given a "financial downside on the mass immigration" who profits ?

Submitted by myth (Germany), Feb 16, 2010 at 12:29

Charles, the cost of immigration is always a tricky argument. Let me assume that Wilders was talking about social support. Now this money is given to all people entitled. What is more important, it does not stay in the hands of the receivers for long. This raises the question who profits from the money spent when it is not the immigrants themselves. Probably the housing corporations and private house owners have a stable income from rent and growing value of their property from this. Would there be as many schools, teachers employed, public transport, shops around the corner without these people ?

To me those are the people who profit. I cannot the imagine the true immigration related costs such as language courses and the like would be that high. On the other hand it remains stupid to maintain consumer spendings not just by giving money but by importing the consumers to spend it. As for immigration of people with low qualification, given that NL is a modern country, is counterproductive. The only argument one could come up with is that maybe immigrants invest in property in their home country. Dutch are doing something similar buying houses in Germany and Spain.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".