Are we allowed to mention this?
OK, what to do? Look away embarrassed - again? Or endeavour to come to terms with reality? Although the article is from one of those dreadful Conservative websites, the study itself was run by a branch of the Danish government - so it is pretty hard to discredit it. This study seems to me a good empirical basis for understanding the financial and societal costs of large scale Muslim immigration. No it doesn't mean you or I hate Muslims. But it does mean ignoring solid evidence when we are supposed to be educated people is not going to end well. It seems probable that many other Western countries will share Denmark's experience.
If someone dismisses the very idea out of hand do they really have an impartial view of the matter or are they letting their worldview get the better of them? If we want more Muslim migrants in New Zealand shouldn't we at least think about this?
Non-Western Immigrants Consume 59% Of Denmark’s Tax Revenue
A recent study conducted by Denmark’s Ministry of Finance concluded that in 2014, immigrants and their descendants cost Danish taxpayers at net loss of 28 billion Crowns per year.
Furthermore, when Western immigrants were removed from the equation, the net cost rose to 33kr billion.
Compare this to tax receipts from ethnic Danes, who contributed a surplus of 56kr billion in 2014.
The data below is from the study itself, although English translations have been provided.
The report shows conclusively that immigration has been an economic disaster for Denmark.
In short: 59% of the tax surplus collected from native Danes is spent on ethnic minorities, who are a massive drain on the system.
This would be roughly equivalent to America’s federal government spending $2.1 trillion per year on immigrants—a number so large it defies all logic and reason.
Such shocking findings are often greeted with denial. Is the study legitimate? How is this possible?
First, the study was conducted internally by Denmark’s own finance department, in order to see exactly where Danish taxes were being spent. Furthermore, the methodology is explicit, and the data transparent.
The study is good.
Second, although the data is shocking, it is believable.
Consider that ethnic minorities, who are by definition immigrants to Denmark, represent 84% of all welfare recipients, as of 2016.
Denmark also spends inordinate sums on crime committed by immigrants—8 of the 9 ethnic groups most represented in Danish prisons are non-Western immigrant groups, specifically Islamic immigrants.
In fact, non-ethnic Danes are 2-3 times more likely to commit crimes than Danes, and if their crime profile is anything like that of immigrants in Sweden, then it is likely that the crimes they commit are also generally more serious in nature.
Likewise, healthcare costs for immigrants groups are proving significant. For example, 40% of patients in Denmark’s largest mental health hospital have immigrant backgrounds.
Why might this be? Because of the prevalence of consanguineous marriages among Islamic immigrants, which greatly increases the risk of mental health problems.
In fact, when accounting for population, Muslim immigrants to Denmark are over-represented in mental health facilities by 1,300%
Regardless of these ancillary statistics, the takeaway point is that non-Western immigration has not benefited Denmark economically, nor has immigration benefited Germany—despite what open-borders advocates claim.