America has been called the “melting pot” because of its integration of countless cultures and ethnicities that immigrate to the United States in pursuit of a better life—what some know as “the American dream.” The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw the largest wave of immigration in US history as thousands of foreigners came to America in search of jobs, safety, and better incomes to support their families. The long-term results meant the integration of Western, African, and Asian cultures to create a diverse blend that comprises American society as we know it today. Yet our immigration policies, and their economic repercussions, are largely controversial—particularly in the wake of unrest in the Middle East.
The Syrian crisis, which began with protests in early 2011 and broke out into a full scale civil war by 2012, has caused more than four million people to flee for their lives. It is said to be the largest displacement of our generation, earning the label “worst refugee crisis” in recent decades. More than 250,000 people have lost their lives in the ongoing conflict. The average life expectancy has decreased by an alarming twenty-seven percent since fighting broke out in 2011. Among the neighboring countries most affected are Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey, who see an inpouring of refugees seeking safety within their borders. The need for humanitarian aid is tremendous—and the Western world has a moral obligation to help rather than turn a blind eye. The debate, however, comes from what this looks like, and more specifically, the economic effects and implications for these nations of opening borders to provide homes for refugees.
Obama announced that he hopes to open US borders to 10,000 Syrian refugees next year. Yet there will still be hundreds of thousands displaced by the conflict. The question grows of what to do with these refugees and—the even greater question—what will this mean for the economy? Many citizens in the European Union (EU) believe their countries’ governments should allow fewer immigrants in. Among those who feel strongest are Greece, Italy, and France. 70% of Greek citizens believe “immigrants today are a burden on our country because they take our jobs and social benefits.” This comes as no surprise given Greece’s state of economic turmoil in recent years.
A look at Baltimore, Maryland, however, provides a counter example. Seven percent of the city’s population was born abroad, yet 21% of the region’s businesses are owned by foreigners, suggesting that immigrants actually create jobs. And not only that, but they build businesses in poor, urban areas otherwise deserted by natives, helping to build lower-income neighborhoods up by generating revenue. In addition to expanding the entrepreneurial market, they also increase demand for goods and services. Furthermore, many foreigners are unable to attain mortgages, forcing them to move into rundown “project” areas and transform neighborhoods with small families.
So what does this mean in regards to millions of Syrian refugees in search of homes? Many natives show great concern for the opportunity cost of increased immigration—most notably the sacrifice of American jobs. Yet in many instances, the economic benefits of increased immigration have proven to far outweigh economic costs. In Cleveland, for example, “local refugee services agencies spent about $4.8 million in 2012 as they helped refugees get established in the area, according to a study conducted by Chmura Economics & Analytics. But the economic impact those refugees had on the community weighed in at about $48 million, roughly 10 times the initial resettlement costs.”
This is not always proven true, however. Jordan has spent approximately $2.4 billion accommodating Syrian refugees and significantly depleted the nation’s limited water supply. The evidence is clear it largely depends on the country, its resources, its job market, and the current economic state. While Obama’s plan to allow 10,000 Syrian refugees into the United States next year should alleviate some pressure on the refugee crisis, the larger question persists of the remaining millions in need of new homes.
America was built on immigration, but the broken immigration system we have today is in dire need of repair. If not from an economic motivation, we must act from a fundamental humanitarian obligation. We cannot sympathize with hundreds of victims of terrorist acts in Paris and turn a blind eye to hundreds of thousands of victims of similar acts in the Middle East. We are all human beings and where we are born should not determine our economic opportunity. Increasing the gate for Syrian refugees in the United States—with sufficient safety precautions—will increase demand, generate business, and stimulate the economy, allowing all of us to profit and achieve a better life. But at the end of the day, we should act for the sake of humanity.
Editor’s Note: It is the KCP policy to post all letter/op-eds that are submitted provided they are not unduly derogatory of defamatory (unless it is obvious satire). The views of letters/op-eds are the author’s alone, and may or may not reflect the views of KCP.
