3 ms·

> Generally immigrants are job creators and entrepreneurs, and take less from the system than native born people do I don't want to generalise things, but sinc

> Generally immigrants are job creators and entrepreneurs, and take less from the system than native born people do I don't want to generalise things, but since you're doing it yourself: In France migrants and descendant of migrants are between 50% and 100% more unemployed than the rest of the population. They also represent 28% of social spending despite being 12% of the population https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/6793274?sommaire=6793391#:~:text=En%202021%2C%205%20%25%20des%20actifs,%25)%20(figure%203) https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/6793274?sommaire=679339.... https://www.marianne.net/economie/economie-francaise/le-vrai-cout-des-aides-sociales-versees-aux-immigres-en-france# https://www.marianne.net/economie/economie-francaise/le-vrai...

api 3y ago
The same is not true in the US. It’s probably a cultural difference. Anyone can come to America and become American, but if you are not French it’s pretty damn hard to become French. Migrants can’t integrate as easily so they become an underemployed class.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  "Integration" is mostly myth when it comes to people from different cultures. Does anybody ask the question if the immigrants to France actually want to integrate? Did immigrants to America want to integrate with the native people there?
loup-vaillant 3y ago
Be very careful how you frame things. Here’s another framing: 1. Migrants and their descendants are poorer than average. 2. Social spending is higher among poor people, because that’s the whole point. 3. Disproportionately poor people represent a disproportionate amount of social spending, duh.
- lm28469 3y ago
  Sure, but we're a far cry from most migrants being "job creators and entrepreneurs" The reality is that a lot of them struggle to find jobs, and a lot of them end up working illegally for unscrupulous bosses. And yes there are a whole lot of reasons for that, but at the end of the day it's the reality we have to deal with
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- fisf 3y ago
  That's not a framing issue. The original claim was > Generally immigrants are job creators and entrepreneurs, and take less from the system than native born people do And this is (at least in the context of many European countries) not true. It is not relevant if this is simply because they are poor, and poor people receive a disproportionate amount of social spending. The observation is that immigration in that case drives up housing demand, while at the same time being a net-negative in financial terms for society.
  - loup-vaillant 3y ago
    When someone points out that a segment of the population is more disenfranchised than the rest, and then unnecessarily states that they represent a disproportionate share of social/welfare spending, it’s hard to ignore how the unnecessary statement, wittingly or not, pushes an agenda. Just like my framing did, though I totally did it on purpose. That being said, I would be interested to know if the social spending stay disproportional after controlling for socio-economic factors. I personally have no idea, as far as I know immigrants could be either under- or over-funded. And if they are, it could be interesting to investigate why.

api 3y ago

The same is not true in the US. It’s probably a cultural difference. Anyone can come to America and become American, but if you are not French it’s pretty damn hard to become French. Migrants can’t integrate as easily so they become an underemployed class.

carlosjobim 3y ago
"Integration" is mostly myth when it comes to people from different cultures. Does anybody ask the question if the immigrants to France actually want to integrate? Did immigrants to America want to integrate with the native people there?

loup-vaillant 3y ago

Be very careful how you frame things. Here’s another framing: 1. Migrants and their descendants are poorer than average. 2. Social spending is higher among poor people, because that’s the whole point. 3. Disproportionately poor people represent a disproportionate amount of social spending, duh.

lm28469 3y ago
Sure, but we're a far cry from most migrants being "job creators and entrepreneurs" The reality is that a lot of them struggle to find jobs, and a lot of them end up working illegally for unscrupulous bosses. And yes there are a whole lot of reasons for that, but at the end of the day it's the reality we have to deal with
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
fisf 3y ago
That's not a framing issue. The original claim was > Generally immigrants are job creators and entrepreneurs, and take less from the system than native born people do And this is (at least in the context of many European countries) not true. It is not relevant if this is simply because they are poor, and poor people receive a disproportionate amount of social spending. The observation is that immigration in that case drives up housing demand, while at the same time being a net-negative in financial terms for society.
- loup-vaillant 3y ago
  When someone points out that a segment of the population is more disenfranchised than the rest, and then unnecessarily states that they represent a disproportionate share of social/welfare spending, it’s hard to ignore how the unnecessary statement, wittingly or not, pushes an agenda. Just like my framing did, though I totally did it on purpose. That being said, I would be interested to know if the social spending stay disproportional after controlling for socio-economic factors. I personally have no idea, as far as I know immigrants could be either under- or over-funded. And if they are, it could be interesting to investigate why.