Europe and Refugees

Integrity wrote:

Don't immgirants also have a high crime rate too though? I don't know why this is, could be because of poor integration policies which ostracizes the immigrants from society, or could be because of the immigrants themselves failing to integrate, but you can't deny it's a problem.

No they don't. Yes I can.

Maq wrote:
Integrity wrote:

Don't immgirants also have a high crime rate too though? I don't know why this is, could be because of poor integration policies which ostracizes the immigrants from society, or could be because of the immigrants themselves failing to integrate, but you can't deny it's a problem.

No they don't. Yes I can.

This is from the U.S. perspective, though. Immigration policies there are very different compared to European countries. In Europe the story is different.

LarryC wrote:

Here you got your labor for free knocking on your doorstep. Why are you complaining?

I would argue that the more social welfare programs a country offers, the more effect an influx of refugees has on the rest of society. If the government treats them exactly as citizens, it will incur a sudden increase in costs in an economy that already taxes at a high rate and has structured it's facilities and programs around a fixed, predictable growth rate. So my guess is that the impact is higher than in countries where immigrants are expected to "make their own way", although the latter definitely involves more suffering for the refugees.

This would hit hardest at the local level. Even an influx of immigrants needing assistance whose impact is negligible at the country level would be highly visible and fiscally disruptive in the towns in which they settled.

The question is why. As much anti-immigrant rhetoric goes around the US political scene, once you're in, the actual people and culture in the US allows you to integrate fairly well if you have the wherewithal to make it at all. And that's with the racist barriers. It's not like people don't have a choice, so someone might as well go to the US as to any European country, and this implies that Mexicans are actually comparatively model immigrants as immigrants go, something I won't accept just as-is.

If, for instance, Filipinos are accused of more crimes as immigrants to the UK as they do in the US, doesn't that simply imply that they're being marginalized more in the UK? It's not like they're different people.

Robear wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Here you got your labor for free knocking on your doorstep. Why are you complaining?

I would argue that the more social welfare programs a country offers, the more effect an influx of refugees has on the rest of society. If the government treats them exactly as citizens, it will incur a sudden increase in costs in an economy that already taxes at a high rate and has structured it's facilities and programs around a fixed, predictable growth rate. So my guess is that the impact is higher than in countries where immigrants are expected to "make their own way", although the latter definitely involves more suffering for the refugees.

This would hit hardest at the local level. Even an influx of immigrants needing assistance whose impact is negligible at the country level would be highly visible and fiscally disruptive in the towns in which they settled.

I'm going to call BS on that for the same reason that it's BS for a country's citizenry. We're talking about a young, highly motivated, and very ambitious population here. They're raring to make their own way. If you have a bunch of new grads fresh off schools, isn't that a good time to invest in business as the labor market would depress and you could make it big?

I think the facilities and programs would have a hard time keeping up, but there has been mention of segregation here between asylum and citizen programs, so the pinch would mostly be felt by immigrants and refugees themselves.

It's not like intra-state migration is unknown. You guys travel every which way seemingly at the drop of a hat. Is it bad when people come in looking for work? Doesn't that just make construction or other industries a lot more available and cheaper for the locals?

That may be true, Larry. But at a minimum, the local disruptions get magnified in the press, and the right wing jumps out to scare people. And, too, 700,000 is a large number, and that's around 1/6 of the total number of Syrian refugees (most of whom are in Turkey and Jordan, I think). I think fear is a big factor here, and it's derived from the likelihood of increased costs (at least for a few years) and the visibility of "strangers" in small towns and big cities alike.

Consider this.

Compared to intra-European migration, well, only about 2.5%-3% of Europeans live in countries other than that of their birth. That's about 15 million people. And they are subject to particular rules to avoid the problem I spoke of:

Free movement in the EU is subject to the condition that movers are either employed, studying, or have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host member state (Directive 2004/38/EC). This means that intra-EU migrants cannot claim social assistance from the moment they immigrate, unless they have a job with a wage that qualifies them for certain forms of social assistance. That in some cases newly arrived migrants, or criminal gangs on behalf of ‘ghost migrants’ have been able to apply for social assistance, shows that receiving countries do not always perform the ‘habitual residence test’ before granting assistance. This suggests the problem is a lack of enforcement rather than a lack of regulations.

