- Over two-thirds of displaced people seek asylum in the first country they reach
- Research from Germany demonstrates long-term benefits of refugees on economy
- Refugees are more likely to engage in entrepreneurship than citizens
Recently, throughout parts of Europe and the US, politicians have been laser-focused on the issue of “illegal migration”. In the UK especially, politicians have shared a number of proposals on how to “stop the boats”.
Yet in reality, what is being labelled as “illegal migration” often refers to individuals undertaking long and arduous journeys to seek asylum from persecution – a right protected under the United Nations’ Refugee Convention (1951).
Referring to anyone as an illegal migrant or illegal immigrant doesn’t capture the reality for people escaping from vulnerable or dangerous situations. Instead, it presents them as criminals to be afraid of, rather than people who were simply not lucky enough to be born in a safer country.
As an individual working in media and communications, I am well aware of the importance of language and ensuring we understand the meaning and impact behind the words we use.
It’s also important to understand differences in definitions. For example, immigrant, asylum seeker, and refugee are often used interchangeably, even by politicians, despite referring to different statuses.
In the spirit of learning, let’s look at the true meanings of terms used in the refugee debate, specifically within the UK, and address some common misconceptions.
- Immigrant: A person who has moved to the UK from another country to live, whether temporarily or permanently, often for work, study, or family reasons (typically with a visa if required).
- Asylum seeker: A person who has left their country and formally applied for protection in another country because they fear persecution, but whose claim has not yet been decided.
- Refugee: An individual recognised as needing international protection because they have a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country. In the UK, this usually means their asylum claim has been accepted.
Why don’t they stop in the first safe country?
Most do. Did you know, 67% of refugees and asylum seekers live in countries neighbouring their countries of origin. That means over two-thirds do stop in the first safe country they reach. However, stopping in the first safe country isn’t a requirement in the Refugee Convention.
Of those who travel further than neighbouring countries, there is often very good reason for this. They may already have family in those countries, or be able to speak the language. If you can already speak English, it will understandably be easier for you to get on well in the UK than France, for example.
They cost the country too much
In the 2023/24 financial year, the UK asylum system cost approximately £5.4 billion. To put that in perspective, the UK’s GDP in that year was around £2.8 trillion, meaning asylum system costs represented roughly 0.19% of GDP.
Meanwhile, within the same fiscal framework, larger proportions of public spending are devoted to social protection, health, and general public services: for example, around 30% of public expenditure is assigned to social protection, 19% to health, and 12% to general public services.
So, while £5.4 billion sounds a lot in isolation, asylum support represents only a small share of overall spending. That’s not to say we should cut funding for these services. But it seems like asylum support is discussed as if it takes up a far larger share of public finances than it actually does.
Asylum seekers are lazy and just wander about towns
Until they are granted refugee status, asylum seekers are not initially permitted to work in the UK. After 12 months they can apply for permission, but only for jobs on the shortage-occupation list, so in practice very few are able to. This means most will continue to rely on £49.18 per week, or £9.95 if accommodation provides food.
And they have to rely on that for a very long time. According to The Migration Observatory at The University of Oxford, asylum claims finalised in 2024 had taken an average of 413 days to process. For claims finalised in 2023, the average wait was 735 days.
That means many asylum seekers spend well over a year unable to work, surviving on less than £50 per week. If they seem to be wandering around towns mid-week for over a year “doing nothing”, it’s because the system has left them few options.
Lessons from history
If we want asylum seekers to be productive members of society, processes need to be put in place to finalise their applications more quickly, so they are more immediately and easily able to work. To understand the impact refugees can have on a country’s economy in the long-term, a valuable period to explore involves the aftermath of the Second World War.
In 1945, millions of refugees were displaced to Germany, which was divided into four zones occupied by France, the US, the UK, and the Soviet Union. However, attitudes toward refugee acceptance differed, with the French zone restricting access for refugees. This led to a much higher population density in the US zone of the modern Baden-Württemberg region, divided between the US and France until 1949.
Jan Nimczik, Assistant Professor of Economics from ESMT Berlin, alongside Professor Antonio Ciccone from the University of Mannheim, investigated the effects of this historical refugee intake on today’s productivity, wages, income, rents, education levels, and population density in modern Baden-Württemberg.
