Academics across Europe have collected and analysed data for over a decade to find the impact of low-wage, low-skilled mass migration on their nations.
Advocates for mass immigration argue it drives growth, makes us more productive, makes our societies more prosperous and improves living standards.
But research in Denmark, Sweden, Germany and other countries has found that mass immigration through low-wage, low-skill and non-European migration from the Middle East and Northern Africa is a net fiscal cost to economies in Europe.
For Denmark, a study called ‘Immigration, Integration and Fiscal Sustainability’ from 2005 predicted that increased immigration would “generally worsen” the Danish fiscal sustainability problem.
The study by Poul Schou used the large-scale computable general equilibrium model Dream to examine the consequences of various immigration scenarios.
Ultimately, the report found that “increased general immigration will not solve the demographic problems of the ageing welfare.”
However, it argued that improved integration of existing and future immigrants could be an “important tool” to ease future financing problems.
In 2002, a study from the Institute for International Economic Studies at Stockholm University found that “immigrants to a typical welfare state such as Sweden represent, on average, a substantial fiscal burden, and is an order of magnitude less beneficial for public coffers than immigrants to the U.S.”
However, it also found young immigrants “still represent a large net gain”.
A recent 2024 German studytitled: ‘Honourable State? Focus on Migration: The Fiscal Balance of Immigration’ also found that while migration can have some positive fiscal effect, especially if migrants are highly qualified, it is not enough to ensure fiscal sustainability on its own.
It found that the fiscal balance of future migration is negative and assuming an integration period of six years, future migrants are expected to make lower net payments compared to the native population. This results in an increase in the sustainability gap from 447.8 per cent to 497.1 per cent of GDP.
The results found that in a hypothetical scenario without any future migration, the sustainability gap would be 347.4 per cent of GDP, which is 149.7 percentage points lower than with migration.
Next door in the Netherlands, another study, the Borderless Welfare State from the University of Amsterdam, found evidence that much immigration flooding the country is undermining the welfare state and imposes big costs on the economy.
LATEST FROM MEMBERSHIP:
- Christopher Hope is hilarious in brilliant backstage sneak peek ahead of Tory Q&As
- ‘Why am I being asked to declare my ethnicity?!’ Colin Brazier makes brilliant point while ordering England cricket match tickets
- ‘Can I get Pension Credit?’ Jasmine Birtles explains support for pensioner struggling on low income
Jan van der Beek’s research shows the share of poorly educated people in the 25-65 age group among non-European immigrants (34 per cent) is twice as high as among the native Dutch (17 per cent).
Furthermore, because the poorly educated are more likely to rely on welfare this is increasing the proportion of net recipients in the population, upsetting the balance.
Jan van der Beek also finds that while poorly-educated immigrants are a net fiscal cost on Western economies, so too are immigrants who are moving into the West to join family members, study or seek asylum.
In the Netherlands, it’s estimated that granting one asylum request to one migrant costs Dutch taxpayers about £1.1 million —to cover the asylum-seeking migrant, their family members, and the impact of the second generation.
Research in Finland, too, shows that immigrants from “the greater Middle East” – a region that includes the Middle East, Central Asia, Pakistan, North Africa and countries such as Sudan and Somalia – have by far the greatest negative fiscal impact in Finland.