Someone made a post yesterday questioning whether economy is a good argument to use against immigration or that we should stick only to racial/cultural arguments. The answer is that it absolutely is. Sadly, the pro-immigrant propaganda is so prevalent that many people (even on the far right) will come to accept it without being familiar with the counter-arguments.

Fiscal Impact

First you must realize that most studies don't distinguish between the race of immigrants. Not even country of origin most of the times. They just average them out all together. So when looking at America, yes, the "immigrants" (which in this case are Europeans, Asians, Hispanics, some Africans mixed in) do benefit the economy when you autistically average everything out. But most anti-immigrant people are not against all immigrants equally. Even civnats recognize that some immigrants are less desirable than others. We all know which those are.

There are studies from few Western countries that looked at fiscal impact of migrants from various parts of the world and they all found that non-Western migrants are net negative to the economy.

Denmark:

• https://sci-hub.se/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176268004000308

Total net transfers from the public sector to immigrants from nonwestern countries and their descendants varied between 0.54% and 0.91% of GDP. There was thus a sizeable redistribution from native Danes to nonwestern immigrants and their descendants in all the years analyzed.

• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00148-017-0636-1

The main conclusion is that immigrants from Western countries have a positive fiscal impact, while immigrants from non-Western countries have a large negative one, which is also the case when considering only non-refugee immigrants.

• Report by Danish government: https://fm.dk/udgivelser/2021/oktober/oekonomisk-analyse-indvandreres-nettobidrag-til-de-offentlige-finanser-i-2018/ (Economist article with neat infograph. Speaks for itself really.)

Netherlands:

• https://www.unz.com/jthompson/costly-immigration/ (original study: http://www.demo-demo.nl/files/Grenzeloze_Verzorgingsstaat.pdf)

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 ranging from €200,000 to €400,000 per immigrant, and Morocco, the Horn of Africa and Sudan with net cost of €550,000 to €600.000 per immigrant. ... Immigrants that make on average a significantly negative contribution to Dutch public finances are mainly those who exercise the right to asylum, especially if they come from Africa and the Middle East.

Finland:

• https://www.suomenperusta.fi/content/uploads/2019/03/Summary_AsylumSeekers_lifecycle_effects.pdf

Conclusion: Finland Should Not Take in Any New Iraqi- and Somalian-Born Immigrants from the Standpoint of Finnish Public Finances.

France:

• https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3129

The original report is in french so I can't verify it but the translation on the blog says the following:

• France has 6,868,000 immigrants, or 11% of the population.
• Immigration reduces by two thirds the growth of the GNP.
• The cost of immigration in France is 71.76 billion euros.
• The revenue from immigration in France is 45.57 billion euros.
• The deficit from immigration shouldered by the taxpayers is 26.19 billion euros.
• When an immigrant does not return home at the expiration of his work contract, it is the State (the taxpayer) who bears the cost of welfare and social benefits.
• Non-European immigrants and their descendants receive 22% of all social benefits.
• The unit-price of requests for asylum is 15,000 euros.
• The majority of immigration expenses do not depend on the Ministry of Immigration headed by Brice Hortefeux.
• Expenses for security linked to immigration amount to 5.2 billion euros.
• The black market involves at least 500,000 immigrants and represents a loss to the State of 3.810 billion euros.
• 65 to 90% of prostitutes are foreign.
• The unemployment rate of immigrants is twice that of non-immigrants.
• Social benefits constitute 14% of the average revenue of immigrant households versus 5% for non-immigrant households.

It doesn't seem to distinguish immigrants by country of origin but one of the solutions authors recommend to reduce cost of immigration is "toughening the conditions for entry of non-European immigrants."

Canada:

• https://williamgairdner.ca/is-the-economy-a-good-reason-for-immigration/

a recent study by economist Herbert Grubel of Simon Fraser University revealed that the 2.5 million immigrants who came to Canada between 1990 and 2002 received $18.3 billion more in government services and benefits in the year 2002 alone than they paid in taxes for that year

A more recent study by Professor Herbert Grubel of Simon Fraser University entitled The Fiscal Burden of Recent Canadian Immigrants has shown that in the year 2002 alone, the costs in services and benefits received by the 2.5 million immigrants who arrived between 1990 and 2002 exceeded the taxes they paid by $18.3 billion. As he points out in his study, $18.3 billion represents more than the federal government spent on health care and twice what it spent on defence in the fiscal year 2000/2001

Miscellaneous

Another pro-immigrant talking point that is accepted as obvious truth is that migration will help counter the aging population.

Quoting from the Netherland study:

"In line with the literature, this study found that solving dejuvenation by immigration resembles a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. A simulation shows that ever-increasing numbers of immigrants are needed to keep the Dutch grey pressure at the 2020 level. This results in significant population growth: 35 million inhabitants by the year 2060, 75 million at the end of this century, and half a billion by the year 2200.

Immigration does not provide a stable solution to population ageing because the underlying problems of low fertility and dejuvenation are not resolved. On average, fertility of immigrants is below the replacement level as well, partly because women from high fertility groups adjust their fertility downwards over time, and partly because immigrants from most countries in the Americas, Europe and Eastern Asia already have low fertility rates."

Similarly paper Can Immigration Slow U.S. Population Aging? concluded with:

"This article has argued that more immigration is a clumsy and unrealistic policy alternative to offset a shortage of domestic labor or to correct a per- ceived imbalance in the pensioner/worker ratio in the United States and, by implication, in other countries with low fertility. "

This CIS article cites other research:

" In an important 1992 article in Demography, the leading academic journal in the field, economist Carl Schmertmann explained that, mathematically, "constant inflows of immigrants, even at relatively young ages, do not necessarily rejuvenate low-fertility populations. In fact, immigration may even contribute to population aging." A UN study two decades ago also found that immigration alone cannot make up for population decline and aging in Western countries. The Census Bureau also concluded in projections done in 2000 that immigration is a "highly inefficient" means for increasing the percentage of the population that is of working-age in the long run. Our analysis of the newest projections from the Census Bureau confirms these findings."

There has been some talk about whether immigration depresses wages or not. I haven't really read or sought out information on this, I am familiar though with this meta-analysis which found that found 1% increase in the proportion of immigrants in the labor force was associated with a 0.119% decrease in native wages.