis. With Greece in particular, many observers suggested that Germans simply didn’t care about the suffering of others. Now Germany has pledged to take in an estimated 800,000 refugees this year, earmarking an additional $6.7 billion for the refugee crisis. It’s a remarkable turnaround for Berlin—and its image.

2. UK
Unlike Germany, the UK has no real need for more migrants: Britain’s population is set to expand from 64.1 million today to 80.1 million in 2060. That would make it Europe’s most populous country if current migration and fertility rates hold. This helps explain why British Prime Minister David Cameron has only pledged to accept an additional 20,000 refugees over the next five years, a paltry figure compared to Germany’s.

3. France
Like the UK, France finds itself at a crossroads. On the one hand, it is a leader in the E.U., and one that takes seriously its role as champion of human rights. On the other, its economy is stalling (0.4 percent GDP growth in 2014), its unemployment is high (10.2 percent) and the rise of the far-right National Front (its leader Marine La Pen topped a recent poll of presidential hopefuls with 29 percent) signals a turbulent political climate. Much of this can be attributed to France’s inability to assimilate different immigrant and religious groups into French society. The Charlie Hebdo shootings offered a stark reminder that the children of French immigrants sometimes feel less allegiance toward the homeland that their parents chose than to other callings. Employment numbers tell the same story: the unemployment rate for working-age native born French people is 8.6 percent, while for non?E.U. born workers it’s 18.9 percent. No wonder France is only willing to accept an additional 24,000 refugees this year—even when so much political capital can be won by taking the lead on this issue.


4. Denmark
On Wednesday, Denmark suspended its rail links with Germany, citing the need for “exceptional passport checks.” The Scandinavian country already made waves earlier this week when its Ministry of Immigration, Integration and Housing bought advertisements in four Lebanese newspapers that detailed the stringent regulations that migrants will face in Denmark. This is a pretty brazen attempt to dissuade refugees eyeing the country as a safe haven. Among other things, the ads highlighted recent legislation that slashed welfare benefits for new refugees by 50 percent.

5. Hungary
The migrant crisis is also causing panic in central European countries, best embodied in a wall that Hungary is now building along its border with Serbia. To be fair, Hungary saw asylum applications shoot up 1,236 percent in the first three months of 2015 compared to the same three months of 2014. Put another way, for every million Hungarians, there were 7,245 asylum applicants. That same figure for Brits is 485, for the French 890, Germans 2,635, and the Danish 2,590. Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a right-wing populist, has vowed to seal Hungary’s border with Serbia by Sept. 15—claiming to do so for the good of the entire E.U. It also helps that doing so stops ultra-nationalist Jobbik’s climb in the polls. Migration is becoming a very important subject for the big cities’ life. The countryside daily life facilities seem unattractive to people when cities include luxury. Educational, social, cultural and financial opportunities of big cities pull very big masses of people to big cities. When there is a big change, there will be related results. Migration affects cities on any levels such as demography, cultural structure, economic structure, social structure and people’s psychology. Unfortunately, these effects are negative and turn to problems for urban. Migration is an unplanned movement to cities so migration causes economic, social and environmental problems for the cities and citizens.

The first negative effect of migration is that it causes economic problems for the cities. To start with, migration brings about economic problems for the government. Most importantly, it leads to a decrease on the quality of workers. The portion of the migrations in U.S. is 12% in the population and 15 % in the total labourer population. This worker class forms a layer which is unqualified and the lowest (“Immigrants” section). The example given above shows that immigrant workers are not of a high quality and this changes the total quality ratio of the country where they have migrated. In addition, the government suffers from unpaid taxes of immigrants, the illegal households. Fitzgerald cite Camarota who is the author of an immigration study in the U.S., as explaining, "Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household". Objectively speaking, one cannot deny the fact that the attitude of the immigrants on the subject ‘taxes’ causes social injustice economically. It is obvious from theabove examples that migration causes economical problems for the government by both decreasing the quality of workers and leaving unpaid taxes behind.

Apart from creating economical problems for the government, it also causes economical problems for the citizens. One of these problems is ‘increasing cost of living’. In U.S. a family can reach average life standards with an eight or nine dollar per hour. Immigrants and other workers gain four or five. When immigrants prefer to have more than one worker for each family, citizens tend to have one worker. Because of immigrant’s double income, householders increase the rents because they already can pay this money and this damages other citizen’s economy.Taking all these fact into account, immigrants produce more labor and gains more so the highly colored rents are unavoidable in their capitalist system. Additionally, immigrants displace the native workers. Not qualified immigrant workers and poor educated native workers are battling for the same jobs. The crowded immigrant masses fulfill the request of lower-skilled workers, also replace some of the least educated native workers. For this reason the job facility that the government creates for the citizens are being used by immigrants. In conclusion, the negative economic impacts of immigrants on the citizens’ lives are undeniable

Pros & cons of migration
Positive
Job vacancies and skills gaps can be filled. Economic growth can be sustained. Services to an ageing population can be maintained when there are insufficient young people locally. The pension gap can be filled by the contributions of new young workers and they also pay taxes. Immigrants bring energy and innovation. Host countries are enriched by cultural diversity. Failing schools (and those with falling numbers) can be transformed.

Negative
Depression of wages may occur but this seems to be temporary. Having workers willing to work for relatively low pay may allow employers to ignore productivity, training and innovation. Migrants may be exploited. Increases in population can put pressure on public services. Unemployment may rise if there are unrestricted numbers of incomers. There may be integration difficulties and friction with local people. Large movements of people lead to more security monitoring. Ease of movement may facilitate organised crime and people trafficking.

Positive
Developing countries benefit from remittances (payments sent home by migrants) that now often outstrip foreign aid. Unemployment is reduced and young migrants enhance their life prospects. Returning migrants bring savings, skills and international contacts.

Negative
Economic disadvantage through the loss of young workers Loss of highly trained people, especially health workers Social problems for children left behind or growing up without a wider family circle.

Summary
It is clear that immigration can be beneficial for migrants, but only if their rights are protected properly. It can also be economically beneficial for both countries of origin and host countries; however, with present economic and trading structures it is the rich and powerful countries that benefit most. Migration brings social and cultural pressures that need to be taken into account in planning for future services. Migration also has the potential for bringing peoples together culturally but friction occurs if efforts are not made to dispel the myths held by local people. It is also essential to provide good information about the local way of life to newcomers and ensure opportunities for people to mix and integrate.

Where the economic preconditions exist, migration is inevitable. When people try to prevent immigration it just goes underground.

Author Abhishek Singh would like to acknowledge the help of statictics from articles from BBC & Washington Post .


Subscribe