That very much depends on immigration policies and the way a welfare state is setup.

I am sure that countries with strict policies that mainly allow people to immigrate that a country can be sure these people can contribute to the economy, in such cases sure.

But some countries have very lax policies and (in the name of humanitarian aid) allow many people in from poor areas of the world. At the same time some of these countries might have a large welfare state, with benefits like free or cheap healthcare, schooling, state pensions, medical benefits either free or heavily subsidized, unemployment benefits, etcetera.

For those countries immigration is a huge cost. Many immigrants moving to such countries will never (be able to) work. But they will use a large amount of resources from the welfare state. And perhaps such countries hope children of these kinds of immigrants will be a net benefit, but only time will tell.

Because one additional hurdle is that for many of such countries it’s not expected (and there is little push) for immigrants to integrate into society.

For these countries unrestricted mass immigration will mean the dismantling of the welfare state. As there are too many users of welfare services and not enough people paying taxes to finance the welfare state.

Many Northern European countries fall onto this group.

Quote from the conclusion of one of the studies mentioned here: https://miwi-institut.de/archives/2028#:~:text=The%20researc....

I can only speak for my own region in western Europe (Benelux / Germany / France), for us mass immigration especially from non-EU countries has a very high financial and social cost. So high that both in Belgium and the Netherlands there is a large majority to be found in favor of drastically reducing immigration, recent polls show. However in almost all west European countries you've got governments doing the exact opposite of the people's will. In my own country, Belgium, we've got a very generous social security system and as such we attract a lot of immigration that is not interested in working (and/or simply very low skilled, often illiterate).

Among non-EU origins we're at 44.5 % inactivity, not studying nor working, (!!!!!) which is the worst score in all of Europe. Belgium itself is of course partially to blame because our social security system is too flexible, too generous and does not push to work.

Mass immigration from strongly divergent cultures is damaging western society, causing higher poverty, more crime, and rampant feelings of alienation, tearing at the fabric of social values and cohesion. Look at Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden... Go for a stroll in Brussels or Frankfurt, have a look at the numerous ghettos there. Mass immigration is a lose-lose thing, both for the host country and for the newcomers who often sign up for a life in abject poverty.

Yeah, I am aware how absurd it is that "if we want more immigration we should increase the number of work visas awarded to less skilled laborers plus many other things like that, not turn a blind eye to a second class citizenry" is a fringe way of looking at the problem, but that's the cake that's been served us.

I remember the Muslim Ban, the hate against Syrian refugees, the popularity of Trump among people who believe in the "great replacement" theory. I remember family separation, and supposedly God-fearing "conservatives" proudly saying that the suffering of those children were the parents fault for trying to flee ravaged societies and give their kids a better life.

Wanting to crack down harder on illegal immigration is a valid political position and a reasonable goal. But that wasn't all what that shit was about. I don't know if you've truly fooled yourself, but you're not fooling me. I'm never forgetting, and I'm never forgiving.

If any reader is curious, the irony only developed around the time a certain presidential campaign normalized anti-immigrant rhetoric; until then the "old conservatives" were fully aware of the importance of immigration to business owners and the lack of any real cultural incompatibility and never took any steps to reduce it. They sided very much on the elimination of the welfare state which was the solution they saw for the supposed cost issue (highly questionable to begin with, in a country with as little in the way of social programs as the US after the 1980s drew to a close. In a system designed for people that thought social security should depend on the number of hours you have worked, it is hard to imagine what costs they'd be objecting to.)

The way the shift in alignment was carried out always struck me as a sobering example of the shortness of memories, or the impermanence of the public's convictions.

[0] https://www.prb.org/resources/immigration-gives-catholicism-...

> Quote from the conclusion of one of the studies mentioned here: https://miwi-institut.de/archives/2028#:~:text=The%20researc....

Thanks for providing some actual research ... It's not exactly a politically neutral report (but admittedly I'm not providing anything better):

The authors of the study from the University of Amsterdam rightly refer to the American economist and Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman, who explained that the choice at stake is between continuing to accept migrants and maintaining the welfare state.

