Nearly 55% of voters in Switzerland on Sunday rejected an initiative championed by the top right-wing party to cap the rich Alpine country’s population at 10 million, early results showed.
The populist Swiss People’s Party, which has the most seats in parliament, has stirred up and fostered anti-migration sentiment over the years, notably about an influx of workers from the neighboring European Union.
Some have dubbed the proposal a “Swiss Brexit” because it could jeopardize Switzerland’s deep ties to the European Union anchored by deals that foster economic growth, cultural ties and cross-border travel, among other things. Switzerland is not one of the EU’s 27 member states, but it is all but surrounded by four of them
Ahh. TPC “A joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution,”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Policy_Center#Funding
Urban institute: “According to a study by U.S. News & World Report most political campaign donations by Urban Institute employees go to Democratic politicians. Between 2003 and 2010, Urban Institute employees’ made $79,529 in political contributions, none of which went to the Republican Party.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Institute#History_and_funding
So hardly unbiased, but the bigger issue is the partner Brookings Institution:
"A 2014 investigation by The New York Times found Brookings to be among more than a dozen Washington, D.C.–based research groups and think tanks to have received payments from foreign governments while encouraging American government officials to support policies aligned with those foreign governments’ agendas.[112] The Times published documents showing that Brookings accepted grants from Norway with specific policy requests and helped it gain access to U.S. government officials, as well as other “deliverables”.[113][114] In June 2014, Norway agreed to make an additional $4 million donation to Brookings.[112] Several legal specialists who examined the documents told the paper that the language of the transactions “appeared to necessitate Brookings filing as a foreign agent” under the Foreign Agent Registration Act.[114]
The government of Qatar was named by The New York Times as “the single biggest foreign donor to Brookings”, reportedly contributing $14.8 million over a four-year period. A former visiting fellow at a Brookings affiliate in Qatar reportedly said that “he had been told during his job interview that he could not take positions critical of the Qatar government in papers”.[112] Brookings officials denied any connection between the views of their funders and their scholars’ work, citing reports that questioned the Qatari government’s education reform efforts and criticized its support of militants in Syria. But Brookings officials reportedly acknowledged that they meet with Qatari government officials regularly.[112]
In 2018, The Washington Post reported that Brookings accepted funding from Huawei from 2012 to 2018.[115] A report by the Center for International Policy’s Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative of the top 50 think tanks on the University of Pennsylvania’s Global Go-To Think Tanks rating index found that between 2014 and 2018, Brookings received the third-highest amount of funding from outside the United States compared to other think tanks, with a total of more than $27 million.[116] In 2022, Brookings president John R. Allen resigned amid an FBI probe into lobbying on behalf of Qatar."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution#Funding_controversies
It should also be noted that the Cato model that the claim in the article is based upon is developed by an organization that is pro immigration and has connections to the Ayn Rand institute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#Ideological_relationships
Lol none of these smear attempts prove the studies are flawed. You can dig up political donations and controversies for any organization in the country. It says everything that you couldn’t engage with the actual data and resorted to ad hominems instead.
What a cowardly little racist weasel you are.
I am a coward because I don’t have the time to break down an economic model? Or am I a cowardly racist weasel because I don’t swallow that immigration of individuals from less stable and progressive countries make the country to which they migrate, less stable and progressive?
If you want a relevant quote on why Cato arrived at their findings, maybe this will help "In another recent paper, this one looking at all costs and tax payments using a different survey, Cato again assigns the welfare costs of immigrants’ U.S.-born children to the U.S.-born. That study even excluded the roughly $200 billion spent educating these children. Of course we should educate the U.S.-born children of immigrants. But as is true of welfare, the impact on the education system must be considered when setting immigration policy. Any analysis that fails to do so does profound disservice to the public discourse.
Another important issue with Cato’s welfare approach is the decision to report the average dollar value of benefits rather than use rates. Because the SIPP does a better job capturing use of welfare than the amount recipients receive, Cato has to make various adjustments to the values in the SIPP. None of this means that reporting dollar amounts is a terrible idea. But it does mean that their results are dependent on all the assumptions they make."
https://cis.org/Oped/CIS-vs-Cato-Immigrant-Welfare-Whos-Right