From the book by Andrey Sokolov, "Economics and Human Rights"
"Economics and Human Rights" is a book about how the observance of human rights affects the economy.
Immigrants. State goldmine.
"If you look through the scope,
the children are like militants."
Migration policy is one of the most hypocritical policies of states that restrict the right of people, including citizens, to work, freedom of movement, and sometimes the right to life and health.
At the same time, immigrants in the "first generation" make up about 10% of the world's population. And immigration is going in completely different directions. Not only to North America, Europe or Australia, but also to Asia, South America and even Africa.
Unlike the chapters on weapons, drugs, or prostitution, this chapter focuses primarily on legal migration. About legal immigrants. About immigrants paying taxes and investing in the economy.
Why talk about what is already legal? The fact is that, despite the fact that economists are aware of the benefits of a soft and varied migration policy, lawmakers overwhelmingly see migrants as potential criminals. And although police data in any country can easily refute this argument, fear of strangers is very strong in lawmakers.
However, immigration policy is one of the few areas of the economy where the state can actually make money honestly. Money that it is not obliged to return to the taxpayer in the form of services.
The state is quite capable of earning on its own, less burdening its residents with taxes.
This does not require the efforts of legions of police officers, customs officers and other services, but only the responsible work of parliament.
It is real, it is in demand by people, it has already been tested experimentally. It only requires honesty from the authorities.
The modern migration policy began to take shape only 100 years ago.
Only after the First World War did states begin to restrict the entry of foreigners. Before that, for millennia, in almost all countries, the borders were quite transparent, and any foreigner could freely move from country to country, live in a new country for as long as he wanted, work, and create a business.
Millions of immigrants who crossed the Atlantic Ocean in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries did not create a surge in crime, did not destroy the country, but built the most powerful economy of the 20th century. And the United States is not the only example. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel are examples of successful countries created by immigrants.
The economically less successful countries of Central and South America, created by immigrants, nevertheless, are not inferior to many European and Asian countries with a long history of statehood.
However, a rather short human memory considers the current immigration policy to be an unshakable status quo. This leads to the sacralization of the concept of citizenship, the right to reside and, as a result, to a slowdown in economic growth and limitation of the possibilities of the economies of various states.
At the same time, it should be understood that the authorities again made a clever cheating substitution.
Immigration flows received legal restrictions after the First World War.
Legislative restrictions were introduced by governments, authorities.
The First World War was also started by governments and heads of state.
Not a single immigrant started neither the First World War nor the Second World War.
Thus, having violated the human right to life once, starting a war, states continue to violate the human right to life, work, freedom of movement, placing prohibitions and obstacles in the path of immigrants.
It is fair to say that this policy is consistent. The state consistently violates human rights.
Legislators have sacralized their countries.
Some parliamentary factions frighten ordinary people with terrorists, others with mafia, others with a different religious mentality, and others with competition for jobs.
It is easy to see that all of these arguments are based on one feeling - fear.
In order not to let immigrants into the country, and in pursuit of votes, lawmakers actively manipulate the simplest emotion - fear.
This is a very successful form of manipulation.
Legislators are playing dirty. This damages both citizens and the economy.
Therefore, it is necessary to work with "dirty" arguments and provide counter-arguments.
Let's start with the terrorists.
This is, in fact, the simplest, because there are not many terrorist attacks in reality. However, each attack is long and thoroughly discussed in the media, and the average person gets the impression that terrorists are everywhere. But in reality there are very few terrorists. Much less than thieves or robbers, drunk drivers or corrupt officials.
Terrorism inflicts the main harm to people and the economy by fear, and not by destruction of material wealth or murder.
If we look at the legal status of terrorists, it turns out that the overwhelming majority of terrorists are citizens of the country where they commit their terrorist act. In addition to this category, there are, of course, illegal immigrants. The percentage of terrorists among legal immigrants is minimal.
It is enough to recall all the high-profile cases of the use of weapons in the United States, the crime of the Norwegian citizen Breivik (in Norway), the IRA or the Basque terrorists.
A terrorist is definitely a criminal. But hardly anyone will decide to consider all Norwegian citizens criminals after Breivik's crime. Or all US citizens by terrorists, after mass shootings in several schools or a high-profile crime at the Las Vegas country festival in 2017.
However, for some reason, such a presumption of innocence does not apply to immigrants, and the migration services, together with legislators, see a terrorist in every immigrant.
And if not a terrorist, then a spy or saboteur.
Of course, there are aggressive countries in the world that threaten their neighbors. However, in these countries there are people who do not share the policy of the authorities. And it is these people in the overwhelming majority who want to leave their aggressive countries, exercising their right to life and health.
In the 20th century, many Germans left Nazi Germany, saving their lives and not wanting to have anything to do with Hitler's aggressive policies. Many immigrants from the USSR did the same.
It's ridiculous to see an immigrant from an aggressive country as a potential threat. It's like seeing Albert Einstein as a potential Nazi.
Another common myth about immigrants from the countries of the former USSR is called the "mafia".
After the collapse of the USSR, millions of former Soviet citizens left the former Soviet republics for many countries of the world. Only a few of them are related to the underworld.
Al Capone is a very famous mafioso. But it never occurs to anyone to consider all US citizen a member of a mafia group.
However, when it comes to immigrants who speak Russian, the consciousness of legislators instantly forgets about the presumption of innocence and considers all Russian-speaking "mafiosi".
The same is with Muslims. This is where the "terrorist" pattern works.
Of course, an immigrant is a bearer of a different mentality, a different culture, skills, experience and knowledge. And this “other” is the wealth and benefit of immigrants, since “this” has never existed in the country where he wants to move. That is, his mentality and culture can enrich the local culture, his knowledge, skills and experience will enrich the local science or business. And this is exactly what happened and is partly happening in the USA, Australia, Canada. And it is this kind of enrichment that has a beneficial effect on the economies of these countries.
However, lawmakers turn everything upside down and for some reason believe that it is not the local culture that will absorb something new from the immigrants, but, on the contrary, that the culture of a handful of immigrants will absorb the culture of the local people.
For some reason, the legislator believes that it is easier for an immigrant than for a local resident to get a job, to open a business.
That the immigrant will be a successful and strong competitor in the development of market niches and the struggle for vacant jobs.
Is it easier? Not knowing the language, or knowing it worse than the local ones, not knowing and not feeling the peculiarities of the mentality of buyers, the peculiarities of the market for goods and services of the new country.
Legislators are clearly in trouble with logic.
No immigrant can successfully compete with a local resident for a job or a business niche.
All successful projects carried out by immigrants were and are in areas that local businessmen were not involved in. Immigrants take only those jobs that local residents do not want to take for some reason. A rare exception is the super-high qualifications of an immigrant, but even then he occupies an empty place, since there were no people with similar knowledge and skills among the local residents.
