“Immigration is the international movement of people into adestination country of which they are not natives” by wiki immigration. Wikipedia ishowever looked on as not being a reliable source as anonymous people can editmuch of the information provided, therefore it is hard to establish what istrue or false. By exploring the positives and negatives of immigrationthis essay will enquire how immigration contributes the economy in differentcountries globally. In this case, negative refers to the decrease in economicgrowth due to migration, whereas positive refers to the employment of migrants,contributing to an increase in the economic growth.
Economic growth is anincrease in the capacity of an economy to produce goods and services, comparedfrom one period of time to another. On a global scale, the consequences for theeconomy due to immigration includes things such as immigrants depending on thestate. Conversely, immigrants show an increase in the labour force; they aremore likely to be of working age.
Some would argue that immigration benefitsthe consumers as immigrants tend to take on the lower paid jobs that manycitizens are not interested in. However, countless immigrants face languagebarriers and therefore are less likely to be accepted into a job, leading themto depend on government paid housing and money, especially if they are classedas illegal immigrants. It is argued that immigrationcontributes to the growth of the economy through paying more in taxes than theyreceive in benefits and other state assistance, since 2000 immigrants wereestimated to have contributed £1.34 for every £1 the government took out in theEU alone. Furthermore, outside of the EU, immigrants contribute £1.02 for every£1 received, therefore these contributions increase economic profits as manyimmigrants are giving more than they are receiving.
As the majority ofimmigrants are of the working-age, they are likely to be putting in more thanthey are receiving through the hard labour of low-paid work. The net fiscalimpact of immigration is the difference between taxes and other contributionsimmigrants make to public finances, and the cost of the benefits and publicservices they receive (there is no “correct” estimate of this). Studiessuggests the fiscal impact in the UK is relatively small, with it contributingto 1% of the countries Gross Domestic Products. Depending on how young, skilledand high-paid work the immigrants contribute to will mean that they produce apositive fiscal impact, whereas unemployed immigrants or those working in low-paidjobs produce the opposite howimmigrants affect public finances. Thissource claims that they don’t support any political party or campaign, they alsowork with the government to ensure that corrections can be made if needed. Therefore,this source is useful and reliable. Internationally,studies have been carried out resulting in the findings of the net fiscal beingbetter in the UK than many other countries. However, the positive fiscal impactof immigration was shown to be better in 10 countries than that of the UK,including; Switzerland, Belgium, Portugal and Spain.
In 2008, the University ofCambridge carried out a study which showed that the immigrant populationcontribution in 2003-4 would have been about +0.6 billion if the UK had beenbalancing their budget. On the contrary, ifimmigrants have family still living in their original country, they are likelyto send money over to them in the hope of giving them a better quality of life.Although this positively increases the flow of foreign currencies and theireconomy, it affects the host county negatively.
In America alone, according tothe country’s central bank, $27 billion in remittances was sent to Mexico,however Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto quoted “remittances are aninvaluable contribution to national development and indispensable for millionsof Mexican families.” A remittance is a transfer of money by a foreign workerto an individual in his or her home country. Money sent home by immigrantscompetes with international aid as one of the largest financial inflows todeveloping countries. On a global scale, remittances have grown from $296billion in 2007 to $445 billion in 2016, therefore Mexico is not the onlycountry relying on remittances, as countries such as Asia and Latin Americaalso receive money from the U.S.
immigrantsaround the world… Marketplace. The website this information was taken fromhas over 14.6 million listeners every week, meaning that this source may bereliable due to the large audience.
Money from wealthier European countries isusually sent to East and Central Europe and to Africa, which doesn’t come as ashock due to the average wage of wealthier countries will be able toaccommodate for this. Remittances, overall,enable migrant households to maintain stability in the face of social, economic,and environmental changes. They are an important factor in the global economy,and help drive growth both at home and abroad. It is important for thedeveloped world to provide guidance on the prudent use of those funds, and fordeveloping countries to develop policies that will ensure that growth isefficient and well planned. Increasing global migration patterns have asignificant impact on remittance flows.
The conference observed that because ofincreasing global migration caused by persistent income inequalities betweenorigin and destination countries, increasing immigration, other factors relatedto globalisation, remittances are expected to continue growing well into theforeseeable future. In contrast, many are of the opinionthat immigration is a burden on the growth of the economy due to theunemployment of immigrants, outside and inside of the EU there are 5,309,580number of claimants receiving benefits (by Telegraph, how much do immigrantsclaim? article). However, this article does state that this figure onlyincludes people who were non-UK nationals at the time, but they could now beclassified as a British citizen and it also excludes illegal immigrants. Themain reason presented for this substantial figure incorporates immigrants inlow-paid work ‘settling down’ and having children, which then leads to thembeing unable to afford the expenses of childcare and in the worst cases,necessities. Due to this, many immigrants are unwillingly forced to work alimited number of hours for low-paid labour. Welfare is undoubtedly animportant factor when it comes to jobs, as the withdrawal of the benefitsleaves individuals facing significant marginal effective tax rates, reducingthe incentive to take the work. This becomes even more of a problem when the systemis geared towards people finding full-time work (which is what the majority ofimmigrants cannot do due to childcare costs), making coming off and on benefitsmore difficult.
Due to this the governments have suggested that welfare reformwill encourage more national citizens to take up work on places such as farms,where immigrants are stereotyped to work in this sector. Numerous farmers statethat immigrants from developing countries such as; Romania and Bulgaria aremore flexible, more hardworking and more productive, because of theconsequences of the wage difference between their developing country and thenative country. Ababi Mircea, a Romanian worker who immigrated to the UK gaveevidence of the wage difference when he expressed that ‘the money I make herein one week I make in one month in Romania’ (presented by the BBC). Because ofthis, it is no wonder that immigrants do low-paid labour as to them it is worththe work they put in issues onlinewebsite. Furthermore, at the end of2010 2.1 million additional jobs were created, with 53% (1.1 million) of thembeing taken by non-UK born workers. For some immigrants, this would have beenbeneficial as this would have allowed them to make an earning and provide fortheir families, while also being able to contribute to taxes improving theeconomy.
Extensive academic evidence shows that immigration does not harmnative employment or wages, although there can be short-term negative effectsif there is a large inflow of immigrants to a small region, if immigrants areclose substitutes for native workers, or if the destination economy isexperiencing a downturn. A native worker means that two individuals do notcompete for the same type of job, for instance, immigrants may be lessproductive or educated than some share of the native workers, making them fitparticularly at some types of labour intensive jobs. Realising the benefits ofimmigration hinges on how well new arrivals are integrated into theirdestination country’s labour market and into society. Today immigrants tend toearn 20 to 30 percent less than native-born workers. But if countries narrowthat wage gap to just 5 to 10 percent by integrating immigrants moreeffectively across various aspects of education, housing, health, and communityengagement, they could generate an additional boost of $800 billion to $1trillion to worldwide economic output annually. This is a relativelyconservative goal, but it can nevertheless produce broader positive effects,including lower poverty rates and higher overall productivity in destinationeconomies the guardian, jobs and wages.
As well as this, one must considerthe financial pressure immigrants place upon the governments due to the globalhousing crisis. In 2012, the UK prime minister Theresa May claimed that morethan a third of new housing demand in Britain was caused by immigration. “Thereis evidence that without the demand caused by mass immigration, house pricescould be 10% lower over a 20-year period”, essentially this means that withoutimmigration there would be no need for more housing is immigration causing a UK housing crisis. This information was taken from an article produced byThe Guardian, as this is one of the UK’s most trusted newspapers it is likelyto be accurate and reliable.