Yu Furukawa
Many countries with asylum processes have adopted policies which restrict the access of asylum seekers to the labour market. For example, in the UK, asylum seekers are largely prohibited from working, although they can apply for a permit to work if they have been awaiting a decision for 12 months and are not considered responsible for the delay [1]. Granting asylum seekers, a work permit means allowing them to engage in paid and formal employment either at the time of application or after a certain period has elapsed. The granting of work permits to asylum seekers takes various forms, primarily distinguished by:
The duration asylum seekers must wait for the work permit to be approved.
The presence of a list of job restrictions that asylum seekers are allowed to engage in.
I evaluate the validity of the argument that supporting the employment of asylum seekers working would act as a ‘pull factor,’ for migrants, and also assess the impacts to the economies of host societies, as well as the well-being and integration of those with asylum.
Debunking the 'Pull Factor' Assumption for Asylum Seeker Migration
The common argument against allowing asylum seekers to work is that it might serve as a 'pull factor' for undocumented migration and asylum applications. However, the validity of this argument is questionable because it lacks counterfactual analysis [2], thereby failing to account for the various other factors influencing undocumented migration and asylum applications. It could be argued that irregular migration and asylum applications would have increased even without the ban on asylum seekers working.
This argument is further challenged by the fact that some asylum applicants are unaware of the challenges they will face in the labour market prior to migration or asylum application. One study [3] showed that, out of 246 asylum seekers surveyed, 72% were unaware prior to arriving in the UK that asylum seekers are not allowed to work. This data suggests that other significant factors influence migratory decision making beyond knowledge of work permits, such as the presence of family members and migrant communities, and host language proficiency. Additionally, research indicates that asylum applications experience a negligible decrease if at all when the unemployment rate increases or when a ban on working is established. For instance, Zetter et al. (2003) [4] noted that restrictions on work and welfare were introduced in Germany during the 1980s, yet applications increased and peaked in 1992.
Therefore, viewing work permits for asylum seekers as a ‘pull factor’ mistakenly assumes that migrants possess comprehensive knowledge about their economic rights prior to their journey and overlooks more complex dynamics in migratory decision-making, such as household dynamics, historical context, and transnational networks. To grasp these complexities and identify the accurate 'pull factor' and 'push factor', the combination of counterfactual analysis and qualitative research in origin countries and along migratory routes is advisable [5]. Depending on migrants' circumstances and social factors, there may be cases where a work permit can become a 'pull factor'. However, at the very least, it is advisable to be skeptical towards claims that it is an absolute 'pull factor'.
Unless there is a change in the structural factors driving in undocumented migration, asylum seekers will continue to arrive, even if work permits are granted to asylum seekers. Therefore, while simultaneously considering policies aimed at reducing undocumented migration, such as expanding legal and safe migration pathways, it is more feasible to encourage the employment of asylum seekers and mitigate their burden on the social welfare system, as I will discuss later.
Another Form of “Illegality”: Undocumented Stay and Work After the Asylum Refusal
While it is doubtful or at best context-specific about whether work permits can be a ‘pull-factor’ for undocumented entry, the issuance of work permits can lead to other forms of undocumented behaviour. In other words, it may contribute to neglect of the option of voluntary or forced return (removal). Allowing asylum seekers to work could strengthen their ties to the host country and make the prospect of returning less appealing [6]. Consequently, they might remain in the country even after their asylum claims have been rejected, without any legal authorization for residence or work.
This situation is sometimes addressed through the implementation of policies such as the one introduced in Sweden, where work permits are exchanged for a commitment to return in the event of asylum refusal [7]. By ensuring cooperation regarding return in the event of failed asylum claims, individuals can secure a work permit during the asylum process. This measure serves to deter undocumented stays and work following the refusal of asylum.
