Editing Immigration

Parent (hide)

Title

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
<script type="importmap">
{"imports":{"xwiki-livedata":"\/webjars\/wiki%3Axwiki\/xwiki-platform-livedata-webjar\/17.4.0\/main.es.js?r=1","vue":"\/webjars\/wiki%3Axwiki\/vue\/3.5.13\/dist\/vue.runtime.esm-browser.prod.js?r=1","vue-i18n":"\/webjars\/wiki%3Axwiki\/vue-i18n\/11.1.3\/dist\/vue-i18n.esm-browser.prod.js?r=1"}}
</script>

</head>
<body id="body" class="skin-flamingo viewbody main wiki-xwiki
space-Main_Categories.Immigration_&#38;_Politics.Borderless_Welfare_State"><h1 id="HImmigrationintheUnitedStates" class="wikigeneratedid"><span>Immigration in the United States</span></h1><p>Immigration has been a foundational and transformative force in shaping the demographic composition, political discourse, and cultural identity of the United States. From its earliest colonial days, the U.S. attracted primarily European settlers, mainly from England, Ireland, Germany, and other Western and Northern European countries. These initial populations established the social, political, and economic frameworks of the young nation. Over the centuries, waves of immigration continued, each influenced by the prevailing economic conditions, political upheavals abroad, and evolving American policies. While early immigration was predominantly European, subsequent waves brought increasing numbers of individuals from Southern and Eastern Europe, as well as Asia and Latin America. For most of American history however, immigration was heavily limited to only Whites. Any framing of the narrative that claims we are a nation of immigrants without addressing this fact is highly disingenuous.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>America was always intended to be a melting pot of European ethnicities, IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A RACIAL MELTING POT.</strong></p><h2 id="HEarlyImmigrationPolicyandRestrictions" class="wikigeneratedid"><span>Early Immigration Policy and Restrictions</span></h2><p>The history of U.S. immigration law reveals a pattern of racial and ethnic exclusion intended to shape the nation's demographic makeup in accordance with dominant social hierarchies of the time. Early federal policies codified these biases, often explicitly prioritizing White European populations and restricting non-White immigration.</p><h3 id="H1790NaturalizationAct" class="wikigeneratedid"><span>1790 Naturalization Act</span></h3><p><span class="wikiexternallink"><a href="https://immigrationhistory.org/item/1790-nationality-act/">The Naturalization Act of 1790&nbsp;</a></span>was the first federal statute governing the process by which immigrants could become American citizens. Crucially, it limited citizenship to "free White persons of good character," effectively codifying a racial prerequisite for naturalization and excluding Native Americans, African Americans, Asians, and other non-White groups. Additionally, the law restricted naturalization rights to men, explicitly excluding women from the process regardless of race. This racialized citizenship framework established by the 1790 Act set a precedent that influenced subsequent immigration and naturalization policies, reinforcing a conception of American identity grounded in White European ancestry.  Access to citizenship would become more expansive over time; although, the racial restriction was not eliminated entirely until 1952. <sup><span id="x_footnote_ref_1" class="footnoteRef"><span class="wikilink"><a href="#x_footnote_1">1</a></span></span></sup></p><h3 id="H1882ChineseExclusionAct" class="wikigeneratedid"><span>1882 Chinese Exclusion Act</span></h3><p>The <span class="wikiexternallink"><a href="https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/chinese-exclusion-act">Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882</a></span> was the first significant federal legislation to impose immigration restrictions based explicitly on ethnicity and nationality. It prohibited the immigration of Chinese laborers for a ten-year period. For the first time, federal law proscribed entry of an ethnic working group on the premise that it endangered the good order of certain localities.<sup><span id="x_footnote_ref_2" class="footnoteRef"><span class="wikilink"><a href="#x_footnote_2">2</a></span></span></sup> This law not only suspended new Chinese immigration but also placed severe restrictions on the rights of Chinese immigrants already residing in the U.S., barring them from citizenship and limiting their legal protections. The Act was extended multiple times and remained in effect until its repeal in 1943, laying the groundwork for further exclusionary policies against other non-European groups.</p><h3 id="H1924Johnson-ReedAct" class="wikigeneratedid"><span>1924 Johnson-Reed Act</span></h3><p>Also known as the Immigration Act of 1924, the <span class="wikiexternallink"><a href="https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act">Johnson-Reed Act&nbsp;</a></span>established a national origins quota system designed to preserve the existing ethnic composition of the United States, which was predominantly Northern and Western European at the time. The law severely restricted immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe and barred immigration from Asia entirely.<sup><span id="x_footnote_ref_3" class="footnoteRef"><span class="wikilink"><a href="#x_footnote_3">3</a></span></span></sup> The quota system assigned visas based on the proportion of each nationality present in the U.S. according to the 1890 census, deliberately favoring groups deemed more "desirable" by the racial and ethnic standards of the era. This legislation institutionalized racial and ethnic hierarchies in immigration policy and had lasting effects on the demographics of the American population, virtually halting immigration from Asia and significantly reducing numbers from Southern and Eastern Europe.