However, the politically correct politicians and the media look the other way. They refuse to draw conclusions from the unequivocal results of objective scientific research on the negative effects of immigration. The native taxpayer who bears the cost of immigration is paying a heavy price – literally and figuratively – a price that is rising every day.

Unlike most European countries or even Canada though, immigrant Americans consider themselves ... Americans. I mean... my parents are honestly pretty hard core trump supporters and contrary to popular belief, they've been very welcomed at all these supposedly 'racist' events.

> It is something tourists comment on, that they stumble into different neighborhoods and feel they are in a totally different place. There are whole sections of my hometown which basically operate in a different language and where everyone has moved out. It doesn't seem like integration to me. I think people just move around each other in America and can afford to do so more.

Sure, in the big cities where there are lots of immigrants it can certainly be like that. In the more provincial parts of the country you can go -- as I did -- to Oktoberfest celebrated in an old German town, except all the people who live there are now hispanic, philipino, or mixed whatever and are all happily doing the Polka and drinking beer while saluting the American flag.

Also, typically in those 'ethnic' neighborhoods you speak of... people are very patriotic. For example, my brother married into a big hispanic family and some of the older generation definitely speaks Spanish mainly and a lot of the town they live in is primarily Spanish, but they're incredibly patriotic and love America.

> It is something tourists comment on, that they stumble into different neighborhoods and feel they are in a totally different place.

I totally get why tourists might find it weird, but as a native born American, I stumble into many ethnic enclaves in the US and feel pretty at home. Most people aren't used to that.

Immigrants have a substantially higher unemployment rate https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9819060/

Swedish PM says integration has failed https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swedish-pm-says-integra...

Sure, but it’s cited in a Dutch newspaper article. You can copy and paste in Google Translate: https://archive.ph/HvG8u

Allowing unrestricted immigration from very culturally different countries with hardly any income/educational requirements seem to have had significant economic, social and political cost.

Seems ridiculous to say its “false” that there are complications then offer some vague reference to research that indicates its not a problem in a particular way.

Immigration has served NYC in particular extremely well, over centuries. Probably not a good example!

> Seems ridiculous to say its “false” that there are complications then offer some vague reference

The claim wasn't 'complications', but economic cost. And I already admitted I don't have the research in front of me.

Obviously, my claim wasn't everything is perfect all the time - a claim that applies to nothing in the world.

To jest, Monaco is 2/3 immigrants, I haven't heard many people complaining about violence.

I'd bet most of those are European immigrants, so immigrated from stable countries with good education standards. When we talk about immigrants causing problems we are talking about immigrants from low developed countries where many lacks education, like what happened in the refugee crisis.

I make the difference, as that's the same issue when you reunite a country that has long been under two different regimes. Or when you abolish slavery. Or when there's a rise in homelessness.

The other part of it is, putting the focus on refugees obscures the context of why these people are fleeing their country, and what we have to do with it. It's like discussing about the water leaking from the ceiling, without the context of where it comes from. Perhaps the upper floor getting flooded by leaking pipes merits a bit more thought, I don't know.

Crimes perpetuated by people of migrant background doesn't equate to immigration being the cause of these crimes. If we accept that rhetoric, violent crimes are overwhelmingly done by men, so being a men is the cause of violence, right ?

Are you serious? These bombings are all done by immigrants. That's the proof.

Being a sanctuary city simply means (fundamentally) not assisting the Federal government in enforcing immigration law (which, in the US, is a matter of Federal responsibility and power).

The current issue NYC is facing is that the city is paying for housing and services for these migrants (who, by my understanding, are asylum seekers)--which of course they don't do for normal immigrants who decide to make a life in New York.

I'm not sure if you've ever been to New York City, but it's a heavily immigrant city that simply wouldn't function without them--at all levels, from taxi drivers up to investment banks and, of course, tech.

Supposing that this is true, what happens in poor countries when they selectively lose their healthiest and most productive people to emigration?