Immigration is a very divisive issue in many Occidental countries and yet it is also one of extreme importance. Immigration is touted as this great social good which will also be of great economic benefit but is it really that beneficial?
In this materialistic modernity, economics is often the one and only issue of importance. Or at least that is the case for many moderate liberals, libertarians and other “conservatives.” We are meant to believe that letting in scores of foreigners will see economic growth and to question immigration policies is to support poor economic practice. The truth, however, is not at all like many would have you believe. One researcher who has spent much time investigating the economic impact of immigration in the US is George J. Borjas. His research has found that the economic benefits are on the whole trivial. The Cato institute compared the findings of Borjas and his colleague Katz with those of Ottaviano and Peri. The latter two have a more positive conclusion but even then their research has shown that immigration negatively affects the wages of low-income natives and of immigrants.
A recent study from British professor Robert Rowthorn has found that migration again has a very modest impact on economic success and that in the long term it actually depresses wages and the GDP.
While mass migration will drive almost all population growth in the next 75 years, the growth will not deliver any improvement of living conditions or economic growth, says Prof. Rowthorn. As Britain’s population swells by a remarkable 30 million by 2080, GDP per capita — the measure of wealth enjoyed by individuals — will only enjoy marginal growth as wages stagnate… Prof. Rowthorn writes: “Many people would consider it better to settle for much less immigration and much slower population growth at the cost of slightly faster ageing”. Far better, he suggests, is to raise the retirement age slightly instead, and spare Britain tens of millions of migrants and descendents of migrants over the coming decades. Dr. David Green further states that, “Rich countries are enriching themselves at the expense of poorer countries. The attitude seems to be: let poor countries go to the expense of educating their young people and then invite them here to exploit their skills. Poor countries can’t afford to lose their best educated and motivated young. Some say that immigrants take dirty or hard jobs that locals will not do. But in other countries with low immigration such jobs are filled. They simply pay more for dirty and arduous jobs. So it should be. The end result of the current policy will be an underclass of foreign workers doing unpopular jobs. Instead we should aim for a high-wage economy in which everyone can earn a fair living.”
As with Borjas, Rowthorn and Green worry about the effects that immigration has not only on the economy of the country they move to but of the country they move from. This study has similarly found that as with low-income Americans being the most negatively affected by migration in the US, in the UK it is the low-income, working class Whites who are most affected, “This wage stagnation, or even a real-terms decrease in earnings, will be felt primarily by working class Britons as oversupply of labour from new migrants pushes down wages,” moreover, it was found that migrants were not paying for the pensions of retirees.
In the case of Mexican migration Borjas found that,
Mexican immigrants have much less educational attainment than either native-born workers or non-Mexican immigrants. These differences in human capital account for nearly three-quarters of the very large wage disadvantage suffered by Mexican immigrants in recent decades.
Although the earnings of non-Mexican immigrants converge to those of their native-born counterparts as the immigrants accumulate work experience in the U.S. labor market, this type of wage convergence has been much weaker on average for Mexican immigrants than for other immigrant groups.
Although native-born workers of Mexican ancestry have levels of human capital and earnings that far exceed those of Mexican immigrants, the economic performance of these native-born workers lags behind that of native workers who are not of Mexican ancestry. Much of the wage gap between the two groups of native-born workers can be explained by the large difference in educational attainment between the two groups.
The large Mexican influx in recent decades widened the U.S. wage structure by adversely affecting the earnings of less-educated native workers and improving the earnings of college graduates. These wage effects have, in turn, lowered the prices of nontraded goods and services that are low-skill labor intensive.
Recently Denmark cut back on its immigration intake and found that it was actually saving money. In fact it was saving GBP 6 billion by cutting migration. This is unsurprising given that most modern immigration to the West is from poor non-Western countries. Similarly in Canada,
Economist Herb Grubel of Simon Fraser University, and a Fraser Institute fellow, calculated, among other things, that the costs in services and benefits, in the year 2002 alone, incurred by the 2.5 million immigrants who arrived between 1990 and 2002 exceeded the taxes they paid by $18.3 billion; the average immigrant since 1985 has imposed an annual fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers of $6000, for a total of $25-billion annually for all immigrants…. One has to consider as well the many elderly relatives of immigrants who use social services without ever having paid for those services during their working lives. Many immigrants hold Canadian citizenship but work abroad, paying no taxes in Canada, and only returning to Canada to use expensive government services. About 11 percent of immigrants have citizenship in Canada and one other country. It has been estimated that 8 percent of Canadian citizens, including those with dual citizenship, or 2.7 million people, live outside Canada.
I think it is evident that the mass migration we in the West are experiencing today is having little positive effect on our economies and we should not fall for the lies coming from politicians, journalists and others who suggest otherwise. However, let us not be too focused on economics. There are other issues regarding immigration which are of greater importance. A major one is that, as I stated earlier, most migrants coming into Western countries like Canada, the US and Denmark are not from the Occident.
