Sample History Paper on Venezuelan Refugee Crisis and Chile

Immigration comes along with its effects either to the sending or the receiving country. Research has it that, around five hundred thousand people have left Venezuela in the last two years (O’Neil). The reasons behind the fleeing are the combined economic and humanitarian crises together with that political persecution that is on the rise. Chile is one of the receiving countries to the Venezuela refugees. With that, the condition of hosting them comes along with effects on the labor market, fiscal system, cultural practices, among other effects. Worsening of the condition in Venezuela will lead to more citizens fleeing to the neighboring countries, Chile been one of them (Miller and Peters 6). The condition brings up the question of whether Chile should resettle more Venezuelans refugees or not. Putting in mind the effects on the labor market, fiscal system, cultural practices, I stand with a position that Chile should not resettle more Venezuelan refugees. Working towards the resolution of the condition in Chile is the best solution to them.

Chile should not resettle more Venezuelans refugees. Instead, it should work on its best to help resolve the condition of combined economic and humanitarian crises. With having no more resettlement of refugees, the labor market will be affected in a way. From the normal circumstances, immigration supports labor market. Rich countries have lack of enough labor and immigration seems to favor the (Friden, Jeffry, David Lake, and Lawrence Bro Ch. 24). Having no more refugees resettled in Chile, the labor market will not improve any further. The production sector will also feel the effect as the labor is not improved though the capital is present. At this point, Chile loses. Let Chile remain with the number of refugees it has hosted and with that help emanate the economic power of Venezuela.

The aspect of having more immigration to Chile affects the fiscal system. The issue develops when one resonates around certain perspectives. Before making a stand, one argues on how much the immigrants use the services shared socially. They are then compared with the natives and the effect through the payment of taxes. Refugees do not have great participation in the payment of taxes (Miller and Peters 2). With Chile not hosting more refugees from Chile, the fiscal system will stop receiving a negative effect fiscally. The individuals need social services with a subject to their less impact in building up the fiscal system.

Similarly, immigration affects the cultural practices in the receiving country. With that, bringing on board the effects that will come along with hosting more refugees supports the stand of being against resettling of more refugees in Chile. Immigration goes hand in hand with cultural assimilation, which goes either way. The Chile citizens need to protect their culture (Massey et al. 431). From that view, immigrants usually tend to live in enclaves, keep ties to the old country, come along with different religion, and have different political views. At that point of not resettling more Venezuelans refugees in Chile, the latter wins as it evades itself from such side effects.

With the stand of Chile not to resettle more refugees, Venezuela feels effects economically and politically. 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. If it takes to bring up advice, loans, or consultancy, Chile should gather with other countries to offer help. Politically, the aspect is built up by citizens entirely (Massey et al. 435). The political power is infected when there is a great participation of citizens and their concentration is settled. With the stand, Venezuela will be able to regain or create a good political foundation as the citizens are concentrating on the rebuilding of their nation. With this, Venezuela benefits a lot as it can stand politically. The citizens will vote and chose a leader for their country with large participation, an indication of fairness.

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 resonate on the same. At first, the stand will indicate lack of support by Chile to the affected citizens. Offering the above reasons behind the stand especially on the labor market, fiscal system, cultural, political, and economic effects it will turn out that Chile is positive towards its stand. With a keen attention on the reasons behind the stand, it would result that Chile argues on the benefits that Venezuela will absorb at long last with the take (O’Neil). It will be a good brainstorm to other countries that resettle the refugees from that country and with one objective, the country will stand up again.

Conclusively, putting in mind the effects on the labor market, fiscal system, culture, economy, and politics, I stand with a position that Chile should not resettle more Venezuelan refugees.




Works Cited

Friden, Jeffry, David Lake, and Lawrence Broz. International Political Economy: Perspectives on Global Power and Wealth. 6th edition (noted as FLB on the schedule) Ch. 23, 24 & 25

Massey, Douglas S. et al., 1993. “Theories of International Migration”

Miller, M., and Peters, M. Restraining the Huddled Masses: Migration Policy and Autocratic Survival. British Journal of Political Science, 1-31. doi:10.1017/S0007123417000680. 1-11

O’Neil, Shannon. “A Venezuelan Refugee Crisis.” Council on Foreign Relations. N.p., 2018. Web. 22 May 2018.