The legislator only needs to think a little about who he himself would prefer to hire - a local resident or an immigrant. Whose business he will use more often - a local citizen, or a foreigner. And the conclusion will be obvious. But you need to think about it! It is much easier not to think and act according to a template that was born out of nowhere, which is as far from reality as the Earth is far from the nearest inhabited planet.
Nevertheless, realizing the necessity of immigrants for the economy, the states, under one pretext or another, “sell” the right to reside to foreigners.
However, this "sale" is almost always veiled in words that have nothing to do with trade. However, this does not change the essence. Immigrants create a demand for a good (or service) called “right of residence”. The state "sells" this service to them.
For there is not a single state that would give a foreigner gratis a residence permit or citizenship. There is always a monetary component in this "deal".
Relatively fair options for such a deal are the green card lottery (USA), granting residence permits to pensioners (Bulgaria) and a “financially independent person” (Greece, Cyprus, Spain, etc.). In this case, the state either directly exchanges the right of residence for money, or exchanges the right of residence for the future expenses of the immigrant in the country, thereby increasing domestic demand, which is beneficial for the economy.
Less honest is the granting of a residence permit in exchange for the purchase of stocks and bonds (investment residence permit), starting a business (business migration), buying real estate. The dishonesty of these methods lies in the fact that the subject of the transaction, which is the main one for the immigrant, is given by the state as a kind of “burden” to investments, business or real estate. As a result, the state has the opportunity to trick and change the rules of the "deal" at any time. After all, it changes the rules not for “living”, but only for business (changing the requirements, for example, in terms of the size of salaries specifically for immigrant businesses) or only in terms of the cost of real estate (and now the property already purchased earlier cannot serve as a basis for living), or by introducing an additional fee only for immigrant properties.
If we translate this into business language, it turns out that after a completed transaction, after the sale, the seller suddenly catches up with the buyer and, threatening with weapons or prison, demands to pay extra for the goods. Well, if only a part, for example 10%. But in some cases the "surcharge" is 300%.
There is no reason for the state to cheat on an immigrant. But if there is an opportunity for fraud, then for some reason the state always seeks to take advantage of it.
Prices for goods called "accommodation" are different in different countries.
The lowest prices for the "residence" product are in Georgia and some Asian countries, which allow an immigrant to reside and spend money on their territory permanently, without requiring any additional conditions.
The benefit of these countries is that they get themselves "regular tourists", increase domestic demand, and also increase the chances for the economy of the emergence of new businesses and start-ups.
The US green card lottery is, to some extent, a cheap sale of the right to live and work in the country. Sale, because each person spends officially about $ 1000 on getting a green card. However, this is not a completely open sale, because not everyone can get the goods.
In other countries, the cost of the right of residence is higher, because additional conditions and encumbrances arise.
Legally, this may look like an expatriate getting a job - an EU blue card, or as buying a residence permit, permanent residence and citizenship under the guise of starting a business, buying government securities, real estate, etc.
In the previous chapters, we all the time talked about the state revenues arising from the observance of human rights in the part that relates to taxes, i.e. income that the state should return to residents in the form of quality services.
Thus, speaking in the language of business, these incomes allow you to stay afloat, pay salaries, but this is "zero", without profit.
If, of course, the state works honestly.
In the case of immigrants, it is about creating cross-border income, i.e. about what roughly corresponds to the net profit in business.
If we talk about human rights, then any borders, any bans on movement are a violation of the human right to freedom of movement.
Any state that establishes any rules for entry or exit within its borders for its own or other residents is just a kind of prison. Big or small, comfortable or not, but a prison. For this is what imprisonment is called - restriction of freedom.
In the case of states, rights are more often restricted to "enter" than to exit. Which does not change the essence. After all, the globe is a common place for human life.
In other words, place of birth restrictions are discrimination.
At the same time, avoiding discrimination and violation of human rights, a soft immigration policy increases the amount of money in the country, as it is investment, microinvestment, macroinvestment, brain gain, creation of firms, jobs, taxes, and an increase in GDP.
In contrast, the presence of a time-limited visa or any other regime for entry and residence anywhere in the world of any person who has not committed a crime against other people is a violation of his right to freedom of movement.
But let's look at immigration from an economic point of view.
The easiest way to do this is by looking at the situation as a business model.
First, let's look at examples of country consolidation. So the United States is a union of independent states - each with its own laws, authorities and economy, and absolutely open borders inside. Those. the right to travel from country to country (from state to state) "within" the United States is respected.
The EU is an alliance of several countries with different authorities, mentalities, religions, languages, laws. And within this union, the right of citizens of these "internal" states to move is respected.
Thus, such a scheme is possible and safe. For if you compare, Lithuania and Germany are very different countries. Alaska and California are very different states, not to mention Hawaii and Texas.
Let's first estimate. Is the contribution of emigrants to the economies of the countries where they immigrated is great? Are there any risks to this business process. We agreed that this is just a business.
A business in which countries, allowing immigrants to reside on one basis or another, compete with each other.
This is global competition. The example of the United States, where 3 million people emigrate every year, and whose economy is the strongest in the world, largely thanks to immigrants, would suffice.
New York's chief auditor, Scott Stringer, cited his research to nydailynews.com, which shows that immigrants now make up 46% of the city's workforce and earn a total of $ 100 billion a year. Immigrants bring $ 8 billion to the city treasury only in the form of income tax, and there are other taxes and payments. In total, according to city officials, 3.3 million people live in New York. immigrants from 150 countries. This is 40% of the city's population.
The migration of people with money and brains is a business. State business.
Over the past 10 years, 33 million people (about 10% of the total US population) have received a residence permit in the United States. More than 25% of Israel's population are immigrants from the territories of the former USSR. At the same time, Israel, the United States and Australia are actually countries of immigrants. The indigenous population - is a clear minority. Almost every inhabitant of these countries has ancestors who once immigrated to these countries from other countries.
Many countries, competing for the hands, brains, money, knowledge and experience of immigrants, do this very successfully for their economies. Canada, Germany, Israel or Australia have good dividends from the influx of immigrants.
It is enough to compare the percentage of immigrants from the total population and the GDP of these countries per capita. So in Spain, immigrants make up 14% of the population, in Germany - 12%, in France - 11%, in Italy - 9%, in Australia - 27.7%, in Canada - 20.7%, in Austria - 15.7% , and, for example, in Lithuania - less than 1% and the state of the economy of this country is fundamentally different from that of the above. Just look at the indicators of GDP per capita.
In a country with a minimum number of immigrants, GDP per capita is also almost two times lower. Those. the state of the economy is far from perfect.
I would especially like to note that Lithuania is a country with a rather tough migration policy. Lithuania, from the point of view of an immigrant, is included only in the third dozen countries at the cost of "entry", at the cost of obtaining the right to permanent residence.