In that telegraph article I cited earlier in regards to Denmark it was found that, “immigrants from non-western countries and their decedents cost the country £1.8 billion a year while those from western countries contributed to the economy.” The incoming of fellow Whites didn’t harm the economy but non-Whites did. Borjas’ finding regarding Mexican migration to the US were that not only was their contribution minimal and largely at the expense of low-income natives, but that American born Mexicans earn below the national average. A big issue that is apparent now because of third-world migration is the difference in IQ. Jason Richwine has noted that mestizos have a lower IQ compared to Whites. Similar findings have been found with Sub-Saharans and middle easterners – who might be lower due to greater frequency of inbreeding. Of course this is all incredibly politically incorrect and has resulted in many people from Richwine to eminent scientist James Watson losing their jobs or otherwise being blacklisted but none of that changes the fact that there are differences in IQ between the varied groups of man. Lower IQ does not mean that a group is inferior or that they are mentally retarded, but it does make it harder for them to achieve a level of economic prosperity that Whites are accustomed to. It is also has an impact on welfare.
As Frank Salter has noted the influx of middle easterners into Europe has been a massive strain on welfare which is regarded as highly precious by most denizens of welfare states like Sweden, “In Sweden government debt is only about 39% of GDP but its immigrants from Africa and the Middle East are straining the budget. These immigrants make up about 16% of the population but take as much as 58% of welfare payments, representing a large wealth transfer from ethnic Swedes. That transfer is a bad investment because about 48% of working-age immigrants are unemployed. Even after 15 years in the country, 40% are not working.” He further notes the work of former German politician Thilo Sarrazin who found that Turks had an incredibly difficult time integrating into German society and their greater reliance upon welfare.
Of course this is not all because of genetics – and Salter doesn’t mention that in his article – but they do play a role. Culture and religion are also of importance, perhaps more so.
East Asians score very high on IQ tests, in fact they score higher than Whites, but their influx is hardly beneficial. Take for example the Chinese. In cities with large Chinese populations like the Greater Vancouver Area (GVA) of Canada, there has been an astronomical rise in housing prices thanks to Chinese migration. Going back to economics for a moment the influx of Chinese has not only risen housing prices – and made it harder for natives to find decent living quarters – but 36% of owners are housewives or students who contribute nothing to the economy. And 18% of the 172 purchased between August 2014 and February 2015 purchased were not mortgaged meaning c. CAD 100 million in “questionable cash was poured into the Vancouver west side.” The GVA city of Richmond is majority Chinese and they constantly push for Mandarin being the only language of business in the city despite the fact it is not an official language of Canada. Much the same is happening in Australia as well.
There is much debate about Islamic migration and for good reason. Islamic culture is in every way different from the West. Terrorism, extreme unwillingness to integrate with the host society, rape gangs, taharrush gamea, inbreeding, lack of an understanding of civic culture, etc. are all major impediments to Muslims being a positive addition to Western countries. Again I would turn your attention to the Salter article as he notes many of the problems posed by Muslim migration.
The greater the difference in racial and ethnic origin from the host the greater the chance of conflict and of racialised politics. As Lee Kuan Yew once said, “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” Why would people want to assimilate? They cherish their own culture and often times their former homeland encourages this as is the case with Turks in Germany. Ethnic lobbies are a major issue in every multiracial/multiethnic country. And this is true even of racially similar peoples, take for example the case of the Irish in America who were at the forefront of the corrupt Tammany Hall wing of the Democratic party, and were constantly pushing for American policy to favour their Anglophobic inclinations. In the long run it is possible for differing ethnies that are close racially, culturally and religiously to integrate or even assimilate but this is far less likely the greater the difference between the host nation and the incomers. Multicultural countries result in disparate groups jostling with each other for influence and in many cases these groups become cogs in the grievance machine that rolls ever onward in the never ending pursuit of ‘gibsmedat.’
Another issue that should be kept in mind is the effect on our cities. As Borjas has noted, “Immigrants tend to cluster geographically in a small number of cities and states. In 1998, almost three-quarters of U.S. immigrants lived in only six states: California, New York, Texas, Florida, New Jersey, and Illinois. In contrast, only one-third of native-born citizens lived in those states.” We can see this congestion happening throughout the Western world. Overcrowding leads to greater garbage and transportation problems such as congestion and burdens on local transit. Sense of civil responsibilities are noticeably lacking in non-Whites most likely due to the fact that the concepts of states and civic duties are Western ones. Cities become ever larger to the point where they start taking up land which could otherwise be used for agricultural production or to simply be left in its pristine natural state. City growth is perhaps inevitable but if a result of natural growth it can be better dealt with. This is especially so in the case of smaller urban centres which are generally unequipped to deal with mass influxes of people. Immigration is also detrimental to cities in that it leads to the creation of ethnic ghettos and multiculturalism in general results in lower trust and sense of civic duty.
On a final note I would like to mention that we often hear from pro-immigrationists that mass migration is necessary for population growth. This is not entirely true. Eventually migrants’ birth rates match natives so one would have to be continually flooding nation with migrants which is just stupid. Aging third world migrants is an even greater strain on welfare. Family reunification policies also allow for elderly migrants to come over and, as mentioned above, use social services which they did not pay into.
Leftists and milquetoast “conservatives” want to believe we are all the same but they fail to realise that their views are solely born out of the Western tradition and clearly non-Whites, as a whole, do not share or even care for the traditions of the Western country the live in. Many are actively against the societies they go to – either violently or covertly. And while some immigration can help the economy the kind of migration we are seeing now is not helpful.
The worst aspect of immigration and indeed the most insidious aspect is the cult of immigration which has been developed in the last 70 or so years in the Occident. Arguments concerning economics, genetics, cultural differences or the like ultimately do not matter because the cult of immigration is so firmly entrenched that it is the norm with otherwise intelligent people in places of power and influence to advocate for very flawed policies. This cult of immigration will be discussed in part II.