Paying immigrants to go back home makes sense.

Paying immigrants to go back home makes sense.

by tonytran2015 (Melbourne, Australia).

Click here for a full, up to date ORIGINAL ARTICLE and to help fighting the stealing of readers’ traffic.

(Blog No. 169).

#pay to go, #rejected asylum seeker, #non-integrating immigrant, #cost

Paying immigrants to go back home makes sense.

This blog suggest that it both looks good and makes economic sense to pay non-integrating immigrants to go back to their homelands.

Germany and many EU countries gave the wrong signals leading to many people leaving their homelands in Africa and Middle East to go there for easier lives. This whole thing has turned upside down the lives of many, native people and immigrants, and it is time for the leadership of EU to admit the mistakes.

To partially undo the damage caused by the mistakes of many EU countries, it may be cheapest for them to pay the immigrants to go back to their homelands.

1. Germany had paid guest workers to go home previously.

“Until very recently, Germany was not perceived as a country of immigration (“kein Einwanderungsland”) by both the majority of its political leaders and the majority of its population. When the country’s political leaders realized that many of the persons from certain countries living in Germany were jobless, some calculations were done and according to those calculations, paying unemployed foreigners for leaving the country was cheaper in the long run than paying unemployment benefits. A “Gesetz zur Förderung der Rückkehrbereitsschaft” (“law to advance the willingness to return home”) was passed. The government started paying jobless people from a number of countries, such as Turks, Moroccans and Tunisians, a so-called Rückkehrprämie (“repatriation grant”) or Rückkehrhilfe (“repatriation help”) if they returned home. A person returning home received 10,500 Deutsche Mark and an additional 1,500 Deutsche Mark for his spouse and also 1,500 Deutsche Mark for each of his children if they returned to the country of his origin.

The agreement with Turkey ended in 1973 but few workers returned because there were few good jobs in Turkey. Instead they brought in wives and family members and settled in ethnic enclaves.

In 2013 it was revealed that ex-chancellor Helmut Kohl had plans to halve the Turkish population of Germany in the 1980s.

By 2010 there were about 4 million people of Turkish descent in Germany. The generation born in Germany attended German schools, but some had a poor command of either German or Turkish, and thus had either low-skilled jobs or were unemployed. Most are Muslims and are presently reluctant to become German citizens.” [1]

2. It costs more to keep non-integrating immigrants.

“the overall debt in Germany stands at €6.2 trillion, equivalent to more than £5trillion.

…But Mr Raffelhüschen claims the tables could soon turn as Germany begins to take into account the cost of the refugee wave of 2015.

He states the long term costs of the original crisis totals around €878 billion, which threatens to soar up to €1.5trilllion depending on how well the “second generation” fits in with life in Germany.” [2]

“The costs of the wave of asylum seekers arriving in Sweden due to the refugee crisis will be much greater than previously expected, forcing the government to earmark more money in the coming years…Sweden’s Finance Minister Magdalena Andersson on Wednesday (13 April) presented the centre-left government’s 2016 spring budget, which revealed that the Scandinavian country expects costs related to migration, such as providing accommodation and offering job training, will be close to 56 billion Swedish crowns (€6.1 billion) per year until 2020….The government had previously forecast 15 billion Swedish crowns (€1.6 billion) annually.” [3]

The cost is often shared between central government and regional governments. [4]

3. It does not look good and it costs more to forcibly return immigrants.

The main cause of the problem is due to the “offer” by Germany to accept all immigrants who can come and now many of those immigrants are actually stuck in sticky situations.

“An EUobserver probe of some 100 joint return flights coordinated by the EU’s border agency, Frontex, has revealed some startling facts… The researched cases date from the start of 2015 to October 2016, with the numbers indicating huge costs for returning the thousands of migrants residing in European countries… It has been calculated that, on average, the agency has spent around €5,800 for every individual deported back to their country of origin. Over 4,700 have left under the scheme”. [5]

4. It makes sense to offer money to immigrants to go home.

This is not the first time Germany has asked guest workers come to build the country but had no plan for them to become part of the country. [6,7]

” … for many years Germans assumed the “guest workers” would return home one day. The country’s refusal to face up to the reality and the lack of a proper immigration policy led to today’s integration problems. “ [8]

” The country… now wants to give rejected asylum-seekers a one-time payment of $3,570 to go home. “ [9]

“Germany is willing to pay Muslim invaders who failed to receive asylum €3,000 if they leave the country and return home to their countries of origin by March 2018. “ [10]

“Germany learns how to send back migrants: Pay them” [11]

“ Germany will spend €150 million over three years to encourage migrants to return to their countries of origin, Development Minister Gerd Müller told local media ” [12]

5. Similar policies apply all over EU

“Denmark to pay immigrants £12,000 to go home if they ‘can’t or won’t’ assimilate” [13]

“ Refugee seekers are being offered thousands of dollars plus free flights back home if they voluntary leave the country….A family with two children is eligible for $9,300 plus free flights home, around 900 refugees have already accepted Norway’s offer. ” [14]

” Paris will provide each family with a nest egg of €6,000 ($8,000) for when they go back to their country of origin. A similar scheme, which was introduced in 2005 and 2006, was taken up by around 3,000 families. ” [15]