Mass immigration not the secret to economic growth, says OECD

The Telegraph ^ | 5/20/2014

[Altura Ct.]

Study of leading economies finds the impact of immigration over the past 50 years has been ‘neutral’ with the amount paid in taxes and received in benefits in balance.

Mass immigration has brought little or no overall financial benefit to the UK and other countries, a study by the club of the world’s leading economies has concluded.

Evidence from around the world over the last 50 years shows that immigrants are not a “panacea” to boost economic growth but nor are they a “major burden” on the taxpayer, new analysis by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) finds.

Overall, the fiscal impact of migration in OECD countries has been “broadly neutral” with taxes paid by new arrivals usually matching what they receive in benefits, it finds.

Although in some countries the amount immigrants contribute to the public purse exceeds what they receive, new arrivals contribute less overall than the existing population, because many are less well paid.

The study is likely to be seized on by both sides in the immigration debate in the run-up to the European elections, with concerns about unchecked immigration dominating the political agenda both in the UK and other countries.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Duh. Invading hoards of parasites never do!

[gusopol3]

I believe the Swiss policy is not to provide benefits to immigrants (as was discussed here on FR some years ago
); it has helped to control their immigration problem. Apparently, it has also put upward pressure on wages, didn’t a Swiss municipal referendum recently reject a minimum wage in excess of $20?

[headstamp 2]

“Evidence from around the world over the last 50 years shows that immigrants are not a “panacea” to boost economic growth but nor are they a “major burden” on the taxpayer,”

Not a major burden, yeah, right.

[skeeter]

but nor are they a “major burden” on the taxpayer, new analysis by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) finds.

Anyone familiar with the welfare system and how it seeks out clients among the recently arrived, and the obvious familiarity the recently arrived have with whats available to them, knows this is complete crap.

On the other hand "major burden" are subjective weasel words.

[a fool in paradise]

Just as the US government giving BILLIONS to India so we can offshore jobs grows the economy, right?

Corporations pay $17,000 for a $100,000 skill set and have greater return on investment, especially since they don’t have to pay import duty on the million dollar code/product they smuggle in through the internet wire.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

I support immigration. I don’t support millions of illegal aliens invading America.

[Cronos]

Where does the US give billions to india?

[Bogey78O]

Rush asked a very good question, if these immigrants have value, why is it fair that we take them from poor nations?

[Ben Ficklin]

This depends on whether you measure it with the "snap-shot method" or the "thru-time method".

Using the "thru-time method", the benefits of immigration are not measured/realized until the 2nd or 3rd generation of the immigrants.

If you measure the impact of Irish Catholic immigrants in the 19th century or Hispanic Catholic immigrants more recently using the "snap-shot method", it is hard to see much benefit. But thru time each group assimilates, becomes educated, and contributes more and more both economically and culturally with each succeeding generation.

[ansel12]

I don’t know what your politics are, but the democrat party and the American left benefited from that Catholic immigration and still does, they count on it to wipe out conservatism forever, and to erase traditional America.

“However, if there is one man who can take the most credit for the 1965 act, it is John F. Kennedy. Kennedy seems to have inherited the resentment his father Joseph felt as an outsider in Boston’s WASP aristocracy. He voted against the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, and supported various refugee acts throughout the 1950s. In 1958 he wrote a book, A Nation of Immigrants, which attacked the quota system as illogical and without purpose, and the book served as Kennedy’s blueprint for immigration reform after he became president in 1960. In the summer of 1963, Kennedy sent Congress a proposal calling for the elimination of the national origins quota system. He wanted immigrants admitted on the basis of family reunification and needed skills, without regard to national origin. After his assassination in November, his brother Robert took up the cause of immigration reform, calling it JFK’s legacy. In the forward to a revised edition of A Nation of Immigrants, issued in 1964 to gain support for the new law, he wrote, “I know of no cause which President Kennedy championed more warmly than the improvement of our immigration policies.” Sold as a memorial to JFK, there was very little opposition to what became known as the Immigration Act of 1965.”