Other than cultural disparities etc, the most critical reason why any country would refuse refugees is the economic burden that comes with taking in refugees. For this reason the United States has, under the Trump administration, reduced the number of refugees taken. Yet how much does it really cost to take in refugees in the short term, and in the long term?
In the short term, receiving refugees, especially in large numbers, is extremely costly, because the refugees, on average, require a number of years to get settled and be able to live without the basic welfare, even if the refugees were middle class educated citizens previously.
Yet in the long term, according to a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, refugees who entered the US from 2010-2014 paid 21 thousand dollars more to the United States in the form of taxes than they received welfare. They actually paid more in taxes than they had received, adding to the US economy, and continues to pay taxes and add to the US economy.
One of the reasons the US could become the global power it is today is because they took in immigrants in the 1800 and 1900s, who added to the economy. When we look at what is better for the US in the long term, would cutting out all refugees really be a good choice?
source: business insider
コメント