Get Insights

As the issue of migration becomes not only increasingly polarised, but also instrumentalized for political gain, the importance of fact-checking and contextualising the arguments that are commonly used in the media, political campaigns and around the dinner table is fundamental. Common myths include the belief that migrants overburden economies, increase crime rates or that Europe is facing an unprecedented migration crisis. 

By presenting evidence-based analysis, this series aims to challenge such myths and offer a more nuanced understanding of migration. Through research- and data-driven discussions, borderline-europe seeks to foster informed dialogue and promote insights based on reality rather than misconceptions and stereotypes.

1. Is there a pull-effect from NGO boats?

We regularly hear from politicians and media about the "pull effect" from NGO boats in the Mediterranean. 

And that's what they mean: NGO rescue boats in the Mediterranean encourage migrants to start their journey, because they know they'll be rescued. 

LET’S CHECK THE FACTS!

FALSE: Because there is no pull-effect from NGO boats! This has been proven many times.
Rather: There are many reasons why people flee, including persecution, climate change, instability, discrimination, lack of opportunity, war, poverty, family reunification ... 

What effects do the debates about the pull-effects have? 

1. Rescuers Treated as Criminals: People saving lives at sea are facing legal charges and their missions are being blocked.
2. Funding Cuts: Financial support for sea rescue operations is being reduced.
3. Ignoring Legal Duties: The obligation to rescue people at sea, as required by international law, is being neglected.
4. Overlooking Reasons for Migration: The valid reasons why people flee their countries are being dismissed.
5. Underestimating the Danger: The deadly risks of crossing the Mediterranean are being downplayed.

These actions are contributing to a growing negative attitude towards migration.

Don’t trust us? Read for yourself that studies show there is no pull-effect:

• Norwegian Refugee Council (2016): No evidence of a pull effect from sea rescues; people don't know if rescues will take place.
• University of Oxford (2017): Push factors such as war and poverty drive migration.
• Migration Policy Institute (2017): Analysis shows no 'pull' effect.
• EU EASO Report (2018): No correlation between rescue intensity and refugee numbers; war and poverty are key.
• Frontex (2019): No clear effect; push factors in countries of origin are significant.
• University of Trier (2020): "Pull effect is based on wrong assumptions; other factors play a role.
  
  The discussion remains politically controversial - even in election campaigns; sea rescues are often used as a scapegoat, obscuring more complex migration issues.

2.  Are migrants a burden on the social system? 

We regularly hear politicians and the media claiming that migrants are a burden on the on the social system.

And that’s what they mean: Migrants exploit our welfare systems and do not contribute to the economic success of a country.

LET’S CHECK THE FACTS!

False: Because studies show that migration brings economic benefits, not burdens. Expenses emerge only temporarily in the arrival phase. Once integrated into the labor market, migrants contribute more than they receive. In countries with declining birth rates, migrants are essential to a strong labor force.

What’s the impact of ongoing welfare debates?

1. Stigma and Racism: Migrants and refugees are unfairly labeled as 'lazy' or 'unskilled,' leading to negative stereotypes. 
2. Disregarding International Obligations: Politicians overlook legal duties to justify stricter asylum policies. 
3. Restrictive Policies and Generalized Suspicion: Access to financial assistance is limited by introducing special payment cards for refugees, fostering mistrust.
4. Denial of Reasons for Flight or Migration: Legitimate reasons for fleeing are dismissed, with individuals wrongly accused of exploiting social welfare. 

These actions are contributing to a growing negative attitude towards migration.

Don’t trust us? Read for yourself that studies show there migrants don’t burden the social system:

• Oxford University (2019): No evidence of a "magnet effect" as a pull factor to migrate to the most generous welfare states.
• BPB (2021): "The faster new immigrants find employment that matches their skill level, the more positive the fiscal impact."
• IZA World of Work (2014): "Contrary to the welfare magnet hypothesis, empirical evidence suggests that immigration decisions are not made on the basis of the relative generosity of the host country's social benefits." 
• SAIS Europe Journal of Global Affairs (2022): "Refugees are not a fiscal burden".

3. Why do people flee countries where I can have a great holiday? 

We regularly hear people and the media claiming that, if a country is safe for a great holiday, it must also be safe to live in. 

And that's what they mean: People who claim asylum while fleeing a country that we consider a holiday destination have no legitimate reason to flee!

LET’S CHECK THE FACTS!

FALSE: Because when we visit stunning beaches or picturesque towns, we often see only the beauty and adventure. But for many locals, the reality is far more complex. The safety of tourists often depends on privileges (resorts, security, protected zones) that locals don't have access to. Vulnerable groups (activists, minorities, LGBTQ+...) are often at risk. Tourists can leave a country at any time. For locals the situation is different: no legal way out or into another state.

What’s the impact of the  ongoing ‘safe country’ debates?

1. Discouraging Asylum Seekers from 'Safe' Countries: Authorities deter individuals from designated 'safe' nations from seeking protection.
2. Violating International Law: Deporting individuals to countries where they risk persecution or torture contravenes international legal obligations. 
3. Expanding 'Safe Country' Lists: More countries are labeled as 'safe' to expedite deportations, overlooking individual risks. 
4. Implementing Stricter Deportation Measures: Authorities adopt faster procedures, broaden definitions of criminality, and enforce stricter detention conditions before deportation.
5. Trivializing Political Situations: Privileged tourists romanticize their travels, downplaying serious political issues that don't directly affect them.

These actions are contributing to a growing negative attitude towards migration.

Don’t trust us? Read for yourself why safe countries are not safe for all:

• Morlotti, S. (2024). Safe or Not? Some Much-Awaited Clarification on the Designation of Safe Third Countries of Origin by the CJEU SARA MORLOTTI. [online] Available at: https://rivista.eurojus.it/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Safe-or-Not-1.pdf [Accessed 30 Jan. 2025].

• Euromed Rights, Fidh and Aedh (2016). ‘Safe’ countries: A denial of the right of asylum. [online] Available at: https://euromedrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/AnalysePaysSurs-FINAL-EN-12052016_final.pdf

• Timothy, D.J. (2002). Tourism and Political Boundaries. [online] Routledge. doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203214480.

4. Does migration fuel terrorism? 
In the wake of recent terrorist attacks, some are calling for deportations of migrants or stricter immigration policies..

This is how they feel: They see immigration as a security risk and believe it could increase the chance of terrorism.

LET’S CHECK THE FACTS!

There is little evidence that more migration leads to more terrorism, especially in Western countries. Although some attacks are carried out by first, second or third generation immigrants, this correlation is insignificant compared to the total number of immigrants. Stricter migration rules don’t stop terrorism, but terrorist attacks often cause stricter migration policies and fuel anti-immigrant feelings.

Where are these demands coming from?

1. Terrorist Attacks Undermine Security: Such acts threaten our fundamental need for safety, often targeting liberal democracies and their values of freedom and peace.
2. Loss of Security Feeling: After an attack, many people feel less safe and may support irrational political measures to regain a sense of security.
    

Politicians can easily misuse people’s fear to gain support for ideological motivated or populist measures, even if they have no proven effect.

Don’t trust us? Read for yourself that migration does not fuel terrorism: 

• Helbling, M., & Meierrieks, D. (2022). Terrorism and Migration: An Overview.
• Observatory on Radicalisation and Counter-Terrorism (2021). Report on Terrorism and Radicalization in Europe - N. 2, Year 2.