Higher incomes allow more money to go into taxes and businesses, benefiting the economy as a whole. In addition to the economic benefits provided by an increase in refugee income, it also gives refugees a sense of purpose and financial independence.
By improving their own lives, refugees can create economic benefits that also improve the lives of residents of their new country. Therefore, hosting refugees benefits everyone involved. Taking in large numbers of refugees is often costly at first. Research shows that it results in a net gain to the economy. A study of the economic impact of refugees in Europe between and showed that in just two years of an increased inflow of refugees, the economy in the 15 countries studied became healthier and unemployment decreased.
Refugees generated demand for goods, created jobs, and paid taxes. They were thus able to offset the cost of the government support they needed on arrival.
Similarly, a Tent Foundation report found that in the European Union, each euro invested in refugee support programs produced two euros of return in economic benefits.
When a country invests in welcoming refugees, it not only does the right thing morally, i. In order for countries to receive these economic benefits, they obviously need to make sure that refugees are accepted, welcomed and integrated. Many organizations and communities have understood this and have mobilized to make this happen. After decades, Palestinian refugees still complicate the peace process with Israel. If large refugee populations are convinced to return prematurely, they can also derail fragile recoveries and trigger a new round of fighting.
To protect Americans and defend U. The administration should redouble efforts to resolve old conflicts, prevent new wars from breaking out, and resettle refugees.
Given the mistrust and partisanship in Washington, it is likely politically infeasible to drastically increase the numbers of refugees resettled in the United States today. Further cutting U. Resettling refugees reduces the threat.
David Kampf is a senior Ph. Bashar al-Assad is on the verge of victory after massacring his population with Russian help. Kenya has found a way to make refugee camps benefit host communities. Other countries should follow its lead. Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his opponents are now responding with tough talk on repatriation. Shusha was the key to the recent war between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Now Baku wants to turn the fabled fortress town into a resort. Argument An expert's point of view on a current event. By David Kampf. Razor wire tops the U. September 13, , PM. Argument Muhammad Idrees Ahmad. But it is vital that we pay attention, not just for humanitarian reasons but because displacement points to a dangerous weakness in liberal democratic societies.
Although we have come to regard certain rights as fundamental and universal, these are often only guaranteed through membership of a nation-state. In her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, the political theorist Hannah Arendt argued that the inability of states to guarantee rights to displaced people in Europe between the world wars helped create the conditions for dictatorship.
Statelessness reduced people to the condition of outlaws: they had to break laws in order to live and they were subject to jail sentences without ever committing a crime. Being a refugee means not doing what you are told — if you did, you would probably have stayed at home to be killed.
And you continue bending the rules, telling untruths, concealing yourself, even after you have left immediate danger, because that is the way you negotiate a hostile system. But the presence of millions of displaced people also became a powerful tool for those regimes that wanted to undermine the idea of universal human rights.
Instead of resolving this problem, governments cracked down on unwanted migrants, giving police forces extensive powers that were eventually also wielded over their own citizens.
This happened in the western European democracies, argued Arendt, and not just in the totalitarian states. But Arendt points out a threat, not something inevitable — and importantly, governments respond to pressure from the electorate.
In the autumn of , for instance, public outcry over the photograph of a drowned toddler, Alan Kurdi, that circulated in international media pressured the British government into expanding a scheme to resettle Syrian refugees. We must be alert to the ways in which some politicians try to convince people to give up rights and protections that exist for the benefit of everyone. And we should recognise the importance of collective action.
Wars produce refugees. People will continue to move to improve their quality of life — not only because of extreme poverty, but because they are connected to global culture and global networks of communication. Climate change has the potential to create far greater displacement than we have seen in recent years; as with refugees from war, it is likely to be poorer countries who feel the greatest impact.
We cannot control whether these things happen; what matters will be how we respond, and whether we repeat the errors of this crisis. You do not have to let your thinking be limited by the categories that currently exist.
It is possible to defend the protections that the current system of refugee law offers, while recognising their limits. Refugee law provides an essential protection for some kinds of displaced people, but not all of them.
Drawn up in a world where power and wealth are unequally distributed, it has always reflected the concerns of the powerful. The more rigidly we enforce distinctions between the deserving and undeserving, the more likely we are to accept the violence done in our name. But it implies a certain naivety on the part of the beholder, that someone is being pulled by an illusion that the rest of us do not share. It belittles them, while at the same time aggrandising us.
To the European audience, and by extension audiences in other rich parts of the world, it is reassuring: they are dreaming of having lives like ours — and who can blame them for idealising our existence? This person has arrived in Europe and they want to go to Britain, where their uncle lives. This person needs to get to Europe to work. Why should anyone have to put up with these conditions? Whose interests does it serve to regulate their movement? No refugee has been convicted of a terrorist act in the United States.
The existing and very robust refugee vetting process can continue while the administration reviews procedures. Desperate people are risking their lives to flee violence and persecution. They have no other choice. They are not coming here to commit violence — they are escaping it. We have assisted 1. In a perfect world, it would be great for them to return home once the conflicts end.
But take a look at Syria, for example. The war is still going on, and many cities and towns are in complete ruins. No one knows when those cities will be rebuilt. It could take decades. Resettlement is part of that solution. While CRS assists refugees overseas, we are not involved in resettling them here in the United States. We work with and assist refugees all around the world. It would be inconsistent of us to assist refugees in the countries they fled to but not stand up and speak for them when a policy here hurts them.
We wouldn't be good neighbors if we remained silent in a situation that endangers them. Proverbs speaks strongly to this very situation and calls on us to stand up and act. We stand for people of all faiths when they are threatened, including Christians. In Iraq, we assist Christians and other religious minorities who are fleeing the Islamic State. But a religious test for who needs help or should be admitted into this country goes against our values.
Also, prioritizing people based on their religion might put them at greater risk in their home country. Immigration is a broad umbrella term that is often used to encompass refugees.
0コメント