- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Immigration
- Thread starter KSaiyu
- 1,702 comments
- 70,265 views
- 31,711
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Same story, there are loads of second-hand articles popping up today which all link back to facts in today's Financial Times... and that story remains behind a paywall. I'm not saying that the sourced quotes aren't true - I just have no way of knowing without being able to see the article. In fact none of us do.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 11,639
- Intercourse, PA
- Carbonox
Looks like you're still a strong gold medal contender in the
Do I need to have a solution of my own to be eligible to oppose the use of brute force?
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 11,639
- Intercourse, PA
- Carbonox
Dunno if the wording was off, but by brute force I referred to the EU Commission's suggestion, pretty much forcing member states to open up their borders or pay ludicrous fines. One that I'm staunchly opposed to, to be clear.
squadops
(Banned)
- 1,987
- United States
He obviously said the exact opposite, where do you come up with these things?
Who runs the EU Commission?
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
Eight of the Nine men who made up the 'Sharia Police Dept. of Wuppertal' can face trial for violations of laws against uniforms with political messages.* The ruling by the Court of Appeals of Germany made today can not be overturned. The men are between 24 and 35, and practice the Salafist branch of Islam. Wuppertal is a popular gathering ground for Salafists.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
I remember reading about the original dismissal of the case and thought it was ridiculous that this practice be allowed to continue. Glad that was overturned and hopefully this practice is put to an end following the outcome of the new trial.
Drave
(Banned)
- 84
- @ my XBox
I'm not getting involved because people are entrenched in their positions and to have those positions they have to have a certain level of education, general knowledge and information sources.
In general terms. There are 36 recognised economically developed nations as defined by the UN. 28 of those are in the EU.
Mainstream economics/economies is much like what is termed Freakonomics; Freakonomics being the unknown unintended results of actions which are in theory not connected. There are books on economics and Freakonomics aplenty
What I am saying is that everything is interlinked, nothing is isolated or happens in isolation. An infamous Freakonomic effect was the sudden and monumental drop in crime in the early 90's in New York. This was spun out as the 'success of zero policing practices' in reality it most likely it had a great deal more to do with abortion being legalised 20 years earlier in the state... the criminals were simply not born to commit the crimes.
Developed economies must have high levels of economic immigration. It is economic fact. It is for a variety of reasons including the amount of PAYG (Pay As You Go) social systems and the proclivity of developed nations to have too few children... the more one educates women the fewer children they have. These issues are investigated by the WHO (World Health Organisation) and others.
Developed nations also have fairly available health care, so people live much longer and far sicker. In the UK for example right now, 26% of the UK population have some form of psychical/mental disability which causes a noticeable impairment. This figures is growing, pretty rapidly, because the UK average age is rising rapidly. Presently the UK has an average age of 39. By 2050 that will be c.48.
The UK is not alone, for example Germany is presently at c.42 and headed for c.51 by 2050 - This is the exact reason why Merkel is grabbing every immigrant possible because it is seen that once a developed nation passes around age 41, it is in serious economic trouble
The EU as a group and also as singular nations are all lacking people and children to pay the bills and the taxation needed to keep the separate nations afloat... the EU, as in ALL the countries together are trying to avert a very real crisis and social breakdown on a massive scale by 2040/50.
In 1914 the UK was a powerful geopolitical player, it had the world's largest Empire since the Romans and the largest in history covering some 25% of the surface of the Earth. The UK Empire even expanded again after WW1 when it along with France was awarded the Ottoman (Turkish middle eastern) Empire to split up between them by the League of Nations.
I know all the "English by the grace of God..." people will like all that... but what they seem unable to swallow or understand is what happened next.
The UK and France most certainly did not want WW2, neither did Germany at the time, it wanted WW2 started in 1943/44 if it had to have one at all. WW2 starting was an unholy mess, the story oft told is that the UK and France attacked because Germany invaded Poland, it really was not that simple and the UK seems to forget that Russia took the other half of Poland around the same time.