Recent studies by the European Commissionand University College London show that intra-EU migrants are in fact net-contributors to their new places of residence. There is thus currently no evidence that intra-EU migrants are disproportionate users of the welfare systems in their countries of residence, let alone that they are ‘welfare tourists’.

The idea is to ensure that intra-European migrants are not doing so as "welfare tourists". Naturally, and entirely understandably, the Syrians and North Africans coming in as refugees do not have the resources to integrate themselves, and are thus not only adding to social costs for at least a few years, but are more vulnerable to exploitation. (I'm entirely willing to grant that the vast majority are motivated to stand on their own two feet, but it does take time and support and community cooperation to be integrated. The latter is a problem in many countries.) The figure for the refugee influx this year will be more than twice that of last year (upwards of 500,000 total this year). If we spread out that 15 million over the 23 years the EU has existed (they didn't all migrate at once), we get about 650,000 internal migrations per year. And that's the point that is causing everyone to freak out; the refugees this year have likely *doubled* the rate of movement around Europe that is usually seen.

Surely a sudden doubling of the social services for new citizens is something to consider? Even if they new citizens are skilled, they need housing; food; education in the language; a job; child care; and cultural accommodations. And what if the numbers increase next year? After all, if Europe is a great place and accommodates them all, why would all four million not show up?

So I think there is some realistic worry even if the overall effect will be beneficial after five or ten years. It's not a coordinated or planned influx, and many of the smaller countries will indeed have trouble funding them. Add to that the racism powering the right, and yeah, it's a problem for governments. Not an insurmountable one, but a real one. And of course, it's complicated by the different reactions of each country to the refugees.

Maq wrote:

Actually if you're talking about denying someone refugee status on the basis you're worried they might be an extremist that doesn't fly well with human rights either. You're actually on better footing shipping your domestic extremists offshore.

I'm not talking about worrying about potentials, but if you have hard proof that someone is a member of ISIS then yeah, then only way they should be let in is if it goes to a court and a prison cell. I'm not going to empathize with ISIS here.

Maq wrote:

This is the lie that's being bought that makes me crazy: You can't use "I'm scared of shooty-shooty brown people" to deny people refugee status. You can't. It's not just morally shaky - it's in violation of any relevant treaty you care to name.

Agreed. I'm just saying it is sensible for police or anti-terror units to worry about extremists entering - and prevent them from doing so when possible. But that doesn't mean the general population should worry about all refugees. It certainly does not mean nobody should be let in.

Maq wrote:

A refugee fleeing to your country has more rights in law to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the country to which they have fled than the locally-born extremist burning down their camps. It takes a herculean media effort to make people believe the opposite and that's what we're seeing.

Sure, but you talk about the typical refugee. I'm talking about the right-wing criminal (a terrorist) inside your borders vs a criminal refugee (a terrorist) coming from outside your borders. The homegrown right-wing terrorist is clearly the problem of the country he resides in. The countries job is to imprison the person, and get him back on a non-criminal path if possible.
It is not that countries obligation to imprison every criminal from outside their borders. They should be sent back to their home country so they might be put on trial there - well, unless their home country has capital punishment I guess, which is likely a hindrance is many cases.
In the end, countries do take in known criminals as refugees from time to time, because they cant be sent back.

Integrity wrote:

I think so far there is little evidence that immigrants from Middle Eastern countries have had a net positive impact on European economies. Don't many European countries already have have rising unemployment problems? More people does not equal a better economy.

Evidence points toward refugees (not immigrants) from non-western countries having a negative impact on our economy right now. BUT that might very likely change in the long run, because of our populations getting older and older.
However it always comes down to a matter of quantity.
Just because 100.000 refugees might be good for your economy, it does not mean than 1.000.000 refugees will be even better.
In the end though, while immigration is more or less purely a economical matter, refugees are not. We don't take, we should not take, refugees because of their economic value, we should and must take some of them because they need help.

Integrity wrote:

Don't immgirants also have a high crime rate too though? I don't know why this is, could be because of poor integration policies which ostracizes the immigrants from society, or could be because of the immigrants themselves failing to integrate, but you can't deny it's a problem.

