All the sources off the top of my head are Swedish. But it's not hard to google. I found a bunch. Just look for a real economist explaining it in their own words. You know... a person who knows numbers and stuff. The Internet is awash. But you'll have to actually make an effort.
This issue is just like debating evolution. There's no shortage of fundie Christians denying evolution and posting all their evidence against it. It's still bullshit. There's no shortage of racists with web-sites about the high cost of immigration. It's still bullshit. Today we have quite a few well documented mass immigration events where the world was nice enough to provide a control group. The mass immigration from Cuba to Florida in the 90'ies was one such event.
Yes, it is asinine. It's just xenophobia. Fear of the different because it is unfamiliar. But racists/xenophobes aren't comfortable when their racism is revealed, so they dress it up in language that make it sound like they have real fears. But none of it holds up to scrutiny. Not when a real economist looks at the numbers.
...I don't come here to persuade anybody of anything. I come here to learn and/or test my own opinions. I love when I'm wrong and get schooled on stuff here. But persuade.... never. I admit I'm a sucker for adulation. I'm just human.
No. I get why somebody might enjoy this. I just don't. Small minded, red-neck fascistoid idiots living in constant fear of some vague undefined unknown, mostly just makes me sad. In the same way as it makes me sad to hear about some religious person having anxiety about going to hell. It's people battling their personal demons, and externalising them. It's just tragic to see.
It's been pretty obvious that you don't "come here to persuade anybody". But it's equally evident are not here to learn either; anyone who dismisses counter-factual sources with name-calling (e.g. "racists/xenophobes", "small minded", "red-neck fascistoid idiots"), relies on hand-waves rather than cites, and confesses that he is a sucker for adulation is NOT someone who "loves it when (he) is wrong".
However, I willing to pretend (for the moment) you would like to learn something; that behind the spewing facade is a decent fellow who actually knows that his scoffing at the opposition's sincerity and motivations is not a form of serious argument but a form of psychological avoidance - a coping mechanism to deal with unwelcome views. If so, I am more than happy teach.
First, I am highly skeptical of the claimed economic benefits by your uncited sources. In the US the measurable Net Economic Gains from immigration have been very small.
Yes, US natives (or Swedes) might gain from immigration IF we ignore social costs or externalities. The economic argument for immigration is that it increases the number of workers in in certain economic sectors. Because of the additional competition in the labor market, the wage of native workers falls. At the same time, however, native-owned businesses gain because they can pay workers at lower wages, and many native consumers gain because the lower labor costs lead to cheaper goods and/or services. If we ignore social & externality costs, the gains that accrue to business owners, immigrants, and those who use or consume immigrant services will exceed the losses suffered by native workers - hence the 'whole' net economy does better.
This model is valid; the gain is distributed to some Americans (or Swedes) and the foreign persons, and the loss in wages is distributed to native workers.
However, the gain is very small. In general, the economic estimates for the US have suggested that the economic gain is less than .1 percent of the GDP...about 15 billion a year or 46 dollars per person. (See, among others, the National Science Academy study).
Second, Immigration also causes a substantial redistribution of wealth, away from workers who compete with immigrants and toward employers, immigrants, and consumers of immigrant services. Native workers lose because immigrants lower or retard wages while Employers gain because immigrants lower or retard wages. These wealth transfers are far greater than the net economic gain for the whole.
Third, most economic studies EXCLUDE the social/externality cost. These negative costs include social conflict, crime, housing, education, food stamps, and health care. Nor do they include cost to the environment (e.g. water usage), land use, air pollution, or congestion. When this is compared to the meager gains from immigration, the balance is that immigration (in the US) has been a net loss, especially for the native born workers.
So the immigration debate is not over the size of the economic pie, but over wealth transfer and social/externality costs.
If you start there, you will have actually learned something.
