• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The Cost of Immigration

LosBlancos

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
1,299
Location
Your Girlfriend's Bedroom
First we have Canada:

Immigrants to Canada cost the federal government as much as $23-billion annually and “impose a huge fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers,” according to a think-tank report released Tuesday that was immediately criticized as telling only part of the story.
The Fraser Institute report (download the PDF here or see it below) says newcomers pay about half as much in income taxes as other Canadians but absorb nearly the same value of government services, costing taxpayers roughly $6,051 per immigrant and amounting to a total annual cost of somewhere between $16.3-billion and $23.6-billion.
“It’s in the interest of Canada to examine what causes this and to fix it,” said Herbert Grubel, co-author of the report Immigration and the Canadian Welfare State. “We need a better selection process … We’re not here, as a country, to do charity for the rest of the world.”

The report acknowledges there are “popular propositions” about the benefits of immigration: Young immigrants pay taxes that support social services for Canada’s aging population; immigrants fill the low-paying jobs that others do not seem to want; Canadians are ennobled by allowing people to share in the country’s economic riches; immigration enriches the cultural life of Canadians, and future generations end up repaying their parents’ debt by earning an average or above-average living in the long run.

Mr. Grubel and economic consultant Patrick Grady argue, however, that these benefits either do not hold up to close scrutiny or that they are simply not worth the economic cost.

The 62-page report used a 2006 Census database to estimate the average incomes and taxes paid by immigrants who arrived in Canada over the period from 1987 to 2004. It found that immigrants paid an average of $10,340 in income tax and other taxes, compared with the $16,501 paid by all Canadians. While newcomers each received $110 less than the rest of Canadians, the “net fiscal transfer per immigrant” still amounted to $6,051 annually. The study examined the incomes of adults exclusively, and assumed the average immigrant pays taxes and receives benefits for 45 years.
“I’m sure the data behind the numbers is sound, but I think it only tells half the story,” said Rudyard Griffiths, co-founder of the Dominion Institute and author of Who We Are: A Citizen’s Manifesto. “The fact is that we’re doing immigration on the cheap … We don’t spend enough money on language services, and we don’t do enough skills accreditation and training.”
He said he is sympathetic to the argument that family reunification is likely burdensome on the tax purse, but said it’s just a “drop in the bucket” given that those visas account for only 11,000 of the 250,000 or so newcomers expected this year.
“The trickier issue is that of the quarter of a million, only about 60,000 are skilled or professional workers,” he said. “Everyone else is dependents.”
Mr. Grubel, himself an immigrant who first migrated to the U.S. from Germany in 1956 “with nothing,” maintains that he is not anti-immigration but rather that he believes immigrants should “pay their way in the welfare state.”
He and Mr. Grady argue that the selection process should be revamped to focus on admitting skilled workers who have job offers with Canadian employers. Recent newcomers should also have to post a bond to cover payments for health-care and social services before their parents and grandparents are admitted as landed immigrants.
Douglas Cannon, a prominent B.C.-based immigration lawyer, said he understands the benefit of the cost calculation, but said it is impossible to attach a price-tag to the benefits of welcoming newcomers.
“Immigration is, in the end, about people and their futures, their dreams, their hopes — how can you put a dollar amount on that?” he said. “It’s about continuing to make Canada a place of opportunity.”
This was not Mr. Grubel’s foray into calculating the cost of Canada’s immigration policies. In 2005, the Fraser Institute released his study that pegged the 2002 cost at $18-billion, but he said this latest report is more “scientifically rigorous and less liable to attack.”
National Post
[email protected]
The new Fraser Institute report says Canada should revamp its immigration selection process. Here are some of its recommendations:
- Only those with a legitimate offer from a Canadian employer should be allowed to obtain a temporary work visa. All other grounds for granting immigrant visas should be discontinued, except those applicable to refugee claimants.
- The government should exclude all applicants likely to become a burden on the public health care system.
- The government should set up and supervise a privately run system for the collection of information about the residence and work status of those holding temporary work visas.
- Within one month of arriving in Canada, work-visa holders should be required to register with the enforcement agency and provide contact information.
- Employers of temporary workers must notify authorities when a foreign worker is laid off or has failed to show up for work.
- Work-visa holders who lose their jobs must find new employment within three months or leave Canada, unless their spouse is employed under the family-work visa provision.
- Immigrants may have their parents and grandparents join them as landed immigrants in Canada only after posting a bond to cover payments for health care and other social benefits.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/17/immigrants-cost-23b-a-year-fraser-institute-report/
 
Then for the UK,

Immigrants have cost the taxpayer more than £22 million a day since the mid-1990s, totting up a bill of more than £140 billion, according to a new report.