My guess would be that yeah, refugees and immigrants in most countries do have a higher crime rate. Sweden has problems with an extremist right-wing movement which skews the picture there I guess. Some other European countries probably do too.
However, obviously, the refugees and immigrants do not have higher crime rates because they are refugees or immigrants. It isn't exactly something they were born with. It always comes back to marginalization and failed integration. In the end, some of same reasons why some marginalized groups become extremists become right-wing extremists.

LarryC wrote:

If, for instance, Filipinos are accused of more crimes as immigrants to the UK as they do in the US, doesn't that simply imply that they're being marginalized more in the UK? It's not like they're different people.

Yes!
I don't think there can be much doubt that the US is better at integration than most of Europe.
Partly because nearly everyone are either immigrants or descendants. It creates a very different culture. And the US had a few hundred years to create this culture. The US have certainly struggled along the way. Obviously they still struggle somewhat when you listen to their right-wing extremists.
Most European countries are much more homogenized. We are a few 100 years behind here
And if your purpose is to blame the European countries for this, fair enough, but that doesn't solve anything either.

LarryC wrote:
Robear wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Here you got your labor for free knocking on your doorstep. Why are you complaining?

I would argue that the more social welfare programs a country offers, the more effect an influx of refugees has on the rest of society. If the government treats them exactly as citizens, it will incur a sudden increase in costs in an economy that already taxes at a high rate and has structured it's facilities and programs around a fixed, predictable growth rate. So my guess is that the impact is higher than in countries where immigrants are expected to "make their own way", although the latter definitely involves more suffering for the refugees.

This would hit hardest at the local level. Even an influx of immigrants needing assistance whose impact is negligible at the country level would be highly visible and fiscally disruptive in the towns in which they settled.

I'm going to call BS on that for the same reason that it's BS for a country's citizenry. We're talking about a young, highly motivated, and very ambitious population here. They're raring to make their own way. If you have a bunch of new grads fresh off schools, isn't that a good time to invest in business as the labor market would depress and you could make it big?

I think the facilities and programs would have a hard time keeping up, but there has been mention of segregation here between asylum and citizen programs, so the pinch would mostly be felt by immigrants and refugees themselves.

It's not like intra-state migration is unknown. You guys travel every which way seemingly at the drop of a hat. Is it bad when people come in looking for work? Doesn't that just make construction or other industries a lot more available and cheaper for the locals?

Well, not necessarily, since it cant go below the minimum wages.
If a country has no (or a very low) minimum wage, then sure, it can more or less absorb endless amounts of workers. But a low minimum wage certainly comes with a different cost, which most European countries are (hopefully) not willing to pay.
That said, there are talks in my country at least, I cant speak for others, about either allowing for a lower "minimum wage" for newly arrived people, or probably a better solution - split the wage between the employer and the government. to make it easier for refugees to get a job. Or that the government outright find stuff that the unemployed refugees can do.
Obviously the right-wing go crazy at such suggestions, claiming that it favors the refugees over the native citizens.

As for the "young, motivated refugees" the fact still is that a significant amount of those refugees lack any education. And they are having a significantly harder time getting a job. Which sadly links directly to the marginalization and higher crime rates mentioned before - even if they economically have no reason to be criminal, due to the welfare benefits, being unemployed still sucks.

My family took in a family of refugees from Afghanistan in 1998 (Denver, US). It was a humbling experience seeing how destitute and in need they were. There were huge cultural differences and communicating was nearly impossible.

It was a mother, son and two daughters. Their father had been murdered and the mother and daughters had been raped and had many scars. The women were visibly frightened any time my father or I entered the room. They were not comfortable being in the same room as a man and would stand up as soon as they saw me.

I have no doubt that taking in refugees is the correct course of action for the US. Is there going to be issues? Yes, probably a lot of them. Doing the right thing often isn't easy but it's the right thing to do.

LarryC wrote:

If the refugees bring up economy or safety issues, then that IS racist. I mean, no one batted an eye when John Oliver immigrated. Is British immigration to the US even tracked?

It most definitely is.

Took me 18 months of jumping through bureaucratic hoops, and a roughly 4-figure sum paid to the US government in fees to get a Green Card. Did you think I just sauntered up to the border and was let in once they realized my blood was 80% tea?

It certainly feels like that sometimes. Some Pinoys wait over a decade for a green card.

