Anglosphere migrants are more productive than non anglosphere

[lfromnj]

https://www.ft.com/content/c6bb7307-484c-4076-a0f3-fc2aeb0b6112




The US is also mostly due to its very high deficit levels to begin with.

Reminder for a lot of the EU countries it also includes various migrants from the EU itself who actually are quite productive and net fiscal contributors. The outside EU migrants are a complete disaster on average, often being net negative even at their prime fiscal years.

Crime is similar for the US as well. Migrants to the EU are more likely than native born to be criminals while it isn't true for the US. A lot of the recent opposition to the migration wave under Biden has to do with the fact that the migrants are getting free Manhattan hotels.

[Kamala's side hoe]

This is probably an underdiscussed economic factor behind Europe being noticeably more xenophobic than the New World, although I don't think it's the main reason why.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think forced deportations will not happen in Europe, even if (when?) the likes of the AfD will enter power - for starters, states are too hollow to push it through. Maybe that's just hopium though, but the idea of mass expulsions (a la Germans being removed from Eastern Europe or asians from east africa) strikes me as very unlikely from a democratic state that obeys the rule of law.

What i think is likelier would be the social democrat-christian democrat-green-liberal blob absorbs the populist right (in return for them shedding things like Euroscepticism) and focusing on some main strands:

- increased sponsorship of voluntary repatriation of certain diasporas that cause the most friction. Perhaps they will dress it up kindly, like the ACL in the United States that had black leaders and "wanted to give freedmen a homeland"; there will be lots of rhetoric like "somalia needs to be rebuilt as stable and proud land, and european somalis don't you want to be the new elite in the New Somalia etc"

-  almost all countries (especially those led by social democrats) will copy the danish ghetto laws in problem areas (French suburbs etc): they will be focused excessively on identifying and dispersing large majority-minority concentrations using the tools of urban renewal and the rhetoric of desegregation.

- frontex will be beefed up as essentially a unified navy of the EU that permanently guards the coast from irregular crossing. Can be sold as a humanitarian concern fairly easily (although it will obviously the dictatorial regimes of the Maghreb will be the paid accomplices).

- future guest worker programs will exist, but they will probably be more similar to Qatar style operations than before. Maybe you'll see weird semi-keynesian programs to pay people to do work in their hone country rather than come to europe.

[CumbrianLefty]

Yes that looks like a plausible direction of travel.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

- increased sponsorship of voluntary repatriation of certain diasporas that cause the most friction. Perhaps they will dress it up kindly, like the ACL in the United States that had black leaders and "wanted to give freedmen a homeland"; there will be lots of rhetoric like "somalia needs to be rebuilt as stable and proud land, and european somalis don't you want to be the new elite in the New Somalia etc"

Not disputing your other points, but I really doubt this one will work, if it's even tried again. We have had examples of such things (e.g. the Kohl administration coming up with a semi-secret plan upon taking office in 1982 to cut the Turkish population in half by 1989, and passing the Return Assistance Act of 1984 into law, and basically nobody took it) and they tend to fail miserably.

There just really is no amount of money that can make up for going back to a developing country from a rich, stable country. Basically they can only hope to stop new immigration + stricter deportation for criminal infractions, I guess.

[ingemann]

I doubt the British numbers would be correct today, if we look at the years the UK number improved it was the years they saw migration from the EU, I expect it to have fallen with the shift in countries of origin.

Also honestly these numbers have been pretty obvious for years for anyone who looked into it. The problem here is that for that the industry get all the benefit of immigration, while society carry the cost, so there’s always people willing to push for open borders.

[Burke Bro]

This problem is compounded by dropping birthrates and the increasing need for working-age people. Many European countries are at risk of deindustrialization in a few decades. Even though there are problems with assimilating migrants in America, we are really lucky to be a settler society.

[ingemann]

This problem is compounded by dropping birthrates and the increasing need for working-age people. Many European countries are at risk of deindustrialization in a few decades. Even though there are problems with assimilating migrants in America, we are really lucky to be a settler society.

If immigrants is a net drain on resources you don’t get anything out of increased volume.

[Zinneke]

- increased sponsorship of voluntary repatriation of certain diasporas that cause the most friction. Perhaps they will dress it up kindly, like the ACL in the United States that had black leaders and "wanted to give freedmen a homeland"; there will be lots of rhetoric like "somalia needs to be rebuilt as stable and proud land, and european somalis don't you want to be the new elite in the New Somalia etc"

Not disputing your other points, but I really doubt this one will work, if it's even tried again. We have had examples of such things (e.g. the Kohl administration coming up with a semi-secret plan upon taking office in 1982 to cut the Turkish population in half by 1989, and passing the Return Assistance Act of 1984 into law, and basically nobody took it) and they tend to fail miserably.

