What are the official economic, societal and general benefits the goverments/leftists/jews argue for importing millions of inmigrants. Has it done before? What was the outcome? What are the counter facts?
Mostly interested in the economic aspect.
>>71519876
Of course it has been done before, but that was either intentional (you could argue this time it's intentional, too) or happened within europe (with some exceptions). Whether countries that opened their borders for mass immigration experienced economic benefits greatly depended on how well the immigrants assimilated. You also have to keep in mind that mass immigration can be economically viable up to a certain point and begin to become a financial burden from that point on. It's also always a trade-off between econmic benefits and increasing societal problems unless you only let selected people enter your country.
>>71520398
So, do we have some statistics or hard data?
Some examples as a side note:
Germany has dealt with mass immigration when people from the eastern bloc countries came pouring in and they have assimilated well, joined the workforce and generally can't really be seen as an issue.
In the 60's we invited the Turks as guest workers and for many years they have helped our economy grow. At some point though, there were so many Turks in Germany already and many of them did not work or go back to Turkey (as we had expected) that it was no longer economically viable. It was fine until that point, but they had to be stopped from coming to our country or getting their family over. Now the issue was that the Turks realized we would bring immigration to Germany to a halt so before any plan for that was put into place they all got as many relatives to Germany as quickly as possible. From then on their numbers grew due to their birth rates and they became a financial and societal burden, although lefties will certainly argue that Turks are a prime example of successful assimilation.
The french experienced mass immigration when the people from Algeria decided to come over and what happened in France is pretty much what has been happening in Germany when the refugee crisis started. Think of skyrocketing crime rates, massive unemployment amongst the immigrants, exploitation of the welfare state.
>>71520553
I don't have the studies at hand, but there are some that were made with an agenda in mind, so I just can't take them seriously. The ones I know of were made to prove that the current mass immigration to Germany will be economically beneficial and they made this projection by looking at cases of mass immigration in the past. What they completely ignore are crucial things such as: level of education, language barriers, cultural backgrounds, willingness to work and assimilate etc. Basically, they are saying: Look, this one time hundreds of thousands of Europeans came to your country and it actually improved your ecnomic situation, so therefor we can predict it is going to be the same with the millions of people coming from the middle east or northern africa.
>>71520553
Statistics are racist.
If you destabilize africa you can sell weapons
>profit
In warzones people have to flee and invading other countrys
>profit
Africa is ready for chinks to make it great again
>profit
>>71520949
> they helped our economy grow
German government was against importing turkroaches, but the US strongarmed them into it.
The argument was that we already have unemployed people.
In any case, 80% of them are on welfare now and a massive leech. Only people who benefit are jew banksters who get more debtslaves.
It happened when people traveled after American Dream
>>71519876
Some people make profit from this (pic related), while the countries involved earn literally nothing, besides destabilization and debts.
>>71520553
The issue I have with the statistics I have seen in the past (on this topic) is that they can always be presented and interpreted in the way the government wants it. I wouldn't be surprised if they came up with data that shows an increase in the GDP when the crisis is over to prove that mass immigration was econimically beneficial when in fact the GDP was raised by increased government spending to finance the immigrants and GDP per capita actually decreased.
>>71521511
Yes, there was pressure from the US and we certainly could have helped our own unemployed people to get back on track and achieve the same economic growth without mass immigration but although I disagree with the plan I think you can argue that it was beneficial to a certain degree and up to a certain point (The government was well aware that we wouldn't be able to handle any more of them without suffering negative consequences, they just acted too late). Proper action would have been sending them back to Turkey much earlier and refusing family reunification for those that we couldn't send back to give them incentive to move back to Turkey on their own.