And, for example, Spain, Cyprus, Slovenia, Greece are in the top ten.
From the point of view of a migrant, of course.
While some countries are doing their best to protect themselves from immigrants, they are afraid of migrants, in Canada, since 2011, a program for accepting immigrants has been actively developing. As a result, the share of immigrants in Canada has now reached its highest level in a century.
2016 Canadian Census data show that 21.9% of Canadians are or have been immigrants. More than 60 percent of new immigrants to Canada come from Asia and the Middle East. 13.4% of all immigrants come from Africa to Canada.
And nothing happened. Canada has not drowned, has not fallen victim to terrorist attacks, has not become a criminal den.
If we compare the countries of “origin”, then most of all in Canada immigrants from the Philippines (15.6%), followed by India (12.1%) and China (10.6%). 3% of immigrants from the very prosperous USA come to Canada.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said at the 2017 Google Go North conference that “It is immigrants who provide Canada with annual economic growth, especially in the field of innovation ... Therefore, we strive to attract world-class professionals to our country and create conditions in which they can to achieve success".
It is important for the country not only to have a good “product” (climate, security, infrastructure), it is important that this product can be “bought”. Therefore, in order to successfully compete for an immigrant buyer, store-states need not only to keep the “competitive cost”, but also to “diversify the assortment”, i.e. expand and mitigate the grounds for an immigrant to obtain a residence permit.
Some countries have already begun to understand that the economy is governed not by the laws passed by parliament, but by the laws of the market, where the demand, supply and quality of goods decide everything. The result of this "understanding" was, for example, a two-fold reduction in the cost of obtaining citizenship of Antigua and Barbuda.
Migration is a business, a state business, as mentioned above. But if the state wants to sell a product, it needs to keep a competitive price. Realizing this, the state of Antigua and Barbuda, having started to trade the goods "citizenship" in 2013, already in 2017 halved the cost of the goods in comparison with its closest competitors.
It is important to understand that the flow of immigrants is not homogeneous and is divided into separate flows that make different contributions to the economy.
We list the main categories of immigrants:
Highly qualified specialists.
Rentiers who live off their savings.
Most lawmakers who pass migration laws have about the same concept of immigrants as Neanderthals about the structure of the earth. Therefore, this topic requires detailed explanations and descriptions.
The current conditions for obtaining a residence permit can be divided into several large groups.
These are people who, in the opinion of the labor exchange or other government agencies, the country's economy needs. This is often true, since in this case the authorities sometimes consult with the business.
What are the benefits of such migrants? They do not need to be taught, to spend time and money on it. They are already ready to create profit for the employer.
This is, of course, good.
However, most of these workers do not plan to integrate and stay for a long time in the country where they entered. They came to earn money. And they send part of their income to the country where they came from.
In essence, this type of immigration is the direct hiring of an employee. Only with the participation of the state and from another country.
Rentiers, freelancers, retirees, and others who can be categorized as “financially independent”.
They change the country for climatic, political or other reasons. They come with money or a source of income outside the country, do not plan to work or do business in the country of arrival. They come to spend money all year round in a given country, importing or constantly importing them from other countries. This category of immigrants is a net profit. They bring and spend in the country money that was not there. This money indirectly, in shops and services, turns into taxes and jobs for local residents and the budget. The country gets a permanent "tourist" spending money.
Such immigration rules exist in Spain, Greece, France and Cyprus. We can say that this is one of the most honest types of residence permits. Money on the one hand (the amount agreed in advance on the immigrant's bank account), permission on the other.
This group of immigrants has very little effect on the economy at the time of arrival and study. Students of paid departments bring profit to specific businesses (institutes teaching them). Students of free departments are an attempt by the authorities to create a "long-term investment." The fact is that you can apply for free only if the person knows the language of the country of study. And knowledge of the language is almost the integration of an immigrant. Further, by actively communicating with local residents, fellow students, teachers, integration is only intensifying. And after five years it ends up in marriage and starting a family or getting a job in the country of study, which adds a new educated taxpayer to the country, who will create great added value, pay a lot of taxes. Children from such marriages will have a beneficial effect on the genome of the country's population. Mentality features will enrich cultural life and add new perspectives on the challenges to be solved. The result of attracting such immigrants is their positive impact on the economy in the future for 10-50 years or more. Thus, the right of residence is “sold” for integration and future taxes. Germany, Austria, Poland, Slovenia, Greece are actively developing this program.
This type of immigration involves the opening and running of a business by an immigrant in the country where he wants to obtain the right to reside. Business migration is possible in different countries on different terms. From the requirement to run a certain business that the country needs, in the opinion of a handful of its officials, to the requirement of obligatory hiring of local citizens by employees. Also, as a rule, it is additionally indicated that investments in a business must be at least a certain amount, and a certain amount of tax payments must be paid monthly.
This type of residence permit can be called the most deceitful on the part of the permitting state. And the point here is not only that the rules of the game are constantly changing by the state, interfering with the essence of business by order of legislation, increasing the number of "obligatory" employees, then the amount of "obligatory" taxes or authorized capital. The fact is that the state, realizing perfectly well that the migrant came to obtain the right to live, begins to behave with him like any cardsharper, constantly manipulating the deck in its favor. What does this lead to? Either to the fact that the migrant begins to deceive in return, or to the fact that the migrant leaves for a "more profitable" country. Those. “Goes to competitors”.
Is a business migrant profitable for the country? Yes! What does a business migrant bring with him to the country? Knowledge, experience, ideas and money. First, money to create a business, money to pay taxes, because the state requires them to be paid immediately, without waiting for the business to earn at least a quarter of its strength. Secondly, money for living - this benefit is similar to the benefits of the "financially independent". At the same time, a business migrant is forced to integrate and "grow" into the country in much the same way as a migrant student. Three "benefits" in one immigrant.
What does the state do in response? Allows accommodation. Only. Without spending a cent.
However, it often happens that the government changes the rules of doing business for a business migrant who has invested for 5-10-15 years almost every year. For example, by order of legislation, suddenly, after a couple of years of business operation, the authorities may require the immigrant to hire several additional local citizens. Without fail, ignoring the existing business processes in the immigrant's company. And to hire with the payment of the salary established by the legislator. Those. if for all other participants and businesses in the country the salary will be based on the income of the business, and hiring is not regulated by the state, then for the immigrant's business the salaries and the number of employees are set and changed when pleases the legislator who does not understand anything about the market and in business.
It is very difficult to call such a relationship honest.
If an immigrant plans to build a factory, a cafe, a hotel, a laboratory, a farm, then before he hires the first employee, he will order a third-party company to develop a project, will order construction ... These processes can take a year. Or maybe two. And the law often requires the immediate hiring of several workers. Which country will the immigrant choose? Where are the requirements for compulsory hiring of local citizens? Where does business have more freedom and where is less? Which country's economy will benefit and receive the immigrant's money? And later, jobs, if the business is successful?
