Skip to main content

Case overstated: Immigrants don't cost that much at all

It would seem that immigrants, legal and otherwise, are on the march from and to somewhere in the world.   Many are fleeing persecution.   Others are what might be described as economic migrants.    In whatever category they might fall, the "host" countries are called on to provide support and aid - and governments confronted by the "locals" complaining how these immigrants are a drain on the public purse, take jobs away from the populace, etc. etc.

A report by the OECD just in concludes that cost of immigrants is actually overstated.

"Public debate about immigration is being distorted by unfounded concerns over the financial burden that new arrivals put on governments, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said in a report on Thursday.

Across the developed world, “the fiscal impact of immigration is close to zero,” the organization said in the report, which compares the costs of immigration internationally. “The current impact of the cumulative waves of migration that arrived over the past 50 years is just not that large,” it added, “whether on the positive or negative side.”

The O.E.C.D., which is based in Paris, noted that over the decade 2001-11, immigration was responsible for 40 percent of the population growth in member countries. Nevertheless, that inflow was usually almost irrelevant to overall public expenditures relative to gross domestic product — “generally not exceeding 0.5 percent of G.D.P. in either positive or negative terms” — as the largest costs to government, like those from military spending, are unaffected by immigration.

“Immigrants contribute more in tax and social contributions than they get in individual benefits,” said Jean-Christophe Dumont, the O.E.C.D. official who headed the study. “That’s why the net fiscal impact is mostly positive,” even if small.

“The public perception is that they take much more out than they put in,” he said, “but that’s just not the case.”

That message, however, has largely failed to sink in, the O.E.C.D. found, partly because some children of immigrants perform poorly in school and the job market and need government aid. In other cases, politicians find it easy to stereotype immigrants for political gain."


Popular posts from this blog

Donald T: First seduced..... then betrayed!

All those supporters of Trump - who, heaven's only knows, got him headed for the White House - are in a for more than a rude awakening and shock.   Whatever Trump "promised" is just not going to Paul Krugman so clearly spells out in his latest op-ed piece "Seduced and Betrayed by Donald Trump" in The New York Times.

"Donald Trump won the Electoral College (though not the popular vote) on the strength of overwhelming support from working-class whites, who feel left behind by a changing economy and society. And they’re about to get their reward — the same reward that, throughout Mr. Trump’s career, has come to everyone who trusted his good intentions. Think Trump University.

Yes, the white working class is about to be betrayed.

The evidence of that coming betrayal is obvious in the choice of an array of pro-corporate, anti-labor figures for key positions. In particular, the most important story of the week — seriously, people, stop focusing on Trum…

Snooping..... at its worst

The Brits have just brought in legislation which allows for unprecedented "snooping" in a Western democracy - says Edward Snowden.   Let truthdig explain....

"On Tuesday, the United Kingdom instated the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, a piece of legislation described by whistleblower Edward Snowden as “the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy.”

The law, informally known as the “Snooper’s Charter,” spent over a year in Parliament before it was passed. The Guardian reported:

"The new surveillance law requires web and phone companies to store everyone’s web browsing histories for 12 months and give the police, security services and official agencies unprecedented access to the data.

It also provides the security services and police with new powers to hack into computers and phones and to collect communications data in bulk. The law requires judges to sign off police requests to view journalists’ call and web records, but the measure has been descri…

A "Muslim Register"

Outrageous is the word which immediately comes to mind - the idea of a  Muslim Register which Trump has floated.     And how and by or through whom would this Registry comes into being?    Let The Intercept explain.....

"Every American corporation, from the largest conglomerate to the smallest firm, should ask itself right now: Will we do business with the Trump administration to further its most extreme, draconian goals? Or will we resist?

This question is perhaps most important for the country’s tech companies, which are particularly valuable partners for a budding authoritarian. The Intercept contacted nine of the most prominent such firms, from Facebook to Booz Allen Hamilton, to ask if they would sell their services to help create a national Muslim registry, an idea recently resurfaced by Donald Trump’s transition team. Only Twitter said no.

Shortly after the election, IBM CEO Ginni Rometty wrote a personal letter to President-elect Trump in which she offered her congratulation…