Their results showed that, as of 2020, population density was still greater on the former US side; around 25 percentage points higher than the former French side. Towns on the former US side also experienced higher income per capita, productivity, and wages alongside higher rents. There were no differences between both sides prior to the arrival of the refugees. Ciccone and Nimczik estimated that the arrival of refugees on the US side of the border raised income per capita by around 13% and hourly wages by around 10%.
“Today, wars, civil conflicts, economic collapse, and climate change continue to cause massive refugee movements. Naturally, humanitarian considerations must be the main motivation of the measures taken in support of refugees. However, economic costs and benefits always have played a role also,” said Professor Nimczik. He points out that the public debate generally focuses on the short- and medium-term, and therefore the longer-term, economic benefits are often neglected.
“The case of WWII refugees in Germany shows that for receiving countries such benefits, in the form of higher income per capita and wages, can be considerable,” he adds.
Refugee-conomics
Despite Nimczik’s and Ciccone’s research uncovering the economic impact of refugees after 75 years, advantages can be seen far sooner than that. Recent examples of refugee movement demonstrate their more immediate impact on a country’s economy.
After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, millions of Ukrainians fled the country, with Poland a major destination for many. As of May 2025, there were around 994,000 Ukrainian refugees in Poland and, according to a report from UNHCR and Deloitte, they have significantly contributed to the economy without causing unemployment or lower wages for Polish workers.
While the May 2025 Polish presidential election highlighted growing support for far-right parties and anti-Ukrainian sentiment, this report demonstrates that by allowing Ukrainian refugees to immediately work and start small businesses, Poland boosted its GDP by 2.7% in 2024. Enabling easier access to the labour market meant refugees could integrate economically and support themselves through work.
Looking to the US, A 2024 Department of Health and Human Services study found that, over a fifteen-year period, refugees and asylum seekers brought in $124 billion more in state and local revenue than they received in services. They overwhelmingly gave back to communities by opening businesses and volunteering. In total, refugees contributed an estimated $581 billion to federal, state, and local governments through taxes.
Refugees have also been found to engage more in entrepreneurship than citizens or immigrants. In 2019, the US was home to nearly 188,000 refugee entrepreneurs, which means 13% of refugees were entrepreneurs, compared to just 11.7% of non-refugee immigrants and 9% of US-born individuals. This mirrors a report from Visa, which states 13% of refugees and migrants in France are self-employed, compared to only 6% of the French-born population.
Refugees in the workplace
For refugees to feel truly integrated and effectively support themselves, they may need to be supported to find work and succeed in their roles.
Research from King’s Business School and The University of Warwick interviewed refugees and asylum seekers in Australia, as well as managers, to understand the typical problems experienced and how to overcome them:
- Recruitment and workforce planning
Instead of a conventional online recruitment process, work experience placements would be a more effective route into work, allowing refugees to demonstrate their skills and capabilities, and overcome a lack of local work experience. Organisations could also partner up with non-profits that focus on boosting job prospects for refugees.
- Training and development
Refugees will benefit from training to support their particular needs, such as English language skills or cultural competencies to help them adjust to a new country. Industry-specific training may also be necessary, such as learning local occupational health and safety regulation that differs from their home country.
- Inclusive work practices
Mentoring, networking opportunities, and recognising that refugees may require greater initial input from their managers were all considered important to help refugees to adapt. The research also highlights that a tailored approach is vital; refugees can come from entirely different backgrounds and situations.
- Wellbeing focused management
A key finding from the interviews was the need to recognise the mental health of refugees as well as economic, health, and housing challenges. Refugees have experienced trauma and can experience uncertainty around their status in a country. Alongside awareness of public attitudes toward refugees, this can undermine their personal wellbeing and performance at work.
Further investigating refugees and wellbeing, research from the Harvard Center for International Development found that ensuring refugees are being supported into employment is vital. The researchers investigated the benefits of employment beyond income, specifically for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. Participants were offered either cash payments, employment, or no intervention.
While both employment and cash groups received the same financial compensation, only employment led to substantial improvements in wellbeing. Cash alone had a negligible effect, suggesting that the experience of employment itself benefits mental health. Also, nearly 70% of employed participants expressed willingness to work for free after the trial, indicating how much they valued the non-financial benefits of employment.
What can we do?
Asylum seekers often come from situations we couldn’t even imagine living in and may have survived incredibly dangerous journeys to reach safety.
We shouldn’t only be considering what they can do for us and our economies when they’re here, but also what allowing them to work and participate in society can do for them.
By, Kyle Grizzell
Found this article interesting? You may enjoy this…