EU needs a coordinated plan for handling migrants
A lack of policy burdens Mediterranean nations, where rescue costs have engendered popular discontent
By any measure, the European Union’s (EU) handling of a vast influx of migrants from Africa and the West Asia has been a debacle. That said, some countries’ policies offer insights into how a better approach might look.
The EU has no common asylum policy, leaving it to the country of first entry. This places a disproportionate burden on Mediterranean nations such as Italy, where high search and rescue costs have engendered popular discontent.
Only 2.6% of the EU budget goes to managing migration and security. Yet leaving countries to their own devices allows everyone to see what works and what doesn’t. Italy and the Netherlands, for example, demonstrate two antipodal approaches. A person applying for asylum in Italy in early 2018 was likely to wait at least two years until a first instance decision, and a further two years until a first appeal decision. At the end of 2017, there were more than 150,000 pending applications. By contrast, the Netherlands seeks to provide asylum seekers a first-instance decision in 17 days, and an appeal decision within a further 35 days at the most. Those who are refused must depart within 28 days.
Italy’s drawn-out process doesn’t appear to protect the rights of refugees any better than the Netherlands’ does. On the contrary, the Dutch government provides asylum seekers with lawyers. In Italy, a large backlog inevitably complicates the task of reaching a quality assessment.
Helping migrants find work is another big challenge. They are only 62% as likely to be employed as the average European, according to a study by the EU and the OECD. Integrating them into the labour force requires language and other training. But as a recent paper by the European Commission has shown, such investments can boost growth and, crucially, pay for themselves in the long run. Incentives matter, too. In Denmark, the unemployment-insurance system provided generous wage-replacement payments that lasted for an extended period, leaving recipients with little motivation to join the labour force. Germany, by contrast, calculated benefits based on an individual’s occupational history. Migrants were eligible for only a brief period, giving them ample impetus to get a job.
The German approach has proven more fiscally advantageous. They estimate that migrants, by working and paying taxes, contributed on net an average of 35,500 euros to the government budget over their lifespan. This was much better than the average nativeborn German, who extracted a net 14,000 euros. In Denmark, the opposite was true: Migrants received net transfer payments amounting to 93,300 euros, while native Danes contributed net tax payments of 16,600 euros.
Ultimately, the EU needs a coordinated strategy for handling migrants. In the meantime, there’s a lot that member states can learn from their neighbours.