The constant scenes of immigrants trying to enter Europe and being violently repelled are always very shocking. Most migrants arrive in Europe illegally by sailing across the Mediterranean Sea in boats, which causes many deaths by drowning. It is estimated that more than 2,500 people drown each year while making the crossing. It is even more difficult to understand when we consider that the arguments used by rich countries to hinder the entry of immigrants are based on the widespread perception that foreigners steal jobs and exploit social security. Studies do not support this impression. On the contrary, countries that adopt serious policies to shelter immigrants tend to benefit from doing so.
Economist Bryan Caplan and philosopher William MacAskill argue that one of the measures that would benefit billions of people would be to open borders on a large scale. The world economy would gain greatly from labor mobility. Some estimates reach 50% of global GDP. More conservative calculations put the benefit in the trillions of dollars per year.
The issue ultimately boils down to circumstantial rather than structural factors. As Europe experiences economic crises, European countries tend to close their borders to immigrants. For this reason, tension is growing among European Union member states over the creation of laws to regulate the arrival of immigrants.
Behind the restrictions on immigrants
The main reason for restrictions on immigrants is not linked to economic factors, but has to do with ethnic origin.
Let me explain.
Since the beginning of the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine, around 3 million people have been forced to leave Ukrainian territory and seek refuge in other countries. In less than a month of conflict, more than twice as many Ukrainian refugees have arrived in Europe compared to the controversial refugee crisis of 2015, when, according to UNHCR data, around 1 million people sought asylum in Europe. The current situation goes far beyond any other immigration crisis in the last century. However, there is a clear difference in treatment by European countries.
The reception of Ukrainian refugees has become a major community project in Continental Europe. A clear example is Poland, which currently hosts around 2 million Ukrainians. The country opened its borders almost immediately, but during the first crisis with refugees from the Middle East, it was accused by the European Union of not cooperating with refugee relocation obligations. Protests were made against the reception of people seeking asylum in its territory, a clear milestone in the difference between the country that today campaigns to support Ukrainians crossing its borders.
Other examples of the disparity in treatment between refugees from the Middle East and Africa and the warm welcome given to Ukrainians can be found in Slavic countries. While Denmark facilitates the arrival of immigrants from Ukraine, it asks Syrians to leave. And during the Syrian crisis in the past decade, many countries said they could not cope with so many immigrants in such a short time.
Human rights immigration and refugee analysts have taken a stand on the selectivity of countries when receiving immigrants. Racial and cultural criteria are elements that have never been acknowledged, as in the cases of Syria, North Africa, Afghanistan, and, to a certain extent, third world countries. The very legitimacy of these immigrants has always been questioned. Their intentions or the legitimacy of their claims have been viewed with suspicion, which is not the case with the current Ukrainian refugees. There is clearly discrimination in favor of white people, understood as Europeans, to the detriment of other non-white people from the third world.
It is possible that the cultural rapprochement between Ukraine and the rest of Europe will facilitate this support based on the idea that Ukraine is part of Europe. There is a question of identity. Ukrainians are considered Europeans, they are culturally close to several countries, especially the Baltic countries, and are part of a Slavic culture. They have historical and political ties with the rest of Europe and, as such, are part of what is considered greater Europe. This is what really influences the decision to come to the aid of the Ukrainian people.
Social conflicts arising from the refugee crisis
Therefore, we may be facing a crisis with no short-term solution in sight, as treating immigrants differently based on their ethnicity will inevitably lead to internal social conflicts.
The fact is that in countries that are more open to immigration, with serious integration policies, people become part of the population that inhabits a given place. They are included within the population that receives them, and this tends to generate many economic and social benefits, with greater availability of labor and tolerance for different cultures. In countries that isolate immigrants and place them in ghettos—as France has done with Africans—this tends to generate a melting pot of social tension. The original immigrants are more passive, given their recent memories of the horrors they have endured and their natural gratitude to the country that welcomed them. But their children, already born in the host country, usually have dual citizenship and, having not experienced the conflicts their parents experienced, are more demanding and assertive. This, combined with a policy of discrimination and non-integration, generates significant social conflicts, in addition to fueling fascist rhetoric of ethnic discrimination.
It is too early to predict what will happen in Europe with this new refugee crisis. Integrating all refugees into society, regardless of their origin, is the basic solution, but this integration seems to suffer from political restrictions—with the exception of Ukrainians—disguised as negative economic impacts. As Caplan says, immigration is a solution in search of a problem.
More about
History
