If those are the FAIR numbers...yeah, those are garbage. It's a hardline anti-immigrant organization. It also clashes with other projections from conservative anti-immigration outfits like the Heritage Foundation, which had earlier pegged the national annual cost at around $50B.
There's little hard data on how much money goes towards illegal immigrants in terms of things like education/law enforcement etc., and similarly there's little data on how much they economically contribute as many still pay taxes (especially sales taxes etc.).
I mean everything costs money so why would immigation be any different.. 25 years is also a pretty massive window too when you consider 400 billion dollars total. It's like 160 million bucks a year? Utter chump change to governments. I am sure you have sporting teams that have high payrolls than that and they just kick a ball around.
If that's all CA spent on illegal immigration, I consider it a bargain. CA cash receipt from agriculture products alone was 50 billion in 2019. Combined economic activities related with agriculture is well in excess of 100 billion. California private construction industry (another sector heavily dependent on illegal immigrants) spending was over 1 billion in Jan 2021. Which is usually the slowest time of the year for the construction industry in CA.
Nice try to frame it once again. Seems like one of the names on there was also part of the study from 2003. Academics kinda do that you know.. research more than one thing over their lifetime. Someone not willing to frame this topic would have the decency to atleast look at all the names and notice the research i pulled is actually about numbers way passed 2003. Your intentions are clear.
- - - Updated - - -
No hes trying to derail and lock the thread since he cant pull the racist card.
- - - Updated - - -
The funny thing is that alot of sites dont report on it at the moment (elections are in 20 days, sneaking suspicion here they dont want an entire country pulling to the far right). The one national paper that did publish it is behind a paywall. Few regional papers still talked about it though.
The thing is highly controversial as its not done to question the cost of immigration and it hasnt been done in 15 years (the 2003 one was the last one).
Last edited by Thereturn; 2021-03-05 at 06:44 PM.
"My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility
Prediction for the future
"My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility
Prediction for the future
Doesn’t appear to be. Lets hope google gets up to speed regarding translations for discussions sake. Its silly that in every discussion people scream ‘Wheresyurproof!’ And when you have it they go ‘english plz’. The naysayers have it. Lock it then.
Mind you there will be a day where even the biggest ostrich cant dismiss the facts anymore based on faulty google translates and racism cards.
Last edited by Thereturn; 2021-03-05 at 06:55 PM.
Dug deeper .... my Dutch is limited to just a few months living in Eindhoven. But the Dutch newspaper Volkskrant has an explainer.
TLDR:
- The Dutch Right Wing NeoNazi Party had their think tank Forum voor Democratie, FvD commission a report to complain about immigrants.
- Neo Nazis are bad at research. So they mostly took the old 2003 report and used it as a basis for cherry picking data out of context.
- Neo Nazis tried to launder this report through the University of Amsterdam
- Neo Nazis are now trying to launder this on Gaming Forums
Last Thursday, de Volkskrant reported on the report Grenzeloze welfare state. The consequences of immigration on public finances . The conclusion is that immigration from Asia and Africa in particular has cost the Dutch treasury some 400 billion in the past 25 years and that if we continue like this, at least another 600 billion will be added over the next two decades. If we take all costs into account, we would even arrive at 50 billion a year. The authors therefore argue for drastically restricting immigration, especially from the 'non-West' and reducing asylum migration to 90 percent.
Although the report bears the hallmark of the University of Amsterdam, it was commissioned by the Renaissance Institute of Forum for Democracy. It is therefore not surprising that the University has now asked the authors to remove the logo and references to the UvA. The fact that politicians from FvD, the party leader in the first place, do not exactly excel at taking scientific knowledge seriously, does not mean, however, that we should reject the analysis and outcomes in advance.
Xenophobic
The statement that especially asylum seekers and refugees (about 20,000 a year) would cost us 50 billion a year, or one-seventh of the total government budget, seems extremely unlikely to me. This also applies to the proposition that the welfare state will perish due to asylum migration. If that is correct, then the Netherlands, and certainly Germany, would have long since fallen through their hooves. Especially after the 1990s, when the numbers were much higher than in the past decade. Instead, their economies are thriving like never before.
The report's pessimistic conclusions therefore seem primarily intended to legitimize the xenophobic views of Baudet and his colleagues: that we must stop receiving refugees from Africa and the Middle East, in order to keep Europe 'dominant white', prevent us from being 'replaced' and 'our culture' from being destroyed.
This rhetoric may be missing from the report, but the political monkey comes out triumphantly at the end, when on the last page all of a sudden there is talk of 'large-scale abuse' of the right to asylum (without proving it) and to conclude that , if we do not cancel the Refugee Convention, the welfare state can no longer be sustained.
If illegal immigration costs $23 billion then we should put an end to illegal immigration. I don't support anything illegal because I'm a law abiding citizen.
I voted for Trump twice and he was against illegal immigration. I've done all I can do about that topic and it wasn't fully resolved. So I've no other choice than to give up and not care about the topic. *shrug*
I saw them pop up in a few articles, however is this confirmed be the group behind the study?
- - - Updated - - -
And immigration in general. If they were brown and from "shithole countries" that weren't like very white Norway.
Because his opposition to illegal immigration was always based on racism. You voted for a racist shitbird that flagrantly and frequently attempted to break the law and strained the constraints of the law. You can't claim to care about laws and then say, "I voted for the very law abiding Trump", a guy who doesn't abide by the law and largely doesn't care about the law.
So you don’t support any thing illegal but you supported the guy illegally arresting and holding American citizens with ice, illegally doing surgery’s on people coming in from other country’s with ice, and illegally trying to bar asylum seekers?
Even just going off of immigration issues you seem to support many illegal things.
Ya its under one of their think tank sites. Renaissance Instituut, De Kosten van Immigratie. Not giving the benefit of direct linking their racist bullshit.
Same lead author as the 2003 report. This guy is probably like the Thomas Sowell of NL. The Renaissance Institute is their Hoover Institution.
Right winger, no imagination, all copypasta
Even if google translate won't process the WHOLE thing, you can get bits and pieces. So yeah;"Tot slot enige woorden over het Renaissance Instituut6 dat een deel van de kosten heeft gefinancierd."
"Finally, a few words about the Renaissance Institute6, which financed part of the costs."
6 Het Renaissance Instituut is het wetenschappelijk bureau van het Forum voor Democratie.
6 The Renaissance Institute is the scientific bureau of the Forum for Democracy.
Dutch original and Google Translate for the quote and footnote.
They're definitely the ones financing the piece, and it freely admits it.