It’s widely accepted that “migrants” are a net financial drain on any Western nation that decides to import them en masse. The following article reports on the research conducted by a German economist in an effort to quantify the amount of money lost due to all the cultural enrichment.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from Junge Freiheit. The translator’s comments are in square brackets.

Note: the translator has also appended some interesting and useful material at the end of this translation:

Raffelhüschen: Immigration costs €5.8 trillion

The pension and social expert Raffelhüschen calculates the overall economic price of immigration. He dispels a myth, and describes migration policy as “dumb as straw”.

Berlin

The economist Bernd Raffelhüschen has presented a calculation of how expensive immigration is for the German population. Accordingly, mass migration creates an overall economic hole of €5,800,000,000,000 — in short, €5.8 trillion. [I’d love to know how much of that money has ended — and is still ending up — in the offshore accounts of the political “migration” mafia?]

The Freiburg professor dispelled the myth, promoted by all established parties, that immigration saves pension and social security funds. According to Raffelhüschen, there is already a large gap in the aging German society between what employers and employees pay in taxes, nursing care, pension and health insurance contributions and what they will be paid out in the future, says Raffelhüschen.

According to the expert, this “sustainability gap” will grow to €19.2 trillion if Germany continues to accept 300,000 foreigners annually. On the other hand, if we no longer allowed migrants into the country, the number would only be €13.4 trillion. Immigration increases the hole by €5.8 trillion. Raffelhüschen: “That is the price of immigration in our current system.”

Raffelhüschen: Foreigners pay little

On average, migrants would need six years to integrate into the German labor market. During this time they have scarcely paid anything into the social system. But even after that, according to his study, which he prepared for the Market Economy Foundation, things will hardly get any better. Because they earned significantly less than their German colleagues due to a lack of qualifications. As a result, they also paid fewer taxes and duties. However, they received the same sickness, nursing and pension benefits.

Raffelhüschen explained: “Although the age structure of migrants potentially has a demographic rejuvenation dividend, this does not lead to a positive fiscal balance of migration in any of the scenarios considered.”

To illustrate his results, Raffelhüschen chose an example: “An asylum seeker comes to Germany at the age of 26, is rejected after two to three years, but remains here with tolerance. Then he gradually begins his first jobs, gets qualified and, at the age of 35, begins a career as a tax and contribution payer. Because his pension entitlement is low, he receives basic security as a pensioner — for which his contributions would never have been enough.”

Even skilled immigration brings a loss

The 66-year-old scientist, who once advised the federal government in the so-called “Rürup Commission,” said: “It doesn’t pay off. This is all far too expensive.” This year alone, the federal government is making almost €50 billion available in its budget for migration — not including the costs to the social system.

Raffelhüschen has calculated that even with an additional immigration of 100,000 trained skilled workers per year, Germany would still show a loss. The “sustainability gap” would then still be €14.2 trillion — and therefore €800 billion above the financing burden without any immigration.

Raffelhüschen found clear words for the migration policy pursued so far by both the Merkel and now Scholz governments: “If we carry on as before, we are dumb as straw!”

Afterword from the translator:

Continue reading →