MigrationWatch UK, which campaigns against mass immigration, added that in 2011 the costs were equivalent to £3,000 for each of the eight million foreign-born people living in Britain.

It compiled the figures in response to a study published by University College London (UCL) last year which claimed immigrants made a “substantial” contribution to public finances.

The pressure group’s new report said UCL’s conclusions - which were given prominent coverage by the BBC - were “simply wrong”.

In fact, immigration between 1995 and 2011 cost the taxpayer more than £140 billion, or £22 million a day, after balancing what immigrants pay in tax with what they take out of Britain’s coffers by claiming benefits and tax credits, it said.


In 2011 alone the cost was £23 billion, or £3,000 each for the eight million foreign-born population, the group concluded. The sum was equal to the amount spent by the NHS on GPs and dentists in a year.
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migration Watch UK, said: “Our report finally disposes of the immigration lobby’s oft repeated claims that immigration reduces our tax burden.
“The total cost is high and increased dramatically between 1995 and 2011, providing no compensation for the overcrowding of this island which we are experiencing, largely as a result of immigration.”
MigrationWatch accused the authors of the UCL report, Prof Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini of the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, of burying a crucial figure in an annexe of their original report, published in November.
It was claimed the UCL study found the overall impact of immigration had been £95 billion but this “was not even mentioned in the text of the report”, said MigrationWatch.
It added that the omission was “truly astonishing”.
A separate figure by UCL on the cost of immigration since the year 2000 was also wildly inaccurate, MigrationWatch claimed.
While UCL said immigrants made a fiscal contribution of £25 billion since the turn of the century they have, in fact, cost the taxpayer £27 billion, it said.
The new study used the same methodology as the UCL study but adopted what MigrationWatch claimed are more realistic assumptions about immigrants’ earnings and investments.
It also pointed out: “Similarly the claim that recent European Economic Area migrants are only half as likely to claim ’benefits or tax credits’ is highly misleading.
“Recent EEA migrants are much more likely to receive tax credits than the UK-born population, and more likely to receive housing benefit, and these are likely to be paid at higher rates in view of their lower incomes.”
The new report added: “The claim that recent EEA migrants contributed 34 per cent more in revenues than they received in state expenditures is simply wrong.”
Immigration to Britain continued to have a “significant fiscal cost”, it concluded.
Prof Dustmann rebutted MigrationWatch's criticisms of the original report.
"The report is written in a derogatory language seemingly attempting to undermine our reputation with suggestions that we do not adequately describe our methodology or comment on all our results. We are in fact very open about our methodology - which has been acknowledged even by earlier critics of our work," he said.
"Their strongly worded criticism is all the more surprising as the MigrationWatch report is based on a substantial amount of guesswork, does not provide clear indication of how their figures are computed, and is at times sloppy or simply wrong."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ost-Britain-3000-a-year-each-says-report.html

 
I love illegal immigrants to the US... i dont care at all.
I don't feel entitled to more just because i was lucky enough to be born in the US. (a wealthier country than mexico, esp per capita)
 
I love illegal immigrants to the US... i dont care at all.
I don't feel entitled to more just because i was lucky enough to be born in the US. (a wealthier country than mexico, esp per capita)

Well my forebears shed blood to preserve this country, have lived here for a while and paid taxes all our lives and bleed the red, white and blue. We are already trillions or billions in debt we don't need any more immigrants who will exponentially reproduce and put a strain on our welfare programs, our schools, and the available jobs. If someone is self-sufficient and has good skills and in demand degree sure they should become a citizen. If we had more stringent immigration control we would not have had 9/11, not had the Boston Marathon bombing, and we would not have ebola here.
 
Well my forebears shed blood to preserve this country, have lived here for a while and paid taxes all our lives and bleed the red, white and blue. We are already trillions or billions in debt we don't need any more immigrants who will exponentially reproduce and put a strain on our welfare programs, our schools, and the available jobs. If someone is self-sufficient and has good skills and in demand degree sure they should become a citizen. If we had more stringent immigration control we would not have had 9/11, not had the Boston Marathon bombing, and we would not have ebola here.

you never shed any blood though, you didn't pay those dues.
 
you never shed any blood though, you didn't pay those dues.

Well being of age to be in the draft I would happily be martyred for my country if it came to that. I feel however my skills are better lent to the business world than to battle presently, but to me my grandfather fighting for this country, my uncles, my family putting their life on the line gives me more claim to this country and what it has to offer than these immigrant. Most of them are nothing more than golddiggers they just go to whichever country have most benefits for them, pays highest salary. I would stay in this country flying my American flag proudly a gun in one hand and a Bible in the other even if I could find a wage better elsewhere.
 
