Detailed study shows immigration is not making the Netherlands wealthier, nor is it benefiting the original citizens. It merely makes them minorities in an increasingly over-populated country.

submitted by Jacinda from (unz.com)

all 21 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Jacinda[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

SS: A detailed study of the economic impacts of immigration to the Netherlands. The results are broadly in alignment with race realist conclusions of the alt-right; migrants from Western countries (and Japan) are able to contribute economically while people from poorer countries are a net drain.

Detailed studies on the impact of immigration are extremely rare. As VDare has repeatedly pointed out the purported benefits (like multiculturalism itself) are simply stated as a modern article of faith.

In the comments section are pointing out the deleterious effects of immigration cannot be simply be analyzed through an economic lens.

TG (Comment#7):

Governments do not have immigration policies. They have policies aimed at forcing population growth.

You can’t just look at the financial impact of ‘immigrants’, that’s meaningless by itself. You have to look at the entire increase in population over time due to immigration, including their descendants. And you can’t just look at the financial costs per immigrant, that also misses the point. You need to look at the impact of the total population increase, and ask if it was matched with a corresponding increase in housing, fresh water availability, transportation capacity, industrial infrastructure, etc.

California used to have a population of about 10 million. Largely due to government immigration policy, the population of California has been roughly quadrupled to about 40 million. And water is running short – even though the long term trend in precipitation is flat! – and the roads are clogged, and homelessness is rising… just looking at the narrow financial impact of ‘immigrants’ misses the obvious.

And why isn’t this being discussed? Because forcing population growth drives wages and living standards for the working class down, and rents and profits for the rich, up. Surely this is obvious?

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Immigrants are thus neither a burden to the public purse nor are they a panacea for addressing fiscal challenges. In most countries, except in those with a large share of older migrants, migrants contribute more in taxes and social contributions than they receive in individual benefits. This means that they contribute to the financing of public infrastructure, although admittedly to a lesser extent than the native-born.

i.e. they drag down the economy.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This particular quote is hardly proof of anything. I agree that 3rd world migrants are bad, but you should focus on making better arguments for that point. From the perspective of the uninitiated this quote only means that migrants are doing the low wage jobs. That if not for the migrants the white natives would be forced to do those jobs and those white workers would be contributing the exact same tax revenue. This makes it seem that your position is unreasonable because you are inventing anti migrant arguments out of thin air. That you misunderstand the situation. This poisons the entire anti migrant message.

It is a natural expectation that immigrants will be lower class by virtue of having to start at zero. This is not a fault but a feature. Calling them poor makes you look bad. The real evidence that they are degrading the society they move into is not the first generation but the second and third. Compared to white migrants by the second and third generation there are huge discrepancies. White migrants also start at zero, however their intelligence and work ethic means that their children and grand children become productive and wealthy, while the offspring of 3rd world migrants remain leaches, increase crime, and take up space and resources away from those who would improve society.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

you should focus on making better arguments for that point

You're going to take one statement of mine as my canon?

[–]Richard_Parker 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Why do we need studies to "prove" this?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Within reason you need studies to prove everything, otherwise you are another idiot arguing with idiots. Some things that seem irrefutably true may not be. Not only that but anyone sitting on the fence watching two people argue will be more inclined to believe the science.

[–]Richard_Parker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Yeah I do not know about that. Really do not need studies to show for example that female sexuality is more pliable, that women do not have the same hard codedz hard wired aversion to homosexuality that men do.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Then you are no more intelligent than any other fool who thinks that if they believe something is true then it must be.

[–]Richard_Parker 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Oh do fuck off. Some things belie things like double blind studies. And you can also wait 20-3O years for scientific studies as the world goes to shit.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Some things belie things like double blind studies.

Yet this clearly does not as there is a study that we are talking about. That there may be some thing out there that can't be studied is absolutely no defense of your position that we should not study those things that can. Also, no one ever said you should wait 30 years for a study to be done before having an opinion on something. That is a strawman argument. That a study can take 30 years is no reason not to do it. In the interim you use your best judgement while also doing the research. That is the only intelligent position to hold on that matter.

[–]Richard_Parker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That is a strawman argument

Except it is not. There have been thirty or forty years of back and forth in things like deleterious effects porn or graphic violence in movies and games on young people. Pretty fucking obvious these things do have a number of links with varioue social ills, but we have have been tied down for the better part of a half a century because of myopic fixations in studies.

Ditto with things like effect n children being raised by gay couples, or this very matter , the degree to which bisexuality and homosexuality are variable and in fact influenced by societal norms etc.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

None of those things are "tied down" by the studies, those things are tied down by the (((people))) in power. The homosexual agenda is pushed by those in power and that is why there is nothing you can do about it. If there is anything that can turn the tied against that it is honest studies bringing about the truth. Unfortunately all the soft sciences have been taken over by those same (((people))) and are too corrupt to produce real science.

Without the science it is just you screaming into the wind while they use the media and the education system to indoctrinate kids while their brains are still undeveloped. Without science you have nothing. Without science there is only appeal to authority and you are not the authority. Every example of abandoning science for authority is a horrible disaster.

[–]Richard_Parker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah I don't buy that, sorry.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

We need a study for that?

[–]Jacinda[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Our government is forever arguing that a descendents of people who built this country can't get anything done but if we import a mass of people from China, India, the Middle East, and Africa the economy is really going to hum.

It's obviously ridiculous and because it destroys social capital I would oppose immigration even if did result in short term material gain. I am glad however to have some data to throw in their face.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They're not driven by studies. They're driven by a visceral hatred of whites.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But other whites are brainwashed by their baseless propaganda and can be redpilled with studies disproving the propaganda. It's not about convincing the jews to stop genociding whites, it's about getting whites to stop allowing it.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Always good to have them lying around especially when you might need one in a discussion with a 'You got a source for that' type.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

By the way, can you archive the Unz article? I can't open it for some reason.

[–]Node 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

https://web.archive.org/web/20210613185021/https://www.unz.com/jthompson/costly-immigration/

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you.