If an immigrant has conceived a small business: a dental office, an ice cream stand, a guest house, an IT startup, an architecture bureau, a design firm, etc., then he may never need local workers. At the same time, his business will benefit people and the economy, and bring taxes. Which country will this immigrant choose for his money, ideas, business?
The state, represented by parliamentary deputies or the president, cannot know what specific business is needed for residents of a village, a small town, or a microdistrict. But a businessman can see this and create a small and useful business. Up to metal repair or shoe repair. People need it! And it doesn't require hiring local workers.
A reasonable state is obliged to delegate the right to issue residence permits to local authorities, city halls, village governments. It is for them, these people, to live side by side with the immigrant. It is up to them to decide whether such an immigrant with such a business is needed in their settlement or not. In doing so, any burdensome restrictions should be removed.
The business of an immigrant should not be bound by any additional obligations besides those that involve the businesses of local residents. If, of course, the state is interested in economic growth and the comfort of the country's residents.
The legislator never knows the real needs of a small, or even a big city. The city may need a janitor, but the legislator did not provide in the law for the possibility for immigrant janitors to obtain a work permit. And the city is overgrown with dirt or has to pay exorbitant prices to cleaning companies. Pay taxpayer's money .
It would be much more reasonable if the mayor's office had the right to invite and hire immigrants, or order immigrants a certain amount of work without hiring, as well as issue residence permits to immigrants who create micro-businesses that are useful for residents. After all, not a single parliament knows what is needed in a particular city. And the local government knows.
It depends on the law - whether the immigrant will pay taxes, spend money in this country or choose another country, and maybe leave the already chosen one if completely unnecessary and not logical burdens are imposed on him.
Lithuania is an example of an economically unjustified immigration policy. In 2015-2016, after the introduction of a new mandatory requirement for business migrants to hire three local workers, 80% of immigrants who had legal businesses in Lithuania left Lithuania. They closed their firms, laid off workers, took deposits from banks, stopped spending money in stores, sold their real estate and left for other countries, including Slovenia, Poland, Spain, Greece and even Great Britain, where conditions for them were more beneficial. The cumulative damage caused by this exodus of business migrants from the country, or rather the law that forced immigrants to leave the country, amounted to more than $ 1 billion in two years. Which is approximately equal to 2% of Lithuania's GDP.
The country lost 2% of its GDP just because of the stupid, from the point of view of the economy, law! For the state, this is a direct equivalent to the business concept of “losses”.
And what is even worse - knowing from the constant tightening of migration legislation in Lithuania, a potential business migrant now does not even consider Lithuania as a country for immigration, but is looking for a state with softer and more stable legislation. This means that Lithuania no longer receives additional microinvestments every year, business migrants do not participate in the development of the country's economy, their money works in the competing countries of Lithuania. Translated into business language, this means “lost profits”. And as you can see, this benefit accounts for a significant share of GDP.
It is important to understand that any immigrant, and even more so a business migrant, plans his business not for a year, but at least for 5-10-15 years. A drastic tightening of the rules leads to distrust, both of investors who have already arrived and potential ones. The business stops or minimizes investments and starts looking for an “alternate airfield”. And since he does not know what to expect from the authorities, he expects the worst. And he leaves.
The absurdity of such changes in legislation can be illustrated by an everyday example.
The state provides the immigrant with a good (or service) called "accommodation". Likewise, the taxi driver provides the client with a service called "travel".
And so the client gets into a taxi, and the taxi driver demands payment before the trip. The client is surprised, but pays. Having passed a third of the way, the taxi driver, suddenly, begins to demand additional payments. The client is annoyed but pays.
Then, after driving a little more, the taxi driver suddenly begins to demand triple the fare, in addition to the money already received.
The client is furious. And this taxi leaves, since there are still several dozen other cars on the street.
Of course, this client will not forget to tell all his friends and acquaintances about this strange taxi driver. Will publish posts on social networks, write to newspapers. And all potential customers who stop using the services of this taxi driver will know about the quality of the taxi driver's service.
Was this taxi driver's behavior reasonable?
Are the laws of the state, like this taxi driver, reasonable?
This category of immigrants obtains the right to residency or even to citizenship, subject to investment of significant amounts - from hundreds of thousands of dollars to a million in real estate or securities of the state that gives the residence permit. There is such a program in Latvia, the Caribbean and Oceania, as well as Malta.
This type of relationship can be called conditionally honest, albeit prohibitively expensive. Honesty is conditional here for the reason that, hiding behind the concept of investment, the state simply takes money under the mythical chances of returning it. It would be more honest to hang up the price for residency or citizenship. Paid - received. Without any investment myths.
In any case, since we are talking about business schemes, albeit within the interstate framework, the whole point is in the price and in what can be bought for this price.
This is a separate category that rather requires the state to spend. Especially at the beginning. But some economists believe that this category of migrants is also beneficial for the state, influencing, to some extent, an increase in domestic demand in the lowest, basic price category.
In some countries, they are afraid of both refugees and any other immigrants. Others believe that differences are a plus and that different cultures, mentalities, religions, knowledge are good for the economy.
In any case, approaches to migrants differ from country to country. Somewhere they are afraid of carriers of other cultures, religions and mentality, and somewhere, for example, in the USA, Canada, Australia, they receive additional benefits from this.
In some countries there is no obligation to hire citizens of those countries to work in business of an immigrant . These countries do not meddle in business of an immigrant.
No obligation to hire citizens of those countries to work in business of an immigrant are not imposed by the laws of the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Poland, Germany. But the laws of Bulgaria and Lithuania and some Balkan countries are imposed. This does not benefit the economy, but the deputies "took care" of jobs for voters. On paper, in the law, these places appeared. In reality, no, as a business migrant simply chose another country to start a business.
In some countries, for example in France, the legislator introduces compulsory hiring of workers to “protect” small local businesses. With the aim of immigrants to create only large businesses in order to reduce the competitive pressure on local small businesses. However, in this case, the efficiency for the economy of these "protected" businesses immediately decreases, the opportunity and attractiveness for investments decreases, because competition is artificially restrained.
According to Milton Friedman, such restrictions can be seen as discrimination that harms not so much immigrants, immigrants will find a different niche or country, as the country's economy. After all, if, according to the established status quo, a certain service is provided in another city, for example, shoe repair, then it is unprofitable for an immigrant who is obliged to hire workers to open a shoe repair service in a small town. Who will suffer from this? The immigrant will leave for another country, and the residents of the city in the country where the law discriminates against the immigrant, obliging him to fulfill more requirements and pay more money to the budget than residents of this country will remain without shoe repair. It doesn't matter what additional conditions are. Whether it's the mandatory number of employees, the mandatory hiring of a local resident as a director, mandatory salary requirements that exceed the salary requirements for local businesses. All this, any additional requirements damage the economy of the host country. The immigrant is much more mobile than the state.