I really don't understand people that sympathize with illegals. I don't care about Mexicans coming here, but at least do it legally and be able to speak basic English and fit into our society. A lot just see the US as a meal ticket. If I want to move to a foreign country I would have to do the things necessary to become a citizen and would try my best to learn the language and culture and fit in. Why should there be an exception for anyone else? I think immigration is a problem for a lot of countries because they're literally losing their national identity. Latest thing I was reading was about Sweden. Apparently it's become quite a problem over there.
 
yeah but what did you do to earn a right to be here? get born into a hospital? Did you pick your own mother? wow
 
yeah but what did you do to earn a right to be here? get born into a hospital? Did you pick your own mother? wow

Did you complete high school or college? Perhaps you should read the articles. Immigration costs billions for the UK and billions for Canada. The immigrants simply use well more social services and require more money than they bring in from taxes by a large margin. Should we continue to borrow trillions from China to take care of people coming here from other countries? Or conversely we could use that money to better care for Americans who have been here for generations, our veterans, ect.
 
Colonies built on genocide have no high moral ground to stand on when it comes to "illegal immigrants".
Its simple hypocrisy.
 
Skimming, maybe I missed something... But I didn't see that this was approached from that kind of at least moral ground.
 
Well my forebears shed blood to preserve this country, have lived here for a while and paid taxes all our lives and bleed the red, white and blue. We are already trillions or billions in debt we don't need any more immigrants who will exponentially reproduce and put a strain on our welfare programs, our schools, and the available jobs. If someone is self-sufficient and has good skills and in demand degree sure they should become a citizen. If we had more stringent immigration control we would not have had 9/11, not had the Boston Marathon bombing, and we would not have ebola here.

I can trace my ancestry back to colonists in New England a hundred years before there was a United States of America. Bleeding? Petty wars in the colonies, the American Revolution, War of 1812, Civil War, World Wars, Korea - I got it. Hell, I can look at history books for parts of my family. And that doesn't even begin to include the branch that came over the Bering land bridge many thousands of years ago.

Does it matter? No. The more recent immigrants in my family and the old pre-revolutionary American lines are pretty much the same.
 
Did you complete high school or college? Perhaps you should read the articles. Immigration costs billions for the UK and billions for Canada. The immigrants simply use well more social services and require more money than they bring in from taxes by a large margin. Should we continue to borrow trillions from China to take care of people coming here from other countries? Or conversely we could use that money to better care for Americans who have been here for generations, our veterans, ect.

What about all those innocent citizens whose homes and infrastructure were bombed by your beloved veterans? Surely they have a moral right to be provided shelter and basic welfare
 
The Fraser Institute is a conservative think tank. Not exactly an unbiased source of evidence.
 
What about all those innocent citizens whose homes and infrastructure were bombed by your beloved veterans? Surely they have a moral right to be provided shelter and basic welfare

I don't mean to be so cold, but looking out for numero uno isn't something that needs justified. Just because a chicken 'deserves' that basic right of another heartbeat doesn't mean my requirements for continued metabolism is going to let it get there. Humans didn't get to where we are by being always peaceful. We owe a lot of ourselves to the enemy, real or imagined, that kept us awake at night. I don't know why people keep bringing up the argument of "but don't they deserve what you have?". Nobody deserves anything. My ancestors secured this territory and they did it for their tribe. Many other tribes did the Same, but not quite like us. Times change, though, and tribes do as well... But still. I doubt my ancestors had all the upcoming Africans and Arabs in mind when they were beating back Hitler... Etc.

As for heritage, I have colonial ancestry. I also have what looks to be Amerindian... It's consistent in tests. So I'm also not trying to take a hard line opinion here. But the 'tribe' I have grown up with does feel a sense of 'this is our territory', and will scrutinize newcomers and outliers/minorities, and how they fit in, or don't. They are unknown. Their interests are to family, and tribe/extended family. What I'm getting at is the way things go, naturally, and trying to reason why being highly critical is good, and self serving.

I don't know, though.
 
Last edited:
But the 'tribe' I have grown up with does feel a sense of 'this is our territory', and will scrutinize newcomers and outliers/minorities, and how they fit in, or don't.

What a shitty, paranoid and nastily parochial community in which you must reside. I'd hate to be you.
 
I'm not saying it is a highly involved/invested process at all times and all places, but it's only natural.

Your emotions are amusing as always.
 
but it's only natural

Actually, it's not, you just live in a shitty, paranoid and nastily parochial community - which probably goes a long way to explaining the shitty, paranoid and nastily parochial opinions you express with depressing regularity
 
Top