Posted on 12/26/2020 2:45:15 AM PST by xomething
Swedish Professor of Economics Mats Hammarstedt has rejected claims that mass migration can be economically beneficial over the long term, citing problems of integration.
Professor Hammarstedt, who teaches at the Linnaeus University in Växjö and the Institute for Business Research, said that integration failures, particularly of asylum seekers, have contributed to a much higher unemployment rate among migrants over the long-term.
In an article for the Swedish publication Dagens Industri, Hammarstedt said: “The lack of integration of foreign-born people into the labour market is well documented and the situation has remained largely unchanged in recent decades.”
He added: “Every year, the public sector redistributes resources from domestic-born to foreign-born, and the long time it takes for refugee immigrants and their relatives to establish themselves in the labour market means that refugee immigration entails a cost to public finances even long after the refugees have immigrated to Sweden.”
The professor gave an example of unemployment rates for African and Asian migrants across nearly a decade, writing: “For people born in Africa and Asia (aged 15 to 75), unemployment in 2010 was 26 per cent and 24 per cent respectively. In 2019, the unemployment rate in these groups was almost exactly the same levels (26 per cent and 22 per cent respectively).”
“Thus, the share of unemployed in these groups remained largely unchanged during a period when the groups have almost doubled in size. This development of recent decades thus means that the group of unemployed in Sweden is increasingly made up of people born in countries outside Europe,” he added.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Immigrants bring much-needed skills to their new host countries. They are generally more motivated and better educated than the countrymen they leave behind. They are also generally younger, i.e., in their productive years. For all of these reasons, they are sure to contribute heavily to the economies of their new host countries.
But then... Wouldn't that mean that their leaving their home countries is actually to the detriment of said home countries? So, doesn't encouraging immigration from Third-World Countries benefit First-World Countries - to the detriment of Third-World Countries. Aren't we Westerners, in effect, selfishly sucking out the life's blood of these poor Shit-Hole Third-World Countries?
Thus, shouldn't we call for an end to mass immigration - for humanitarian reasons?
Regards,
citing problems of integration........a social engineering concern.
Why would anyone think that bringing in people with no skills, who don’t speak the language of the country and do not have anything in common with the culture of the country would benefit the economy of the receiving nation.
It may be a net benefit for the country sending the immigrants but I see no possible benefit for the receiving nation particularly when you factor in the fact these immigrants are an immediate drain on the social welfare system.
>> Wouldn’t that mean that their leaving their home countries is actually to the detriment of said home countries?
Exactly. Clean up your own backyard.
This guy is obviously racist - probably will be fired from his job within 30 days.
Africa has the greatest natural resources, except humans.
Look at Europe, look at Africa...QED.
If you needed burger flippers or landscape folks....fine, maybe this helps. But the idea that you bring 10,000 in one year, and 80-percent are at the 7th grade level education level.
“The lack of integration of foreign-born people into the labour market is well documented and the situation has remained largely unchanged in recent decades.”
The author ignores the fact that many of these are trafficked to serve as CONSUMERS, not workers. Here in NJ and neighboring NY they are used to keep school districts from closing unneeded schools, and cutting back on other gubmint jobs programs - to administer to people who embrace a nanny state for their every need.
Common sense does the same.
I’d suggest a corollary to your argument:
Even if these young go-getters didn’t have great skills when they got here, they got a world-class education in basic first-world operations—and therefore would be an immeasurable boon to those third-world countries and economies were they to be sent home immediately.
I think their first purpose is to bring in ever more Dem-leaning voters. Import a bunch of Latin American voters into the country and you get a lot of Latin American voting patterns—and results—here.
People used to say that you will always need ditch diggers.
Now even that is a skilled trade, mostly done with heavy machinery.
There is the occasional place where due to buried electrical lines or other structures the digging is done by hand. But those are few and far between. As a side note I have seen back hoe operators that are so good that they can remove an inch at a time.
That was the goal years ago, but it is becoming clear that too many of them will vote for someone like Trump if they think it will improve their work situations and therefore their lots in life. There is little point in moving from a poor tenement south of the border to a poor tenement here, with the same dismal prospects of improving one’s situation; if anything, they just get colder here...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.