In addition to the above conditions and prices for the "accommodation" product, it is worth mentioning "accommodation for real estate". This rule exists for 2017 in Montenegro and Serbia, where in order to obtain a residence permit it is enough to buy an apartment or a summer house, which is a very soft financial requirement for obtaining a residence permit. The purchase price is in the range of thousands or tens of thousands of euros.
There are countries where a similar service is much more expensive. In Latvia, for example, to obtain the right of residence, you need to buy real estate for 250 thousand euros, in Spain - for 500 thousand. At the same time, you need to understand that in the case of Spain, and even more so with Latvia, such conditions are very cunning, because buying real estate for this money , Of course you can. But it will never be possible to sell it for the same money, because the demand for real estate, for example, in Latvia is very low. Something similar is now starting to happen in Montenegro, but there is at least no lower limit for the value of real estate there, which reduces the investor's risks.
Thus, in different countries-stores there are products of the category "permanent residence" of different quality and price. The task of legislators is to make the conditions of their store country the most competitive. If, of course, they are interested in the economic prosperity of the state.
The Georgian authorities in this regard are in the most liberal position. For citizens of Russia, as well as for citizens of some other countries, the rules of permanent residence in Georgia are as soft as possible - you can live there without any conditions for 365 days, i.e. year. Then go to a neighboring country for a couple of days or hours, return and live for another year. Just live like a tourist or start a business. The state does not interfere in this. Does not “shake” over his sacredness and does not discriminate against immigrants either in residence or in business. And this is despite the military conflict of 2008 and other disagreements between Russia and Georgia.
For some reason, in contrast to the politicians of countries in much safer conditions, the Georgian authorities have managed to separate the concept of an immigrant from Russia from the concept of "Russian authorities".
Perhaps the Georgian authorities, unlike, for example, their European colleagues, understand that immigration policy is one of the opportunities for the country:
Increase GDP by increasing the number of inhabitants and domestic demand.
Get an additional export component - migrants bring money into the country that was not available in the country before.
Get additional intellectual potential for free.
By increasing domestic demand, increase the number of taxes, ie. increase budget revenues.
Increase the capitalization of the banking sector at the expense of migrants' deposits.
Revitalize the home sales and construction market, consumer goods markets.
To create completely new markets, goods, technologies, thus giving the economy new advantages, markets, professions, the appearance of which could not have been predicted by any ministry of economy and labor exchange.
Why are immigrants needed, what can they give to this or that country?
It is necessary to understand that any immigrant creates additional income for the budget.
Every immigrant brings money with him and buys bread, milk, meat, fruits, etc. everyday. From these purchases, the store transfers taxes to the budget and receives additional profit itself, which it can invest. The store transfers the tax to the budget, but the buyer creates this tax. If the buyer does not buy milk, the store will not transfer the tax to the budget. The bakery will not hire the baker, the owner will earn less and will not invest.
Every immigrant makes many small purchases. In addition, immigrants spend money on gifts for the holidays, toys for their children, phones, computers, refrigerators (after all, they do not bring them with them). They spend on a car, a car service, an apartment and its repairs, furniture, they pay for heating, gas, electricity, etc.
Therefore, the money brought with him by an immigrant is an additional “export” line of receipts to the economy and budget. And this money can turn into an increase in teachers' salaries, the construction of roads, kindergartens, etc.
Immigrants bring their capital and put it in local, national banks, thereby increasing the stability and capitalization of the banking system.
Immigrants buy real estate, furniture, appliances, clothing, food, pay for utilities and thereby stimulate demand and help local businesses.
Maybe immigrants buy fewer indigenous people? Maybe they brought their furniture and stuff here? Of course not. All this is purchased locally.
Maybe immigrants have vegetable gardens and orchards in the new country, and they eat their own potatoes and apples without spending money in stores? Of course no. So the costs of immigrants and their contribution to the economy in monetary terms for several years is slightly higher than that of an ordinary resident.
If we simplify the scheme as much as possible, then the relationship between an immigrant and a new state can be represented as a relationship between a buyer (immigrant) and a seller (state).
There are millions of people in the world who are ready to immigrate from their country. These are potential buyers. And several hundred states (shops) that are ready to sell the goods to the buyer - the right to live on their territory.
Thus, the circuit is very simple. There are goods of different quality and different prices, but belonging to the same product group (like cars, for example, or apartments) - the right of residence. There are buyers with different wallets and different preferences.
There are stores that are known to be able to cheat, outwit, weigh, slip out expired goods. These are countries where immigration legislation changes frequently and always to the disadvantage of the buyer. (Bulgaria, Lithuania for business migrants, Latvia for investors.)
There are countries where some of the goods are distributed very cheaply, but not to everyone (US green card).
There are countries that sell very expensive goods (Malta, the Caribbean).
There are countries selling cheap and quality goods (Georgia, some Asian countries).
There are countries selling goods of comparatively the same value and comparatively the same quality (Spain, Greece, France).
There are countries selling goods of not very high quality at a rather high cost (Bulgaria, excluding the so-called retirement migration).
There are countries that only allow special buyers (Czech Republic, Australia, Estonia).
There are countries constantly striving to expand the range of goods (Germany, Canada).
Thus, the buyer has a fairly wide choice of where to carry their hard earned money. And there is quite tough competition between the countries.
That is why additional encumbrances turn not so much against the immigrant as against the country's economy, because the immigrant simply leaves for another store.
That is why state intervention, for example, in the business of an immigrant is tantamount to the exclusion of this category of immigrants from the economy.
Let us return to the consideration of this issue using the example of the requirement for the mandatory hiring of local workers. Why are they unnatural to the very principle of business? Any business.
A business migrant relies, first of all, on his own head, hands, skills, on the brought funds, and not on the fact that he will quickly navigate the labor market, find a business niche and good employees.
If a business needs an employee or workers, then the owner will find and hire them himself.
At the same time, if there is no amount of work, then hiring them will contradict all the laws of economics, and just common sense. This will force businesses to either "cheat" or shut down and leave the country. Or not come at all, preferring a different "store".
Thus, the requirements of compulsory employment do not solve the problem of real unemployment and the "black" labor market, as well as tax deductions, with which legislators justify their economic illiteracy and legislative initiative.
This does not stop crime, terrorism, or sabotage. There are many ways to legally end up in a country and harm it without having the right to reside. And these issues should be dealt with by the police and special services, not by legislators, without interfering with business and the economy.
The basis of a country's security is a strong economy, not the number of fences, bans and barriers. Immigrant money strengthens the economy.
