There are currently 25.4 million refugees in the world; 6.3 million Syrians (UNHCR, 2018). Syrians fleeing the civil war often settle in refugee camps found in neighboring countries or, when desperate, cross the sea clandestinely to the shores of southern Europe on unsafe boats and at high prices. exorbitant prices. Refugees often drown during these journeys. It is undeniable that these people need support from more stable countries. However, the question remains how much impact immigration has on Europe, how much help we can afford to give to refugees, and what type of policy best serves us and those who need our help. help. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay This knowledge helps evaluate the policies implemented by European countries and suggest alternative courses of action. This article argues that the impact of refugees can be both positive and negative in different areas of society, but that beyond a certain number, the demand that refugees place on a country will put too much pressure on infrastructure and resources. Therefore, I argue that collaborative EU-wide policy could help countries sustainably support the greatest number of people and serve to minimize negative effects on individual nations. A common argument against immigration is that migrants “steal” jobs from local people. The claim states that an increased number of people leads to greater competition for jobs and as a result, local people find it difficult to find or maintain employment. However, refugees have been shown to lead to increased employment rates of the local population due to the creation of new jobs with NGOs (Alix-Garcia & Saah, 2010). Furthermore, refugees earn about 79% of what natives earn, showing that they generally do not reap the rewards of economic migration, as some claim. According to a British study, only 7% of refugees have university degrees, and only 34% of them were employed at the time the study was conducted. It is logical to conclude that only those in lower-skilled positions will experience greater competition in the job market – and that natives are more likely to be successful given the low employment rate of refugees. This is corroborated by the same study which shows a refugee employment rate of only 52% (Bloch, 2007). This indicates that natives are not likely to face much competition for employment, particularly those in highly skilled jobs, and it is even possible that the workforce will benefit from people willing to perform low-skilled manual labor that is less popular with the local privileged. people. However, this can only be true up to a certain point: there will be a limit to the number of people who can be successfully integrated into the labor market. Adding to the previous argument is the idea that refugees harm the economy because of their need for social benefits. While it is true that refugees generally need more welfare assistance than the general population, after the first year the percentage receiving benefits fell dramatically and continues to decline with each year that immigrants remain in their new country. This may be because integration is starting to succeed (Ruist, 2015). The Canadian government recognizesthe importance of successful immigrant integration to prevent society from dividing into factions, minimize conflict, and improve the quality of life for all people living in Canada. They recognize that material well-being is necessary to facilitate immigrants' involvement in society by enabling greater acceptance in society. Canada identifies financial stability as one of the factors necessary to create an inclusive atmosphere, therefore it prioritizes this in its legislation (Omidvar and Richmond, 2003). If a similar approach could be adopted in Europe, we would find that although initially more money would have to be devoted to the refugee crisis, society would become more cohesive and, later, refugees would probably need less. state support. Many people oppose immigration out of fear of an increase in violent crime by religious extremists or disadvantaged asylum seekers. A British study on the correlation between asylum seekers and crime rates, during two waves of immigration in the 1990s and 2000s, found that there was no significant relationship between the influx of asylum seekers and an increase in violent crime. On the other hand, a correlation has been found between an increasing number of refugees and an increase in property crimes (Bell, Fasani & Machin, 2013). This provides compelling evidence that right-wing anti-immigration organizations can build on, but criminologist Christian Pfeiffer opposes the idea that refugees should not be accepted out of fear of crime. He says that in most societies, the group most likely to commit crimes is young men. It is unfortunate that 37% of all refugees are men aged 14 to 30, but refugees are not simply people more prone to crime: the influx of young men only makes it seem that way. is the case (Gopalakrishnan, 2017). Although these statistics contribute to the idea that mass refugee immigration can be dangerous, it could be minimized by better integration services. For example, refugees themselves claim that language teaching would make it easier for people to find jobs; and therefore prevent them from turning to delinquency out of necessity (Bloch, 2007). Lack of opportunity and isolation from the sometimes unwelcoming local community can also be a contributing factor to crime, but this is something that can be changed. In recent years, support for right-wing political parties and ideas has increased significantly in Europe. Iceland rejected plans to apply for EU membership, the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, and far-right parties democratically gained influence in governments (Postelnicescu, 2016). According to Lesinska (2014), the position of Europe as a whole is changing due to a growing fear of terrorism. This fear manifests itself in a distrust of immigrants and people belonging to religions perceived as non-Western. The prevalence of anti-immigrant prejudice has been shown to correlate with the popularity of right-wing parties; who often adopt an anti-immigration approach (Lucassen & Lubbers, 2011). Perhaps one way to combat this growing rightward trend would be to educate young children about the importance of diversity and the plight of asylum seekers, alongside employing integration strategies in priority to avoid separation from society and encourage assimilation of refugees into the community; so that they canbe seen as creating a positive impact. Multiculturalism is a “socio-intellectual movement that promotes the value of diversity” (Fowers and Richardson, 1996, p. 609). Fowers and Richardson believe that if we only know one culture, we only understand a small part of society. They therefore argue that a multicultural society is more interesting and that people have more dignity, tolerance and rights. This shows that we can create a more multicultural society by accepting refugees into our states and that through their integration into European society, natives will be exposed to a different perspective that can encourage open-mindedness and empathy . However, some argue that social cohesion is a foundation of a secure society that relies on the existence of shared values ​​– which can be undermined by multiculturalism. Racial diversity is particularly attributed as a source of insecurity and increased distrust between members of a community (Letki, 2008). Although shared values ​​are important, it is possible to respect and learn about a different culture without abandoning the values ​​of your own culture. I would even argue that teaching our values ​​to refugees, for example by attending children in local schools, will help them better integrate into society. It is important to understand that refugees are not seeking to destroy Western culture, but to escape conflict (Baubock, 2002). German law states that anyone fleeing their home country as a political refugee must be granted asylum. It is based on the principle that no one should be persecuted because of their political beliefs or religion. In response to this open policy, around 10,000 people immigrated to Germany every day in 2015, most of whom were Syrian. This policy is well intentioned and explains that if the situation were reversed, Germans would expect to be able to leave Germany; this was the case for the German Jewish people during World War II (Law Library of Congress, 2016). However, utilities and infrastructure in Germany are struggling to meet the demand placed on them. For example, refugees integrated into German society need general health care. It is not known whether they will use hospital services more than the Germans, but it is clear that more people will go to hospital. The prevalence of mental health disorders, particularly among refugee minors, is a contributing factor to increased health care needs, and resources are available to help those experiencing difficulties (Gopffarth & Bauhoff, 2015). It is clear from this example that failing to limit the number of refugees a country is willing and able to host can have negative consequences. We must therefore find a balance between compassion and logistics. According to the UK government website (GOV. UK, 2015), the UK has promised to admit 20,000 refugees by 2020, alongside an unspecified number of unaccompanied minors currently living in refugee camps . This figure is shockingly low, equivalent to the same number of people settled in Germany in two days in 2015. However, the UK is keen to point out that it is the second largest financial contributor to the refugee camps around Syria ( Act Library of Congress, 2016). The UK has withdrawn from the EU's voluntary refugee programme, designed to encourage collaboration between European countries and distribute people in need of help more fairly across Europe. The UK defends its policy by arguing that it is morally wrong to encourage :.