LarryC wrote:

It certainly feels like that sometimes. Some Pinoys wait over a decade for a green card.

It's more a sign of how we've let our guard down regarding the Brits. We should be more vigilant in case they try to burn the capital again.

LarryC wrote:

It certainly feels like that sometimes. Some Pinoys wait over a decade for a green card.

Also worth noting that there are many different avenues through the immigration process, and being married to an American citizen (like I am) is one of the easiest and quickest.

IMAGE(http://www.openlawlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/IMmigration-Law-Comic-Terry-Colon-Reason.jpg)

Jonman wrote:
LarryC wrote:

It certainly feels like that sometimes. Some Pinoys wait over a decade for a green card.

Also worth noting that there are many different avenues through the immigration process, and being married to an American citizen (like I am) is one of the easiest and quickest.

ER MAH GOD THEY'RE-A TAKIN' OUR WIMMINFOLK TOO IT'S LIKE THE SEXIEST KIND OF REFUGEE WELFARE SYSTEM

There's a bit of debate upthread as to the fiscal/economic impact of refugees.

My armchair economics suggests they contribute immediately to the economy on arrival.

Why? They consume goods and services which drives the demand side of the equation; the community may bear the cost of consumption but at the end of the day the suppliers meeting that consumption are benefitting from a bigger customer base. If economic theory about the multiplier effect is correct, the act of government funded consumption should ceteris paribus result in expansion of the economy.

Besides all this, a lot of people don't realize that their share of the public goods and services they receive is underfunded by their contributions in taxes and rates (the shortfall is picked up by other taxpayers and government borrowing). So to call out a refugee by saying they are a drain on public resources ignores the reality that modern citizens demand a lot of public goods and services without wanting not to directly subsidize them; but I do acknowledge this paradigm may not hold strictly true for Scandinavian countries where tax rates around 50% go towards maintaining public ordinances.

At least studies here indicate otherwise.
In the end it is not like the government consumption wouldn't have been there otherwise, it might have gone to health-care, schools etc instead, which likewise creates jobs and consumption.
While more people will kinda always increase the economy somewhat, it also means more people to spread the economy out on. More so in societies that for better or worse attempts to spread it out more equally.

I don't think this is about calling out refugees though. Just about knowing the "facts" (as much as we can know them anyway) and act upon them. We should not turn down individual refugees for financial reasons. But it certainly gives a direct economic incentive for a society to improve its integration attempts.

Shadout wrote:

At least studies here indicate otherwise.
In the end it is not like the government consumption wouldn't have been there otherwise, it might have gone to health-care, schools etc instead, which likewise creates jobs and consumption.
While more people will kinda always increase the economy somewhat, it also means more people to spread the economy out on.

I'd love any links to those studies, if you have them.

I would imagine that any spending on refugees is going to be add-on spending for European governments. Without the refugees, that money wouldn't be spent (and the stimulus effect would happen).

The true test, though, is if European governments work to integrate the refugees into their economy or if they're just going to keep them segregated, isolated, and dependent entirely on government benefits.

Europe has tended to trade job creation for job stability, though.

I think the problem is more dealing with the surge in the immigrant pipeline and it's impact on local economies and (more importantly) the social and political effects. Budgets will be affected for several years no matter what, but if the social attitudes change, that's a much bigger and longer-lasting effect.

Don't worry so much about paying for the immigrants forever; worry that your own citizens will attack them, burn down their housing and put a reactionary government in place...

Will try to look for some English ones tomorrow, the ones I found yesterday were in danish.

Not so sure about the add-on spending. Increasing debt is a big no-no in much of Europe these days. Too easy for the scare-mongers to whisper about Greece to convince voters that dept leads to catastrophe. For the last 10-15 years or so, tax increases has been a dangerous political topic in Denmark - despite the contradictory fact that when surveyed, the majority tend to answer they are willing to pay higher taxes. Politics can be weird like that.

Robear wrote:

Don't worry so much about paying for the immigrants forever; worry that your own citizens will attack them, burn down their housing and put a reactionary government in place...

