Changes for page Immigration

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -1,51 +3,106 @@
1		------
2		-
3	3	= Immigration and the Fiscal Burden on the Dutch Welfare State =
4	4
5		-The 2023 report *Borderless Welfare State* 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.
	3	+The 2023 report //Borderless Welfare State// 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.
6	6
7	7	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.
8	8
9		-== Fiscal Impact by Immigration Motive ==
	7	+{{expandable summary="Study: Borderless Welfare State – The Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the Netherlands"}}
	8	+**Source:** *Demo-Demo Publisher (Netherlands)*
	9	+**Date of Publication:** *2023*
	10	+**Author(s):** *Jan van de Beek, Hans Roodenburg, Joop Hartog, Gerrit Kreffer*
	11	+**Title:** *"Borderless Welfare State: Immigration and the Sustainability of Dutch Public Finances"*
	12	+**DOI:** N/A
	13	+**Subject Matter:** *Immigration policy, fiscal sustainability, welfare state, demographic projections*
10	10
11		-Only labour migration contributes positively to public finances. All other immigration categories—study, family, and especially asylum—result in significant long-term fiscal burdens per person.
	15	+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
	16	+1. **Total Net Cost (1995–2019):** ~€400 billion
	17	+2. **Projected Cost by 2040:** Exceeds €1 trillion if trends continue
	18	+3. **Annual Fiscal Cost in 2016:** €32 billion
	19	+4. **Second Generation Still Net Negative:** Despite education improvements
	20	+5. **Cito Score Correlation:** +€20,000 per 1-point increase
	21	+{{/expandable}}
12	12
	23	+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
	24	+1. **By Immigration Motive:**
	25	+
	26	+Only labour migration yields positive fiscal returns. Other categories—study, family, asylum—are net burdens.
	27	+
	28	+(% id="immigrationMotive" %)
13	13	|=Motive|=Labour|=Study|=Family|=Asylum|
14	14	|Estimate A|125000|-75000|-275000|-475000|
15	15	|Estimate B|125000|-75000|-275000|-475000|
16	16
	33	+{{chart source="xdom" type="bar3D"
	34	+ params="table:immigrationMotive;range:B2-E3;series:columns;
	35	+ legendVisible:true;
	36	+ plotBorderVisible:false;
	37	+ backgroundColor:FFFFFF;
	38	+ plotBackgroundColor:F9F9F9;
	39	+ borderColor:FFFFFF;
	40	+ colors=4E79A7,F28E2B,E15759,76B7B2"
	41	+ title="Fiscal Impact by Immigration Motive (3D View)"
	42	+ width="800" height="360"}}
	43	+{{/chart}}
17	17
	45	+2. **By Region of Origin:**
18	18
	47	+Western migrants contribute marginally, while those from Islamic and African regions are highly negative. Japan/NA/Oceania immigrants are highly positive.
19	19
	49	+(% id="immigrationRegion" %)
20	20	|=Region|=Western (avg.)|=Non-Western (avg.)|=Japan/NA/Oceania|=Morocco|=Horn of Africa/Sudan|
21	21	|Estimate A|25000|-275000|200000|-550000|-600000|
22	22	|Estimate B|25000|-275000|200000|-550000|-600000|
23	23
	54	+{{chart source="xdom" type="bar3D"
	55	+ params="table:immigrationRegion;range:B2-F3;series:columns;
	56	+ legendVisible:true;
	57	+ plotBorderVisible:false;
	58	+ backgroundColor:FFFFFF;
	59	+ plotBackgroundColor:F9F9F9;
	60	+ borderColor:FFFFFF;
	61	+ colors=4E79A7,F28E2B,E15759,76B7B2,59A14F"
	62	+ title="Fiscal Impact by Region of Origin (3D View)"
	63	+ width="800" height="360"}}
	64	+{{/chart}}
24	24
25		-== Fiscal Impact by Region of Origin ==
	66	+3. **Demographic Pressure:**
26	26
27		-Migrants from Western countries have a marginally positive average net contribution. By contrast, migrants from non-Western regions impose large costs on the treasury, particularly those from Morocco and the Horn of Africa. Labour migrants from Japan, North America, and Oceania are the most fiscally beneficial group.
	68	+Maintaining current dependency ratio would require a population of 100 million by 2100.
28	28
	70	+{{/expandable}}
29	29
30		-|=Region|=Western (avg.)|=Non-Western (avg.)|=Japan/NA/Oceania|=Morocco|=Horn of Africa/Sudan|
31		-|Net Contribution (€)|25000|-275000|200000|-550000|-600000|
32		-```
	72	+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
	73	+1. **Strengths of the Study:**
	74	+ - Includes second-generation effects
	75	+ - Clear cost modeling by motive & origin
	76	+ - Connects fiscal performance to educational scores
33	33
34		-== Demographic and Policy Considerations ==
	78	+2. **Limitations:**
	79	+ - No cost breakdown by sector
	80	+ - Limited modeling of non-fiscal outcomes
35	35
36		-While immigration does increase the working-age population in the short term, the study finds it is not a sustainable solution to aging. Maintaining the current dependency ratio would require the Dutch population to grow to 100 million by the year 2100—a scenario the authors equate to a demographic Ponzi scheme.
	82	+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
	83	+ - Disaggregate scores by family structure
	84	+ - Add enforcement cost modeling
	85	+ - Compare against control group baselines
37	37
38		-Even highly skilled labour migration from Western nations, when accompanied by chain migration (family reunification), is often not fiscally neutral. Asylum and family immigration are consistently the most costly, regardless of origin.
	87	+{{/expandable}}
39	39
40		-== Educational Performance and Second Generation Outcomes ==
	89	+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
	90	+- Demonstrates the structural fiscal unsustainability of mass immigration
	91	+- Highlights the value of selective, skilled migration with native integration
	92	+- Useful for countering myths about second-generation economic assimilation
	93	+{{/expandable}}
41	41
42		-Second-generation immigrants, despite educational gains, still tend to have lower net fiscal contributions than native Dutch. The study highlights a strong correlation between educational test scores (Cito) and fiscal performance. Each one-point increase in Cito score correlates with an approximate €20,000 increase in expected net lifetime contribution.
	95	+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
	96	+1. Compare these fiscal trends to France and Sweden
	97	+2. Estimate cultural cohesion loss alongside fiscal cost
	98	+3. Track welfare dependence by cohort length and generation
	99	+{{/expandable}}
43	43
44		-Children of Western labour and study migrants outperform their peers, while children of asylum and family migrants—particularly from Africa and the Islamic world—score significantly lower. Mixed-parent families (with one native Dutch parent) tend to show higher educational and fiscal outcomes.
	101	+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
	102	+[[Download Full Study>>attach:SummaryEN.pdf]]
	103	+{{/expandable}}
	104	+{{/expandable}}
45	45
46		-== Conclusion ==
47	47
48		-The report concludes that the current scale and composition of immigration is fiscally unsustainable. Without significant changes—especially in restricting asylum and low-skill family migration—the Dutch welfare state faces mounting and irreversible budgetary pressure. The authors advocate for selective immigration policies based on educational attainment, origin, and potential economic contribution.
49		-
50		-
51		-