</p><h3 id="H1965Hart-CellerAct" class="wikigeneratedid"><span>1965 Hart-Celler Act</span></h3><p>The Immigration and <span class="wikiexternallink"><a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/89th-congress/house-bill/2580/text">Nationality Act Amendments of 1965,</a></span> commonly known as the Hart-Celler Act, represented a dramatic shift in U.S. immigration policy. The Act abolished the national origins quota system established in 1924, replacing it with a preference system based on family reunification and skilled labor qualifications. Although framed as a more equitable and moderate reform, the Hart-Celler Act unintentionally precipitated profound demographic changes by opening immigration channels to countries in Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Caribbean. This resulted in increased immigration from these regions, diversifying the U.S. population ethnically and culturally. The legislation reflected Cold War-era geopolitical considerations and a growing recognition of civil rights but also introduced new challenges in assimilation and social cohesion debates. The Hart-Celler Act remains the foundation of contemporary U.S. immigration law and continues to shape patterns of migration and national discourse about identity and belonging.</p><h2 id="HOriginsoftheStatueofLiberty27s22GiveMeYourTired2CYourPoor22Engraving" class="wikigeneratedid"><span>Origins of the Statue of Liberty's "Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor" Engraving</span></h2><p>The famous engraving on the Statue of Liberty’s pedestal, featuring the lines "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," originates from a poem titled *"The New Colossus"* written by American poet Emma Lazarus in 1883. Emma Lazarus was a Jewish-American poet and essayist known for her advocacy of Jewish refugees and immigrants. At a time when the United States was experiencing growing waves of immigration, particularly from Eastern and Southern Europe, Lazarus’s work reflected empathy toward those seeking refuge and opportunity in America. In 1883, the New York-based organization “The Bartholdi Pedestal Fund” commissioned Lazarus to write a poem to help raise funds for the construction of the Statue of Liberty’s pedestal. The statue itself, a gift from France symbolizing freedom and democracy, was nearing completion, but financial resources for its base were insufficient. Lazarus wrote *"The New Colossus"* as a sonnet contrasting the Statue of Liberty with the ancient Colossus of Rhodes. Unlike the latter, a symbol of conquest and power, Lazarus’s statue was cast as a welcoming "Mother of Exiles," offering refuge to the oppressed.</p><p>The specific lines engraved on the pedestal are from the final stanza of the poem:</p><blockquote><p>&nbsp;"Give me your tired, your poor, &nbsp;<br/>&nbsp;Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, &nbsp;<br/>&nbsp;The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. &nbsp;<br/>&nbsp;Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, &nbsp;<br/>&nbsp;I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"</p></blockquote><p>These words encapsulate an idealized vision of America as a sanctuary for immigrants and refugees, emphasizing compassion and opportunity. Although *"The New Colossus"* was not initially widely associated with the Statue of Liberty, the poem gained prominence in the early 20th century as immigration surged through Ellis Island, located nearby in New York Harbor. In 1903, a bronze plaque inscribed with Lazarus’s poem was installed inside the Statue of Liberty’s pedestal, cementing the connection between the statue and the message of welcome and refuge. Since then, the poem’s lines have become emblematic of America’s self-image as a nation of immigrants, frequently cited in political and cultural discourse concerning immigration policy and national identity.</p><p>However, it is important to note that the poem's welcoming message contrasts with many restrictive immigration laws historically enacted by the United States, reflecting ongoing tensions between ideals and policy realities.</p><div class="wikimodel-emptyline"></div><div class="wikimodel-emptyline"></div><h2 id="HProjectedDemographicImpact" class="wikigeneratedid"><span>Projected Demographic Impact</span></h2><p>Recent projections by Camarota &amp; Zeigler (2022) reveal that <strong>immigration is responsible for nearly 90% of future U.S. population growth</strong>, with long-term consequences for infrastructure, schools, and entitlement programs.</p><table id="usPopulationProjection"><tr><th scope="col">Year</th><th scope="col">With Immigration</th><th scope="col">Without Immigration</th><td>&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>2020</td><td>331</td><td>331</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>2030</td><td>349</td><td>334</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>2040</td><td>368</td><td>336</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>2050</td><td>386</td><td>336</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>2060</td><td>404</td><td>336</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr></table><p><span class="wikiexternallink"><a title="Projected U.S. Population with vs. without Immigration" class="wikimodel-freestanding" href="/bin/temp/space/page/chart/1124721001.png"><img src="/bin/temp/space/page/chart/1124721001.png" class="wikimodel-freestanding" alt="Projected U.S. Population with vs. without Immigration"/></a></span></p><h2 id="HFiscal2CPolitical2CandSocialConsequences" class="wikigeneratedid"><span>Fiscal, Political, and Social Consequences</span></h2><p>Immigration is no longer just a cultural phenomenon. As shown by multiple empirical studies, it carries <strong>measurable fiscal burdens</strong>, reshapes <strong>voting patterns</strong>, and introduces new demands on state institutions.</p><!--startmacro:expandable|-|summary="Study: Projecting the Impact of Immigration on the U.S. Population"|-|**Source:** *Center for Immigration Studies*  
**Date of Publication:** *2022*  
**Author(s):** *Steven Camarota and Karen Zeigler*  
**Title:** *"Projecting the Impact of Immigration on the U.S. Population"*  
**DOI:** N/A  
**Subject Matter:** *Demographics, immigration policy, long-term growth*