There just really is no amount of money that can make up for going back to a developing country from a rich, stable country. Basically they can only hope to stop new immigration + stricter deportation for criminal infractions, I guess.

More to the point, if I take the example of Belgian Morrocans they are foreigners in their country of origin too, or perceived as such at least. They would be rejected there too.

[EastAnglianLefty]

This is probably an underdiscussed economic factor behind Europe being noticeably more xenophobic than the New World, although I don't think it's the main reason why.

Much of the effect is the other way round - increased levels of xenophobia mean that integration is much worse, so the economic contribution of migrants is reduced.

[ingemann]

This is probably an underdiscussed economic factor behind Europe being noticeably more xenophobic than the New World, although I don't think it's the main reason why.

Much of the effect is the other way round - increased levels of xenophobia mean that integration is much worse, so the economic contribution of migrants is reduced.

It’s a foolish take, which ignore the difference between the groups in question, and it’s in fact disproven by data delivered here, as we can see that English and Irish increase in immigrant productivity only came when they shifted to East European immigration, which UK was in fact one of the first old EU member to open up to.

There’s also the take that Europe is vastly more xenophobic than USA and Canada, and it’s not just a case of USA being vastly better at silencing dissent.

[CumbrianLefty]

This problem is compounded by dropping birthrates and the increasing need for working-age people. Many European countries are at risk of deindustrialization in a few decades. Even though there are problems with assimilating migrants in America, we are really lucky to be a settler society.

One thing they need to do is make having children appear a more attractive prospect - right wingers are fond of moral exhortations that this should happen, whilst making the objective conditions for doing so significantly worse. The Handmaid's Tale is a warning, not something to aspire to.

[ingemann]

BTW I voted no to the question, I do not think people who have lived here for years should be deported just because they happened to give a net deficit. Outside outliers like criminals these people are not at fault for this, many of them atives a net deficit because they had to go on early pension because they worked themselves into invalidity or because they were housewives taking care of the children while their husbands worked. But we should learn a lesson from it and avoid importing too many people we know will be a net deficit.

We should of course deport any criminal or illegal immigrant we can get away with deporting.

[EastAnglianLefty]

This is probably an underdiscussed economic factor behind Europe being noticeably more xenophobic than the New World, although I don't think it's the main reason why.

Much of the effect is the other way round - increased levels of xenophobia mean that integration is much worse, so the economic contribution of migrants is reduced.

It’s a foolish take, which ignore the difference between the groups in question, and it’s in fact disproven by data delivered here, as we can see that English and Irish increase in immigrant productivity only came when they shifted to East European immigration, which UK was in fact one of the first old EU member to open up to.

There’s also the take that Europe is vastly more xenophobic than USA and Canada, and it’s not just a case of USA being vastly better at silencing dissent.

I don't think you can read a graph. The peak years for eastern European immigration coincide with more spending on migrants than revenue collected from them.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

- increased sponsorship of voluntary repatriation of certain diasporas that cause the most friction. Perhaps they will dress it up kindly, like the ACL in the United States that had black leaders and "wanted to give freedmen a homeland"; there will be lots of rhetoric like "somalia needs to be rebuilt as stable and proud land, and european somalis don't you want to be the new elite in the New Somalia etc"

Not disputing your other points, but I really doubt this one will work, if it's even tried again. We have had examples of such things (e.g. the Kohl administration coming up with a semi-secret plan upon taking office in 1982 to cut the Turkish population in half by 1989, and passing the Return Assistance Act of 1984 into law, and basically nobody took it) and they tend to fail miserably.

There just really is no amount of money that can make up for going back to a developing country from a rich, stable country. Basically they can only hope to stop new immigration + stricter deportation for criminal infractions, I guess.

Fair enough. Maybe more narrowly they will specifically target it at the strongly conservative, like a salafi version of religious zionism?

[gerritcole]

if ethnic cleansing returns to europe it will be done the way it always has in history - blood history and physical looks. push comes to shove, the state is capable of a lot. it won't be this orderly, incentivized 'return' of the people to their homelands

[ingemann]

if ethnic cleansing returns to europe it will be done the way it always has in history - blood history and physical looks. push comes to shove, the state is capable of a lot. it won't be this orderly, incentivized 'return' of the people to their homelands

While I find it doubtful it will happen, you’re right if it happens it will be incredible ugly and disorderly, it won’t be a clean deportation, and you will before it happens see rioting and pogroms, which will incentivize a lot of people to leave on their own.

[CumbrianLefty]

A classic case of be careful what you wish for, indeed.