71 Billion Euros - The Cost of Immigration

In my recent article on Marine Le Pen's speech in Nice last week, I expressed my surprise at her claim that the annual cost of immigration in France has reached 70 billion euros. It sounded impossibly high. But she based her statement on the work of economist Gérard Pince, who has in the past used his mathematical and actuarial skills to estimate realistically the number of immigrants in France.

Pince spoke with Pierre Cassen of Riposte Laïque, and explained briefly his statistical methods and his opinion on the underlying motives for the massive immigration that is strangling France both culturally and economically. Here are excerpts from that interview, beginning with his political preferences:

- I'm sorry that ideological differences on the sex of angels is dividing the forces of the resistance. For my part, I am sticking to one simple rule. I support without reservation all those who fight against immigration and the Islamization of our country. The fight against this invasion must take precedence over all other considerations. I am trying to convince others of this conviction but there is still much to do. Reciprocally, I feel that the resistance movements ought to concentrate on their main mission and avoid those topics that are divisive, such as the future of Europe or the euro!

- You have just published a report on the cost of Third World immigration for 2009. You say it amounted to 71 billion euros. Why is this study more reliable than others that explain how this immigration benefits France, and still others, like Jean-Paul Gourevitch, who don't arrive at the same figures you do?

- The answer can be found in the report. The studies that claim that immigration enriches us are part of a scandalous fraud, especially when they come out of the universities. I know Jean-Paul Gourevitch's work. He deals with immigration in general (including European immigrants) and he does not take into account direct descendants. Moreover, his approach is different. I was the first to determine, in 2004, the cost of Third World immigration. This is not about ethnic statistics because my method is based on the spatial origins of migrants and their descendants. As far as I know, geography is not yet forbidden! The figures are worse than in 2004 because of the crisis that has reduced revenues while the expenditures have stayed the same or increased. Furthermore, between 2004 and 2009, the number of immigrants and descendants grew from the double effect of new arrivals and births. In conclusion, I regard my method as the correct one.

- In your opinion, in this time of crisis and massive unemployment, why does the government continue to bring in new immigrants? Do you agree with Bat Ye'Or's theory of Eurabia and secret agreements, or with André Gérin, who accuses the government of responding to the demands of employers in order to lower the cost of labor?

- Clearly, I share the opinion of André Gérin. Management pleads for a massive immigration (check the comments made by MEDEF) and lets the taxpayer foot the bill. For many executives, a well-run business must reduce expenses with the help of immigrants and move out of the country as much as possible. Middle management has no future and a native Frenchman must belong to the elite in order to keep his job. At this rate, we will soon have salaries that are as low as those of under-developed countries. Furthermore, this is the goal of a certain type of globalization. For their part, the unions and the Left seek freedom of movement for workers in the name of the sacrosanct "fight against racism". Thus they encourage a lowering of salaries and unemployment. If they did not exist, the big multinational countries would have to invent them in order to go on stuffing themselves on profits!

Note: "MEDEF" is the largest union of employers in France. The letters stand for "Movement of French Enterprises".

Pince, like Marine Le Pen, is taking the economic point of view in the cultural war that is being waged on French soil. For them, it is an economic imperative to stop immigration, because it lowers the salaries of the French and often deprives them of work and benefits to which they are entitled. Pince even rejects Bat Ye'or's position on Eurabia, and instead follows André Gérin, a Communist. Theoretically, the entire French Left should side with André Gérin, but instead they have chosen to be globalists and multiculturalists, thus putting themselves in the strange position of advocating lower salaries for their fellow Frenchmen. Gérin, at least, has some nationalist loyalties.

Nonetheless, read on, and you will see that he is aware of the deeper issue of cultural survival.

- How do you see the future of your country?

- I don't see it. The French have been lobotomized. The oligarchy speaks to them as if they are terminally ill. At bottom, our government is a hospice that administers palliative care. It is attempting to accompany painlessly the disappearance of one population and its replacement by another. The rich will go off to the islands. As for the poor, they will be placed in special homes. And then, euthanasia was not made just for dogs.

So Pince is aware, after all, that the French population is in danger of extinction. And that the decades-old policies on immigration and Islamization may have motives that are not purely economic.

I have not had time to study his report, but those who know French can read it at his website.

Below, a wonderful old print from the collection of Maggie Land Blanck, depicting a different kind of immigration - to America, where they would be carefully screened and tested for disease before being admitted. Moreover, this immigration resulted not in widespread poverty and degradation but in the lightening-fast growth of a new civilization. The losers, in this case, were the Native Americans, who succumbed to European diseases and who were greatly overpowered and outnumbered in the battles they fought to save their cultures, though they often fought fiercely and bravely. We have always been taught to feel guilty for what we did to the Indians, but the sheer inevitability of the discovery of the land, the urge to start afresh, the optimism that must have sent millions, including my family, to our shores, and the dazzling successes of the new nation are too impressive for guilt. The foundations of America were Anglo-Saxon, even if the inhabitants were diverse. It was a diversity in tune with Anglo-Saxon customs and mores and perfectly willing to obey the Anglo-Saxon Constitution.


See the whole collection of beautiful prints at Maggie Blanck.