Tuesday, September 15, 2015

European Migration Crisis

Nick Fonte
Mrs. Straub
A3 AP Economics
14 September 2015
European Migration Crisis
Italy migrants2.jpg
When faced with adversity, one is left with two decisions: to flee or to fight. The decision to flee is often viewed as cowardly by those unaffected. Unfortunately for the people of Syria and other parts of the middle east, it’s the only option. There has been a great deal of controversy stirring up in terms of preventing or allowing these people from entering European countries. These European countries fear the rapid increase in immigrants could set a devastating blow to their country economically. While it is true that a rapid movement into one particular country will hurt the economy, it is also true that the dispersion of these immigrants throughout all of Europe will actually benefit each country’s economies.
The final destination for most of these migrants is Germany. Check out a visual of the most common travel route here. You can also get a perspective of the vast number of people migrating here. The reason Germany is the most desirable location for these migrants is due to the high amount of accepted asylum applications. What a granted asylum applicant receives is refugee status in the new country. Being entered into refugee status protects a migrant from being deported. This high acceptance rate in Germany is what makes this location favorable. Unfortunately, the large amount of migrants venturing into Germany has forced them to implement temporary border controls. This plan includes shutting down train routes between Austria and Germany. This shutdown will affect thousands of migrants hoping to make their way into Germany.  It is easy to say that the European countries should place these migrants equally throughout the continent. The problem is the high number of countries who are still wary on whether or not these migrants will benefit or hurt their economy.
It sounds like an easy decision to the citizens of Europe; don’t let them in. People are under the misconception that a higher increase in immigrants will affect their country’s average wage and job availability. Britain proves that this actually false. For instance, Clacton, a city in England with less than half the national average in terms of immigration, actually possesses an average wage of 20% below the national average. People also believe that an increase in the supply of workers will lead to a lower amount of jobs available. This is not true mainly because as more people migrate, more money will be spent in this country. This means that the demand of jobs will also rise. What people often don’t realize is the fact that people migrating from other areas possess different skill sets which ultimately leads to a higher efficiency. This leads to a rightward shift in the Production Possibility Curve. While it may take time for the benefits of allowing migrants in to be seen, it is inevitable that it will lead to a more productive economy in the future.
It is apparent that the people seeking refuge are in need. It also apparent that these people can actually help the economies of Europe. If European countries realize the possibilities they can achieve by allowing these people in, there would be no reason for them not to let people in. Overall, these two sides should be able to work together and in the end, benefit everyone.

Works Cited
Web. 15 Sept. 2015. <http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article10184116.ece/alternates/w620/Italy migrants2.jpg>.
"EU Migration: Crisis in Graphics - BBC News." BBC News. Web. 15 Sept. 2015.
"Immigration: Could We – Should We – Stop Migrants Coming to Britain?" The Guardian. Web. 15 Sept. 2015.
"Migrant Crisis: 'This Is a European Capital City' BBC News." YouTube. YouTube. Web. 15    Sept. 2015



14 comments:

  1. This was an interesting topic because it could be argued both ways. Some people could say that immigrants hurt the economy, while others would say that they help the economy. On the "helping" side, immigrants increase the number of consumers which could increase the demand for certain products. Also, when they obtain jobs they increase the amount of labor which increases supply of certain products. However, as you mentioned, they could take jobs away from other citizens which would increase the unemployment rate and hurt the economy. However, whether it hurts of helps, I think countries show accept more immigrants out of compassion and kindness, not just for the economy,

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with Madeline that the issue could be argued either way. While it is certainly true that migrants would theoretically raise the PPC of whatever country they immigrate to, it must also be considered that these migrants may not have the skills needed to contribute to the industries the country is primarily engaged in production in. Also, although migrants would initially be good for the economy because they would increase demand for certain products, if they were not able to find employment quickly, they could burden a country's government and citizens who would be called on to help support them.

