Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
BAB7
Det finns ingen anledning att misstro alla dessa studier som gjorts i Tyskland.
Resultatet är att man kommit fram till att Tyskland är i behov av mellan 8,5 till 32 miljoner invandrare inom dom närmsta 20 åren.
Enligt tyska staten kan man inte upprätthålla den tyska välfärden om invandringen skulle minska.
Skillnad på invandrare och invandrare också. Det finns absolut ingen nytta av att ha invandrare som kommer in till landet för att sedermera vara arbetslösa. Inte heller ser det mycket ljusare ut för deras barn då både arbetslöshet och sjukfrånvaro går i arv mellan generationerna.
Immigrants struggle in German job market
Citat:
Immigrants to Germany from the Arab world had the highest unemployment rates - particularly people from Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran. "That is surely also because people don't come to Germany for professional reasons, but as refugees, and so find it more difficult to get a professional foothold," said Schäfer.
In absolute terms, most of the unemployed people of foreign origin also belong to the largest immigrant groups in Germany: 140,000 of the 460,000 Turks, for instance. A Turk living in Germany is two or three times more likely to be unemployed than a German.
Däremot är invandring från europeiska länder en ren vinstaffär för Tyskland.
Citat:
On the other hand, immigrants from other Western nations barely show up in the stats. French, British, or American people apparently have the same chances as Germans. "Eastern Europeans also hold their own well: Poles, for instance, are only barely more often unemployed than Germans," said Schäfer. "And Romanians, who are often accused of coming to Germany to take advantage of the welfare system, are actually slightly less likely to be unemployed than Germans."
Till och med romerna verkar lyckas bra i Tyskland, imponerande.
För övrigt så lägger jag till följande studie till svar på din studie.
The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK
Kommentarer från nationalekonomen Tino Sanandaji.
Citat:
Slutsatsen om alla invandrare som befann sig i landet 1995-2011 är att invandring från EU har varit lönsam medan den från utanför EU har utgjort en nettokostnad: “immigrants from EEA countries made a positive contribution over that period of more than £4 billion, while those from non-EEA countries made a negative contribution of £118 billion”
Citat:
Dustmann och Frattinis studie diskuteras ingående av Robert Rowthorn. The Economic Journal publicerade också en studie om invandraring i Norge och jämför Storbritannien med Norge: “In terms of the different types of immigrants attracted to the two countries, immigrants to the UK tend on average to be highly skilled, whereas those to Norway appear less so. In fact, Dustmann and Frattini show that the average level of education, as well as the share of individuals with a tertiary education, has been consistently higher in the UK’s immigrant population than among natives and that this difference has accelerated with the arrival of new immigrants since 2000. In addition, immigrant populations in the UK have a high labour market attachment, with employment rates on average similar to those of natives (although with some heterogeneity between immigrants from the European Economic Area (EEA) versus non-EEA immigrants). Immigrants to Norway, in contrast, are typically far less skilled than natives, so the employment rates of all groups studied fall below those of natives, with some groups experiencing a sharp rise in nonemployment a few years after arrival. Not surprisingly, therefore, the conclusions drawn by these two articles are radically different. The picture that emerges is that whereas post-2000 immigrants to Britain have made a substantial net fiscal contribution, immigrants to Norway have been drawing far more heavily on certain key welfare transfers than natives.”
Den norska studien beskriver landets integrationsproblem: “Immigrants from high income countries performed as natives, while labour migrants from low-income source countries had declining employment rates and increasing disability programme participation over the lifecycle.”
Citat:
The Telegraph rapporterade både de positiva och negativa resultaten: “Immigrants who came to live in Britain from outside Europe cost the public purse nearly £120 billion over 17 years, a new report has shown. The major academic study also found, however, that recent immigration from Europe – driven by the surge in arrivals from eastern European – gave the economy a £4.4 billion boost over the same period. Experts from University College London also said native Britons made a negative contribution of £591 billion over the 17 years – because of the country’s massive deficit.”
Citat:
Financial Times rapporterade både de positiva och negativa resultaten: ”European immigrants to the UK paid much more in taxes than they received in benefits over the past decade, making a net fiscal contribution of £20bn, say researchers.”..“While the research highlighted the benefits of EU migration, the findings for non-EU immigrants – who have been subject to stringent Home Office visa restrictions – were less encouraging. Researchers calculated that between 1995 and 2011, migrants from outside the EU were a net cost of £118bn compared with the net contribution of £4bn by EU migrants over the same period.”
Vad är slutsatsen då? Invandrare utanför Europa tenderar att belasta och kosta samhället mer. Europeisk invandring är det som gäller om man vill ha en invandring som är lönsam.
För övrigt ska vi givetvis ta emot flyktingar från alla världens håll. Det är vår skyldighet och vi har råd med att ta emot invandrare. Frågan är snarare hur många bör vi ta emot och enligt mig har vi spräckt gränsen för allt bra längesedan. Sverige är och skall heller inte agera som EU:s soptipp.
Vi ska ha en ansvarsfull invandringspolitik vilket vi tyvärr inte har idag men trots det så blundar man och låtsas som ingenting.