\{\{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1. **Total U.S. Population in 2060:**
   - With immigration: **404 million**
   - Without immigration: **336 million**
2. **Share of Growth from Immigration (2020–2060):** **89%**
3. **Projected Immigrant-Origin Share of U.S. Population (2060):** Over **30%**
\{\{/expandable}}

\{\{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1. **Demographic Surge:**
   Immigration accounts for nearly all growth beyond 2030, driven by both new arrivals and their U.S.-born descendants.

2. **Educational and Economic Strain:**
   Most post-1965 immigrants arrive with below-average education, increasing demand on public schools and healthcare.

3. **Displacement and Fiscal Pressure:**
   Native employment sectors face downward wage pressure; fiscal impact is negative or neutral for most groups.

4. **Voting Trends:**
   Immigration shifts the electorate leftward; this is especially pronounced in formerly competitive states like Nevada and Georgia.
\{\{/expandable}}

\{\{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1. **Strengths of the Study:**
   - Long-range population modeling
   - Includes second-generation effects
   - Clear quantitative comparisons with/without immigration

2. **Limitations:**
   - No fiscal breakdown by ethnicity
   - Lacks cultural or cohesion metrics

3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
   - Track assimilation outcomes
   - Project infrastructure demand
   - Compare impact by immigrant cohort
\{\{/expandable}}

\{\{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
- Supports claims about demographic transformation post-1965  
- Shows immigration as the primary driver of future U.S. population growth  
- Validates concerns about long-term fiscal sustainability
\{\{/expandable}}

\{\{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1. Recreate model using state-level projections  
2. Include fertility and intermarriage adjustments  
3. Compare to EU or Canadian trends  
\{\{/expandable}}

