�Թ���

Since the first major wave of migrants in 2015, the European Union has been completely entrenched in the realm of immigration. Is immigration good for the EU? Is it bad? Is it both? Therefore, what is the net outcome? While the argument laid out is not comprehensive, it provides a foundational framework to better look at the issue through different lenses. Nevertheless, the argument proposed is that the benefits of immigration outweigh the drawbacks of immigration due to the economic advantages.

Costs of Immigration

So, what are the drawbacks of immigration? This article identifies 3 key costs of immigration. The first drawback is arguably the least backed and least important of the rest. The first con is that immigration imposes a burden on states, both fiscally and time-wise. Katharina Spiess shared in a DW News interview that “reports say we are not at the end of the integration process” (DW News, 2020). This implies that much of the time that the EU could have spent on other issues, such as the rising cost of housing, has failed to do so because immigration has become such a pressing issue that needs to be addressed. Moreover, the money that has been spent to mitigate the migration crisis could have very well been used for other issues that impact the citizens of the EU as well. In a documentary provided by the Council of the EU, we learn that the EU has provided Turkey with three billion euros to construct a refugee facility (EU Migration Crisis, 2016). This is money which could have been spent on cohesion policy funds to benefit the infrastructure within the EU.

The second drawback of immigration is the unfortunate correlation of an increase in an angry population, which leads to xenophobia and far-right parties coming into government. Government policies permitting open borders and increased immigration have led to heightened levels of xenophobia. CBC News reported that although Angela Merkel stated, “we can do this,” the people have said, “No, we cannot.” They continue by stating that in Germany, PEGIDA, an anti-Islam political movement, rose into popularity in part due to the influx of migrants into Germany. Moreover, AfD has also gained political traction due to this ideology, as they report (CBC News: The National, 2017). These, in particular, are all concerning for citizenship experience because it has allowed for the lowering of the “threshold for brutal language,” as Michael Sturmer remarked (CBC News: The National, 2017). The anger and rise of far-right parties permit more hatred and a less peaceful place for all.

The third con with immigration is closely related to the second. This drawback relates to the welfare state of the state. With an increase in angry citizens who vote for far-right parties, these parties are more in favor of policies which cut the welfare state. This means less government spending for citizens in areas like healthcare, pensions, education, and more. Unfortunately, when the social cohesion deteriorates, so does the welfare state. This is concerning due to the fact that the welfare state evolved as a national security strategy (Derderyan).

Benefits of Immigration

The sources provided for this assignment frame one of the key benefits of immigration, not in economic terms but in moral ones. As stated by the Council of the EU, policy targeted towards immigration “started about saving lives” (EU Migration Crisis, 2016). Photos of Alan Kurdi, a child who was photographed lying face down on the shore after drowning at sea, struck a chord in many European hearts. Facilitating immigration into the EU was, in part, an emotional decision that made many citizens and policymakers feel better about themselves. In a quite sexist and snarky comment, made by Sturmer that has no foundation, Angela Merkel relied on her emotions to make a decision on opening borders because it made her and others feel better (CBC News: The National, 2017).

Our second benefit is more economically centered. The first benefit is that immigration mitigates the problem of labor shortages in the EU. This argument presents itself not as a good thing for the EU, but as one that argues immigration is necessary for the EU. As TDLR News reports, the EU suffers from a diminishing workforce (TLDR News, 2018). The declining population is bad for states because without enough workers, there is not enough to cover the costs of running the government. If there are less people in a state, then either more taxes need to be collected per person, or the services offered by the government need to be reduced. (TLDR News). Both of these options are wildly unpopular and will not reflect well on the parties in power who suggest these options come election time. The alternative option is to bring in a young workforce that is capable of filling the gaps in shortages and who can pay taxes that go towards welfare programs like pension funds. Pension funds are particularly important for the EU because, as reports have shown, in 2050, 26% of Europe's population will be over 65. In Germany, the ratio of worker to pensioner is set to fall to 2:1 (TLDR News, 2018). The solution is simple: more immigrants.

Moreover, the third benefit of immigration is also based on economic principles. Those who argue that immigrants are not necessary and that EU states can just borrow money to cover the economic gap that arises out of a declining workforce, omit one very important aspect of borrowing: Debt. TLDR reports that “EU countries have already been doing this [borrowing] and now their debt is nearly 90% of the continent's GDP” (TLDR News, 2018). It is not sustainable to continue to borrow from other countries and increase national debt. However, immigrants, once again, are the saviors for EU economies because they can be taxed, which can be used to lower the national debt on top of stimulating the economy.

Conclusion

The benefits of immigration, particularly the economic benefits of immigration, outweigh the costs of immigration. Far-right parties have become popular not just for immigration factors alone. The Liberal International Order has created winners and losers, and the losers tend to turn towards far-right parties because they offer a change to their economic situation. The issue of immigration only makes the problem worse, but the absence of immigration would not eliminate that far-right party from their extreme policy suggestions in whole. Moreover, the costs to the welfare state in terms of the particular funds that may be cut do not outweigh the benefits that immigration has to the welfare state. Moreover, it is apparent that EU leaders consider this an issue worth their time and money, despite there being other issues that are also pressing for EU citizens. It is because the economic benefits of immigration offset any negligence to other issues at this current moment.

��

References

Derderyan, Svetoslav. Welfare State so Far. Lecture.

EU Migration Crisis. (2016). “EU migration crisis: The inside Story - Documentary in English.” Youtube.

DW News. (2020). “Europe’s Migration Crisis – Five Years on.” ��YouTube.
��

CBC News: The National. (2017).“The Politics of Immigration in Europe.” YouTube.
��

TLDR News. ��(2018). “Does Europe Actually Need More Immigrants?” YouTube.