4

I am trying to understand to what extent attempts to illegally migrate to Europe (EU,UK) are rational, or whether misinformation about the target countries is playing a crucial role. To clarify, asylum seekers with a chance to actually get asylum aren't covered by my question.

Based on having read a number of news articles including reports of interviews with people who've tried to migrate, were currently on-route, or were contemplating to try in the future, my current understanding is as follows:

  • The typical motivation is a bleak situation in the country of origin. The person sees no hope of a decent future there, and is thus willing to undergo significant risks to have a shot at a happy and prosperous life. Corruption is a significant issue.
  • The journey to Europe costs several thousand $/£/€.
  • There is a general awareness of the deadly risks posed by crossing the Sahara/travelling through Libya/crossing the Mediterranean on a small boat/etc, which are deemed acceptable giving the bleakness of the status-quo and the hope for a better life in Europe.

What these articles tend to leave out is how this is supposed to work out once the person arrives at the target country. As they are fleeing a life-that-profoundly-sucks, not political persecution or a significant risk for their life, getting asylum seems out of the question. Without a work permit, it's probably difficult to get a decent job; and they'd be very vulnerable to exploitation. I'd expect that just earning back the costs for the journey is going to be a lengthy undertaking.

Am I missing something?

One single article (about Albanians trying to move to the UK) mentioned organized crime organizations pushing misinformation to prospective migrants about the opportunities in the UK in order to then exploit them as vulnerable illegal immigrants. However, neither this specific thing nor the more general question seems to be playing a prominent role in the political debate on the issue.

Improve this question
11
  • Hmmm I wonder if there are interviews with still-illegal immigrants that address this question. Though that would be anecdotal, enough anecdotes do add up to information.
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented Jan 7 at 22:56
  • You are essentially seeing the crux of the illegal migration problem in Europe. The smugglers who take these people over the Mediterranean don't really care what happens afterwards, and the people themselves likely don't have a plan either. How could they? They have no idea what Europe even looks like
    – user42328
    Commented Jan 7 at 23:47
  • @Ccm How could they? I dunno, maybe a family member or fellow villager contacting them? They may have a harder time knowing if a particular smuggler is trustworthy or not, but it's naive to assume no one has heard from anyone who has been to Europe. Though sometimes people will also try to pass off as more successful than they really are.
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented Jan 8 at 1:33
  • 2
    It's possible to live illegally for years, to work in the black economy (whether in sweatshops/businesses not following the law, doing gig work like deliveries, or criminal activities). I don't think it's possible to say whether someone would have a better life living in e.g. Somalia or illegally in London, which makes this question hard to answer as framed. And another complication is that coming from a war zone is a bit different than coming from somewhere more stable but still poor (you can't claim asylum purely on the basis of your country being at war, it requires persecution).
    – Stuart F
    Commented Jan 8 at 11:37
  • 1
    I think this needs edited to ask a real question with a factual answer, not just "Am I missing something?" to which the answer is almost certainly yes. There are certainly factual questions that could be asked about this issue, but at the moment the question fails to do that.
    – Stuart F
    Commented Jan 8 at 11:43

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

What these articles tend to leave out is how this is supposed to work out once the person arrives at the target country. As they are fleeing a life-that-profoundly-sucks, not political persecution or a significant risk for their life, getting asylum seems out of the question. Without a work permit, it's probably difficult to get a decent job; and they'd be very vulnerable to exploitation. I'd expect that just earning back the costs for the journey is going to be a lengthy undertaking.

Firstly, many of those people do escape from war (like Syrians a few years ago) or from the conditions where lawlessness and poverty pose serious risk for life. There is some legitimate question in where/how they get a few thousand dollars/euro to pay for the trip (and how many immigrants actually do pay such a price.)

However, from a purely economic perspective, even working in Europe illegally is probably better than in most of the world. Indeed, the poverty threshold as established by the World bank is:

In September 2022, the World Bank updated the International Poverty Line (IPL), a global absolute minimum, to $2.15 per day (in PPP). In addition, as of 2022, $3.65 per day in PPP for lower-middle income countries, and $6.85 per day in PPP for upper-middle income countries. Per the $1.90/day standard, the percentage of the global population living in absolute poverty fell from over 80% in 1800 to 10% by 2015, according to United Nations estimates, which found roughly 734 million people remained in absolute poverty.

The following map from the quoted Wikipedia article shows the percentage of the population living on less than $1.90 per day:
enter image description here

Simple math: $1.90 per day correspond to about $730 per year (about 700 euro.)

On the other hand, here is the map of median income in Europe (not that median is not mean - half of the population earn more than median income):
enter image description here

And here is the map of minimum wages in European countries - anyone working legally in western Europe earns in a month at least as much as the immigrants escaping poverty need to survive in a year:
enter image description here

Obviously, there are no data on how much one earns illegally, but it is likely comparable to the income earned when working legally - on the one hand, illegal employees are likely to be paid less, because of the risks taken by employer (and they are hired because they cost less). On the other hand, illegal labor is not taxed - so the illegal labor costs cheaper even when the salary is equal to a legal one.

Improve this answer
5
  • 1
    "anyone working legally in western Europe earns in a month at least as much as the immigrants escaping poverty need to survive in a year:" Yes but the costs are so much higher - if you want to compare you need to balance local costs. It may be that you earn as much in a month in Europe as you need for a year in Madagascar but European higher rent, food, travel costs leave you with a much smaller disparity (not claiming there isn't still one, but the answer as it stands exaggerates).
    – Lio Elbammalf
    Commented Jan 8 at 16:24
  • @LioElbammalf what I didn't point out in the answer, is that there's a certain level of disparity that triggers massive migration. There's hardly any influx of illegal economic migrants from post-Soviet space, Turkey and other territories close to EU with lower, but still acceptable level of life.
    – Wag the mainstream media dog
    Commented Jan 8 at 17:11
  • 1
    This looks like a pretty solid answer. While I agree that not taking into account comparative costs overstates the case, there are also factors strengthening this A. For example, push come to shove, you will be getting free emergency health care in Europe - that's not something guaranteed in many poor countries. You will also not be left to literally starve. You do need to pay for heat in winter, which isn't typically a problem in source countries. (But more and more source countries will be facing summer heat waves risks, annulling that).
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented Jan 9 at 16:52
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica regarding the comparative costs: 1) one does not necessarily adopt high standard of living typical of the host country (e.g., sharing apartment, walking or riding bicycle, not moving during vacations, eating simple food, etc.) 2) one's family/extended family/village may stay back at home, and supporting them incurs little additional cost.
    – Wag the mainstream media dog
    Commented Jan 9 at 17:10
  • Oh, I agree there too. However, one last thing to keep into account: many immigrants who managed to pay those thousand dollar fees weren't necessarily on the bottom rung of society in their origin country - they may have had a maid for example - and there the comparison may swing the other way.
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented Jan 9 at 17:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .