Immigration

Migrants Boost Per Capita Incomes and Lower Unemployment Finds Yet Another Study

Thirty years of data show "refugee burden" is a myth: Migrants to Europe have been a significant economic benefit

|

MigrantsJobsSilverblackDreamstime
Silverblack/Dreamstime

Migrants and asylum seekers provide big net benefits to their host countries reports a new study in Science Advances by three French economists. The researchers used 30 years of data on migrant and asylum seeker flows into 15 western European countries. They were seeking to find what effect permanent migrants including refugees who sought and obtained asylum between 1985 and 2015 have had on subsequent GDP per capita, unemployment rates, government spending and tax collections in those countries.

Flows of asylum seekers and migrants varied between countries. For example, Austria received 2.35 asylum seekers and 4.06 migrants per 1,000 residents; Germany 1.51 and 3.79; France 0.68 and 1.14; Italy 0.27 and 2.56; and the United Kingdom 0.63 and 2.36 respectively. Portugal received the lowest of both at 0.03 and 0.47 per 1,000 residents. Over all, the flow of asylum seekers and migrants into the 15 countries averaged 1.13 and 2.57 per 1,000 residents respectively.

Once the economists crunched the numbers they found that migrant flows during the past 30 years have had substantial positive effects on European economies. Specifically, the researchers report that migrants "significantly increase per capita GDP, reduce unemployment, and improve the balance of public finances; the additional public expenditures, which is usually referred to as the 'refugee burden', is more than outweighed by the increase in tax revenues."

The researchers add, "Our results suggest that the alleged migrant crisis currently experienced by Europe is not likely to provoke an economic crisis but might rather be an economic opportunity." They do acknowledge that large flows of asylum seekers are posing political and diplomatic problems in many European countries. It is clearly the case that some politicians seek power by whipping up fears among native-borns about supposed irreconcilable cultural differences and economic competition from the newcomers. However, the researchers hope that "these political challenges may be more easily addressed if the cliché that international migration is associated with economic 'burden' can be dispelled."

This new study bolsters the results of similar research on refugees and migrants in this country, including a review reportedly suppressed by the Trump administration last year, that finds that they increase incomes and are a net fiscal benefit.

Advertisement

NEXT: No, the Sharing Economy Isn't Dead

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Do they by any chance distinguish between job-seeking immigrants and politically displaced persons?

    1. legal vs illegal?

      1. C: Permanently settled migrants of whatever legal provenance.

        1. So Europe has ~11 million illegals that factored into this study?

    2. Do they by any chance distinguish between job-seeking immigrants and politically displaced persons?

      It’s based on net flows. So a college-educated German who moves to London to work in the banking sector counts and the drunken Scotsman who goes to drink and lounge around the Italian Riviera gets subtracted out.

      Not to mention that correlation =/= causation.

      the increase in public spending induced by asylum seekers is more than compensated for by an increase in tax revenues net of transfers

      Libertarian as fuck. This whole paper is just shy of AGW hokum. They made models of the shocks the expected to see as a result of any migration and didn’t see what they expected, ergo no effect.

  2. I’m lovin’ this. Any bets on how long before the Reason staff melts down completely and claws out their own eyes?

    1. They need a few days to recoup after all that screaming over the faux immigrant kid thing.

      I predict a few near-midnight articles to get the last of it off their chests by Monday. Monday is a new two-week news cycle.

      We have not heard much about Stormy in weeks. *sends Soave signal.

    2. Any bets on how long before the Reason staff melts down completely and claws out their own eyes?

      Honestly, it was the usual fair from Reason until Ron posted this. I expect the hyperbolic bloviating, stern lectures, and unbridled nonsense about culture from Gillespie, Welch, Chapman, and Dhalmia. Ron’s departure from his underlying anti-doom message to thumb noses at people over immigration is really disappointing. Especially when the hot take from his data shouldn’t necessarily be that immigration benefits any given economy but that it won’t doom an economy, which is more what the data actually shows.

      Human innovation and progress, which don’t necessitate nor forbid migration, will forge humankind forward regardless of immigration squabbles. Not “Migrants raise incomes and lower unemployment”, which at least some of the data doesn’t show or even refutes as premise.

      It’s really disappointing.

      1. “Ron’s departure from his underlying anti-doom message to thumb noses at people over immigration is really disappointing. ”

        Not surprising. Don’t you think he wants to keep his job?

        Open Borders Uber Alles! Get with The Narrative, or get packing!

  3. I used to have a job standing on a corner with a cardboard sign that read “immagrints toke are jerbs” and asking passersby for a dollar but then I hired an illegal immigrant to hold the sign for 50 cents.

    1. I volunteer to self-identify as a robot, and then I will take that job in exchange for some electrical power and some new batteries!

      1. How about a few extra M-F connectors?

        1. Will hold signs for extra M-F connectors!!! Yes!!! Extra conductive lube would be appreciated as well, though, for those extra M-F connectors…

  4. Migrants and asylum seekers provide big net benefits to their host countries reports a new study in Science Advances by three French economists. The researchers used 30 years of data on migrant and asylum seeker flows into 15 western European countries.

    Does not take into account in American factors. Worthless study as it relates to the USA.

    Doesn’t the European government actually give people jobs rather than simply find people jobs?

    1. l: Maybe you could read the links to the American studies provided in the article? Just a thought.

      1. It’s worth mentioning that you did not actually link to any studies, but a New York Times article and your own regurgitation of the executive summary of the same.

        1. h: Actually, there is a link the Trump review and the link to my “regurgitation” contains links to the relevant studies. Two links are too far?

          1. In this article is what you said. You were wrong and then caught, so you refer me to your old article that regurgitates what the study says.

            In other words, there is no new information that parallels this study relating to America. You are referencing this study and various other references relating to immigration in Europe.

            Nice try though.

      2. Just a thought, where are the additional studies about America provide in your article?
        [Flows of asylum seekers and migrants] Macroeconomic evidence suggests that asylum seekers are not a
        “burden” for Western European countries

        [some politicians] AfD mobilized irrational fears of future, especially in the east, say pollsters – DW.com
        [whipping up fears] How Far-Right AfD Stoked Germans’ Fears and Made History – Observer
        [irreconcilable cultural differences]Germany records lowest crime rate since 1992 – Politico
        [economic competition] Welcoming Immigrants Means Higher Wages – Reason article
        [review] Rejected Report Shows Revenue Brought In by Refugees – NYT
        [suppressed] Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees – NYT

        Just a thought, you might want to support your work better when you attempt to scold someone for criticizing your lefty narrative because it lacks relatability to the USA.

      3. I skimmed the study and it is just based on economic models constructed by the economists. From the methodology section in their additional links:

        “As a first step, we ignore the migration variables and set up a model that aims at replicating the recent findings of the literature. To this end, we first consider a baseline structural VAR that consists of a set of endogenous variables Zit= (git,ntit,yit,uit)?, where g is the real public spending per capita, nt is the real net taxes per capita , y is the real GDP per capita, and u is the unemployment rate… “Therefore, in our identification, public spending is allowed to contemporaneously impact net taxes, output and the unemployment rate, and responds to these variables only with a lag. This assumption is justified by the fact that changes in expenditures are generally decided in the Budget Act presented before the new fiscal year, while adjustments during the current year are negligible (12, 13, 15).”

        The above is just one part of the explanation of their economic model. I do not have the time or knowledge to wade into their methodology as I am not trained in the temple science of economics, but to say I am skeptical of economic models would be an understatement. I guess if you agree with their assumptions then you should agree with the outcome, but I do not know enough to wade into this.

        1. Looks for the garbage inputs of these ‘studies’.

          Once you find the garbage inputs, its easy to find the garbage conclusions.

          These people work backwards from a conclusion and look to make up complexity to confuse people.

        2. You don’t even have to wade through the nonsense they use to support their conclusions as I pointed out.

          There is nothing relating to the USA which is far different to Europe.

          Bailey is trying to use this European ‘study’ to justify American open borders which is why we are laughing at him.

  5. These are exactly the kinds of observations that need to be made and expanded upon in the immigration debate. They don’t make it into the debate for a number of reasons.

    One of them is that, especially in Europe, leaders don’t want to make these kinds of arguments because it doesn’t fit their narrative about how the economy works. How can redistributing the pie among more people be a good thing?

    One of the others is that immigration has been inflicted on the European people over their objections by elitists, which is like forcing people to eat ice cream. Ice cream is one of my favorite things. Try to force me to eat it, and I might spit it back in their faces.

    1. “These are exactly the kinds of observations that need to be made and expanded upon in the immigration debate. They don’t make it into the debate for a number of reasons.”

      Yes indeed! Number one reason why the actual researched and documented facts do NOT make it into the immigration debate among immigration haters is… That they are immigration haters! Fancier term for those who love $20-phrases: “Confirmation bias”. We do not want to hear that which we want to hear; we only listen to what we want to hear! So cheers! Hear, Hear!!!!

      1. You forgot to mention illegal humans.

        1. Yes! My bad!!!

          Illegal humans, dey toke are jerbs!!!

          (They will even wipe my ass for me, for a pittance, when both of my hands are bandaged up from dual carpal tunnel syndrome. “La Migra” won’t do this for me, sad to say. But La Migra protects are jerbs!!!!)

          1. Damn, your girl lost, get over it.

    2. There’s also the fact that the “study” conflates correlation with causation and relies upon creative accounting of net inflows and outflows to arrive at its predetermined conclusion. The problem is that people see the net economic effects of any given policy when they earn and spend their money regardless of what a fanciful model has to say. This is why 80% of social “science” studies can’t be reproduced. Because they are dog shit.

      1. “80% of social “science” studies can’t be reproduced. Because they are dog shit.”

        I don’t know what you mean by this, but it comes across as unreasonable fist shaking.

        Economics is a serious discipline, and a study showing that having more of less expensive resource (like labor) tends to make the economy grow more than it would otherwise is hardly dog shit–just because you don’t believe in social “science”, whatever you mean by that.

        You sound like a progressive. Is that your intent?

        You read like a democratic socialist telling us that we should forget everything we know about economics because their prescriptions can’t be justified using economics at all.

        1. I don’t know what you mean by this, but it comes across as unreasonable fist shaking.

          Presumably he means this

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

          The replication crisis (or replicability crisis or reproducibility crisis) is a methodological crisis in science in which scholars have found that the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce on subsequent investigation, either by independent researchers or by the original researchers themselves.[1][2] The crisis has long-standing roots; the phrase was coined in the early 2010s[3] as part of a growing awareness of the problem.

          It is a problem to which no discipline is immune, including economics.

          A 2016 study in the journal Science found that two-thirds of 18 experimental studies from two top-tier economics journals (American Economic Review and the Quarterly Journal of Economics) successfully replicated.[51][52] A 2017 study in the Economic Journal suggested that “the majority of the average effects in the empirical economics literature are exaggerated by a factor of at least 2 and at least one-third are exaggerated by a factor of 4 or more”.[53

          1. The idea that we can’t know that having more of a resource has been better for the economy, especially as that resource has become cheaper, is laughable.

            We’re talking foundations principles here and empirical data.

            If you want to argue about one study or another based on the way it was interpreted or collected, be my guess.

            Tell met that the answers are unknowable because science is dogshit, and they hardly deserve a response.

            Might as well be arguing with Tony about whether market forces really exist.

            1. We’re talking foundations principles here and empirical data.

              Yes Ken, that was the entire point of the article I linked to for you. The lack of repeatability in studies that discuss “foundations principles and empirical data.” You seem to think that such things are unassailable, while ignoring that the very empirical data you hold so dear makes it clear they are not unassailable. The conflict there might give more insightful people pause.

              However, please understand, you are conflating my attempt to clarify something you admit you didn’t understand with an argument you think I am making. I was simply trying to explain what I thought he was talking about.

              1. The fundamentals we’re talking about are not assailable–no matter what your article says.

                OTBE, lower oil prices in higher quantities means more growth than there would be otherwise.

                OTBE, lower interest rates and more credit being available means more growth than there would be otherwise.

                OTBE, lower prices for labor in higher quantities being available means more growth than there would be otherwise.

                The fundamental observations these facts are based on have withstood so much scrutiny, already, they’re up there with the theory that the earth orbits the rather than visa versa. Have a novel theory that says otherwise, and I suppose someone somewhere will find the time to test it, but I sure wouldn’t bother until someone else said your theory survived more scrutiny that what’s being claimed here–that fundamental economic principles are unsound because . . . the science itself is dogshit?

                Ridiculous.


            2. em?pir?i?cal.
              .
              [?m?pirik(?)l]

              ADJECTIVE
              .
              based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

              The point is that studies, in general, are not empirical any longer. Thus, what is cited as ’empirical’ is not reliably so. That much is based upon non-empirical studies is a massive flaw akin to a house of cards, and it’s worth citing. Especially in terms of economics, which is already a so-called ‘soft science’.

              Many will point this out in regards to things like AGW, but then absolutely forget about it in other area’s even though the problem is wide spread in nearly every area of study. Peer review is no longer remotely reliable, and that’s a serious issue when people are treating ‘science’ like it should be the basis of government (RE: Progressives)

              1. The problem with AGW is not the “science”. The problem is that they’re using science to make qualitative claims that aren’t science at all.

                Whether the polar bears will survive into the next century is a scientific question.

                Whether we should be willing to sacrifice our quality of life to save the polar bears isn’t a scientific question at all.

                The science is only meant to falsify theories anyway. There’s a lot wrong with people’s weird ideas about what science is and isn’t and what science can and can’t do–with this thread providing an great example of that.

                Because the science is never settled certainly doesn’t mean that we can’t be more clear on some things rather than others. We still can’t be 100% sure that the earth orbits the sun; after all, new evidence could show up tomorrow proving that theory wrong–maybe it’s all an illusion! Still, we can be closer to 100% on the earth orbiting the sun than we can on AGW and various climate models. But that doesn’t mean that AGW science is wrong. It’s just a limitation of what science can do–it can only work with the available information.

                Treating fundamental economic theories as if they were like AGW models is like treating the theory that the sun is in the center of the solar system as if it were an educated guess.

                It’s ridiculous. That isn’t the way science works. That isn’t the way economics works. That isn’t the way logic works. That isn’t the way the universe works.

            3. “having more of a resource has been better for the economy, especially as that resource has become cheaper”

              Well if we’re reducing humans to economic resources, ok then. But then the question isn’t is more of the resource good for the “economy” as if its some mystical god we must all bow down and worship, but rather is more of the resource good for the other resources already here? Does a resource gain or lose value as its supply increases?

              Is it really a good thing to increase the pool of labor and thus reduce wages?

              Why does Reason want to harm Americans?

              1. “But then the question isn’t is more of the resource good for the “economy” as if its some mystical god we must all bow down and worship, but rather is more of the resource good for the other resources already here?”

                There’s probably no more objective measure of prosperity than GDP per capita.

                If you want to apply your own qualitative preferences to your own economic situation, be my guest. The problem is when you try to use the coercive power of government to inflict your own personal preferences on the rest of us.

                Do you want the government to use the coercive power of government to stop individuals in the U.S. from buying cheaper imports so they have to buy them from your employer?

                That’s what we’re criticizing as libertarians.

                You should be free to make qualitative choices for yourself. Other people should be free to make choices for themselves, too.

                Using the coercive power of government to impose your qualitative preferences on other people is the pretty much the definition of authoritarianism. Because you approve of the authoritarianism in question doesn’t make it any less so.

                1. The progressives want to use authoritarianism to take our guns away and make us bake cakes for gay marriages.

                  The Trump people, I guess, want to use authoritarianism to force us to pay more than we need to for whatever they’re manufacturing in the rust belt.

                  Libertarians are the opposite of authoritarians. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect our right to make choices for ourselves–from criminals, foreign threats, and authoritarian Americans like you.

        2. ‘Economics’ is also not a single cohesive field. An acolyte of, say, Keynes might come to vastly different conclusions based upon essentially the same data.

          When a field has several ‘schools’ that cover the same data yet contradict one another, it’s not untrue to say that it isn’t necessarily reliable.

          *shrug*

        3. I don’t know what you mean by this

          I’m not surprised because you’re pretty fucking ignorant. Here. You can also go to Google and type in “replication crisis”. Bring yourself up to speed with what the rest of the world has been talking about for the last 8 years or so.

          Economics is a serious discipline, and a study showing that having more of less expensive resource (like labor) tends to make the economy grow more than it would otherwise is hardly dog shit–just because you don’t believe in social “science”, whatever you mean by that.

          Economics can be a serious discipline when it is engaged in by serious people who put out serious studies with reproducible results. That’s not the case the majority of the time in economics or any of the rest of the social “sciences” (with psychology having the worst track record). And this particular study doesn’t even purport to show what you claim it does. That you don’t even comprehend what you think you are defending is emblematic of your general confusion about common words and well-known public controversies. Since you’re here at Reason reading a Ron Bailey puff piece you’re pretty likely to stay that way.

          1. Your extension of this to fundamental observations about economics is ridiculous.

            There’s no point in talking to someone who is claiming that economic principles are unknowable.

            You’re living in the middle ages.

            1. Kenny, with no way to refute the science, resorts to “ridiculous” and other lame insults because his ignorance was exposed.

              Stay predictable Kenny, you cunt.

              1. h & G: You are right that economics as a discipline has substantial problems with under-powered studies and exaggerated reported effects. What is your evidence that this is such a study? As noted in the article, its results are line with many previous studies that find migrants are on net generally beneficial to their host countries.

                1. So progressives should migrate to the poor, down trodden, colonially oppressed 3rd world countries they claim to care about, no?
                  By not moving to Honduras or Guatemala, you’re kinda being a dick, Ron.
                  Or do you, and other progressives, not argue for reverse colonization out of the goodness of your hearts?

                2. There are no substantial problems with fundamental questions like whether a decrease in the cost or the increase in the availability of a fundamental input like labor will lead to more economic growth than there would be otherwise.

                  Marxists, communists, and socialists are all smarter than this. Economic fundamentals aren’t just unknown but unknowable? It’s hard to imagine how anybody but a populist or a progressive could paint themselves into such a silly corner.

                  This is dumber than creationism.

                  1. Who are you talking to?

                    1. That last comment was to Bailey.

                      “You are right that economics as a discipline has substantial problems with under-powered studies and exaggerated reported effects. What is your evidence that this is such a study? As noted in the article, its results are line with many previous studies that find migrants are on net generally beneficial to their host countries.”

                      —-Bailey

                      “There are no substantial problems with fundamental questions like whether a decrease in the cost or the increase in the availability of a fundamental input like labor will lead to more economic growth than there would be otherwise.”

                      —-Ken Shultz

                3. Ron Bailey|6.22.18 @ 3:59PM|#
                  h & G: You are right that economics as a discipline has substantial problems with under-powered studies and exaggerated reported effects. What is your evidence that this is such a study? As noted in the article, its results are line with many previous studies that find migrants are on net generally beneficial to their host countries.

                  Ron, YOU are the one peddling this study. YOU have the burden of convincing us.

                  You mention this new study then you are questioned about how there is no parallel with the USA. Then you refer me to old information about American immigration.

                  YOU have the burden to fix this flaw when you are trying to relate a European ‘study’ with the USA.

        4. The only studies that are published are ones that succeed. What happens to the 15 that fail for every one that is published? What happens when the success was dumb luck, the 1% that succeeds when 99% of the time it will fail?

          Furthermore with a study like the one Mr. Bailey has brought up here, the economists can fiddle with their model until it fits how they want it to fit. We have no idea if they reduced the weight of a variable or removed another or how they got to their end result, just that they have it now. I have read about scholars playing with data and moving variables around until they get an interesting result that they can publish. There is huge incentive to finding something “interesting” no matter the path how it got there.

          1. None of which challenges the fundamental economic principles that are being attacked by some people in this thread.

            . . . and anyone who believes that fundamental economic principles are unknowable because of flaws some studies’ methodology or motives is being willfully oblivious.

            1. I personally would find the study more convincing if it measured historical data and tried to account for economic growth while controlling for variables they want to discount. As in “While controlling for X and Y, migration has a Z effect on the economy.” I have never liked studies like this, they are very similar to the ones that have endlessly predicted rises in global temperatures and sea levels that have ceaselessly failed to follow the model used in the study.

              I agree there are certain truths in economics, but I could care less about the economic predictions or statements of economists. The economic temple priests are wrong more often than weathermen in their predictions and professional economists are nothing more than well educated snake oil salesman.

      2. h: They do various statistical tests that aim at untangling correlation and causation.

        1. Such robust language you’ve got there!

        2. I bet. They have conclusions to justify.

  6. Another study that ignores the massive federal spending on the anchor baby because the baby is now a citizen. and the cost of the new citizen bringing in more family members who now need federal assistance.

    1. one item that helps in Europe is the value added tax. If the U.S. got rid of all taxes and only had value added taxes the migrant issue would not be a big deal since then they would be paying their fair share and nobody would car about under the table payments

      1. R: Trump review takes into account state, local, and federal excise taxes paid by migrants.

    2. R: Actually, the Trump admin review included K-12 costs. Take a look.

      1. K-12 costs are not mentioned once in any of the links you provided, and would not include costs for native-born children anyway.

        1. h: You seem a little hasty in your reading. You could have clicked on the word “review” in the article which would take you to the study that provided the K-12 stats. Try “review” here.

  7. First, we estimate a statistical model without the migration variables and analyze the economy’s response to Keynesian stimulus shocks.

    And… done.

    1. Model and Keynesian. What could go wrong?

  8. Past performance is not an indicator of future returns.

    1. VD: Making stuff up without data is also no indicator of future returns.

      1. But it makes good climate science apparently.

      2. Fortunately no one did anything of the kind.

        Jumping on an agenda-driven study from a different continent based on a model of data because it confirms your biases is an indicator of your incredibly shallow comprehension of anything you cover. There’s a reason why j-school doesn’t have a lot of STEM prerequisites.

    2. Particularly when the economic social and ethnic composition of migrants and refugees 30 years ago is so remarkably different from today’s, as is their number.

      1. ^ This.

        It’s an inherent fly in their ointment. Inter-EU immigration is one thing, extra-EU immigration could very well be another. That said, I do not know a single damn thing about historical EU immigration trends. I do, however, know that the EU wasn’t in existence 30 years ago.

        1. B: Their intra Europe data includes folks migrating from Yugoslav war and the fall of the Berlin Wall.

  9. One thing I’ve learned from libertarians: if you need to bring in the economists to rationalize an idea, it’s probably a bad idea.

    Did the French economists remember to factor the cost of burnt cars into their calculations?

    1. NB: In general, libertarians don’t “rationalize” individual liberty. Data and economic theory are hopefully useful in debates with folks who don’t yet fully appreciate individual liberty as an unalienable right for all people.

      1. How hard do you think I’d have to work to find another group of economists who’s study will prove exactly the opposite?

        A round of Nobel prizes all around!

      2. It is your individual right to pay for relocation and living stipends to refugees. America, fuck yeah!

    2. In re: burning cars – At least in Germany the crime rate is the lowest it’s been in 25 years. As I reported earlier, “more undocumented immigration meant less violent crime” in the United States.

      1. Are you suggesting illegal immigration somehow acts as a deterrent to crime?

        I’m interested in hearing an explanation as to how that might work.

        1. Magic brown people. They’re better in every measurable way than icky white people. It’s just bad luck that all fo the countries they come from are abject shit holes.

        2. NB: Draw your own conclusions, but they sure don’t increase crime rates.

          1. They didn’t increase them in Rotherham, either. Until they did.

          2. Every illegal increases crime. Literally, them being illegally inside the USA makes each one of them a criminal.

      2. Post hoc ergo propter hoc

        Quod erat demonstrandum

      3. And what did GAO find?

    3. “Did the French economists remember to factor the cost of burnt cars into their calculations?”

      Cost? That’s more GDP to dispose of the burnt out hulks and replace them! Just like all the broken windows!

      Burnt Car Fallacy

  10. Of course if you use a long-enough timeline you’ll find a net positive but the immigrants of today are categorically different than the immigrants of yesteryear. The older immigrants assimilated and contributed to society, not like the heathen Chinee dirty dagos drunken micks lazy spics drug-smuggling baby-raping welfare-mooching terrorists we’re getting now. These animals are incapable of becoming decent human beings, it’s just not in their nature.

    1. To be fair, the French paper didn’t make these distinctions. 3 of the 4.09 migrants that came into Austria were German and the remaining 1.09 was only 5% Middle Eastern (Turkish) but we’ll just pretend that they’re Serbian and Afghan migrants so that we can prove that any baby-raping, welfare-mooching Austrians may be suffering now ultimately pays off for Austria in the end.

      1. Serbian

        Syrian dangit!

  11. I agree immigrants help the economy among many other benefits. However there is a big difference between the US and Europe, which is that in Europe they live as permanent vassals, never given citizenship status even after generations. That is completely different in the US. Because here they generally get voting rights, and they generally skew democratic. I don’t care about expensive social services as much as I do about free speech. And yes people say they support free speech 100%, “But of course not hate speech” and things like that. Thus we have some educational work to do here. And yes I say the same about white Europeans – they don’t get speech either. (So don’t call me racist.) Finally I would add, we need to stop exporting ‘military aid’ which destabilizes these countries and causes the exodus in the first place, and they must be willing to return to their home countries at some point and bestow the blessings of liberty that they learned here.

    1. “Finally I would add, we need to stop exporting ‘military aid’ which destabilizes these countries and causes the exodus in the first place…”

      Amen Bro or Bro-ess!!! Ditto most foreign aid (Government Almighty to Government Almighty especially) in general. FREE TRADE will help elevate these nations’ living standards, is the BEST fix!!!!

      1. I dunno if this is what you “really” mean, but if not, we should end the War on Drugs, too. We’re literally paying tax money to ruin foreign countries in order to make the drugs that Americans clearly want to buy more expensive.

        Just imagine the economy if we never had to pay for that action by the government, if we didn’t have to pay inflated prices for drugs, and if we never lost the economic input of all the people we spent even more money on putting in jail for having forbidden plant products.

        1. Amen Bro or Bro-ess!!! Free trade should include free trade in drugs, yes indeedy…

    2. We gave syria military aid? Who knew.

      1. We gave military aid to the opponents of the Syrian regime, most of which actually ended up in the hands of Islamofascists. Same deal, same outcome… USA doesn’t have the data or the wisdom needed “pick the right sides” and do this kind of job right, so USA would be FAR better off to put their dicks back in their pants and GO HOME!!!!

    1. That might be the most useful thing I’ll learn here all day.

    2. Wrap and tape (or otherwise securely fasten) some sandpaper around it, and it doubles up as a most excellent back-scratcher as well, or even a butt-scratcher ass well!!!

      (Butt check with the FDA first, to see if you need a prescription for such a “medical device”, to be safe!)

  12. So, is there no limit? If we transform to a system of unlimited, unfettered immigration as the Reasonites seem to want and we end up with an infinite number of migrants will our economic growth approach infinity?

    Asked as somebody who is not anti-immigrant but recognizes that there needs to be some kind of throttle on the system…?.

    1. And is there a particular type of immigrant that contributes and a particular type of immigrant that tends to absorb more than they contribute?

      1. You must learn to deliberately conflate disparate subsets of immigrants then base your analysis only on the flattering demographics and then histrionically call anyone who points out your fallacy a collectivist for not treating every individual immigrant as the sainted caricature you plucked from your carefully constructed dataset. That’s the Reason way. Ron Fucking Loves Science!

  13. The European refugee crisis was caused the US govt and its allies when they destroyed Libya on behalf of alQaida terrorists and then transported those terrorists, and many of Libya’s weapons, to Syria where they have been trying, for over seven years, to remove the elected, religiously tolerant government of Bashar Assad.

  14. I had no idea that increasing the supply of something would increase it’s cost. This has totally changed my views on housing policy, we must hault all construction of new housing lest we make homes unaffordable.

  15. undocumented immigration

    “illegal migration”

    1. “Three felonies a day”.

      1. “Look over HERE!”

      2. “On purpose in the same as an accident!”

        1. Yes, and Government Almighty has the God-like, AWESOME power to read my mind, and tell whether I did it on purpose, or by accident! With, or without malice, and with, or without, intent to violate the Sacred Laws!
          Always, and accurately! (Especially as advised by an Md-shrink, duly degreed, credentialed, and licensed, after he or she talks at and looks at me for 3 or 5 minutes).

          All Hail Government Almighty!!!

          1. “When you’re explaining, you’re losing”

  16. I thought Texas already proved this theory.

  17. I didn’t even read the article because I couldn’t get past the shit headline. I’m glad Lower Unemployment was finally able to find yet another study

  18. I’m pretty sympathetic to open immigration. But, isn’t this sort of a straw man? I mean I don’t think most people criticizing mass immigration are suggesting that it doesn’t create a net increase in wealth and income. But, in addition to a net increase, immigration almost certainly has re-distributive effects, with the gains enjoyed by the relatively affluent and the immigrants themselves and the costs borne by people lower on the socio-economic ladder. If I can afford to hire a cleaning woman at $100 that’s great for me. Probably not so much so for the native cleaning who was charging $175.

    1. But that’s true of any act with economic impact.
      Think of all the carpet-beaters undercut by home vacuums. The horse barns crippled by automobiles. Etc.
      A net increase in wealth is a net increase in wealth.
      Distribution of wealth is constantly churning. Contra Picketty and others. There’s nothing special about immigrants in this regard.

      1. A net increase in wealth is a net increase in wealth.

        Well, sure it is. No one is saying it isn’t. But, the article is ignoring the fact that “a net increase in wealth” really isn’t under much dispute. The people complaining about the economic consequences of mass immigration really aren’t arguing the net consequences. They’re talking about the net consequences to them. The guy holding the sign talking about immigrants taking his job or making his job a lot less lucrative may very well not be stupid or deluded. He may very well be completely right. And telling him “well, there’s a net increase in wealth” really isn’t going to matter two whits to him.

        1. We may certainly sympathize with the impacts on them, but those impacts are the result of economic change. They have no right to their job or salary in terms of freezing it at a particular point, or level. The rest of us are made worse off if our sympathies transform us into luddites. At root, that is all this is.

  19. An oldie but a goodie.

    Cost of illegal immigration on tax payers (old study)

    Will be decried as a biased source, I’m sure….

    1. I have been assured by Top Men that illegal immigrants are net contributors, tax-wise.

      1. You shouldn’t listen to Jorge Ramos.

        1. I never listen to ol’ Whore-Hey Ramos. . ..

  20. This article discusses discreet migration events of 4 years or less. Figure 2 shows that asylum flow returns to 0 within 4 years of the defined event.