\{\{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
[[Download Full Study>>attach:Camarota and Zeigler - Projecting the Impact of Immigration on the U.S. Population.pdf]]
\{\{/expandable}}--><div class="xw-expandable xw-expandable_editing"><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-parameter-name="summary" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><p>Study: Projecting the Impact of Immigration on the U.S. Population</p></div><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><p><strong>Source:</strong> *Center for Immigration Studies* &nbsp;<br/><strong>Date of Publication:</strong> *2022* &nbsp;<br/><strong>Author(s):</strong> *Steven Camarota and Karen Zeigler* &nbsp;<br/><strong>Title:</strong> *"Projecting the Impact of Immigration on the U.S. Population"* &nbsp;<br/><strong>DOI:</strong> N/A &nbsp;<br/><strong>Subject Matter:</strong> *Demographics, immigration policy, long-term growth*</p><div class="xw-expandable xw-expandable_editing"><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-parameter-name="summary" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><p>📊 Key Statistics</p></div><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><ol><li><strong>Total U.S. Population in 2060:</strong><br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- With immigration: <strong>404 million</strong><br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Without immigration: <strong>336 million</strong><br/>2. <strong>Share of Growth from Immigration (2020–2060):</strong> <strong>89%</strong><br/>3. <strong>Projected Immigrant-Origin Share of U.S. Population (2060):</strong> Over <strong>30%</strong></li></ol></div></div><!--startmacro:expandable|-|summary="🔬 Findings"|-|1. **Demographic Surge:**
   Immigration accounts for nearly all growth beyond 2030, driven by both new arrivals and their U.S.-born descendants.

2. **Educational and Economic Strain:**
   Most post-1965 immigrants arrive with below-average education, increasing demand on public schools and healthcare.

3. **Displacement and Fiscal Pressure:**
   Native employment sectors face downward wage pressure; fiscal impact is negative or neutral for most groups.

4. **Voting Trends:**
   Immigration shifts the electorate leftward; this is especially pronounced in formerly competitive states like Nevada and Georgia.--><div class="xw-expandable xw-expandable_editing"><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-parameter-name="summary" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><p>🔬 Findings</p></div><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><ol><li><strong>Demographic Surge:</strong><br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Immigration accounts for nearly all growth beyond 2030, driven by both new arrivals and their U.S.-born descendants.</li></ol><p>2. <strong>Educational and Economic Strain:</strong><br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Most post-1965 immigrants arrive with below-average education, increasing demand on public schools and healthcare.</p><p>3. <strong>Displacement and Fiscal Pressure:</strong><br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Native employment sectors face downward wage pressure; fiscal impact is negative or neutral for most groups.</p><p>4. <strong>Voting Trends:</strong><br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Immigration shifts the electorate leftward; this is especially pronounced in formerly competitive states like Nevada and Georgia.</p></div></div><!--startmacro:expandable|-|summary="📝 Critique & Observations"|-|1. **Strengths of the Study:**
   - Long-range population modeling
   - Includes second-generation effects
   - Clear quantitative comparisons with/without immigration

2. **Limitations:**
   - No fiscal breakdown by ethnicity
   - Lacks cultural or cohesion metrics

3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
   - Track assimilation outcomes
   - Project infrastructure demand
   - Compare impact by immigrant cohort--><div class="xw-expandable xw-expandable_editing"><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-parameter-name="summary" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><p>📝 Critique &amp; Observations</p></div><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><ol><li><strong>Strengths of the Study:</strong><br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Long-range population modeling<br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Includes second-generation effects<br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Clear quantitative comparisons with/without immigration</li></ol><p>2. <strong>Limitations:</strong><br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- No fiscal breakdown by ethnicity<br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Lacks cultural or cohesion metrics</p><p>3. <strong>Suggestions for Improvement:</strong><br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Track assimilation outcomes<br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Project infrastructure demand<br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Compare impact by immigrant cohort</p></div></div><div class="xw-expandable xw-expandable_editing"><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-parameter-name="summary" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><p>📌 Relevance to Subproject</p></div><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><p>- Supports claims about demographic transformation post-1965 &nbsp;<br/>- Shows immigration as the primary driver of future U.S. population growth &nbsp;<br/>- Validates concerns about long-term fiscal sustainability</p></div></div><div class="xw-expandable xw-expandable_editing"><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-parameter-name="summary" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><p>🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration</p></div><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><ol><li>Recreate model using state-level projections &nbsp;<br/>2. Include fertility and intermarriage adjustments &nbsp;<br/>3. Compare to EU or Canadian trends &nbsp;</li></ol></div></div><div class="xw-expandable xw-expandable_editing"><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-parameter-name="summary" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><p>📄 Download Full Study</p></div><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><p><span class="wikiattachmentlink"><a href="/bin/download/Main%20Categories/Immigration%20%26%20Politics/Borderless%20Welfare%20State/WebHome/Camarota%20and%20Zeigler%20-%20Projecting%20the%20Impact%20of%20Immigration%20on%20the%20U.S.%20Population.pdf">Download Full Study</a></span></p></div></div></div></div><div class="wikimodel-emptyline"></div><h1 id="HImmigrationandtheFiscalBurdenontheDutchWelfareState" class="wikigeneratedid"><span>Immigration and the Fiscal Burden on the Dutch Welfare State</span></h1><p>The 2023 report <em>Borderless Welfare State</em> presents a comprehensive analysis of immigration's impact on Dutch public finances. Between 1995 and 2019, immigration—including the second generation—incurred a net fiscal cost of approximately €400 billion. Projections indicate that, if current patterns continue, this figure could exceed €1 trillion by 2040.</p><p>This cost arises from increased per capita spending on education, healthcare, social security, and justice services for immigrants, combined with lower average tax contributions. In 2016 alone, the net fiscal cost of immigration peaked at €32 billion.</p><!--startmacro:expandable|-|summary="Study: Borderless Welfare State – The Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the Netherlands"|-|**Source:** *Demo-Demo Publisher (Netherlands)*  
**Date of Publication:** *2023*  
**Author(s):** *Jan van de Beek, Hans Roodenburg, Joop Hartog, Gerrit Kreffer*  
**Title:** *"Borderless Welfare State: Immigration and the Sustainability of Dutch Public Finances"*  
**DOI:** N/A  
**Subject Matter:** *Immigration policy, fiscal sustainability, welfare state, demographic projections*

