Rather than striving to obstruct them at every opportunity, the government should accept more refugees and invest in their integration.
The president of France Emmanuel Macron will urge Theresa May at meetings tomorrow to allow more refugees to settle in Britain. Not only is it our humanitarian duty to do so, but there’s an economic argument for it — counter to what the right-wing press would have you believe.
In the face of the greatest displacement of people in history – with 24 million refugees and asylum seekers who have been forced from their homes due to war, persecution or natural disasters – Britain’s once-proud humanitarian tradition of helping the less fortunate has turned tragically ugly.
We are officially one of the worst countries in western Europe for refugees and asylum seekers: they are routinely denied support by the government, leaving them homeless and unable to feed their families.
They are moved to the poorest parts of Britain, thereby preventing them from climbing the economic ladder; they are not given the right to work; and they are given squalid houses infested with rats and bugs and an allowance of £35 a week.
Not only is this anti-refugee stance a failure of our government’s humanitarian obligations, it’s also short-sighted economically.
Several studies, for example from the Economics and Econometrics Research Institute, European Commission and Tent Foundation, suggest that even though refugee integration is initially costly to public budgets, over the medium- and long-term they are a considerable boost to the economy.
Bringing in refugees creates more jobs, increases demand for products and services, and fills gaps in the labour force.
And because they contribute to tax revenues, this means lower budget deficits and therefore more spare cash to spend on pensions and public programmes.
Contrary to popular myth, they are not ‘leeches’ stealing jobs and draining state resources, but instead make an average contribution of 0.35% to GDP and increase annual output by 0.1% for the EU.
It is estimated that refugees who arrive in Europe could repay money spent on them almost twice over within five years. In other words, investing one euro into refugees can yield nearly two euros in economic benefits within five years. Sweden, for example, has taken in more refugees per capita than any EU country and, partly as a result, has experienced an economic boom.
But there are drawbacks to bringing in refugees that cannot, and should not, be overlooked.
The nuanced United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) report, Forcibly Displaced, makes clear that large numbers of refugees might hurt host communities in the short-term.
They can create a demographic shock, causing mismatches in supply and demand and disrupting market equilibria, which might take a while to adjust.
Employers and workers whose skills complement refugees tend to gain, while those who have similar skills may lose their jobs. The increase in labour supply in some sectors might also lead to the depression of wages. In addition, there can be a strain on educational and health services.
The UNHCR report does, however, outline how these potential problems can be avoided. It is important for governments to invest in communities and poverty alleviation efforts, rather than adhere to austerity belt-tightening.
Secondly, it is crucial to allow refugees the right to work so they can contribute to skilled professions, otherwise they’ll be forced to compete for low-wage jobs.
They also need to be granted freedom of movement so they aren’t trapped in poor communities and unable to utilise their talents. By allowing them to become self-reliant, they are able to earn a living and kick dependency from state welfare.
This rejection of refugees is an unnecessary wound on our economy. Rather than striving to obstruct refugees at every opportunity, the government should instead focus on accepting more refugees into the country, helping them become self-reliant, and investing in local host communities.
Frazer Merritt teaches English to refugees and asylum seekers and is a freelance writer.
6 Responses to “Take more refugees, the French president will urge the PM tomorrow. Here’s why we need to”
Jimmy glesga
The so called refugees should be returned home to their countries. The EU countries negated their responsibility by waving them through towards Britain…
Dave Roberts
This article is why Labour is out of power for a generation. It is total self indulgent nonsense that is an insult to working class people who are already struggling to make ends meet. The economic arguments are voodoo of the worst kind. Is it any wonder the far left is described as loony?
Ralph Musgrave
I agree with Dave Roberts. The average dog could have written a better article than the above one.
Orry Kennaugh
On the contrary I disagree with Dave Roberts, be angry at the elite who do nothing to help the unemployed except putting them in more danger by underfunding the nhs and vital services. Don’t be angry at refugees for wanting to escape a war zone. Have some empathy, please.
greg
Self-indulgent virtue signalling.
Mr Merritt knows full well that NGOs are travelling to other countries and making would-be refugees aware of the benefits that would be available to them if they manage to reach the UK – these NGOs are encouraging economic migrants to risk drowning by telling them that the UK is a gold-paved Utopia.
Tomorrow Left Foot Forward will be lecturing us on food banks, pressure on the NHS, the housing crisis, and the destruction of our environment.
The UK’s youth have to compete to even get a foot on the job or housing ladder – or get hospital treatment – we can help economic migrants better by keeping them in their own countries and trading fairly with them; what is the point of creating a hellhole of the UK similar to the one they have just left?