Photo by Alec Favale on Unsplash
Making an economic argument for refugees has one major flaw: it frames displaced people as units of the economy whose purpose is to drive growth and profit in the host country. But, refugees are people fleeing persecution, not the means to a booming economy, and wealthy countries are bound by ethics and international law to aid them. However, by ignoring the larger economic picture of refugee immigration, proponents using a humanitarian justification are often accused of being naive to reality. Opponents then use this to strengthen their position against resettlement. Therefore, understanding economics is necessary to answer a political question, “Can we bring refugees to this country?”
Can We?
Every nation has political factions that oppose refugee resettlement entirely. In some countries, they command enough power to severely restrict or completely block refugees from immigrating. To power their political movement, they often rely on an economic argument against resettlement citing figures that suit their narrative. For example, refugees depend on the social welfare system and create a drag on the host country’s economy. For their first years in the US, refugees indeed use public benefits at higher rates than US-born citizens. However, after only six years, refugees actually have lower rates of benefit usage and higher rates of employment than their US-born counterparts. After 20 years, refugees are estimated to pay $21,000 more in taxes than they use in public services. (Source, National Bureau of Economic Research)
Opponents of refugee resettlement regularly choose figures that are frightening when stripped of their context. They often also cite the cost of refugee resettlement. The United States spent $1.56 billion to administer its refugee resettlement program in 2015, a year when 70,000 refugees were welcomed to the country. While the figure is significant, it only represents 0.01% of that year’s gross domestic product. These statistics exist within their context, and when we embrace the full economic picture of resettlement, we strip critics of the validity of their arguments against it.
These are just two examples, and yet they show how the political discussion on refugee resettlement can be easily manipulated. Those who miscite these statistics are not themselves naive, rather they know the figures well and use only the most beneficial parts. Understanding the economics of resettlement both strengthens the humanitarian cause and deprives the opposition of their primary argument.
An understanding of economics is vital to the political argument for refugees, but it is also needed to ensure justice is done for displaced people. That is the topic I will explore in part II.
