For instance in Germany the numbers vary from 75%-90% of immigrants expected to be unable to find a job within 5 years. And crime among migrant has also been increasing. This is something that has been neglected in most left leaning media though the BBC did run a piece earlier this year [1]. As the article states, in one area regarded as "an average state" violent crime increased by more than 10% in a single year, with more than 90% of that increase attributable to migrants -- with migrants being twice as likely as German nationals to face reports of violent crime.
I mean these are unpleasant facts, but they are absolutely true facts. This doesn't mean you should refuse all migration or even that migration is bad. But it does mean that you can't simply claim selective migration policies are just about money. Germany took in well over a million migrants. With the vast majority of these individuals not finding work in society that means society will be paying for them. How much is a fair amount of money to care for these individuals? Each $10,000 costs Germany around $10 billion per year. There's some irony referencing money here, but the point is that if you carried these policies out, without end, you'd eventually destroy your own nation, hurting countless individuals in the process, all because you were reluctant to say no.
---
What I don't understand is why nobody wants to consider this issue objectively. I expect the above is mostly downvote bait, but that's ridiculous. It's like people on the right want absolutely no migrants because all migrants are evil. And people on the left want open borders because all migrants are amazing and loving people that will integrate fully and peacefully with no meaningful negative impacts whatsoever. This sort of dichotomy is idiotic, but people on both sides are so scared of being seen as being partial to the 'other side' that they become increasingly radicalized meeting in some horseshoe of mutual stupidity. Bah to it all.
Given 12% of Germany is foreign born and the country has 3.5% unemployment, something feels off about these numbers and conclusions.
[1] - https://www.ft.com/content/022de0a4-54f4-11e7-9fed-c19e27000...
[2] - https://www.thelocal.de/20161219/so-far-only-34000-refugees-...
A lot of the issues tend to be connected with policy today and in the past, but get attributed somehow to the ethnic of cultural background of the individual migrant. That's not an objective discussion either. Unemployment is a real issue, indeed, but not granting a work permit, not recognising foreign degrees, expecting new migrants fleeing a civil war to pay language education to the tune of many thousands of euros (e.g. the Netherlands) as part of their path to citizenship while not being allowed to work, and then exclaiming they're a net cost to society and somehow their issues aren't related to our policies, but rather their cultural background, is a myopic view of the situation as well.
Irrespective of root causes though, I'm always struck by the irony of the right saying immigrants are taking our jobs and lazy parasitic welfare receivers at the same time. Which is it?
Anyway, I'd point you to the academic literature in Western-Europe, there's been quite a lot of carefully researched studies on the economic benefits of migrants. I can't say there's much of a consensus, some see a small net benefit, some a small net loss in terms of taxpayer revenue / cost, but there's certainly no overwhelming evidence that migrants are a long-term economic issue, quite the contrary. Most economists will say we need migrants and need to invest more in integrating them into our economies, which means be more permissive rather than restrictive in granting legal status like a work permit.
Some reading on the particular case study you referenced:
https://www.dw.com/en/when-refugees-want-to-work-in-germany/...
https://www.ft.com/content/bea8507e-64cb-11e8-90c2-9563a0613...