\{\{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1. **Total Net Cost (1995–2019):** €400 billion  
2. **Projected Cost by 2040:** Exceeds €1 trillion if trends continue  
3. **Annual Fiscal Cost in 2016:** €32 billion  
4. **Second Generation Still Net Negative:** Despite education improvements  
5. **Cito Score Correlation:** +€20,000 per 1-point increase  
\{\{/expandable}}

\{\{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1. **By Immigration Motive:**

Only labour migration yields positive fiscal returns. Other categories—study, family, asylum—are net burdens.

(% id="immigrationMotive" %)
|=Motive|=Labour|=Study|=Family|=Asylum| 
|Estimate A|125000|-75000|-275000|-475000| 
|Estimate B|125000|-75000|-275000|-475000|

\{\{chart source="xdom" type="bar3D" params="table:immigrationMotive;range:B2-E3;series:columns;
          legendVisible:true;
          plotBorderVisible:false;
          backgroundColor:FFFFFF;
          plotBackgroundColor:F9F9F9;
          borderColor:FFFFFF;
          colors=4E79A7,F28E2B,E15759,76B7B2" title="Fiscal Impact by Immigration Motive (3D View)" width="800" height="360"}}\{\{/chart}}

2. **By Region of Origin:**

Western migrants contribute marginally, while those from Islamic and African regions are highly negative. Japan/NA/Oceania immigrants are highly positive.

(% id="immigrationRegion" %)
|=Region|=Western (avg.)|=Non-Western (avg.)|=Japan/NA/Oceania|=Morocco|=Horn of Africa/Sudan| 
|Estimate A|25000|-275000|200000|-550000|-600000| 
|Estimate B|25000|-275000|200000|-550000|-600000|

\{\{chart source="xdom" type="bar3D" params="table:immigrationRegion;range:B2-F3;series:columns;
          legendVisible:true;
          plotBorderVisible:false;
          backgroundColor:FFFFFF;
          plotBackgroundColor:F9F9F9;
          borderColor:FFFFFF;
          colors=4E79A7,F28E2B,E15759,76B7B2,59A14F" title="Fiscal Impact by Region of Origin (3D View)" width="800" height="360"}}\{\{/chart}}

3. **Demographic Pressure:**

Maintaining current dependency ratio would require a population of 100 million by 2100.
\{\{/expandable}}

\{\{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1. **Strengths of the Study:**
   - Includes second-generation effects
   - Clear cost modeling by motive & origin
   - Connects fiscal performance to educational scores

2. **Limitations:**
   - No cost breakdown by sector
   - Limited modeling of non-fiscal outcomes

3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
   - Disaggregate scores by family structure
   - Add enforcement cost modeling
   - Compare against control group baselines
\{\{/expandable}}

\{\{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
- Demonstrates the structural fiscal unsustainability of mass immigration
- Highlights the value of selective, skilled migration with native integration
- Useful for countering myths about second-generation economic assimilation
\{\{/expandable}}

