What are the first and most common associations with refugees trying to integrate into society? For someone, that means enthusiastic labor force, who do any job willingly so that they have a chance not to return to their, apparently, troubled homeland. By contrast, someone else would see a mob of rude, non-intellectual individuals who only waste resources. In practice, meanwhile, both sides are right, but partly, as the integration is a prolonged process that has different effects at different stages.
Right after their arrival, asylum seekers need intensive support, which does have a negative effect on the economy as well as the service sector of the host country. Notably, the latter has to provide everyone with a proper dwelling, sufficient food, and access to affordable healthcare. This requires extra spendings and, consequently, overloads the public budget, especially if there is a constant influx of immigrants. Furthermore, the sphere of service provision finds itself under pressure as well, which makes the refugees live under poor conditions and compromises the service quality for the locals.
This phenomenon is known as a refugee crisis, which is currently the strongest in several African states, including Ethiopia, Niger, the Central African Republic, and others. For developing countries, unrestricted immigration bears a substantially more serious threat, which determines the worldwide attention to the problem.
By contrast, a positive effect of refugees, which usually remains unconsidered, is that they contribute to the aggregate demand of the host country. Simply stated, there emerges a bigger need for goods and services since it grows together with the number of consumers. Subsequently, the supply has to rise as well, which, in turn, adds to the disposable income of native workers, resulting from increased production volumes.
Intensive immigration may have cultural effects as well, which can be favorable or not, depending on the context of a particular situation. Thus, on condition that the integration has been successful, newcomers influence the diversity of the host country positively; in other words, they enrich it. By contrast, in case the refugees are not willing to respect and follow the local traditions and regulations, sociocultural consequences will most probably be negative.
That happened, for instance, in Qatar, which is temporarily hosting several thousands of Afghans who have fled the Taliban. In addition to financial and service-related difficulties, there occurred to be cultural divergences resulting from substantially different levels of civility. In cases of that kind, cultural clashes emerge that may lead to misunderstandings, hence a spree of conflicts between the newcomers and the local population.
In conclusion, although many people see refugees exclusively as a burden for the host country, this is not completely correct. As immigrants increase the overall demand for goods and services, they begin to contribute to the local economy in a relatively short while, which, in turn, benefits the residents. However, if the cultural differences between them and the locals are critical, they can aggravate the refugee crisis.