(The Telegraph) Finland is the living proof of the lie at the heart of mass migration

(The Telegraph) Finland is the living proof of the lie at the heart of mass migration

Finland’s findings echo those from Denmark, the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe - iStockphoto

Finland’s findings echo those from Denmark, the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe - iStockphoto

When it comes to mass migration to developed countries, the debate is really between internationalists and nationalists.

The internationalists are strange bedfellows: socialists who want a world without nations and borders, corporate elites who prioritise cheap labour, and welfare-dependent migrants-turned-citizens. The nationalist camp is comprised of patriotic, populist, religious, and conservative parties that value national and economic security, public safety, national identity, and culture.

Internationalists believe that nationalism is bad and that borders are inhumane. While supporting international institutions, they argue that mass migration is an economic and demographic necessity for Western countries. They want a steady stream of migrant workers to prop up their expensive welfare states – particularly to countries with low fertility rates. To make this palatable, they insist that immigrants from anywhere can easily assimilate, that they are net tax contributors, and that the lives of natives will not suffer.

Unfortunately for this narrative, evidence is growing that none of these three claims are true. Far-away Finland, at the edge of the EU, provides an example.

Many countries do not collect comprehensive data on national origin that allow for comparisons, but Finland does. An analysis of that data by the Finnish think tank Suomen Perusta, which is linked to the Right-wing Finns Party, reveals valuable lessons for all migrant-receiving countries.

Finland has about five million people, of whom about 600,000 are foreign-born. Ten years ago, it was only around 300,000. Previous years saw little migration from far-off countries, but Finland today gets around 50,000 new arrivals a year, many from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

In the greater Helsinki area, over a fifth of the population is now believed to have a foreign background. In 2024, about half of the new arrivals came to join family members, according to the OECD.

Research from Suomen Perusta sought to calculate the so-called “life cycle effects” on the public finances of migrants, particularly of asylum seekers and refugees born in Iraq and Somalia. It predicted that Somalis were the most expensive, with a net estimated lifetime cost of 951,000 euros (roughly $1.1 million). Iraqis cost almost 700,000 euros. When the migrants’ children were added, the figure for Somalis went up to 1.34 million euros.

This confirmed data Suomen Perusta uncovered from 2011, which showed that the net annual tax contribution for a native-born Finn was a positive 3,400 euros. For all foreign-born people, it was close to zero, but that hid wide differences: negative 7,900 euros for Somalis, and positive 5,100 euros for Germans.

It’s too early to be sure what will happen in subsequent generations, but Finland’s findings echo those from Denmark, the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe. Were accurate data available for the US, is it likely we’d see dramatic differences? Immigrants are not all the same. Country of origin, culture, education, and how they arrive all produce greatly varying results. The bottom line is that some types of migrants Western countries currently accept are subtracting from the common fiscal pot, not adding.

Opinion polls across the EU show that large proportions of voters don’t want mass migration, but a combination of the Left, corporate interests, and migrant voters wins elections and maintains the status quo.

Welfare-dependent newcomers clearly know which side their bread is buttered. A recent Finnish poll suggested that more than two-thirds of immigrants polled said they’d vote for Left-wing parties, which generally favour more mass migration and universal welfare benefits.

This phenomenon isn’t unique to Europe. In Minnesota, 81 per cent of households headed by Somali immigrants use some kind of federal welfare, compared to 21 per cent for households headed by natives. Also in Minnesota (and the US as a whole) “most Somali-American voters remain loyal to the Democrats”, writes Mohamed Gabore.

The US system puts family reunification above economic interests, failing to prioritise the potential migrants who would be productive and best assimilate. Under the Trump administration, the state department has been more willing to deny visas because the applicant is a likely “public charge” (drain on taxpayer-funded services).

This is good, but for the longer term, migration needs to be both limited to assure assimilation, and targeted at those who will be net contributors to avoid worsening our downhill fiscal spiral.

Europe has seen much internal migration and displacement through the centuries, but in the last 30 years, mass migration from outside the continent has radically altered the makeup of nations. Several major cities in Europe, including London, no longer have a majority of indigenous people. About a third of Parisians were born abroad.

There will always be a high demand to escape poor countries. Migrants do so via student, family reunification, and work visas, as well as bogus asylum claims. Whether people in the countries they wish to go to will keep voting to maintain all these pathways is an existential question. Giving voters accurate information about the costs and benefits is therefore essential.

---