Economic Impacts
The economic impacts of allowing asylum seekers to enter the formal sector need to be evaluated from two perspectives: (i) the extent to which asylum seekers will make fiscal contributions to host societies and (ii) the extent to which the inflow of asylum seekers into the labour market will create competition with native workers. Asylum seeker participation in the labour market may yield short-term economic benefits. Lift the Ban (2020) [8] estimates that if half of asylum seekers awaiting asylum decisions for over six months were allowed to work full-time at the national average wage, the British government could gain £73.1 million annually from their tax and national insurance contributions. However, it is important to consider the degree to which asylum seekers will make net fiscal contributions, paying more in taxes than the costs of providing them with welfare benefits and public services. Given that refugees are less likely to make fiscal contributions than other migrants [9], asylum seekers are likely to follow the same trend.
Another aspect to consider is that granting work permits to asylum seekers may negatively impact native workers' employment and wages by creating competition between them. Braun and Mahmoud (2014) [10] found reduced native employment due to inflows of East German migrants to West Germany post-World War II. Also, Bahar et al. (2021) [11] observed negligible labour market effects in Colombia following a large-scale amnesty program for undocumented Venezuelan migrants, except for minor impacts on formal employment. While these case studies do not specifically address asylum seeker situations, they can provide a rationale for governments to limit job options for asylum seekers and regulate the influx of asylum seekers into specific labour markets. Directing asylum seekers toward sectors facing labour shortages and where competition with native workers is unlikely might help mitigate adverse effects on the employment and wages of native workers.
However, the ability of asylum seekers to work does not always have a negative impact on native workers. This is because it depends on how many asylum seekers end up working. Asylum seekers often have difficulty finding a job and earning wages that are correspondent to their educational levels. According to a survey conducted by Lift the Ban (2020), 74% of respondents (UK asylum seekers) have secondary-level education or higher, and 37% have a university degree, which is only 5% lower than that of the rest of the UK [12]. Despite their educational attainment, they struggle to secure employment opportunities. According to the same survey, of the thirty-six people who applied for work permits after waiting for over 12 months, only eight were granted permission, and only two of them managed to find employment afterwards [13].
This result resonates with larger-scale data in 2022 from the Migration Observatory, which indicates that non-EU-born asylum seekers in the UK were more likely to be unemployed than those who migrated for employment, family, or study. While the unemployment rate among the former was 12%, it ranged among the latter from 2 to 6 per cent [14]. Moreover, even if asylum seekers secure employment, it takes time for them to earn wages commensurate with their educational level or equivalent to other types of migrants. For example, research shows that while the employment gap between asylum seekers and other types of migrants converges over time, those in weekly earnings and hourly wages do not narrow [15].
In sum, although granting work permits to asylum seekers may cause competition between them and native workers, it is crucial to keep in mind that asylum seekers would struggle to find a job. Therefore, how many asylum seekers will end up working and how much fiscal contribution they will make should be considered.
Psychological and Social Impact
Access to the labour market can have a positive impact on the mental health of asylum seekers. Asylum seekers often experience insecurity about their future and a sense of being stuck due to pending asylum cases. However, engaging in purposeful activities such as work might help them address these concerns [16]. Being able to work may facilitate the integration of asylum seekers including economic dependence, the improvement of living standards and social integration [17]. One study [18], through its interviews with refugees and migrants in the UK, demonstrated that most of them (the exact number was not specified) view work as a key component of integration. They perceive work as enabling them to establish the foundation for their livelihood. While the data presented is not solely limited to asylum seekers, it would be reasonable to assume that the findings also apply to asylum seekers.
Furthermore, granting work permits to asylum seekers can have a positive impact on other elements of integration such as the acquisition of language skills, and cultural values. For example, one survey [19] asked 207 migrants about the place where they learn the most about the British community and values, with 43% saying from the workplace, 15% from neighbourhood and community, and 15% from mainstream media. Here, it is crucial to consider how temporal and cumulative impact the integration of asylum seekers into the workforce. As Ruiz and Vargas-Silva (2021) [20] argue, when asylum seekers face prolonged periods with limited access to jobs, their economic integration slows down.