    I think it is conventional wisdom that the immigration debate in the US would fizzle if the flow would stop.

    Notice that the illegal immigrant population has stabilized, but it is 3x what it was prior to the Reagan amnesty.
    http://www.pewhispanic.org/201…..orized-02/

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/na…..xperts-say

  21. So, this study doesn’t really seem very convincing. We don’t get to do controlled studies is economics, so how do we know what would have happened without migrants etc. ?

    It looks like they are measuring economic improvement by using immigration levels between countries. However, Portugal, with the lowest immigration, has been en economic shithole for as long as I can remember…immigration or not.

    Overall, I am sympathetic to immigration…I’m for all the Elon Musks etc we can get and indeed the immigrants where I live more or less live up to the American Dream stereotype. That said, this study doesn’t seem to prove anything.

    Am I missing something or do I misunderstand it ?

  22. These comments provide assurance that the folks who for a couple of centuries targeted — feared, hated, discriminated against — Italians, Asians, gays, eastern Europeans, Catholics, Asians, Jews, blacks, agnostics, women, the Irish, and others are still with us, at least in spirit.

    The won-loss record of those folks is reflected by the menu at an average American restaurant or cafeteria — burritos, egg rolls, spaghetti, bagels, sushi, Friday fish sandwiches, pierogis . . .

      1. Immigration is a particularly difficult subject. There is no doubt that free and open immigration is the right policy in a libertarian state, but in a welfare state it is a different story: the supply of immigrants will become infinite. Your proposal that someone only be able to come for employment is a good one but it would not solve the problem completely. The real hitch is in denying social benefits to the immigrants who are here. That is very hard to do, much harder than you would think as we have found out in California.

      2. Boosting income 28%

        According to the Department of Human Services, payments on behalf of Somali children account for just 28 percent of the roughly $250 million in annual payments made through the child-care assistance

        Unbridled good.

        That’s what you meant, right?

      3. Ha, he agreed with AK

  23. So does Bailey pay any attention to these studies, or just their headlines? Because he keeps promoting deeply flawed, pointless ones that support his desires, not good research.

  24. Another GIGO study.

  25. This study is, well, dog feces at best. The article is not peer reviewed, it is not even well conceived or written. The authors themselves concede:

    “Our results suggest that the alleged migrant crisis currently experienced by Europe is not likely to provoke an economic crisis but MIGHT rather be an economic opportunity.” There is no cost-benefit analysis, nor is any hard data offered. The authors use “5000 Monte Carlo repetitions.” to establish their 90% Confidence level for analysis.

    If REASON editors don’t even have the ability to recognize a shit publication and present it as factual, it is time to drop my subscription to REASON.

    Shame on Michael Bailey and even more scorn should be heaped on whatever editor choose this item for inclusion.

    1. W: Science Advances articles are peer reviewed.

  26. I call bullshit, these numbers are horseshit, the native population will tell you differently than some half assed pollster, the Islamic immigrants are causing crime, trashing their neighborhoods, raping native women etc. Most of the time these pollsters are the globalist types that want to flood the country with immigrants. Seriously, why is fucking “Reason” defending this stuff? Once again unfettered immigration isn’t libertarian, people crossing your property without your consent isn’t libertarian unless your one of those phony and fake “left libertarians” who think property rights don’t matter.

    1. R: Data please for your assertions with regard to migrants increasing “crime, raping, trashing” etc.
      Check out the link provided in article that crime in Germany is the lowest it’s been in 25 years even after admitting nearly 1 million refugees from Middle East.

      1. I am puzzled why, as a science writer, you find studies like that compelling. For all we know, the crime rate was on its way down anyway, and would be lower yet in the absence of refugees.

        To make statements about the crime rates of refugees, ought one study, you know, the actual CRIME RATES OF REFUGEES. Which the article does not detail, though perhaps we can look at the 2.5% rise in anti-semitic crime is a whiff of whats in store.

  27. Easy solution to all European economic challenges: import tens of millions of more 3rd world refugees! Then Europe will look just like the countries they come from – Afghanistan, Syria, Lybia, Eritrea … and those places are doing great. And crime rates will plummet because we all know that 3rd world immigrants are more law-abiding than native born citizens. Thank you Reason!

  28. “Thirty years of data show “refugee burden” is a myth: Migrants to Europe have been a significant economic benefit”

    So much more employment opportunities for the Police State goons and social workers!

    And the cement bollard industry has exploded a gazillion percent!

  29. It’s not the economy, stupid. It’s the culture.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.