Very true, as I also said in my first post in this topic, that is the biggest danger. A danger which should frighten the hell out of anyone in Europe given our history.
Not so worried about it in Denmark currently. While it is a quite the surprise to me, the fact that we have had a successful "nationalist/racist party" for the last 20 years - which has managed to integrate into the political system (and moderate their views in the process), and has arguably been one of the most influential political party over the last 15 years - seems to have reduced some of the more extremist reactions in the population. It seems like the legitimization of their opinions have given the right-wing wing a way to release all their hate and anger through politics rather than desperately taking violent action themselves. I'm legitimately surprised.
The contrast is stark to Sweden, which have tried to keep their extremist right-wing out of politics, and it keeps growing anyway (just like the Danish, but without the ability to assimilate them), and Sweden have had a handful of fire attacks on refugee homes currently.

Time will tell if it will get worse here too. Maybe we will deeply regret legitimizing them when they take power and go insane on everyone...
For now, more worried about Sweden and France among others. (though France seems to have handled their situation very well since the terrorist attack, but I guess the extremists don't want to look too opportunistic - the real test will be their presidential election)

Princess Mary is clearly responsible for moderating Danish politics.

I think the French are currently appeased from seeing their aircraft carrier flying missions over the region. But from what I can see from Facebook everyone is calling for solidarity which is great.

Jonman wrote:
LarryC wrote:

It certainly feels like that sometimes. Some Pinoys wait over a decade for a green card.

Also worth noting that there are many different avenues through the immigration process, and being married to an American citizen (like I am) is one of the easiest and quickest.

IMAGE(http://www.openlawlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/IMmigration-Law-Comic-Terry-Colon-Reason.jpg)

have a kid with said spouse and it's even easier. Wife got her gc in 6 months.

My new thing is that any time some asshat posts that bit about "who would you rather help? American vets or foreign refugees?", I respond by telling them that if they vote Republican, their only honest answer is "neither".

Yeah, didn't the Senate just now vote to cut funding for veterans?

The hypocracy of the Republican fetishisation of the military while refusing to support the people is astounding.

Shadout wrote:

Will try to look for some English ones tomorrow, the ones I found yesterday were in danish.

Kamelåså?

I don't trust invitations from George RR Martin.

OG_slinger wrote:

I'd love any links to those studies, if you have them.

Not easy to find translated ones, but here is what I could find.
http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/files/R...
http://www.rff.dk/files/RFF-site/Pub...
http://www.rff.dk/files/RFF-site/Pub...
http://www.dreammodel.dk/pdf/A2005_0...

Found one about OECD countries in general, but the conclusion points toward the difference between Scandinavian welfare models and welfare models like in Germany, where welfare benefits is more often linked to employment, which obviously nullifies some of the negative impact of refugees having lower workforce participation.
http://www.oecd.org/els/mig/IMO-2013...

You still have to find them jobs, language training, possibly education, housing, transportation... all the needs of modern citizens. And that takes money up front, not in 3 or 5 years when the person is gainfully employed, housed, speaks the right language, etc.

Shadout wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

I'd love any links to those studies, if you have them.

Not easy to find translated ones, but here is what I could find.
http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/files/R...
http://www.rff.dk/files/RFF-site/Pub...
http://www.rff.dk/files/RFF-site/Pub...
http://www.dreammodel.dk/pdf/A2005_0...

Found one about OECD countries in general, but the conclusion points toward the difference between Scandinavian welfare models and welfare models like in Germany, where welfare benefits is more often linked to employment, which obviously nullifies some of the negative impact of refugees having lower workforce participation.
http://www.oecd.org/els/mig/IMO-2013...

Thank you very much for digging up the studies. Very enlightening reading.

The 2050 projections were interesting because they did show that the second generation of non-Western immigrants would make a net positive contribution to public finances (just not enough to cover public expenditures on all non-Western immigrants).

Also interesting was the DREAM study which found that perfect integration would grow Danish GDP by more than 6% in 100 years. Understanding that that is effectively impossible, it does hint that how big the problem of public expenditures on refugees is ultimately going to be is very dependent on how well they are integrated into the Dutch economy and how well the Dutch economy is doing overall.

Piece from the Guardian, looking at the SDU (an anti-immigration group who is currently the third-largest political party in Sweden).

A lot of similarities to the racist bunk I heard from some Danes (though not many, thankfully) when I was an exchange student there, in the long-ago days of 1989.

Racism. Racism never changes...