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."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more