\{\{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1. Compare these fiscal trends to France and Sweden  
2. Estimate cultural cohesion loss alongside fiscal cost  
3. Track welfare dependence by cohort length and generation  
\{\{/expandable}}

\{\{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
[[Download Full Study>>attach:SummaryEN.pdf]]

\{\{/expandable}}--><div class="xw-expandable xw-expandable_editing"><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-parameter-name="summary" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><p>Study: Borderless Welfare State – The Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the Netherlands</p></div><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><p><strong>Source:</strong> *Demo-Demo Publisher (Netherlands)* &nbsp;<br/><strong>Date of Publication:</strong> *2023* &nbsp;<br/><strong>Author(s):</strong> *Jan van de Beek, Hans Roodenburg, Joop Hartog, Gerrit Kreffer* &nbsp;<br/><strong>Title:</strong> *"Borderless Welfare State: Immigration and the Sustainability of Dutch Public Finances"* &nbsp;<br/><strong>DOI:</strong> N/A &nbsp;<br/><strong>Subject Matter:</strong> *Immigration policy, fiscal sustainability, welfare state, demographic projections*</p><div class="xw-expandable xw-expandable_editing"><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-parameter-name="summary" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><p>📊 Key Statistics</p></div><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><ol><li><strong>Total Net Cost (1995–2019):</strong> €400 billion &nbsp;<br/>2. <strong>Projected Cost by 2040:</strong> Exceeds €1 trillion if trends continue &nbsp;<br/>3. <strong>Annual Fiscal Cost in 2016:</strong> €32 billion &nbsp;<br/>4. <strong>Second Generation Still Net Negative:</strong> Despite education improvements &nbsp;<br/>5. <strong>Cito Score Correlation:</strong> +€20,000 per 1-point increase &nbsp;</li></ol></div></div><!--startmacro:expandable|-|summary="🔬 Findings"|-|1. **By Immigration Motive:**

Only labour migration yields positive fiscal returns. Other categories—study, family, asylum—are net burdens.

(% id="immigrationMotive" %)
|=Motive|=Labour|=Study|=Family|=Asylum| 
|Estimate A|125000|-75000|-275000|-475000| 
|Estimate B|125000|-75000|-275000|-475000|

2. **By Region of Origin:**

Western migrants contribute marginally, while those from Islamic and African regions are highly negative. Japan/NA/Oceania immigrants are highly positive.

3. **Demographic Pressure:**

Maintaining current dependency ratio would require a population of 100 million by 2100.--><div class="xw-expandable xw-expandable_editing"><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-parameter-name="summary" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><p>🔬 Findings</p></div><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><ol><li><strong>By Immigration Motive:</strong></li></ol><p>Only labour migration yields positive fiscal returns. Other categories—study, family, asylum—are net burdens.</p><table id="immigrationMotive"><tr><th scope="col">Motive</th><th scope="col">Labour</th><th scope="col">Study</th><th scope="col">Family</th><th scope="col">Asylum</th><td>&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Estimate A</td><td>125000</td><td>-75000</td><td>-275000</td><td>-475000</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Estimate B</td><td>125000</td><td>-75000</td><td>-275000</td><td>-475000</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr></table><p><span class="wikiexternallink"><a title="Fiscal Impact by Immigration Motive (3D View)" class="wikimodel-freestanding" href="/bin/temp/space/page/chart/1962877286.png"><img src="/bin/temp/space/page/chart/1962877286.png" class="wikimodel-freestanding" alt="Fiscal Impact by Immigration Motive (3D View)"/></a></span></p><p>2. <strong>By Region of Origin:</strong></p><p>Western migrants contribute marginally, while those from Islamic and African regions are highly negative. Japan/NA/Oceania immigrants are highly positive.</p><table id="immigrationRegion"><tr><th scope="col">Region</th><th scope="col">Western (avg.)</th><th scope="col">Non-Western (avg.)</th><th scope="col">Japan/NA/Oceania</th><th scope="col">Morocco</th><th scope="col">Horn of Africa/Sudan</th><td>&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Estimate A</td><td>25000</td><td>-275000</td><td>200000</td><td>-550000</td><td>-600000</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Estimate B</td><td>25000</td><td>-275000</td><td>200000</td><td>-550000</td><td>-600000</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr></table><p><span class="wikiexternallink"><a title="Fiscal Impact by Region of Origin (3D View)" class="wikimodel-freestanding" href="/bin/temp/space/page/chart/963717626.png"><img src="/bin/temp/space/page/chart/963717626.png" class="wikimodel-freestanding" alt="Fiscal Impact by Region of Origin (3D View)"/></a></span></p><p>3. <strong>Demographic Pressure:</strong></p><p>Maintaining current dependency ratio would require a population of 100 million by 2100.</p></div></div><!--startmacro:expandable|-|summary="📝 Critique & Observations"|-|1. **Strengths of the Study:**
   - Includes second-generation effects
   - Clear cost modeling by motive & origin
   - Connects fiscal performance to educational scores