Every immigrant is a micro-investor. One immigrant creates investments for tens or hundreds of thousands of euros. But a few thousand immigrants is a multi-million dollar investment.
However, not only immigrant money is important for a new country. The energy, knowledge and experience of migrants sometimes bring much more benefit than the capital they have imported.
Here are just a few examples of what immigrants gave to the world after moving to a new country.
Igor Sikorsky is a qualified specialist who came to the United States after the October 1917 disaster from the Russian Empire. He borrowed money for the creation of a company (startup) from Sergei Rachmaninov, also an immigrant, also from Russia, a pianist and composer, i.e. in modern language - a freelancer. Sikorsky actually created the helicopter industry in the United States.
Sergey Brin - taken away by his parents from the USSR in 1979. Created the Google company.
Jan Kum. He left Ukraine for the United States at the age of 16. Created WhatsApp.
Vladimir Zvorykin - left Russia after 1917. Created a cathode-ray tube, which made it possible to make the first television. This led to the emergence of new groups of goods (televisions, monitors), new professions, a new industry - television.
Maxim Faktorov left the USSR in 1930. Created Max Factor (women's cosmetics) in the USA.
The Voronov brothers, the founders of the Warner Brothers film studio, are refugees from Belarus.
Nathan Schwartz - came to the USA from Odessa, where he was born into a family of poor shoemakers in 1902. In 1965, he came up with a new unique technology for the production of footwear. As a result, his Timberland footwear is waterproof.
Ralph Lauren - the creator of the Polo brand Ralph Lauren - the son of a Soviet emigrant from Belarus.
Steve Wozniak. The closest associate of Jobs, co-founder of Apple, the son of emigrants from the USSR. Single-handedly created the first Apple computers.
Lazar Meir and Shmuel Goldfish set up Metro Goldwyn Mayer In the USA, Lazar Meir, born in Minsk, changed his name to Louis Bart Meier, and Shmuel Goldfish, born in Poland, became Samuel Goldwyn.
Alexander Ponyatov, creator of the VCR, was born in 1892 in the Kazan province of the Russian Empire. In the late 1920s he emigrated to the United States. In 1956, his company Ampex launched the first commercial video recorder on the market. So the immigrant created a new class of goods and a new industry.
Pavel Durov - left Russia in 2014. Created the Telegram messenger.
George Soros - emigrated from Soviet Hungary to the United States at the age of 17. Made a successful career as a financier, organized the Open Society charity foundation. At the end of 2017, this fund is the largest in the United States, second only to the Gates fund. The Foundation finances educational and scientific programs, supports libraries in 25 countries of the world. The Soros Foundation has spent more than $ 1 billion on supporting scientists in Russia and on the creation of 33 university Internet centers.
Albert Einstein, by the way, also immigrated to the United States. I think the reader knows what this brilliant scientist and Nobel laureate is known for.
In modern terms, almost everything listed above is startups. Almost everyone, except for Durov, at the time of immigration, owned a minimum capital and relied only on their head and hands.
And all of these businesses were brand new. None of these people could get a “blue card” - to come to the country as a “specialist” at the request of the labor exchange. Could not prove "financial independence", buy expensive real estate or make large investments, would not be able to meet the requirements for business migrants. They did not hire someone, but independently developed their projects. The importance and benefits of their projects could not have been foreseen by any government agency.
It was impossible to predict the emergence of TV, helicopter, VCR, Google and many other things listed above, including new professions that were already born thanks to these projects.
Almost all of these people were not "stars", did not have large funds at the time of emigration or at the beginning of the project. And everyone became “stars”, thanks to work, knowledge, talents and the fact that the state was separated from business, did not interfere in the internal processes of companies, did not impose workers or other rules of the game that contradict the logic of business. And just allowed to come and live.
It is important to understand that the most daring, energetic, and intelligent are always leaving. Those who leave are those who have a goal and a very serious motivation to “give up everything” and leave.
It is the energy, knowledge and skills of emigrants that the economy needs.
The country that can collect the energy and brains of immigrants will receive good dividends.
Immigrants are like a salad dressing. It's edible without them, but tastier with them. The state in this salad performs the function of mayonnaise or vegetable oil, tying all the ingredients together.
Let's now look at the situation from the other side. Are there many goods on the shelves of the state seller? Few. As mentioned above, in addition to visas and residence rights, these are other not very diverse transit and cross-border payments.
Where does the state get money from?
From taxes, i.e. fees from residents and businesses. But for taxes, the state owes services to residents. For example, protection, development of infrastructure, development of compromises (laws), etc.
Customs duties, duties on the flight of aircraft, port and other cross-border dues. It is important to remember that customs duties on goods usually have a negative impact on economic growth, although they bring money to the budget.
Visas. Sale of the right to visit the country by a foreigner for any period.
Let us dwell on this third point.
The right to movement is a human right.
The state can use the sale of visas, residence permits and even citizenship to fill the budget and develop the economy.
Let's imagine the state as a store.
It contains a list of products.
Consider these goods (the term means the right to legally stay in the country)
Visa for less than a year = X coins.
Visa for a year = Y coins.
Residence permit with the right to be employed for a year = Z coins.
Residence permit for 5 years = N coins.
Citizenship = M coins.
What aspects of economic policy are there?
Establishing prices that are adequate to global trends, beneficial for the buyer and for the seller, competitive in relation to other countries.
The problem of the sacredness of border crossing and residence. A contrived problem. There are many states within the EU, but the movement of EU residents through them is devoid of any sacredness. So why make a fetish out of this, regarding third-country nationals, to the detriment of your own economy.
Security problem. This has already been decided. Visas are not given to everyone; not everyone is allowed to enter the border. This is not an economic problem. This is a quality problem for the security services.
The closure of borders, the introduction of passports and visas after the First World War did not make the world a safer place.
The Second World War took place in full compliance with the visa regime and other border restrictions.
Security neither in the world nor in Europe has increased since the restriction of people's freedom of movement.
Terrorism perfectly ignores visa, passport and other cross-border restrictions. Moreover, terrorism only intensified and grew to an unprecedented scale after countries fetishized their borders and territories, closed them to immigrants.
It was not immigrants who violated the world's security, but politicians.
However, the fantasies and logic of the legislators are truly out of this world.
If a person and his residence in the country does not pose a threat for the 30 or 90 days for which he receives a visa, then why does he begin to pose a threat on the 91st or 95th or 270th? Why, then, it is impossible to give a tourist visa without the right to work for 365 days, for 5 years, for 10 years? What is the economic rationale behind the compulsory departure from the country for several months or days?
Why is it possible to live 365 days on a D visa, and only 90 + 90 days on a C visa with mandatory departures?
