There are other names being tossed about, but this maybe the actual trigger.
You canāt sayed ātossedā about in this thread! How is it not censored!
Thereās actually a pretty significant amount of data coming out of Western countries now on the fiscal impact of immigration, and the results vary massively depending on where immigrant groups are coming from. Some groups are beneficial economically, while others are an big and long-term net cost. Immigrantion from two particular regions of the world they found that the cost to a country is close to $1 million per person across their lifetime.
At the same time, police and government crime data from places like Germany, Sweden, Norway etc seem to line up with a lot of the same groups showing a significant over representation in crime in addition to the worst fiscal outcomes.
Whatās even more interesting is that a lot of the data shows the problems donāt necessarily improve by the second or third generation, they actually get worse. Iām honestly surprised more right wing parties havenāt latched onto this data in a much bigger way, because youād think it would be politically expedient for them to do so.
I canāt remember all the report names now, there was a Dutch one called something like Borderless Welfare or similar, but some of it is fascinating reading, even if itās a bit of a disturbing read.
5 Likes
At least thatās diversified.
1 Like
Itās a fascinating chart and really shows the political shift.
3 Likes
Trump has lost a lot of support if you believe the polls.
One thing Iāve learned over the past few elections both here and in the USA is that incumbent right-wing governments tend to be heavily unpopular through a large part of their term, and then make up a lot of ground around the election. The Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison government lived on the edge of that catastrophe curve, Trump was loathed through most of his first term but Biden only squeaked home in 2020 regardless. The 2019 UK election had a similar vibe. My personal explanation of this is that during an election campaign media focus turns from what politicians are actually doing to what they say, so the coverage switches from focusing on concrete reality to whatever lies ave been told today, and in a world where large chunks of the right are simply contemptuous of basical factual reality, that advantages them. But of course Iām a leftie, so I would say thatā¦
8 Likes
Makes depressing sense.
I suspect that immigration to the UK has long been the most desired, since the social services are or have been generous. Hence those who travel through Europe to sit and wait in Calais camps to avail themselves of the next opportunity to get across the channel.
Britain had one of the biggest colonial collections with populations well over the 1 billion mark. Its hard to keep them out, but times are changing. The UK people seem to have had enough, and want a party in control with the will to cut migration levels. Even if they are a great way to ensure economic growth continues, there is a limit to the number of people a country can reasonably bring in every year, surely!
3 Likes
Yeah, the over representation in crime from certain communities is massive, it also matches up to the fiscal contribution data I was speaking of too. Basically immigrants to western countries from East Asia and Europe are the best, they contribute positively to the economy and have below average crime rates per capita. Africa and the middle east are the worst and by a long way in cost per person and over representation in crime.
Iām actually suprised countries donāt tailor their immigration policies towards those regions proven to fiscally contribute positively, with lower crime rates and the best chance of integration and social cohesion. It seems an obvious approach, but in Europe in particular, they seem like theyāre realising this too late and the genie is already out of the bottle in a lot of those countries.
Yeah but they werenāt legal migration where you get to chooseā¦they were mostly illegal migration, which is harder to stop.
1 Like
Thatās a good point, I think that was the EU, UN etc that set the laws that way, but I think I read recently the EU have now passed laws to attempt to stop the incentive for these economic asylum seekers/refugees to try and enter Europe. Interestingly Brexit got up off the back of the public wanting to exit the EU and itās laws to stop this type of immigration, but then Labour and the Torries let in more asylum seekers/immigrants than ever before, post Brexit. This is what has angered the general public and has seemingly had them now move away from the traditional parties towards reform on the right and the greens on the left.
Poland is an example that went the other way, stopped any of these people coming in and just accepted the UN ā¬1 million per day fine instead. They found it cost significantly less though than housing the asylum seekers locally, particularly if you believe the data that each individual immigrant from certain regions cost a country about ā¬1 million on average.
1 Like
How on earth is each migrant costing $1m annually? Sounds like BS.
One million euros 
Oh, well now it makes sense!
1 Like
I think itās across their lifetime.
1 Like
Its across their life time.
But look at Uk Housing costs alone is $60,000 pounds per asylum seeker per year to be housed and fed- put up in Hotels. ā¦you wonder who owns the hotels, they get reliable government money and hotels are always full.
Follow the money.
They were doing similar in the US. Housing asylum seekers in Hotels.
Trump probably annnoyed he couldnāt get in on it and bill the govt.
That implies to me there is some systemic mismanagement or corruption.
For example, Iām sure with Australia the ācostā of asylum seekers is through the roof over the last two decades. But that isnāt because those people cost that much, it was entirely a policy choice by the Australian government in how to treat, house, and manage the asylum seekers. The Howard government made a decision that they were willing to spend millions (maybe millions per asylum seeker) to discourage others from coming. When a more humane approach would have resulted in significantly less cost per member.
I would say, that it is slightly disingenuous to include asylum seekers with other immigration. Unless the Government(s) are willing to break the laws and treaties theyāve written, they have to accept asylum seekers. The question is whether different forms of standard immigration, which the government has more control over, has anywhere near those costs per immigrant.