2. **Limitations:**
   - No cost breakdown by sector
   - Limited modeling of non-fiscal outcomes

3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
   - Disaggregate scores by family structure
   - Add enforcement cost modeling
   - Compare against control group baselines--><div class="xw-expandable xw-expandable_editing"><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-parameter-name="summary" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><p>📝 Critique &amp; Observations</p></div><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><ol><li><strong>Strengths of the Study:</strong><br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Includes second-generation effects<br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Clear cost modeling by motive &amp; origin<br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Connects fiscal performance to educational scores</li></ol><p>2. <strong>Limitations:</strong><br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- No cost breakdown by sector<br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Limited modeling of non-fiscal outcomes</p><p>3. <strong>Suggestions for Improvement:</strong><br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Disaggregate scores by family structure<br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Add enforcement cost modeling<br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Compare against control group baselines</p></div></div><div class="xw-expandable xw-expandable_editing"><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-parameter-name="summary" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><p>📌 Relevance to Subproject</p></div><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><p>- Demonstrates the structural fiscal unsustainability of mass immigration<br/>- Highlights the value of selective, skilled migration with native integration<br/>- Useful for countering myths about second-generation economic assimilation</p></div></div><div class="xw-expandable xw-expandable_editing"><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-parameter-name="summary" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><p>🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration</p></div><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><ol><li>Compare these fiscal trends to France and Sweden &nbsp;<br/>2. Estimate cultural cohesion loss alongside fiscal cost &nbsp;<br/>3. Track welfare dependence by cohort length and generation &nbsp;</li></ol></div></div><!--startmacro:expandable|-|summary="📄 Download Full Study"|-|[[Download Full Study>>attach:SummaryEN.pdf]]

--><div class="xw-expandable xw-expandable_editing"><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-parameter-name="summary" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><p>📄 Download Full Study</p></div><div data-xwiki-non-generated-content="java.util.List&lt;org.xwiki.rendering.block.Block&gt;" data-xwiki-wikimacrocontent="true" class="xwiki-metadata-container"><p><span class="wikiattachmentlink"><a href="/bin/download/Main%20Categories/Immigration%20%26%20Politics/Borderless%20Welfare%20State/WebHome/SummaryEN.pdf?rev=1.1">Download Full Study</a></span></p><p></p></div></div></div></div><ol class="footnotes"><li><span class="wikilink"><a id="x_footnote_1" class="footnoteBackRef" href="#x_footnote_ref_1">^</a></span> &nbsp;<span class="wikiexternallink"><a class="wikimodel-freestanding" href="https://immigrationhistory.org/item/1790-nationality-act/"><span class="wikigeneratedlinkcontent">https://immigrationhistory.org/item/1790-nationality-act/</span></a></span></li><li><span class="wikilink"><a id="x_footnote_2" class="footnoteBackRef" href="#x_footnote_ref_2">^</a></span> &nbsp;<span class="wikiexternallink"><a class="wikimodel-freestanding" href="https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/chinese-exclusion-act"><span class="wikigeneratedlinkcontent">https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/chinese-exclusion-act</span></a></span></li><li><span class="wikilink"><a id="x_footnote_3" class="footnoteBackRef" href="#x_footnote_ref_3">^</a></span> &nbsp;<span class="wikiexternallink"><a class="wikimodel-freestanding" href="https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act"><span class="wikigeneratedlinkcontent">https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act</span></a></span></li></ol></body>
</html>

Rich Text Editor, content

Editor toolbars

Press ALT 0 for help

◢Elements path

Minor edit

Autosave every minutes

Editing title and content of Immigration

Page Information