4. The problem of political influence - citizenship is the right to choose and be elected. This is also a contrived problem - having money or authority, you can influence thousands and millions of voters without citizenship and even without living in the country and without having direct contact with voters.
5. The problem of prohibiting dual citizenship, multi-citizenship - giving citizenship sacredness without any logical justification. Citizenship is a commodity that can bring income to the state. A citizen is not a slave.
If the state wants to make money, then it needs to sell the existing goods - visas, residence permits, permanent residence, citizenship, other types of permits at prices lower than those of competitors (taking into account, of course, location, brand, etc.). And not only what to sell. The product needs to be advertised, and actively.
What will the state get as a seller:
Immediately - money for the budget.
Microinvestor. When an immigrant buys real estate, starts a business, buys household items.
Tourist. Who will spend money in the country, creating a turnover for small and large businesses, indirectly increasing the amount of taxes paid.
Resident, i.e. a permanent buyer, which will increase GDP and the amount of budget revenues.
Possibly a new taxpayer if the immigrant starts a business or gets a job.
It should be understood that at the moment, almost all options for a residence permit, permanent residence are surrogate sales of the right to reside, covered with various pieces of paper, like a fig leaf at Greek statues. Countries sell exactly the right to reside, but for some reason they are afraid to admit it to themselves.
At the same time, the passports of European countries such as Romania, Greece, etc. are on the black market. cost between $ 1,500 and $ 10,000.
How much does this sacredness of citizenship cost to the budget, this fig leaf of surrogate right to residence, accompanied by an annual analysis of kilograms of certificates and other papers? And how much more economical it will be to use one receipt once, one check to pay for an honestly designated product (service).
Pay receipt, do application, photograph, give fingerprints. And that's all.
Further, ordinary life, which is regulated by the police.
Why doesn't the state put on the shelf another simple and understandable product - the right to reside. At the same time, making the product profitable for the buyer, giving it a decent presentation, which is made up of the climate, economic and political state of the country, the consistency and stability of laws, respect for the buyer.
This will not only ensure a person's right to travel, but will also benefit the seller, having a beneficial effect on the country's economy.
We are talking about the legalization of the sale of a residence permit, permanent residence, citizenship.
Those. direct and fair sale.
“If you want to live, this is our product. We trade them. If all at once, then it costs so much. If in installments - so and so. "
Honestly, transparently, understandably and requires minimal budgetary expenditures for the migration service.
If the state is afraid to give new residents the right to vote, then this is legally solved simply. Either through the status of “non-citizens”, as in Latvia, or through the “green card” as in the USA, or as “the right to indefinite residence”, some analogue of “permanent residence”, the legal status common in the EU; or even as a "perpetual visa," some semblance of an Australian five-year immigration visa.
It is important to remember that the right to live often means the right to life and health for an immigrant. And this is true not only for refugees. The same Sikorsky could easily have perished in the Stalinist Gulag if he had not immigrated.
Now in the world there are also quite a large number of countries with political regimes that threaten the lives of their inhabitants.
A similar role of life and health insurance is fulfilled by the right to several residence permits, dual citizenship. For the actions of the authorities for many decades to come are not always predictable. And in the 20th century, there was too much evidence.
In addition, one can recall such supranational institutions as the UN or the EU. Why don't these organizations supplement their budgets by selling people UN or EU passports. The historical analogue - Nansen passports - exists, and has proven its safety.
This is how it was.
The document was developed in 1922 by the Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen, the League of Nations Commissioner for Refugees. First, it was issued to Russians who fled from the Soviet regime after the disaster in October 1917, and then to other refugees who could not get a regular passport of any country.
Nansen passports began to be issued by the decision of the Geneva Conference. Persons with a Nansen passport enjoyed the right to travel in the countries participating in the conference. The passport was an international document and proved the identity of the holder. By 1942, this passport was recognized by the governments of 52 states.
In 1924, by the decision of the League of Nations, approximately 320,000 Armenians who escaped the genocide of 1915 received Nansen passports. In total, about 450,000 Nansen passports were issued to help people who left their countries find shelter in other states. This document became a precondition for the Refugee Travel Document ratified by the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
Instead of coats of arms, 5-franc stamps with the image of Nansen were pasted on Nansen passports. From the funds collected for the stamps, a fund was formed that was used to facilitate the resettlement and accommodation of refugees, including in South America. The fund was administered by a special body composed of a representative of the Council of the League of Nations and a representative of the Governing Body of the International Labor Office.
For his humanistic work, Fridtjof Nansen received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1922. And Nansen's International Refugee Office won the Nobel Prize for efforts to distribute Nansen's passport in 1938.
Among those who received such a passport were journalist Vladimir Zhabotinsky, writer Vladimir Nabokov, ballerina Anna Pavlova, composer Sergei Rachmaninov and composer Igor Stravinsky, artist Zinaida Serebryakova, writer Ivan Bunin, who even received the Nobel Prize in Literature with this document in his hands ... Anastasia Aleksandrovna Shirinskaya-Manstein, an elder of the Russian community in Tunisia, lived with a Nansen passport for 70 years.
Is it really necessary to wait for some kind of catastrophe to start issuing international passports? Which, by the way, do not allow voting, getting elected, holding public office.
If the authorities are afraid of non-integrated residents, disloyal voters, then why not sell the UN passport or the EU passport, thus funding these organizations?
An EU or UN passport, a second passport (second citizenship), a green card, residence permit or other document that gives the right to permanently reside outside the country of first citizenship, will thus ensure the immigrant's right to life, health, work and at the same time replenish the budget of the country or organization, which issued the document.
A person will definitely become a person of the future at the moment when he begins to choose a state for himself, and not a state to decide what to do with this subject.
It is important to note that any relaxation of migration policy will not lead to a sharp influx of immigrants. Only catastrophes such as wars lead to the appearance of thousands of immigrants in the form of refugees. The usual flow of immigrants for each individual country is not so great and amounts to thousands of law-abiding, motivated, accumulated and educated immigrants.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has conducted full-scale research on immigration and dispelled a number of myths sitting in the heads of politicians and ordinary people.
So, according to this study, immigrants in some countries, including Canada and Australia, meet the needs of the labor market, are performing a number of demographic changes. They partly offset low fertility rates, an aging population and a shrinking workforce.
The study Immigration, Entrepreneurship and Employment in Canada concludes that "the proportion of private business and self-employment is higher among immigrants than among Canadians."
The study proves that immigrants who come to Canada are more likely to start a business, a key component of economic growth.
According to the OECD:
Over the past ten years, migrants have increased the available labor force by 47% in the United States and 70% in Europe.
Migrants fill important niches in both fast-growing and stagnant sectors of the economy.
Migrants make the labor market more flexible, especially in Europe.
Migrants contribute more money to the budget in the form of taxes and social contributions than they receive in the form of benefits.
Employment is the largest determinant of the financial contribution of migrants.
