When we talk about immigration to European nations, the loudest voices will always come from those who are in favour, those who claim that immigration is a positive, that it is ‘enriching’ or that ‘diversity is our strength’, amongst other sickening clichés. They claim to be able to prove this by economic means, producing these long reports that supposedly show that immigrants are a ‘net economic benefit’ to our societies. These reports do indeed show this on the surface, but they are based on false data. The data that goes in at the beginning assumes that an immigrant ‘fresh off the boat’ arrives with the same investments, pension, savings etc that a native middle-class citizen has – it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that if your input is so far off the mark, the data output will be similarly far-fetched.
In actual fact, the immigration think-tank Migration Watch produced some good work dispelling the myth. They found that between 1995 and 2011, non-EU immigrants were a negative economic influence to the tune of £160bn. The study also showed that the contribution made to British society in economic terms by Eastern European migrants was within a margin of error 0.17% to -0.17% of GDP. Again, these figures were based on the premise that these migrants came to the UK with the same financial portfolio of an established resident, something which we know to be false.
“As regards EU migration, a study by the NIESR in 2011 found that the potential long-run impact of EU8 migration (Poland et al) on GDP per head was expected to be “negligible” ranging from 0.17% to -0.17%. However, this result relied upon an upward ‘age adjustment’ on the assumption that migrants tended to be of working age and thus to be “net contributors to the government coffers”. Subsequent research on the fiscal contribution of migrants to the UK suggests that this assumption may well be unsound (see 3. below)” – Migration Watch
Some of the limited research in this area had found that there might be a small positive fiscal impact to immigration. Nonetheless, according to the House of Lords Economic Committee “the fiscal impact (of immigration) is small compared to GDP and cannot be used to justify large-scale immigration”.
However, the presumption of even a small fiscal benefit has been comprehensively overturned by a UCL study published in 2014 which found the fiscal impact of migrants in the UK between 1995 and 2011 was in fact a net cost of between £115 and £160 billion that is between £19 and £26 million per day.
The same study claimed that East European migrants contributed £5 billion to the Exchequer between 2001 and 2011. However that calculation was based on the assumption that they paid, from the moment of their arrival, corporate and business taxes at the same rate as lifelong UK residents. Correcting for this brought the contribution close to zero.
So quite clearly, the immigration advocates do not have a leg to stand on when arguing the economic case of their foreign friends. But, the issue runs deeper than just GDP percentage points. Yes, we are going to have to enter into the realms of race and genetics to further show how bad for a society immigration is, but do not make the mistake of hiding away from the race topic. It is on the issue of genetics that the argument can be won, if you look in the right places.
“Intelligence Quotient”, or IQ for short – a numerical measurement of one’s reasoning ability. That is, their ability to retain knowledge and apply it to practical situations, whether that be solving life’s problems or completing tasks in a work environment. Whatever slant you want to put on it, a person’s IQ is essentially a measurement of their intellectual capacity and therefore their ability to do certain things. There is a direct correlation between IQ and income, with studies showing that the higher a person’s IQ, the higher their average income is likely to be. To have a high-IQ society is of course highly desirable, as it leads to greater innovation and it ensures that the demanding jobs of modern society can be fulfilled. This in turn ensures the tax revenue remains high, as a higher IQ society will inevitably pay more in taxation by way of higher income and greater purchasing power.
But, what you probably didn’t know about IQ is that most definitely a matter of nature as opposed to nurture. It is estimated that the heritability of IQ is 75% or higher and that even exceptional parenting has very little impact. Poor parenting and growing up in a poor environment with negative influence, however, is proven to have a negative impact on a person’s IQ – you know the phrase, “numpties breed numpties!”.
So, you may ask, how does this relate to immigration?
Controversially, many studies have been conducted comparing and contrasting the IQ’s of the nations of the world. However, when a pattern started to emerge that the Marxists and liberals (immigration advocates, basically) didn’t like, the results began to be shouted down or justified through cries of “climate change” or “poverty” – perhaps these people should ask themselves exactly why, when Africans live on the most resource-rich continent on earth, are they all still poor?
What we see from the ‘IQ map of the world‘ is that the societies with the greatest average intellect are far-east Asian (oriental), such as Japan (105) & South Korea (106). Following shortly behind are some European nations with Italy (102) & Iceland (101) coming out on top, followed closely by Austria, Britain and Norway (all 100). As we go further down the scale, we see that a pattern emerges: Orientals are the most intellectually capable, followed closely by north-western Europeans – then its a toss for third between Arabs and eastern Europeans, followed by non-Oriental Asians. Sub-saharan Africans make up the tail of the order, with averages as low as 64 (Gabon) and 67 in west Africa (Liberia).
Now hopefully the penny has dropped, as it were. If we accept that IQ is predominantly hereditary and, that (as we can clearly see) different ethnic groups have varying levels of intelligence, then we can clearly see that importing millions of non-white immigrants into European nations is going to have a detrimental effect on the intelligence of the nation in question. This is clear to see from a study that was done comparing the average IQ’s of nations between 2003 and 2010. The comparisons show that Germany went from an average of 102 in 2003, to 98 in 2010. Similarly, Sweden’s national average IQ dropped from 101 to 98 over the same period.
Guess which two European nations saw the greatest levels of non-white immigration between 2003 and 2010? Yes, you guessed it, Germany and Sweden. Germany decided that it would bring in ‘guest workers’ from Turkey, young men who would supposedly fill the gaps in the labour force left by a dwindling native birthrate – the establishment now sit with egg on their faces, as 80% of Muslim Turks in Germany live off welfare. The story in Sweden is remarkably similar, just alternate ‘Turk’ and ‘Arab’ or ‘Pakistani’, and it is a twin image. This is a problem in Europe, a big problem.
What we have seen in recent years is the mass influx of ‘refugees’ from nations with very poor IQ averages: Syria 83, Pakistan 84, Afghanistan 84 and so on (not to mention the masses of sub-saharan African welfare seekers). Their birth rates are high, their brain power is low – this can only mean one thing, that European nations will continue to decline in terms of collective intellectual capacity. This is especially bad for the existing native residents of said country, as they will be the ones paying the tax bill to support the low IQ immigrants who have no chance of fitting into the job market of a more sophisticated society. Perhaps this is why Japan don’t import foreign workers, despite a low birth rate.
A continuation of these immigration policies is a direct contradiction of science, indeed evolutionary biology proves that we are simply storing up problems for the future.