Although immigrants in Europe cause more crime, drain more state resources, and work less than natives, Europe should still receive immigrants: People get the causality wrong
> I don't think bringing data to light should ever be a problem. [...] The truth can never be bad.
They sound similar, but they aren't. Data ≠ Truth.
Perhaps humans can't reliably arrive at "the truth" about anything non-trivial. Pick any interesting historical question -- "what caused war X", or "was Y a good president" -- and the answer varies enormously depending on who you ask, how you ask, or even _when_ you ask. History and policy don't behave like maths. Collective opinion shifts even when the underlying data doesn't.
I've seen expert organisations with vast resources and purpose-built measurement systems argue bitterly about questions far simpler than "what should Europe do about immigration." Not because anyone was stupid or dishonest, but because the question was genuinely hard and because "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it", as Sinclair noted.
I value your work and none of this means you shouldn't present quality data collected and processed with the genuine intention of finding "the truth". But I'd love to see you hold your conclusions a little more loosely; counter-argue your own points more.
> Some readers accused me of being right-wing for bringing this data to light. [...] Decades ago, it seemed more true on the right. Now, it seems common on the left.
It would be good for political discourse to recognise the limits of truth and data. It won't, because doubt and complexity don't win in polling stations nor sell ads. But if you adopt more doubt it may nullify the question of whether you are right-wing or left-wing. Be true-wing.
Why would somebody who gets paid €15k also get €6k in welfare *and* pay €4k in taxes? At least in Germany the general rule is that wages up to the subsistence minimum (fixed at €12k as of 2025) aren't taxed. The other relevant tax is VAT; on her whole income it would be a maximum of ~€3k, but the VAT for food is 7% instead of 19% and other expenses (rent, money sent to relatives at home, …) aren't subject to VAT at all.
What happens when population growth slows or turns negative? Is a sigmoid function or similar possible for population in a nation? In the world? What happens to GDP? What about some other measures of "well being"? Because of the experience I've had of the world over the past decades, I can't viscerally conceive of anything but growth. Is progress without growth possible?
I'm not a big fan of this article. For one thing you recommend copying the UAE to reduce immigrant crime rates. Sooo slavery and violence? Is that what you're suggesting?
Furthermore I don't see why we should accept the premise that we need to compensate for falling birthrates. I think it's worth drawing that premise into question before looking into how to restore it. Could it not actually end up being a godsend in the case that AGI results in massive job automation? In that scenario productivity is decoupled from headcount and a much smaller population would increasingly benefit from it. Also, we have no idea how it could influence natality! Maybe people just stay at home and have children once we have AGI and universal income.
Overall, let down by the quality and depth of this article.
Hola Tomas, not sure if you have addressed it, may be but anyway: What about the polarization of jobs in EU (and also in the USA), that means: only low level jobs and very high level jobs are surviving, industry middle levels jobs have gone (now they are in China). The problem is that natives don't want the low end positions (that's why we need immigrants), the economic ecosystem in the Western countries doesn't produce massively middle level jobs as before, and high skilled jobs are scarce and for very few. If we add low levels jobs, in general, are short term fiscally negative and long term (pensions) probably as well, the Welfare State, based on a decreasing middle class, is at risk since the same cake is (no increasing positive fiscal contributions but less) distributed to many more people. So unless we are able to reshuffle the economy with middle level jobs for natives, and unless we limit the immigration accordingly, all the problems you have described will aggravate
Which is more harmful to a country as both would cause disruptions - large numbers of immigrants or a reduction in population? Maybe the length of the disruptions?
When the population declines in a country, wouldn't it eventually stabilize as there would not be a need for so many workers such as plumbers, etc? Also, if AI reduces need for workers, then maybe a population decline is good for a country?
I don't know, but would be interested in your thought.
You make two statements at the beginning:
> I don't think bringing data to light should ever be a problem. [...] The truth can never be bad.
They sound similar, but they aren't. Data ≠ Truth.
Perhaps humans can't reliably arrive at "the truth" about anything non-trivial. Pick any interesting historical question -- "what caused war X", or "was Y a good president" -- and the answer varies enormously depending on who you ask, how you ask, or even _when_ you ask. History and policy don't behave like maths. Collective opinion shifts even when the underlying data doesn't.
I've seen expert organisations with vast resources and purpose-built measurement systems argue bitterly about questions far simpler than "what should Europe do about immigration." Not because anyone was stupid or dishonest, but because the question was genuinely hard and because "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it", as Sinclair noted.
I value your work and none of this means you shouldn't present quality data collected and processed with the genuine intention of finding "the truth". But I'd love to see you hold your conclusions a little more loosely; counter-argue your own points more.
> Some readers accused me of being right-wing for bringing this data to light. [...] Decades ago, it seemed more true on the right. Now, it seems common on the left.
It would be good for political discourse to recognise the limits of truth and data. It won't, because doubt and complexity don't win in polling stations nor sell ads. But if you adopt more doubt it may nullify the question of whether you are right-wing or left-wing. Be true-wing.
Why would somebody who gets paid €15k also get €6k in welfare *and* pay €4k in taxes? At least in Germany the general rule is that wages up to the subsistence minimum (fixed at €12k as of 2025) aren't taxed. The other relevant tax is VAT; on her whole income it would be a maximum of ~€3k, but the VAT for food is 7% instead of 19% and other expenses (rent, money sent to relatives at home, …) aren't subject to VAT at all.
Same with the USA, low earning people are not really taxed proportionately.
What happens when population growth slows or turns negative? Is a sigmoid function or similar possible for population in a nation? In the world? What happens to GDP? What about some other measures of "well being"? Because of the experience I've had of the world over the past decades, I can't viscerally conceive of anything but growth. Is progress without growth possible?
I'm not a big fan of this article. For one thing you recommend copying the UAE to reduce immigrant crime rates. Sooo slavery and violence? Is that what you're suggesting?
Furthermore I don't see why we should accept the premise that we need to compensate for falling birthrates. I think it's worth drawing that premise into question before looking into how to restore it. Could it not actually end up being a godsend in the case that AGI results in massive job automation? In that scenario productivity is decoupled from headcount and a much smaller population would increasingly benefit from it. Also, we have no idea how it could influence natality! Maybe people just stay at home and have children once we have AGI and universal income.
Overall, let down by the quality and depth of this article.
Hola Tomas, not sure if you have addressed it, may be but anyway: What about the polarization of jobs in EU (and also in the USA), that means: only low level jobs and very high level jobs are surviving, industry middle levels jobs have gone (now they are in China). The problem is that natives don't want the low end positions (that's why we need immigrants), the economic ecosystem in the Western countries doesn't produce massively middle level jobs as before, and high skilled jobs are scarce and for very few. If we add low levels jobs, in general, are short term fiscally negative and long term (pensions) probably as well, the Welfare State, based on a decreasing middle class, is at risk since the same cake is (no increasing positive fiscal contributions but less) distributed to many more people. So unless we are able to reshuffle the economy with middle level jobs for natives, and unless we limit the immigration accordingly, all the problems you have described will aggravate
Which is more harmful to a country as both would cause disruptions - large numbers of immigrants or a reduction in population? Maybe the length of the disruptions?
When the population declines in a country, wouldn't it eventually stabilize as there would not be a need for so many workers such as plumbers, etc? Also, if AI reduces need for workers, then maybe a population decline is good for a country?
I don't know, but would be interested in your thought.
https://substack.com/@danielmkishi/note/p-199486048?r=bv6he&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action