_ Yuri Kofner, Economist, MIWI Institute. Munich – Steyregg, July 15, 2024. Heimatkurier.
Without mass replacement migration, Europeans would “starve,” claims EU Commissioner Ylva Johansson. But is this really the case? Economist Yuri Kofner has examined relevant studies from Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden for the Heimatkurier and reached a very different conclusion.
The welfare state is one of the most significant achievements of Bismarck’s reforms, yet it is under enormous pressure. Court economists, state broadcasters, and politicians from the Greens to the CDU assert that replacement migration of young men from Africa and the Middle East of working age contributes to the financing of the German welfare state. But is this really true?
A Grim Picture
A closer look at the fiscal net effects of natives and immigrants on the public budget reveals a contrary and grim picture. The higher the average employment participation and income of a population group, the higher their tax contributions compared to state social benefits. The net effect determines whether a group burdens or relieves the budget. Unfortunately, German tax statistics do not sufficiently differentiate between various population groups. However, studies from comparable Northern European countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden offer valuable insights.
Denmark: A Disturbing Example
In Denmark, the Ministry of Finance analyzed in 2021 the net costs and contributions of different population groups by nationality. Between 2014 and 2018, Danish citizens made an annual net contribution of 5.5 billion euros. Immigrants from Western countries contributed a net 1 billion euros. However, immigrants from the MENAPT region (Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan, and Turkey) incurred annual net costs of 3.6 billion euros. An average Dane contributed a net 1,100 euros annually, a Western immigrant 4,700 euros. But a migrant from the MENAPT region cost the budget 14,200 euros annually. Migrants from Muslim countries accounted for 77 percent of the net expenditure of the Danish welfare state for all immigrants.
Netherlands: Another Warning Example
A similar study by the University of Amsterdam, commissioned by the right-wing party Forum for Democracy (FvD) in 2021, found that only legal labor migration generated a positive net contribution for the Netherlands of an average 125,000 euros per immigrant over their lifespan. Student migration, on the other hand, caused net costs of 75,000 euros, and family reunification burdened the budget with an average of 275,000 euros per immigrant. The study reinforced the known differences between migration source regions. Immigrants from most Western and some East Asian countries, especially from Northern European neighboring countries, North America, the British Isles, Switzerland, Israel, Japan, and Oceania, make a positive contribution over their lifecycle of about 200,000 euros per person. Lifelong, non-Western immigrants, on the other hand, cost almost 275,000 euros per person, with asylum migration particularly negatively impacting with an average 475,000 euros per immigrant. Migrants from Turkey, Morocco, the Horn of Africa, and Sudan burden the state budget by 200,000, 550,000, and 600,000 euros respectively. Interestingly, migrants from South Africa have a positive net effect of 150,000 euros per person, possibly due to the repatriation of white Dutch settlers (Afrikaans).
Sweden: The Swedish Model Under Pressure
In a 2019 study by the University of Gothenburg for the Swedish Ministry of Finance, the fiscal consequences of admitting refugees were estimated, based on 2015 data. Asylum seekers cost the state budget a net 4.4 billion euros in 2015, equivalent to one percent of Sweden’s GDP. The annual fiscal net costs of refugees with the “best” labor market integration (former Yugoslavia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Iran) average 5,600 euros, while those with the least integration (Somalia, Iraq) average 9,900 euros. Over their lifespan (an average of 58 years after arrival), this means average costs of 324,800 to 574,200 euros per refugee.
The German Reality
In Germany, the fiscal effects are similarly alarming. Data on employment participation and receipt of social benefits suggest that migrants from asylum-originating countries have an above-average unemployment rate and dependence on social benefits. While the unemployment rate among Germans without a migration background was 2.3 percent in June 2024, it was 30.5 percent among migrants from asylum-originating countries. Thus, they cost the social fund much more than they will ever repay through tax contributions. While only 1.7 percent of native Germans receive citizen benefits, nearly 11 percent of all foreigners living in Germany and 7.3 percent of all persons with a migration background receive citizen benefits. Forty-five percent of nationals from asylum-originating countries receive citizen benefits. Almost half of the citizen benefit recipients are foreigners.
Conclusion: A Plea for Control and Identity
Uncontrolled mass immigration places a significant burden on our welfare state. Studies from other Western European nations show that immigrants from Western and East Asian countries have positive fiscal effects, while immigrants from the Middle East and Africa massively burden the state budget. This endangers not only financial stability but also the ethno-cultural identity of Germany. It is time to take clear, (re)migration policy measures and strictly control immigration. Only in this way can we ensure the financial stability of our welfare state and the preservation of our cultural identity. The future of Germany depends on us protecting our borders and our culture.
For further information on this topic, please visit the study “Securing skilled labour for Germany: analysis and solutions from the right”.
First published by the Austrian journal “Heimatkurier”.