resources paid for by our tax dollars is bad enough, we allow them to move here, but we give them tax-free loans, jobs, free housing and welfare!" (http://www.whitepride.com/views/#immigration) So, just how valid is the argument that immigration puts pressure on a receiving country to look after them? When migration occurs on a major scale it creates major problems. Almost every conflict or war creates huge numbers of refugees. This was the case in the Kosovo conflict when Albania and Macedonia were overwhelmed with the number of refugees, and during the Rwandan civil war, hundreds of thousands of refugees fled to neighbouring Zaire causing major humanitarian catastrophes. In these circumstances immigration has a considerable effect upon a countries budget. However, in both these examples and in many other conflicts the countries that bore the brunt of the refugee flow were neighbours. Refugees do require a certain degree of spending from the state, but the levels of refugees in Western Europe and America are slight when compared to the number of native persons who are dependant on welfare. However, how much an impact does immigration on the whole make on government spending? In a 1994 study entitled, Immigration and Immigrants - Setting the Record Straight, by Michael Fix. Jeffrey S. Passel, it is argued that, "when all levels of government are considered together, immigrants generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services received. This surplus is unevenly distributed among different levels of government, with immigrants (and natives) generating a net ...
