Good Integration Requires Certainty
Having immigrants invest in learning their host society's language, as well as broader integration efforts, requires – just like any other investment – some certainty about the future benefits of these efforts, and ideally a long period of payoff. After all, someone expecting to settle down in a country has a stronger incentive to integrate and to ensure for instance that their children will be fluent in the new country's language than someone who expects to leave sometime soon. The time immigrants can stay, of course, typically is not an entirely free choice. Even though temporary residence and work permits may be extendable, immigrants often do not know whether their renewal application will actually be successful.
What does this imply for economically important questions like the fiscal impact of immigration on a host country's public finances or local demand for goods and services? Even if extended residence permits are granted eventually, immigrants are uncertain about this initially and will act accordingly. For instance, if a return home is the default option in case the residence permit is withheld, migrants will try to maintain stronger ties with their country of origin compared to integrating into the host society. Less integration has lasting effects also on the economic success and thus the net fiscal contribution immigrants make. Similarly, immigrants who expect to return typically remit a considerable share of their incomes home, and are unlikely to invest in the country they may have to leave.
This is particularly important to bear in mind for forced migrants, who can be expected to stay for a long time. Hence, in the case of refugees, a fast processing of asylum applications that clarifies applicants' status, as well as language and integration courses should not be viewed as a favor to those arriving, but as an investment that is very much in the host country's own interest.
Many economic migrants, of course, do not plan to settle down in the first place. The image of the migrant who said farewell to his or her home country for good has been gone for a long time. We know now that even at times and contexts where this may have seemed unlikely, such as during the Age of Mass Migration from Europe to the United States around the turn to the 20th century, up to two thirds of those whose first glance at America was the Statue of Liberty on the horizon actually returned later, including many Italians. Today, this is less surprising, as both travel time and cost have been reduced considerably over the past one hundred years. In addition, communication technologies make it much easier to stay in touch with family and friends who have been left behind. So even though out of sight, the old home is less likely to be out of mind, and many anticipate a return already at the outset.
Nevertheless, today's visa schemes, which are very different from the immigration arrangements that the U.S. was operating during the Age of Mass Migration, restrict migration further.
There can be good reasons, why societies and governments try to limit immigration. However, if immigrants or refugees eventually do stay and settle down, there is a strong case for giving them certainty about this as soon as possible. Clarifying a residence status early on may well pay off, not only in terms of their social integration, but also economically.