There are currently 25.4 million refugees globally; Of which 6.3 million are Syrians (UNHCR, 2018). Syrians fleeing civil war often settle in refugee camps in neighboring countries or, when desperate enough, are smuggled across the sea to Europe's southern coasts on unsafe boats at exorbitant prices. Refugees often drown during these journeys. There is no denying that these people need the support of more stable countries, however, the question remains of how immigration affects Europe, how much help we can afford to give to refugees and what kind of policy is most useful to us and to those who need our help. We say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay This knowledge allows you to evaluate policies implemented by European countries and suggest alternative courses of action. This paper argues that the impact of refugees can be both positive and negative on different areas of society, but that above a certain number, the demand that refugees place on a country will put too much pressure on infrastructure and resources. Therefore, I argue that a collaborative policy at the European level could help countries support the greatest number of people in a sustainable way 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 greater numbers of people result in greater job competition and therefore local people have difficulty finding or staying employed. However, it has been shown that refugees cause an increase in the employment rate of the local population due to the creation of new jobs at NGOs (Alix-Garcia & Saah, 2010). Furthermore, refugees earn about 79% of what natives earn, showing that they usually do not reap the benefits of economic migration, as some claim. According to a British study, only 7% of refugees have a university degree and only 34% of these people were employed at the time of the study. It is logical to conclude that only people in lower-skilled positions will experience greater job competition – and that natives are more likely to have successful applications given the low employment rate of refugees. This is supported by the same study which only shows a refugee employment rate of only 52% (Bloch, 2007). This indicates that natives are unlikely to experience much job competition, especially those in high-skilled jobs, and it is also possible that the workforce will benefit from people willing to do low-skilled manual jobs that are less popular among 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 world of work. The previous argument is countered by the idea that refugees harm the economy due to their need for social welfare benefits. While it is true that refugees usually require more social assistance than the general population, after the first year it has been shown that the percentage of people receiving benefits declines dramatically and continues to decline each year that immigrants remain in their new country. This is probably due to the fact that integration is starting to be successful (Ruist, 2015). The Canadian government recognizes the importance of successful immigrant integration to prevent society from dividing into factions, minimize conflict and improve the quality oflives of everyone who lives in Canada. They recognize that material well-being is necessary to facilitate the involvement of immigrants in society allowing for better acceptance into society. Canada identifies financial stability as one of the factors necessary to create an inclusive atmosphere, therefore gives it priority in its legislation (Omidvar and Richmond, 2003). If a similar approach could be adopted in Europe, we would find that, even if more money would have to be allocated to the refugee crisis at the beginning, society would become more cohesive and later refugees would probably need less state support. Many people oppose immigration for fear of an increase in violent crimes committed by religious extremists or disadvantaged asylum seekers. A study conducted in the United Kingdom on the correlation between asylum seekers and crime rates, across two waves of immigration in the 1990s and 2000s, showed 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 crime (Bell, Fasani & Machin, 2013). This provides compelling evidence that right-wing anti-immigration organizations can capitalize on, but criminologist Christian Pfeiffer argues against the belief that refugees should not be accepted for fear of crime. He states that in most societies the group most likely to commit crimes are young people. It is unfortunate that 37% of all refugees are men between the ages of 14 and 30, but refugees are not simply people more prone to crime; the influx of young people simply makes it appear so (Gopalakrishnan, 2017). While these statistics contribute to the belief that mass refugee immigration can be dangerous, this could be minimized by better integration services. For example, refugees themselves claim that language teaching would allow people to find work more successfully; and thus prevent them from engaging in crime out of necessity (Bloch, 2007). Lack of opportunities and isolation from the sometimes unwelcoming local community can also be a contributing factor to crime, but this is something that can be changed. Support for right-wing political parties and ideas has increased significantly in Europe in recent years. Iceland rejected its 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) Europe's collective position is changing due to the growing fear of terrorism. This fear manifests itself as mistrust towards immigrants and people who belong 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 shift would be to educate children about the importance of diversity and the plight of asylum seekers, along with employing integration strategies as a priority to prevent societal separation and encourage assimilation of young people. refugees in the community; so that we can see that they create a positive impact. Multiculturalism is a “socio-intellectual movement that promotes the value of diversity” (Fowers & Richardson, 1996, p. 609). Fowers and Richardson believe that if we only know one culture then we understandonly a small part of society. They therefore argue that a multicultural society is more interesting and people have more dignity, tolerance and rights. This shows that we can create a more multicultural society by accepting refugees into our states and through their integration into European society the natives will be exposed to a different perspective that can encourage open-mindedness and empathy. However, some argue that social cohesion is the foundation of a safe society based on the existence of shared values, which could be undermined by multiculturalism. Racial diversity is particularly attributed as a source of insecurity and increased distrust among members of a community (Letki, 2008). While shared values ​​are important, it is possible to respect and learn about a different culture without abandoning your own culture's values. I would also argue that teaching refugees our values, for example through children attending local schools, will help them better integrate into society. It is important to understand that refugees do not seek the destruction of Western culture, but seek an escape from conflict (Baubock, 2002). German law states that anyone who flees their country as a political refugee should receive asylum. This is based on the principle that no one should be persecuted because of their political or religious beliefs. In response to this open policy, around 10,000 people immigrated to Germany per day in 2015, the majority of whom were Syrians. This policy is well intentioned and accounts for the fact that if the situation were reversed, Germans would expect to be able to leave Germany; in fact, German Jews did so during World War II (Law Library of Congress, 2016). However, public services and infrastructure in Germany are struggling to keep up with the demand they face. For example, refugees integrated into mainstream German society require general healthcare. It is not known whether they will use hospital services more than Germans, but it is obvious that more people will go to hospital. One factor contributing to increased health care needs is the prevalence of mental health disorders, particularly among refugee children, and resources are available to help people struggling in this way (Gopffarth & Bauhoff, 2015). It is clear from this example that refraining from placing limits on the number of refugees a country is willing and able to accept can have negative consequences, so a balance must be found between compassion and logistics. According to the British government website (GOV. UK, 2015) the United Kingdom has promised to welcome 20,000 refugees by 2020, along with an unknown number of unaccompanied minors currently living in refugee camps. This number is woefully low, equivalent to the same number of people who settled in Germany in two days in 2015. However, the UK is keen to point out that it is the second largest contributor of money to refugee camps around Syria (Law Library of Congress , 2016). The UK has opted out of the EU's voluntary refugee scheme, designed to encourage collaboration between European countries and spread people needing help more equitably across Europe. The UK defends its policy by arguing that encouraging people to cross the Mediterranean Sea by dangling the prospect of a better life in Europe before them is morally reprehensible. People die regularly on these journeys and it is more important to contribute money to refugee camps, so that people can be safe, but can more easily return home as soon as possible and experience less:.