Many Democrats see their party as the
working man's choice. They want to soften capitalism's rougher
edges, humanize big industry, and give the average American a fighting
chance. One may (and should) disagree with their methods, but their
intentions are good and their beliefs sincere.
That is not how the party elites feel. Their mantra is
"open trade and open borders," as Hillary Clinton told Wall
Street bankers in a private speech. Recall how the Democrats
supported President Obama's Trans-Pacific
Partnership, a "free trade" deal that would have gutted American
industries. And it is Democrats who oppose President Trump's
attempts to stop illegal immigration, which hurts
America's poor.
The Democrats don't care about American workers. They
care about winning elections.
At this point, the chorus of "progressive" rhetoric
reaches a fever pitch. "But we need immigrants
to support the welfare state! We need immigrants to pay for Social
Security!" Saying it does not make it so.
In truth, immigration is destroying the welfare state, in America
and throughout the West. This is happening because immigrants
receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. Of course, this is
not true for every immigrant – some never collect government handouts – but it
is true for the overall immigrant population. Studies from across
the Western world prove this point.
A recent and comprehensive study from the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that although
immigration is (theoretically) revenue-neutral in America, not all immigrants
are created equal. Half of all immigrants actually receive more in
government assistance than they pay in taxes, but thankfully, they are balanced
out by the other half. Specifically, immigrants who came to America
for family reasons, or arrived as refugees, cost a net present value of
$170,000.
Net present value is how much money the government would need to
invest today, at a yield of inflation plus three percent, to pay for said
immigrant's tax deficit over the course of his expected lifetime. Of
course, the government does not do this – it spends only as it
receives. Therefore, looking at net present value creates
artificially low expectations.
According to the Heritage
Foundation, each non-economic immigrant more realistically costs a net of
$476,000 in welfare payouts. This does not account for any increases
in government programs. Applying this more realistic figure to the
original study means that immigrants consume far more in government services than
they pay for. In fact, if immigration levels remain unchanged, those
arriving over the next decade will cost American taxpayers a net of $1.9
trillion over their lifetimes. The welfare state is already
struggling; immigration will make a bad problem worse.
Another important study, conducted by Denmark's
Ministry of Finance, found that immigrants are a net drain on the nation's
welfare state. In fact, non-E.U. immigrants and their descendants
consumed 59 percent of the tax surplus collected from native
Danes. This is not surprising, since some 84
percent of all welfare recipients in Denmark are immigrants, or their
descendants. The bottom line: immigration is a net burden on
Denmark.
Likewise, a study conducted by Canada's Fraser
Institute, a think-tank, found that mass immigration costs Canadian
taxpayers some $24 billion per year – and this was using data from nearly a
decade ago. The number has since increased significantly, as Canada
has one of the highest immigration rates in the world.
Finally, a study from the University
College of London found that immigrants consume far more in welfare
than they pay in taxes. Specifically, the study looked at the
Labor government's mass immigration push between 1995 and 2011. The
study found that immigrants from the European Economic Area made a small but
positive net contribution to the British economy of £4.4 billion during the
period. However, during the same period, non-European immigrants
(primarily from South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa) cost the British
economy a net £120 billion.
The origin-based economic differences are actually exacerbated by
the U.K.'s generous welfare state: while European immigrants often left
their extended families at home, to be cared for by their respective
governments, immigrants from the Third World generally brought their families
with them, knowing that British taxpayers would care for them. From
the immigrant's perspective, this is a rational choice, but does it make sense
for British taxpayers? No.
For decades, Democrats campaigned on promises of cradle-to-grave
care for low-income Americans, while at the same time they have allowed
millions of immigrants to enter America and collect welfare – without ever
having contributed a dime to the public purse. This is not only
unfair; it is unsustainable. The welfare state is collapsing under
its own weight, and mass immigration is only making this bad problem worse.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/immigration_is_destroying_the_welfare_state.html