Marbach et al. (2017) [21] conducted a study in Germany where a court decision led to a shorter employment ban period. They found that, five years after the waiting period was reduced, refugees who initially had to wait an extra seven months before entering the job market had employment rates about 20 percentage points lower. In this sense, it is advisable to allow asylum seekers to work at an early stage of their application if governments want to facilitate the successful integration of asylum workers into society
Conclusion
Viewing work permits for asylum seekers as a ‘pull-factor’ for undocumented migration and asylum applications overlooks situations where other factors play more significant roles. The exact effect of work permits, and the complex dynamics of migratory decision-making require counterfactual and qualitative analysis. To evaluate its economic impact, it is imperative to consider how many asylum seekers will end up working and how much fiscal contribution they will make. Regarding psychological and integration aspects, access to the labour market can have a favourable impact on asylum seekers' mental health and facilitate their integration into society if they are permitted to work early in the application process.
References
Gower, M., McKinney, C. and Meade, L. (2019). Should asylum seekers have unrestricted rights to work in the UK? UK Parliament [online] Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01908/.
Walsh, P.W. and Sumption, M. (2023). UK policies to deter people from claiming asylum. [online] Migration Observatory. Available at: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/uk-policies-to-deter-people-from-claiming-asylum/.
Lift the Ban (2020). Lift the ban: Why giving people seeking asylum the right to work is common sense. London: Lift the Ban Coalition.
Roger Zetter, David Griffiths, Silva Ferretti, Martyn Pearl (2003) ‘An Assessment of the Impact of Asylum Policies in Europe 1990- 2000’, Home Office Research Study 259;
Walsh and Sumption supra reference 2.
Valenta, M. and Thorshaug, K. (2013). Restrictions on Right to Work for Asylum Seekers: The Case of the Scandinavian Countries, Great Britain and the Netherlands. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 20(3), pp.459–482. doi:https://doi.org/10.1163/15718115-02003006.
Migrationsverket (2023). Asylum seekers who have a job. [online] www.migrationsverket.se. Available at: https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/Private-individuals/Working-in-Sweden/Employed/If-you-are-in-Sweden/Asylum-seekers-who-have-a-job.html
Lift the Ban supra reference 3.
Migration Observatory. (2023). Why the government’s economic Impact Assessment of the Illegal Migration Act tells us little about the Act’s economic impact. [online] Available at: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/why-the-governments-economic-impact-assessment-of-the-illegal-migration-act-tells-us-little-about-the-acts-economic-impact/.
Braun, S. and Omar Mahmoud, T. (2014). The Employment Effects of Immigration: Evidence from the Mass Arrival of German Expellees in Postwar Germany. The Journal of Economic History, 74(1), pp.69–108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022050714000035.
Bahar, D., Ibáñez, A.M. and Rozo, S.V. (2021). Give me your tired and your poor: Impact of a large-scale amnesty program for undocumented refugees. Journal of Development Economics, 151, p.102652. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2021.102652.
Lift the Ban supra reference 3.
Lift the Ban supra reference 3.
Fernández-Reino, M. and Rienzo, C. (2024). Migrants in the UK Labour Market: An Overview - Migration Observatory. [online] Migration Observatory. Available at: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-labour-market-an-overview/.
Ruiz, I. and Vargas-Silva, C. (2017). Differences in Labour Market Outcomes between Natives, Refugees and Other Migrants in the UK. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2920574.
Burnett, A. and Ndovi, T. (2018). The health of forced migrants. BMJ, p.k4200. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4200.
Kierans, D. (2021). Integration in the UK: Understanding the Data. [online] Migration Observatory. Available at: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/reports/integration-in-the-uk-understanding-the-data/.
Rutter, J., Latorre, M., and Sriskandarajah, D. (2008). Beyond naturalisation: citizenship policy in an age of super mobility, London: IPPR.
Migrants Resource Centre. (2018). Integrated Communities Strategy: MRC submission of evidence and response to the government green paper consultation
Ruiz, I. and Vargas-Silva, C. (2021). What Works for Improving Refugee Outcomes in High-Income Countries? Policy Insights for the UK. [online] The Centre on Migration, Policy & Society (COMPAS). Available at: https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/What-Works-for-Improving-Refugee-Outcomes-in-High-Income-Countries-Policy-Insights-for-the-UK.pdf.
Marbach, M., Hainmueller, J. and Hangartner, D. (2017). The Long-Term Impact of Employment Bans on the Economic Integration of Refugees. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3078172.
