- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,289
- Reaction score
- 29,238
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
One of the first very detailed studies has been published on the costs vs. benefits of immigration. The study focused on immigration into the Netherlands, and breaks down immigrants by the region they came from. The study was published in Dutch, but this version includes an English translation beginning on page 19.
Some of the key findings from the study as it relates to immigration into the Netherlands:
Do you have a response? Remember, the Netherlands has basically zero illegal immigration and controls its immigration, unlike the United States with its 30 million illegals and counting.
Loading…
www.demo-demo.nl
Some of the key findings from the study as it relates to immigration into the Netherlands:
- Of the 17 million Dutch inhabitants at the end of 2019, 13% were born abroad (first generation) and 11% were children of immigrants (second generation). Currently, per capita expenditures on immigrants are significantly higher than on indigenous people in areas such as education, social security and benefits.
- Moreover, immigrants pay fewer taxes and social security premiums, which further lowers their net fiscal contribution.
- The total net costs for the Dutch public sector of immigration in the period 1995-2019 averaged €17 billion [Euros, worth about $1.22 for each Euro] per year, with a peak of €32 billion [or about $39 billion] in 2016 due to the 2015 ‘refugee crisis’.
- By comparison, the Dutch government also spent roughly €30 billion total for the entire nation on education in 2016.
- As for totals, the total costs of immigration over the period 1995-2019 amounted to €400 billion [or about $488 billion].
- To put that into perspective: these government expenditures have the same order of magnitude as the total Dutch natural gas revenues at €400 billion from the start of extraction until 2019.
- There are also considerable differences by region of origin. On average, Western immigrants make a positive contribution of €25,000, while non-western immigrants cost nearly €275,000.
- Within the categories Western and non-Western there is, however, much variation. mmigration from most Western regions has a positive fiscal impact.
- Immigrants from Japan, North America, Oceania, the British Isles, Scandinavia, and Switzerland, in particular, make a significant positive contribution of roughly €200,000 per immigrant.
- Immigration from Central and Eastern EU-member costs about €50,000.
- Immigration from former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union mainly concerns asylum seekers, who make a much larger negative contribution of €150,000.
- Immigration from non-Western regions is usually unfavorable for public finances. This applies especially to the areas of origin Caribbean, West-Asia, Turkey and North, Central and West Africa with net costs around ranging from €200,000 to €400,000 [$244,000 to $488,000] per immigrant, and Morocco, the Horn of Africa and Sudan with net cost of €550,000 to €600.000 [$671,000 to $732,000] per immigrant.
- By way of comparison: an average Dutch native is roughly ‘budget-neutral' over his or her life.
Do you have a response? Remember, the Netherlands has basically zero illegal immigration and controls its immigration, unlike the United States with its 30 million illegals and counting.