Migration increases the working-age population.
Migrants arrive with pre-existing skills and contribute to the development of human capital in host countries.
Migrants also contribute to technological progress.
For many countries facing aging populations, immigrants are becoming an increasingly important tool in filling the emerging vacancies.
Immigrants are more active than the average person simply because they have already taken the initiative - they have emigrated.
Since 2000, immigrants have accounted for 31% of the growth in the highly educated workforce in Canada, 21% in the United States, and 14% in Europe.
Immigrants also contribute to economic development. New immigrants are employed in professions that are growing rapidly in demand, including healthcare, science, technology, engineering and mathematics (22% in the United States and 15% in Europe).
According to the 2013 study “The Economic Impact of Immigration in OECD Countries”, immigrants in Switzerland and Luxembourg generate net income of 2% of GDP.
Migrants place less pressure on the country's budget than citizens of that country. Those. they are more profitable for the budget than their own citizens. This is because the taxes and social contributions paid by immigrants are greater than they receive in the form of benefits, if any. Even uneducated immigrants, laborers, pay more taxes than the benefits they receive. Efforts to integrate immigrants should be seen not as a price to pay for a person, but as an investment in a person who can benefit the country.
Immigration is increasing the population, shifting the age balance towards younger ones. This leads to a reduction in the percentage of retirees in the host country.
The study "Specialized Immigrants' Contribution to Innovation and
Entrepreneurship in the United States" proves that immigrants make a huge
contribution to scientific research, because they come with the skills,
education and abilities they already have.
Immigrants are becoming a powerful engine of growth for the German economy, according to the German Bertelsmann Foundation. Moreover, foreign citizens contribute to the FRG GDP not only as a cheap and unskilled labor force. They are actively creating new businesses and jobs.
According to Bertelsmann, in 2014. in Germany, there were about 709 thousand immigrant entrepreneurs who created about 1.3 million jobs. Even then, one in 20 people working in the country got a job thanks to immigrants. The total number of immigrants employed in business has grown since 2005. to 2014 from 1.5 million to 2 million. And the share of vacancies created by them increased during this period from 4.1% to 5% of the total number of jobs in the country.
According to the expert in the field of migration law Bakhrom Ismailov, “migrants cannot apply for most of the jobs occupied by the citizens of the country, due to the fact that they have a lower level of knowledge of the German language, the difference in education and qualifications. All that remains for them is to create some small business entities ... "
In Russia, according to the Moscow authorities, the volume of income tax on personal income to the capital's budget from labor immigrants in the first half of 2016 amounted to 6.8 billion rubles.
In total, there are about 2 million law-abiding immigrants in Russia, working in all spheres of the economy, from housing and communal services to scientific institutes. Each migrant brings to the country's budget on average about 50 thousand rubles a year. The contribution of immigrants to Russia's GDP, according to Interfax, citing data from the Federal Migration Service, is at least $ 50 billion a year.
The contribution of immigrants to Russian GDP in 2007 exceeded 3.8%. Most of all in Russia this year there were workers from China. There were 210 thousand of them. The number of labor migrants from Ukraine was 120 thousand people.
Even refugees can benefit the economy. According to Bloomberg experts, the expected "infusion" into the German economy from the influx of Syrian refugees will be about 800 thousand euros, which can add 0.2 percentage points to the annual GDP growth. And the IMF predicts that for the same reason, Germany's nominal GDP will receive an additional 6 billion dollars.
“The public sector requires more goods and services to deal with the influx of refugees, and the refugees themselves stimulate private demand as they spend money in Germany,” says Stefan Kipar, an economist at the Bavarian Land Bank in Munich. on the economy is comparable to the economic program to stimulate the economy in the short term. "
Anna Bodrova, senior analyst at Alpari Limited, believes that immigrants are replacing jobs in areas that do not require special training and stimulate consumer demand for basic goods and services. This is important for the formation of the economic chain - the demand for basic goods contributes to the development of supply in higher segments.
At the same time, it is important that the reception of refugees creates a future workforce. Integrated, trained. These are the children of migrants. For example, the founder of Google is Sergey Brin.
By eliminating labor shortages by attracting immigrants, the problem of employment is reduced. This means that the lack of labor does not slow down economic growth. New residents, immigrants increase the demand for local services and goods, giving impetus to the creation of new jobs, funds for investment, and infrastructure development.
Highly qualified specialists, bringing their education from abroad, provide the host country with a net profit, creating labor and intellectual resources without the preliminary investment of money and time for training. The difference in the cost of labor has a beneficial effect on the competitiveness of goods and services in the international market. Immigrants increase the revenue side of the budget without actually affecting its expenditure side. Thanks to immigrants, the average age of the population is decreasing, the country is getting younger. Even inflation is going down, because immigrants need to save their earnings, not waste. Bringing to the country a new mentality, new cultural characteristics, immigrants enrich the social and cultural life of the country. Add a new one. In a small dose. Precisely one that contributes to the preservation and development of local culture. All this has a beneficial effect on the tolerance of the population.
Countries receiving labor migrants receive the following benefits:
Savings on wages (foreign workers are paid below the wages of national personnel);
Increasing the competitiveness of their products due to a decrease in production costs;
At the expense of immigrants, the capacity of the domestic market for consumer goods is expanding;
Cost savings for education and training of skilled immigrant workers;
Foreign workers are often seen as a shock absorber in the event of crises and unemployment, as they can be fired first.
As for illegal migration, as in the case of prostitution, it is wiser to look for ways to legalize immigrants and receive budgetary benefits from their work and consumption, rather than spend taxpayers' money on catching people who came to work and spend earnings in this country.
What budget income can be obtained from the integration of illegal migrants can be understood by looking at the schemes that reflect the number of illegal migrants.
Obviously, the legalization of immigrants is very beneficial and can generate significant budget revenues.
For legalization, you can use the Spanish method - "by settlement". Or any other, for example, issuing passports of refugees, non-citizens, citizens of the world, UN, EU, etc.
Legalizing an illegal will alienate him from crime and make him more law-abiding.
And after legalization, the state will be able to receive from former illegal immigrants all the advantages listed above when considering the issue of legal immigration. After all, all the possible disadvantages are already there. Illegals are "already here."
Based on the above facts, we can state that fears of the legalization of drugs, weapons or prostitution, fears of strangers, legal and illegal immigrants are mostly far-fetched and supported by politicians who, in pursuit of votes, skillfully manipulate such fears. Of course, the usual status quo is always easier to maintain than to dare to change. However, an economy that is incapable of change is also incapable of growth, which means that the fear of change inevitably leads to an increase in the tax burden on residents and local businesses, as well as to a decrease in the well-being of residents. Are residents willing to pay for their fears with poverty? Is the state ready to become poor by clinging to the status quo?