If you see a source which you think is dubious and can't do your own research to see whether or not that holds up, you probably should stay away from the internet. On the other hand many people will respond more positively to resource request if your default settings is not to shit on references that are already presented because you don't like what is being said there.

This is based on different scientific studies actually,

Have you read what I have written? Can you parse sentences like "Your claim of spreading hateful religion is based on prior prejudices and ignorance". If the answer is yes, have you actually read all of the report you linked? Or did you just find a three hundred page pdf and decided to throw that in the discussion in the hopes that I will look at it and give up? Show exactly where in this document does it say anything about "We didn’t even bring up the negative social contribution to society, like spreading hateful religions and ideologies like Islam and all the negative baggage and social regressions that come with it." Yeah that is right, you can not. You probably even haven't read beyond the first page. You are just run of the mill right wing racist trying to support your hateful ideologies by a fiscal analysis report (which is a dubious one at best), it is so pathetic. Even Grok is probably more convincing than you and Elon is more sincere.

I would try to humor your comments on financial aspects but even then, it is not certain that the analysis in this report holds up. I know you are not interested in science but I will put these here for anyone who sees this report, see below (This is translated from nl.wikipedia) :

According to NRC, Van de Beek is on the periphery of science, his ideas differ greatly from most established migration experts and he makes calculations on his own that are not subject to scientific peer review. Because his report 'Boundless Care State' and his report for the Vlaams Belang have never undergone a peer review by independent scientists, according to NRC, the scientific content of these reports is controversial.[ 1]

Professor of migration history Leo Lucassen stated that the pessimistic conclusions in Van de Beek’s report ‘Boundless Care State’ “seem to be primarily intended to legitimize the xenophobic views of Thierry Baudet and his own”.[ 5] De Beek and his fellow researchers received the support of emeritus professor Jaap van Duijn, who wrote in a column: “The scientists also deal with the still heard view that immigration is necessary to prevent the ageing population.”[ 9] After a fact check, Pointer indicates that a number of claims by Van de Beek in 'Boundless Care State' are unfibilable, because one lacks access to the correct CBS figures.[ 10] Emeritus professor of public finance Harrie Verbon criticizes the report 'Boundless Care State' in the scientific journal 'TPEDigitaal'. According to Verbon, the method used for the study is “based on assumptions that cannot be verified”. According to him, this method can lead “to an overestimation of the costs”. He also denounces “the not very transparent underpinning of the calculated high migration costs”.[ 10] Verbon states that the report is based on the incorrect implicit assumption “that there can be no development in the adaptation of migrants to the Dutch situation.” He specifically criticises the assumption that education disadvantages – and therefore also disadvantages in labour market performance – can hardly be caught up in by non-western immigrants. This is also contradicted by data from the CBS Annual Report Integration 2020, which shows that “the employment rate for the non-western migrants of the first generation was 58.6% in 2020, while for the second-generation non-western migrants, that was equal to 67.2%. For the same migrant group, the call for assistance in 2020 was 16.6% for the first generation and 4.3% for the second generation.”[ 11]

According to De Standaard, the report that Van de Beek wrote for Vlaams Belang curses firmly on a number of points with the conclusions of other scientists. Professor of Sociology Hein de Haas refers to calculation methods, such as those of Van de Beek, “which are very dependent on assumptions about all kinds of factors, such as future labour participation, remigration and tax levels”. De Haas also warns that “the conclusion of the studies often depends on how we look at the data and at what time”. “The temptation is lurking for think tanks and interest groups to interpret the data in such a way that it supports their political agenda, pro- or anti-migration.” Furthermore, according to De Haas, the impact of immigration on the budget, whether positive or negative, is very small anyway. Several studies concluded that the net tax contribution of immigration is usually within +1 or -1 percent of GDP. According to de Haas, migrants are also increasingly working in sectors of essential services, such as care, which makes them act as a mainstay of the welfare state.[ 6]

Cultural historian Steije Hofhuis judges that the abundant data in the book 'Migratiemagnet Nederland' offer valuable corrections to common ideas, but that the book sometimes skips very migration pessimistically. Van de Beek argues in that book that in low-skilled migrants, even if they work, their net contribution to the treasury is negative. According to Hofhuis, this misunderstands the indispensable economic value of low-skilled labour and low-skilled workers structurally, would lead to huge staff shortages and rising costs. With drastic migration restrictions, the risk of a stagnation society, similar to Japan, is lurking. According to Hofhuis, Van de Beek also sees cultural differences as too robust, while former immigration societies such as the United States and Brazil show that persistent cultural differences can erode within a few generations.[ 7]

Professor of Sociology Hein de Haas and professor of migration history Leo Lucassen describe Van de Beek’s opinion contributions as “political voting and selective shopping in the facts”.[ 12] A fact check from BNR Nieuwsradio about the exact percentage of status holders receiving a benefit was in favour of Van de Beek. According to BNR, the caveat must be made that the status holders were not allowed to work for a long time, so you cannot conclude that they do not want to work. Another caveat is that people with a foreign name are also less likely to have a job interview. Furthermore, with more recent refugee flows, the labour force participation is better.

And another (again in dutch so translate them if you don't know dutch, I won't quote this time for brevity but list other short comings of the report):

https://www.socialevraagstukken.nl/migratiesamenleving/debat-over-controversieel-onderzoek-naar-kosten-migratie/

Don't waste energy in trying to hide your intentions behind fiscal calculations, you have already made it quite obvious.