Economic benefit ya

[Idaho]

EU immigrants have a net economical benefit. (At least within the EU)

Ok - so the Dutch should be barred from leaving the EU? Or do the migration rules only apply for darkies and paupers?

[Jolt]

Ok - so the Dutch should be barred from leaving the EU? Or do the migration rules only apply for darkies and paupers?

Only those. Obviously you and me are quite superior from an economical point of view to somebody from Morocco or Russia, in their views.

[rory_20_uk]

What type of immigrants are we talking about?

Economic migrants?
Illegal immigrants?

I imagine that the former offer a new profit to the country. The latter probably a net loss.

[Louis VI the Fat]

There are numerous reasons for immigration, besides economical ones, amongst others family unification and formation, or refugees. An economical analysis of the costs of imigration is not the sole argument.

One does not need to bend the facts to suit this. I, for one, am never willing to twist reality to suit my personal conviction. Things are the way they are.

Or do the migration rules only apply for darkies and paupers?

Should a corporation equally employ everybody, or should it try to find the ones it needs by discriminating on education, skill, ability to blend into the corporation's culture?

If there are no social and economical considerations allowed for immigration, then why should we not have unlimited immigration? I say we take in a billion people into the EU this decade. This will have no detrimental effect whatsoever on Europe, according to leftist taboos, because immigration does not have negative effects.

Good comments:

Nah, not really:

25 and 35 years will cost the public sector between €40,000 and €50,000 during his or her life time.

So, that's less than €1000 per year then, in perspective. Now, how much does a Native claim, when considering health issues, child benefit, student grants, childcare allowance, etc?
The numbers are not total expenditure, as the commentator suggests. They are net contribution. Total expenditure runs in the hundreds of thousands.
A native will have a net positive contribution of some €4000-€5000. This assuming an immigrant population of ten percent.


Sadly those figures don't add up if one takes into account taxes paid, consumer spending as well as other economic factors and immigrant input. Back to the drawing board I would suspect.
Sadly, the urge to work the numbers until they match ideology seems a halmark of multiculturalism.
Taxes paid and other economic factors have been taken into account.


This is plain nonsense. I am a non-western immigrant (knowledge migrant). I pay more than 17000 of income taxes per year (plus 19% VAT on whatever I consume). I do not use subsidized housing, have not used unemployment benefit so far, and pay for an obligatory health insurance, which I rarely use. Find how much it costs the Dutch society to have me. BTW, did I mention that I am a PhD holder?
Somebody please explain this 'knowledge' immigrant that the numbers are averages.
Next, he'll use some cold winter day in Tunis to proof the Sahara isn't warmer than the Netherlands.

He does show something else: a discriminating immigration policy could bring in PhD's, who are usually not an excessive burden on the taxpayer.

[Fragony]

Luigi mia muca, knows exactly where the hurt should be

[Vladimir]

Luigi mia muca, knows exactly where the hurt should be

In the locker???

(sorry, shameless pun)

[Fragony]

@Idaho

Let's be unsympetathic and look at people as if they were currency. There really is no benefit. Why let them come here.

[Idaho]

Let's be unsympetathic and look at people as if they were currency. There really is no benefit. Why let them come here.

Let's look at people as if they were people. They should have the same rights as any other people on this planet. Even (shock horror) if they are darkies, or have a different religion, or don't have much money.

The Dutch and British spent 300 years going round the world creating colonies. We built our success and prosperity on it. It's a bit rich trying to pull up the drawbridge now - especially as we still want the right to go wherever we want.

[Fragony]

The people from our previous colony's are doing fine, and they aren't all that happy with their new neighbours either

[Idaho]

If there are no social and economical considerations allowed for immigration, then why should we not have unlimited immigration? I say we take in a billion people into the EU this decade. This will have no detrimental effect whatsoever on Europe, according to leftist taboos, because immigration does not have negative effects.

Immigration is just the movement of people from one place to another. It's been going on since humans have existed. It causes wars, riots, shortages, genocides, diseases and environmental degredation, amongst other things.

It is also fundamental to human existence as it brings trade, spread of ideas, mix of genetics, movement of skills, escape from war/poverty/persecution.

What is also fundamental to humanity is the endless moaning about it. Go back to any country, any time, and you will see the same tedious arguments repeated again and again and again. "They are stealing our jobs", "We don't have enough space", "They are all criminals", etc, etc ad nauseum ad infinitum.

Fortunately for me, those arguments didn't prevent my great-grandfather from escaping the pogroms of eastern europe at the end of the 19th century. And fortunately for my work colleague, they didn't stop her escaping Zimbabwe when she was threatened for political activity against Mugabe.

And fortunately for Fragony and you Louis, they don't stop you from travelling to any place you feel like travelling to in the world.