Well apart from the obvious answer that refugees and migrants can offer a source of cheap (read undercutting) labour, a not often thought of explanation is the fact that refugees and migrants from the third world don’t tend to have any debts.
Once naturalised and settled these people can be led like lambs to the slaughter into the banks and loan companies and gifted with credit cards and loans that swell the banks profits and further the west’s obsession with positive economic growth.
We live in a debt driven nexus of economies in the west and it’s something that I do not like. We live in an age where everything that we do involves banks and economic growth is predicated on debt. This is why the banks had to bailed out in 2008 (another thing I didn’t agree with). If the debt stops flowing western economies will fall apart.
We’re all debt slaves and that’s that.
So what do you do if you are a member of the global elite that needs more borrowing to go on to keep the whole house of cards standing upright, when your own native population is more or less maxed out on loans and credit cards and seeking to reduce their debts as the economy is tanking?
Well, it’s obvious, you invite in those that have no debts…
I’d like to qualify that I’m not anti-migrant or refugee as a student of stoicism I’d like to say that I support the idea of cosmopolitanism in which we treat other people from other nationalities as well as our we treat ourselves as per the following on Hierocles, circles of Concern, but I can’t think of anything more racist than importing foreign people into the country just because they are (a) a source of cheap exploitable labour and (b) can be enslaved to debts.