1. Migrants and their descendants are poorer than average.
2. Social spending is higher among poor people, because that’s the whole point.
3. Disproportionately poor people represent a disproportionate amount of social spending, duh.
The reality is that a lot of them struggle to find jobs, and a lot of them end up working illegally for unscrupulous bosses. And yes there are a whole lot of reasons for that, but at the end of the day it's the reality we have to deal with
> Generally immigrants are job creators and entrepreneurs, and take less from the system than native born people do
And this is (at least in the context of many European countries) not true.
It is not relevant if this is simply because they are poor, and poor people receive a disproportionate amount of social spending.
The observation is that immigration in that case drives up housing demand, while at the same time being a net-negative in financial terms for society.
That being said, I would be interested to know if the social spending stay disproportional after controlling for socio-economic factors. I personally have no idea, as far as I know immigrants could be either under- or over-funded. And if they are, it could be interesting to investigate why.
I don't want to generalise things, but since you're doing it yourself:
In France migrants and descendant of migrants are between 50% and 100% more unemployed than the rest of the population.
They also represent 28% of social spending despite being 12% of the population
https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/6793274?sommaire=679339....
https://www.marianne.net/economie/economie-francaise/le-vrai...