    In the end the economic impact of migrant immigration is likely to vary from country to country, reflecting the difference in position on the migrant crisis from the various EU nations. For most countries however, this issue should be a moral, rather than economic issue, and from a moral perspective, the correct response is to help the migrants.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is an interesting topic. Both Mitchell and Madeline make good point that this topic could very easily be argued either way. On the one hand, the mass migration of immigrants would initially boost the economy bringing in more money and a variety of skills. With this increase in cash flow the demand for many every day objects would skyrocket. However, if a majority of them are unable to retain a job, the economy will greatly suffer having taken them in. If that is a price to pay for helping out other human beings who do not deserve to be in such a terrible position, then so be it. It is the proper and humane thing to do, and the European countries where most of the migrants are trying to flee to should see that too and accept as many as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Madeline, Mitchell, and Robert all make good points about this topic, and the ways this topic can be viewed. The increase in cash flow, work productivity, and number of consumers would increase. This could be the case initially throughout this migration of immigrants into a country, however the sudden jump in more people needing jobs, could lead to others being cut, leading to eventual unemployment of those who had lived in the country before, and then would be replaced by immigrants who just moved in or have not been there as long as the actual resident of the country.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with everyone that this issue can easily be seen from both sides. While the increase in population would seemingly increase the Production Posibility Curve outward, at least initially, it also could potentially harm the majority of the working population. This enormous increase in poulation would increase the supply of workers. But as we saw in our activity in class, when there are so many workers and not very many jobs, people would work for less money in order to get the job, thus decreasing their income and reducing the purchasing power. This would send a trickle down effect that would hinder their economy as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Because this topic can be argued on either side the country should have the choice on who they want to let in and who they don't want. This will allow the country to control the amount of people coming in and find the most efficient workers. By doing this the Production Possibility Curve will shift to the right because of the new ideas that these migrants could bring in. Personally I believe that the country should have the choice in saying no to these migrants.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Your blog post was very well written. Immigration is good for the economy to a certain extent. However only when new immigrants positively contribute to the economy. It tends to hurt some countries when immigrants contribute to increased crime rates. The U.S. has been experiencing both the positive and negative effects of immigration. It is a very controversial topic, one that will certainly demand time come the presidential debate in 2016.

    ReplyDelete
  8. When I read an article about this in English, it was mostly about how the Hungarian Prime Minister closed off borders and was treating migrants unfairly. Your blog post took on a new perspective of the topic: immigrants affect the economies of the countries they migrate to. I disagree with your statement that immigrants will be buying more things which will improve the economy. These immigrants are refugees and need money to buy food and shelter in whatever countries they travel to. However, I do agree that they will not be taking all the jobs in other countries.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Your post was very well written and your evidence supported your statements well. Aside from being an economical topic, this topic is also up for heated debate in the GOP political campaign. Donald Trump, who wants to build a wall to keep Mexicans from illegally entering the U.S., said earlier this week he’s open to taking in more Syrian refugees. Scott Walker on the other hand says that the United States should not take in more refugees but focus instead on fighting the Islamic State militant group, whose reign many Syrians and others are fleeing. Finally, two candidates with parents who are Cuban immigrants have taken opposing stands. Senator Marco Rubio has said he’s open to the idea of accepting more refugees, so long as security is a top consideration, while Senator Ted Cruz has indicated he’s against the idea, saying there are logistical and other challenges. So, as you can tell, this topic of Syrian immigration will be a big topic of discussion during next years presidential race. Overall, nice job on your post!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Your choice of topic was interesting and your post was very well written. I like that you choose a topic that could be argued from either side. On the side of accepting these refugees you get the benefit of being right on the moral side. You would also be increasing the supply of workers which is something that Germany has been looking to do. However, on the negative side if you are producing more you leave a chance to have an inflated economy which has it's own downfalls. In the end it is best to have morals and follow them so Germany is just in their decision to accept these refugees rather than leaving them stranded without a home.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I've spoken to many Europeans about this issue, and read what other Europeans think about the issue, and they all seem to agree that they don't want them in their country. Most of them feel that their culture is being violated, and hate the fact that they are adopting Islamic culture in order to be friendly. On top of that, there are many reporting of how they are stealing, and attacking police. I even heard one of them say that the media is fooling you into pitying all the women and children, and that the truth is that its all young and capable men.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...