Primarily, immigration has various effects on the refugees and the host country. Research illustrates that approximately five hundred thousand people have left Venezuela in the last two years (Shannon). The combination of economic and humanitarian catastrophes and political persecution was the main cause of the Venezuelan and Chile refugee crisis. Studies affirm that Chile was the host countries for most of the Venezuelan refugees. For that reason, there were various effects on Chile’s labor market, fiscal system, and cultural practices. Researchers aver that making the Venezuelan situation worse will lead to more citizens fleeing to the neighboring countries, such as Chile (Miller and Peters 2). The condition brings up the question of whether Chile should resettle more Venezuelans refugees or not. Based on the effects on the labor market, fiscal system, and cultural practices, I resonate that Chile should not resettle more refugees from Venezuela. Therefore, working towards the resolution of the condition in Chile is the best solution.
Chile should not resettle more refugees from Venezuela. Instead, it should increase its efforts with the intent of resolving the condition of combined economic and humanitarian crises. Because there will be no more refugee resettlement, the labor market will not be affected. Conversely, based on the normal circumstances, immigration appears to correspond with the labor market (Biswas 359). Conversely, since there will be no more refugee resettlement in Chile, the labor market will not improve any further. Additionally, the production sector will experience the effect, since one cannot improve labor through the present capital, thus, leading to losses for Chile. In my opinion, Chile should remain with the number of refugees it has hosted and that will help emanate the economic power of Venezuela.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Venezuelan Refugee Crisis and Chile".
Moreover, having more immigrants moving into Chile will affect the fiscal system. The issue develops when one resonates around certain perspectives. Before making a stand, one should this think on how much the immigrants use the services shared socially. In this context, one should then compare the natives and the effect through the payment of taxes. Predominantly, refugees do not have great participation in the payment of taxes (Miller and Peters 6). Moreover, the individuals need social services with a subject to their less impact in building up the fiscal system. Therefore, since Chile will not be hosting more refugees from Venezuela, the fiscal system will stop receiving a negative effect fiscally.
Similarly, immigration affects the cultural practices of the host country. Therefore, because of the impact immigration has on cultural practices, it is apparent that Chile should not offer a home for more refugees. Mainly, immigration goes hand in hand with cultural assimilation. For that reason, the Chileans need to protect their culture (Massey, et al. 431). Immigrants tend to live in enclaves by keeping ties with the former country may lead to the emergence of a new religion and different political views. Accordingly, Chile can avoid such predicaments by barring more immigrants from Venezuela.
Since Chile will not be resettling more refugees from Venezuela, it is obvious that the latter will struggle economically and politically. Studies suggest that citizens have great participation in the building up the economy of a country. If Chile stops hosting more citizens from Venezuela, the latter will work for the improvement of its own economy. On that note, the stand by Chile should come along with offering help in the uplifting of the economy.
Some of the things Chile and other countries should assist Venezuela with include advice, loans, and consultancy (Massey, et al. 435). Studies illustrate that the political power of a county becomes septic when there is a great participation of citizens and their concentration is settled. For that reason, Venezuela will have a chance to regain or create a good political foundation as the citizens are concentrating on the rebuilding of their nation. Additionally, Venezuela will benefit more because the citizens will have a chance to vote for the leader of their choice in a democratic manner.
If Chile stops resettling more refugees from Venezuela, it will attract attention from other countries that host the same. Many questions will arise seeking to know the reasons behind the stand and it will be a high time to help them rethink the same issue. Firstly, the stand will indicate the lack of support by Chile to the affected citizens. Other than supporting Venezuela, I resonate that offering advice especially on the labor market, fiscal system, cultural, political, and economic effects will portray Chile as an outstanding country to the world. Therefore, based on the above-mentioned information, it would be imperative that Chile contends on the benefits that Venezuela will absorb finally (Shannon). I reckon that this will be an outstanding brainstorm to other countries, which resettle refugees from other countries with one objective; the country will stand up again.
In conclusion, because of the effects on the labor market, fiscal system, culture, economy, and politics, I reckon that Chile should not resettle more refugees from Venezuela.
- Biswas, Basudeb. “International political economy: Perspectives on global power and wealth.” International Review of Economics & Finance, vol. 3, no. 3, 1994, pp. 359-360.
- Massey, Douglas S., et al. “Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal.” Population and Development Review, vol. 19, no. 3, 1993, p. 431.
- Miller, Michael K., and Margaret E. Peters. “Restraining the Huddled Masses: Migration Policy and Autocratic Survival.” British Journal of Political Science, 2018, pp. 1-31.
- Shannon, O’Neil. “A Venezuelan Refugee Crisis.” Council on Foreign Relations, 18 Feb. 2018, www.cfr.org/report/venezuelan-refugee-crisis. Accessed 22 May 2018.
