Figure 3.7. Net total lifetime contribution to the collective sector, according to year of arrival.
GN = Average Netherlands, NWA = non-western immigrant. From: Nyfer (2010), ‘Budgettaire effecten van immigratie van niet-westerse allochtonen’, p48.
Last year Geert Wilders caused a bit of a stir when he announced his initiative to assess the cost of mass-immigration to Dutch society from non-western countries. He commissioned a report with research bureau Nyfer, and today the results came in. According to Elsevier (NL):
Mass immigration of non-western immigrants to the Netherlands costs 7.2 billion euro per year. This was shown in research done by research bureau Nyfer.
Nyfer did the research at the request of the PVV fraction in the Second Chamber. The party of Geert Wilders went to the economic research bureau because last year the cabinet refused ‘on principal grounds’ to make such calculations.
The 7.2 billion euro is based on a yearly net influx of 25,000 immigrants with a same number of offspring.
The research shows that non-western immigramts use more government services and pay less in taxes and premiums than the average Dutch.
Also, they more often are on welfare or receive unemployment benefits. Lastly, non-western immigrants are overrepresented in criminality, which leads to extra costs.
The website of Nyfer is here. The report can be found here (NL; pdf). The conclusions of the research by Nyfer can be found here (NL; pdf). Interestingly (and not in the Elsevier coverage), second-generation immigrants also show a negative contribution. On average, second-generation non-western immigrants recover around 38% of the negative contribution by their parents.
Alexander Pechtold, leader of the flamingly multicultural D66, came back rather forcefully (hah!) when he intoned that non-western immigrants cannot be viewed exclusively as ‘a cost item’, maintaining that people should not be viewed as ‘economic goods in a cost/benefit analysis’. However, given that for years we were told we need immigration to pay for and care for our ageing population, that about-face is a bit on the lame side, isn’t it?