What are the pros and cons of refugees in Europe? Will they make or break the EU?

This may seem counter-intuitive but I am an optimist and I see the refugee crisis in Europe the greatest opportunity for positive change the EU has seen.

Migrants themselves will NOT make or break the EU.

General disagreement about what to do about the migrants might though. In fact, I've thought that was a threat the instant Austria put up border controls with Hungary last October.

First of all, there is simply not enough of them to really tear apart the EU by themselves.. I think we're looking at, say,  2 million refugees over a couple of years(2015-2016). Sure, two million is a lot of people if you line them up and count them; and it's a lot to burden a couple of countries with. But spread them out over the population of the EU and we're looking at less than one percent of the population.

So why are people reacting to them like the Mongol Hordes are invading?

Yet they are acting that way.

There are some  general fears in some EU countries(in all EU countries, actually, but the percentages of people who feel this way and openly admit differs, with the eastern wing of the EU being the most open about it):

• fears of culture being lost;
• fears of terrorism;
• fears that the refugees won't work and will only sop up benefits;
• fear that the precious ethno-linguistic equilibrium ordered by the victors of WWII will be unbalanced.
• There is a general fear that crime levels will skyrocket, due to beliefs about the culture of especially Muslim countries.

Many of these fears centre around the perceived role of women and sex in Muslim societies. And much-publicised events like the mass grope and sexual harassment in Germany by immigrants  in Cologne on New Year's Eve have done nothing to douse the flames of fear.

It's extremely difficult for the average person to parse how much of these 'problems' are real and how many of them are magnified by a media that needs to sell stories; and I might add, the stories tend to support both sides. YOu see images of angry men up against police:

Alongside these, frankly, unusual and alarming photos, we also  images of hapless women and children, weeping men....

Both images very much play to different fears: the  European self-image is threatened.

Is the open and free, peaceful enlightened post-WWII war of Europe under threat by violent barbarians?

 Or has the long arduous march from despotic, violent past to a future utopia of generosity and democratic enlightenment been halted by the spectre of hard-hearted first world casting the most helpless people on earth out on their ears?

And what about terrorism? If only 0.1 percent of refugees are terrorists, and if there's two million of them, that means that there 2000 terrorists! I've heard that kind of argument a lot.

Obviously all these stories are emotional stories--because the story is, ultimately a human tale of war and woe, hardship and depravity and at the heart of the story there really is a moral crisis about how far generosity towards one's fellow man should go.

---

Having said all that, you can see why, in this environment of what's essentially a propaganda war  of differing narratives, it's probably to impossible to really make an accurate list of pros and cons of the refugees staying in the EU: any assertion one way or another is just going to join the growing slag-heaps of propaganda.

But I'll tell you my ideas of some of the pros and cons.

Pros:

1. An enlargement of the labor force in a Europe that desperately needs new young unskilled workers to balance out the aging population(and, eventually, help pay the bills for the retiring baby boomers.
2. The entrepeneurial spirit that immigrants traditionally bring to developed countries: a spirit that not only strengthens the countries economy through small business activity, but also, eventually, massages innovation that exponentially help a country grow.
3. A welcome introduction of foreign flavors:  new dishes and musical influences--things that ultimately enrich and enliven a country and, again, encourage innovation.
4. A unmeasurable benefit of 'doing the morally correct thing'' and helping in a time of crisis; which leads to a healthy image around the world, which translates into soft power and economic power both.
5. The general rancor and row between Schengen Countries has exposed fault-lines in the structure of the Schengen Zone and the EU itself--these faults have to be patched up or filled in somehow or the EU project could utterly fail. But patching them up would be a very positive and ultimately constructive development that strengthens the Union.

Cons:

1. Tension between native populations and immigrant populations. This is obvious and hardly needs elaborating on.
2. An initial high cost, as money pours into housing, feeding and educating the incoming population.
3. A more rancourous political atmosphere as cool, rational politics give way to emotional politics; ultimately arising in the rise of extremist political parties as elements of both the native and immigrant population feel ignored and/or under threat.
4. Fears of terrorism or even cultural change is probably not something that should be pooh-poohed by the warriors of political correctness. It's a real issue and not just hysteria.
5. The general rancor and row between Schengen Countries has exposed fault-lines in the structure of the Schengen Zone and the EU itself--these faults have to be patched up or filled in somehow or the EU project could utterly fail.

In the future, will the crisis be seen as the thing which ultimately forged the broken shards of the EU together into a something stronger? Or will it be the final straw of disintigration?

I am optimistic and I think it will be the former.

Written Sat March 12