basic immigration data
- Thread starter nsacpi
- Start date
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
One thing to note is because the natural rate of increase (births minus deaths) has been slowing for decades now immigration will account for a larger part of population growth, simply because natural population growth has dropped so much.
Other countries (such as Japan) who have gone through this demographic transition without significant immigration have struggled with the economic and fiscal implications.
Other countries (such as Japan) who have gone through this demographic transition without significant immigration have struggled with the economic and fiscal implications.
sturg33
I
They are richer than all of us without working a day so I think they would consider themselves ballers
Criminals know criminals. Somalians and Democrats were made for eachother.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I'm not so sure. The way each country spends on social programs for immigrants as well as citizens is quite different.
Carp
Well-known member
Japan is struggling economically? Since when?
They have issues fiscally but they have a super high trust society where the people are happy and the streets are clean.
You can walk down streets in their biggest cities late at night and not worry about being robbed.
ITS A HELLSCAPE!
By the way - THis is basically implying if you want foreigners that don't commit crimes you have to make sure you give them lots of money.
This is how we want to run our country?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Overview of Differences in Social Safety Nets for Immigrants (the Netherlands vs the United States)
The social safety net refers to government programs providing support in areas like healthcare, financial assistance, unemployment benefits, housing, and other essentials. For immigrants, access varies significantly between the Netherlands (often referred to as Holland) and the United States, influenced by immigration status (e.g., legal permanent residents, refugees/asylees, undocumented), residency duration, and policy goals. The Netherlands generally offers a more comprehensive, universal, and centralized system, viewing legal immigrants as full societal members entitled to benefits similar to citizens. This contrasts with the U.S., where the system is more restrictive, decentralized (with state variations), and designed to deter dependency, often imposing waiting periods or outright bars to prevent immigrants from becoming a "public charge." Overall, the Dutch system is more generous, leading to higher benefit usage among immigrants, while the U.S. emphasizes self-sufficiency and limits federal aid, though some states fill gaps.These differences stem from broader welfare philosophies: the Netherlands has a strong social democratic model with extensive protections, while the U.S. relies more on market-driven approaches with targeted, means-tested programs. Note that policies can change; as of 2026, recent U.S. restrictions under laws like the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 continue to shape access, and Dutch rules tie benefits to residence permits, potentially risking revocation if overused.
Key Areas of Comparison
| Area | Netherlands | United States |
|---|---|---|
| Healthcare | Universal coverage via obligatory public health insurance (Zorgverzekeringswet). Legal immigrants, including refugees and asylees, access it similarly to citizens after obtaining residence; beneficiaries of international protection have equal rights. Undocumented immigrants limited to emergency care. Asylum seekers get coverage during processing, often provided by local governments. Non-Western immigrants may have slightly lower coverage rates but still benefit broadly. | Patchwork system; many legal immigrants face a 5-year bar on non-emergency Medicaid/CHIP. Refugees/asylees eligible immediately for up to 7 years, then state-dependent. Undocumented only get emergency services. Over half of states use own funds to cover some barred immigrants, but coverage gaps persist, with foreign-born at higher uninsured rates (about 34% vs. 14% for natives). |
| Financial Assistance/Welfare | Means-tested social assistance (Bijstand/Participatiewet) provides basic income for those unable to support themselves; legal immigrants eligible if they meet residency and integration requirements (e.g., language courses). Refugees and asylees access it fully; higher usage among non-Western immigrants (up to 68% in some groups). Undocumented excluded except minimal aid. Benefits are generous and not time-limited, but excessive reliance can jeopardize residence permits. | Programs like TANF (cash aid) and SNAP (food stamps) have a 5-year bar for most legal immigrants; refugees/asylees exempt for 5-7 years. Undocumented ineligible for federal benefits. States vary—e.g., California offers state-funded alternatives; lifetime limits (e.g., 60 months for TANF) apply. Immigrants use less welfare per capita than natives overall. |
| Unemployment Benefits | Unemployment insurance (Werkloosheidswet/WW) available to legal immigrants with work history; provides up to 70% of prior salary for up to 2 years. Refugees/asylees can access after integration; undocumented excluded. Part of a broader safety net, with job training programs often extended to immigrants. | Unemployment Insurance (UI) state-administered; legal immigrants eligible if they meet work requirements (e.g., quarters worked). Refugees/asylees qualify; undocumented ineligible. Benefits last 26 weeks typically, lower replacement rates (about 50%), and no federal mandates for immigrant-specific extensions. |
| Housing Assistance | Rent subsidies (Huurtoeslag) and social housing prioritized for low-income legal immigrants, including refugees (who get initial housing during asylum process). Asylum seekers housed in centers; non-Western immigrants often receive more aid but face urban concentration. Undocumented get minimal or none. Policies aim to disperse low-income groups. | Section 8 vouchers and public housing means-tested; 5-year bar for legal immigrants, exemptions for refugees/asylees. Undocumented ineligible, though mixed-status families can access prorated aid. State variations; market-driven with less emphasis on immigrant-specific support, leading to higher homelessness risks. |
| Other Supports (e.g., Disability, Child Benefits) | Disability benefits (WAO/WIA) and child allowances (Kinderbijslag) accessible to legal immigrants; refugees included. Education free for children regardless of status. Overall, a "safety net of last resort" that's more adequate and less stigmatized. | SSI (disability) and child tax credits have 5-year bars; refugees exempt. WIC (nutrition for kids) and school meals available to undocumented children. Education (K-12) open to all, but higher ed aid restricted. Policies aim to promote equity but face barriers for immigrant families. |
Differences by Immigrant Status
- Legal Permanent Residents/Economic Migrants: In the Netherlands, they gain near-equal access after residency, with integration obligations (e.g., civic courses) but no long waiting periods. In the U.S., a 5-year federal bar applies to most benefits, though work credits can qualify them for Social Security/Medicare later; sponsor income is "deemed" to them, reducing eligibility.
- Refugees/Asylees: The Netherlands admits proportionally more and provides tailored support, including housing, income, and integration programs from day one. The U.S. offers initial resettlement aid (e.g., via ORR programs) but for shorter durations; states handle long-term support, leading to inconsistencies.
- Undocumented/Unauthorized: Both countries exclude them from most benefits, but the Netherlands allows basic medical/education access and occasional local aid; detection is internal via registration. The U.S. is stricter with enforcement, limiting to emergencies and child-focused programs (e.g., school lunches), though some states provide more.