The Pros And Cons Of Inward Migration

Inward migration is a controversial topic because it can be perceived as both a threat or an opportunity to the country receiving these migrants. Migration, as defined by the Oxford dictionary is the “movement of people to a new area or country in order to find work or better living conditions.” People will migrate if there are improved opportunities in their destination as it is human nature. This relocation will have an impact on the natives. Depending on the perspective, the impact can either be positive or negative or even both. The pros and cons of immigration are consistently up for debate as shown by the Eurobarometer poll, where immigration ranked fourth among 15 societal issues such as crime, environment and security, (Eurobarometer

Debate on this issue is well covered amid to increasing political and economic concerns of immigration and the threats it may entail. Economically, there is little empirical evidence to suggest that migration is a threat, there is only theoretical evidence to suggest this. This paper will analyse the evidence available and will show that theoretically, in the short run, immigration can be a threat but in the long run it may be an opportunity. A common argument against immigration is that an influx of immigrants can lead to the suppression of native’s wages although this is a contested theory. Another concern of immigration, is the idea that immigrants will be a fiscal burden on its host country due to the welfare magnet hypothesis, (Borjas, 1999) as low-skilled immigrants are attracted to countries with high social benefits. In the long run, it can be proved that migrants improve their host country’s GDP by boosting their economy and increasing economic

The welfare magnet hypothesis is a hypothesis concerning the effects of an existing welfare state has on the quantity of migration flows. According to the website, Open Borders, states with high welfare benefits are more likely to attract migrants who are likely to make use of the benefits. These migrants tend to be low skilled and therefore have a low earning ability. In the case of Ireland, economists Barret and Duffy, (2009) found that the immigrants tended to be concentrated in low skill occupations given their education. Borjas (1999) states that in the United States, “interstate differences in welfare benefits generate strong magnetic effects on the immigrant population.”, meaning that immigrants were more likely to go to states with better social welfare. During the recession in Ireland, it was found that immigrants were more likely to lose their jobs than the natives. Data from the quarterly national household survey 2004-2009 puts this percentage approximately at 17.5 percent versus 12 percent for immigrants and natives respectively. There was a huge surge of migrant claims in Ireland during the recession which could reflect the greater possibility for migrant unemployment. Although Barret et al, (2013) found that migrants were less likely to claim welfare