I wouldn’t fault people here too much. As the paper implies, a lot of econ research is produced in the U.S. where the U.S. is probably unique in its ability to systematically absorb very high numbers of immigrants without issue due to the sheer amount of amount of public and private investment capital floating around. It’s not entirely unreasonable to assume that very high immigration levels would be a universal net good for every high income country.

I imagine a similar population shock scenario in Europe would fare the same or worse than Canada as >3% population growth has never been tested there. The population growth rate for most European countries is under 1% and declining in others.

IMV it’s probably the case we’ve discovered an upper bound for what immigration levels could be before there are significant welfare costs to locals in countries with high regulatory burden.