The civil war in Syria has led to a massive increase in the number of asylum seekers entering the European Union. Germany has been extremely welcoming to the incoming refugees while other states, such as Italy, Slovenia and Hungary, have been more resistant to granting asylum-seekers residence. Recently, there has been growing disapproval in Germany towards Chancellor Angela Merkel’s generosity: her party is losing national support, and there has been a rise in anti-Islam demonstrations in Germany. The reasons for this recent wave of unrest range from logistical to nationalistic. Some of the concerns are legitimate. According to an Oct. 4 article in The Atlantic, the German registration system is becoming increasingly bogged down by new applications, and the settlement offices are running out of the resources necessary to settle the refugees in Germany. However, all of this does not mean that Germany or the greater European Union should close their borders. Rather, other European Union countries should follow Germany’s lead by accepting and settling more asylum seekers. 

Ultimately, the strongest argument in favor of accepting more refugees is a simple question: what other choice is there? These are people who have already risked their lives making a dangerous journey to escape a country plagued by an authoritarian regime and a bloody civil war. If they are denied entry to European nations, they are left with a few bleak options. Return to their home country is not an option, so they are forced to continue a dangerous journey. According to an Amnesty International report released on Oct. 12, 86 percent of refugees end up in developing nations, which rarely have the resources necessary to offer proper shelter. While it would be ideal if other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, were to open their borders to asylum seekers, they haven’t, and it doesn’t appear that international pressure is going to be able to change that. This means that the responsibility falls on the European countries to take care of the refugees who have already traveled to Europe. The alternative would be sending asylum seekers to extended periods of suffering or their deaths.  And while Germany is doing an admirable job, they cannot do it alone. 

According to The Atlantic, the strain on the German system is more due to administrative backlog than a lack of funding. If other European Union countries were to be as accepting towards refugees as Germany has been, it would go a long way in reducing the strain on the bureaucratic resources of the German system, which, according to an Oct. 3 Los Angeles Times article, expects to receive up to one million refugees this year. 

This would allow them to be more thorough with background checks for incoming migrants, as well as process the new arrivals faster, meaning that they could be moved away from temporary camps and granted housing faster, which in turn would both accelerate the integration process while improving the conditions the refugees face. 

One of the many arguments against offering residence to asylum seekers is that they receive financial support from the government, therefore putting a drain on the economy and adding an undue burden to already underfunded welfare programs. While this might be true in the short term, as Guntram Wolff argues in his Sept. 11 Financial Times op-ed, empirical evidence shows that the long-term economic effects of accepting immigrants is a net positive. 

Because a lot of European countries are struggling with an aging population and dropping birth rates (Germany currently has the lowest birthrate in the world, according to a May 29 BBC article), the relative youth of the asylum-seekers should be welcome. They will increase the available workforce in the European countries, adding much-needed stability to pension programs that will become increasingly strained as the current workforce ages. 

Since increased immigration generally boosts the host country’s economy, we should look at other arguments against more generous asylum policies. One of the common arguments is that refugees pose a national security threat, that it is impossible to execute thorough background checks and that Germany might be allowing militants from the Islamic State into the country, alongside genuine refugees. 

However, this line of reasoning is flawed. As Daniel Altman wrote in a Sept. 8 Foreign Policy article, “[Refugees] are trying to escape extremism and violence, not ferment it.” Besides, are we really willing to send thousands of people back to a war zone because we think they might be terrorists? Even if there are terrorists among the refugees, they still have to apply for asylum before they are settled in the host country. That, along with the barriers to terrorism that exist in most countries (the police, etc.), make the risk of attacks negligible. 

The same line of thinking applies to the argument that the refugees won’t be able to assimilate to the European cultures. Failed integration is simply not a reason to deny asylum. The choice is between letting thousands of people die and suffer in an impossible situation or providing them with safety and an improved quality of life. Even if they never do fully integrate,  it is still an improvement in their situations and will provide long lasting benefits to the economies of the host countries. As the Foreign Policy article cited above argues, not only do they increase the size of the workforce, they also increase the consumer base, acting as a natural economic stimulant. 

These people are fleeing a terrible situation, and the European Union has no choice but to act. The settling of migrants and asylum-seekers will provide long term economic benefits while posing a negligible threat to national security. More countries need to be as accepting as Germany, so the crisis can handled in a more complete way, and the asylum seekers can be treated with the dignity they deserve.