At what "cost"?

(Or, the irrelevance of a cost-benefit analysis)

  

12:30, Wed., Sept. 23, 2015

Vienna

Well, the big question – after a summer like this one – was if I would see a notable difference in Austria, compared to the Austria before an unprecedented wave of refugees entered the EU these past few months.

As seen on a traffic post in Germany.

It’s hard to say for sure, but, sitting now at Westbahnhof (a major transit point in the heart of the capital), fresh off the metro (from Dallas to Chicago to Vienna and eventually back to Graz), it really does seem like a lot of the faces I’m looking at are new arrivals. It’s hard to say because I can’t assume that any or all Middle Eastern-appearing people are necessarily asylum seekers from Syria, especially in a diverse metropolis like Vienna. All the same, my gut tells me that what I’m witnessing is indeed only one stop on a long journey for these men, women, and children. (A journey that makes my last 26+ hours pretty insignificant.)

I see white men, one in a suit, one in a red vest suggesting a uniform (The Red Cross? Caritas?), speaking to small huddles of (presumably) Middle Easterners, many of whom fill the ticketing foyer, presumably waiting for passage to their next stop. (Presumably.)

I don’t notice any increased security presence, nor any decrease in tourists. Westbahnhof and Vienna, from what I’ve gleaned in transit, seem largely the same, running as always. Perhaps the only new presence is the old woman holding a Caritas donation box at the foot of the escalator that takes one up to the food court.

New Wifi networks at Westbahnhof.
What are all the meanings of "free"?

On the flight from London I took a moment to catch up on events as reported by the Financial Times. I knew the EU’s interior ministers would be meeting on the 14^th, but I didn’t expect much to come out of it. Apparently, they voted yesterday to distribute 120,000 more accepted refugees – in addition to the 40,000 marker agreed upon in July – among the EU bloc, overruling by majority vote the dissent of Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Romania. (Notably, this policy was championed by Germany and France, Germany hosting significantly more refugees than any other EU member state.)

I think FT reporter Martin Wolf is exactly on point in writing:

…the EU must draw a distinction between refugees and immigrants. Countries have legal and moral obligations to refugees.* […] Compassion for the desperate has to be distinct from a cooler assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of immigration. It may be helpful to argue that refugees could provide economic benefits to the recipient country. […] But that is not the reason why they should be accepted.

I do believe that incoming asylum seekers can contribute to their host communities – granted, contingent largely upon (1) developing sufficient proficiency in the local language** and (2) successful integration (adequate housing, access to jobs, enrollment in schools, etc.). BUT, those who so strongly oppose the taking in of refugees, who shudder at the prospect of shouldering what they perceive as a financial, social, and possibly cultural (invasion of national identity by otherness) “burden” – those leaders and member states are unlikely to buy the “economic benefits” argument. Or at least, the argument loses in an overall cost-benefit analysis. They are much more likely to wonder from where in their already allocated budgets they're supposed to muster up the necessary funds (and manpower and infrastructure) to facilitate language courses and integration.

**As an educated American navigating studies conducted in the German language, a language not so unrelated to my mother tongue, I can tell you, this is no easy task!

Not to mention that scary buzzword (shh!) “terrorism” and the inextricable connection between ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban with the countries from which many are fleeing. (In the first half of this year, 39% of refugees came from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Eritrea.)

BUT. Apart from fears of strain on an already tenuous economy and of the disguised infiltration of terrorists, “[economic benefits] is not the reason [asylum seekers] should” – or should not – “be accepted.”

Refugees ought to be welcomed and aided because they, too, are human beings, whose lives and human dignity are – to borrow the word – “terrorized” by oppressive governments, by an exchange of bullets and blood that is beyond their control, and even by those the FBI, too, has classified as “terrorists.”

Which brings me to another reason why I believe the “economic benefits” argument is not the strongest for building the case to welcome refugees.

Just as an example, immigrants seeking a US green card might apply through family, as an international student, or even because they will be major investors (i.e. create lots of jobs and pour in lots and lots of money). That is to say, these avenues of entry are warranted by an acknowledged value in the reunification of families, in education, and in improvement of the national economy.

Well. One other possible port of entry is as a refugee, and this possibility exists because of an entirely different reason – namely –

“Countries have legal and moral obligations to refugees.”

Not because they are human capital.

But because they are HUMAN. Period.

The state of the economy and national security are – most certainly – valid concerns. Yet I have faith, even with an influx of refugees, that the stable governments of the West can handle all three issues. They not only can, but must.

#becausehumanity

*What is the definition of “refugee”? Where do those obligations come from? Well, I can’t answer that exactly, but here’s something from the United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. (And last time I checked, the United States was a part of the UN.)

“A refugee, according to the Convention, is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. […] Importantly, the convention contains various safeguards against the expulsion of refugees. […] It provides that no one shall expel…a refugee against his or her own will, in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom.”