The upshot of WW2 was pretty simple, in any measurable way the UK lost. Wars are fought to obtain a position where your doctrine and ethos is the one to build the peace... wars are all about who builds the peace. The UK was roundly sidelined and ignored by Russia and the USA at the Yalta conference in early 1945, where the USA and Russia decided who got what. Russia gained all the same land (as in countries) it had previously agreed with Hitler in the 1939 Molotov/Ribbentrop pact and America gained all the political financial power it wanted. That for America was the end of a process started in 1916 to make the $US the world's most traded and used currency.
The UK? Nothing. It could not even save Poland from Russia as it had solemnly promised the Polish.
WW2 sent the UK bankrupt, a position it has never recovered from to this day. By 1963 it had lost all of the Empire because it could not afford it. In 1956 the UK and France had their bottoms soundly spanked by the USA over the Suez crisis, at which point both the UK and France majorly lost their geopolitical power. France went fully Francophile, roundly ignored America and set out to rebuild some power in central Africa and the Middle East... the UK slotted into being being the 'gofor' for the USA and has stayed in that supine position.
Because of the vast borrowing the UK embarked on from 1945 it had to have taxation income quickly so it restarted a pre-WW2 manufacturing sector but the world had changed, massively. By 1969 the UK manufacturing economy was in terminal demise. It went from millions of unskilled and semi skilled heavy manufacturing jobs provided some 30%+ of the GDP to now, under 9% manufacturing - which is an major economic problem
When you do not manufacture at a high rate you import at a high rate and that means everyone else decides your economy for you. This again is economic fact.
So what the UK has ended up with is millions of people who really have no worthwhile function, a low wage service based industry and a massive reliance on Financial services, some 28% of the GDP.
Therefore UK has an 'incestuous economy', meaning in very short hand
* Mrs Smith works at the supermarket
* Mr Smith works for the telephone company
* Mr Smith gets paid
* Mr Smith shops at the supermarket with his wages
* Mrs Smith gets paid
* Mrs Smith pays the telephone bill
* Mr Smith gets paid
Ad nauseam... until sickness
Money flows like water, if you move it you lose some, it evaporates or leaks... the closed system of an incestuous economy is therefore always shrinking which is why the UK was in deflation and is now barely at .025% growth and that is of course relative growth. It is therefore not an infinite economy but a shrinking one.
The upshot is that the UK has to have cheap workers who are not linked into the standard economy, people who will work for less, live in poor conditions and still be happy to do so.
The non-political office of the OBR (Office of Budget Responsibility) in Westminster cite that a further 7 million net economic migrants are needed by 2050 to maintain even the present balance.
No matter what, EU or no EU... the immigration simply cannot be stopped unless the UK public and many of the EU would like to return to living in caves with no services.
If you do not believe me then I can only suggest you obtain a library card and start reading..... a very great deal.
NB... This is a statement of factual reality; I do not enter into debates over fact
In general terms. There are 36 recognised economically developed nations as defined by the UN. 28 of those are in the EU.
Mainstream economics/economies is much like what is termed Freakonomics; Freakonomics being the unknown unintended results of actions which are in theory not connected. There are books on economics and Freakonomics aplenty
What I am saying is that everything is interlinked, nothing is isolated or happens in isolation. An infamous Freakonomic effect was the sudden and monumental drop in crime in the early 90's in New York. This was spun out as the 'success of zero policing practices' in reality it most likely it had a great deal more to do with abortion being legalised 20 years earlier in the state... the criminals were simply not born to commit the crimes.
Developed economies must have high levels of economic immigration. It is economic fact. It is for a variety of reasons including the amount of PAYG (Pay As You Go) social systems and the proclivity of developed nations to have too few children... the more one educates women the fewer children they have. These issues are investigated by the WHO (World Health Organisation) and others.
Developed nations also have fairly available health care, so people live much longer and far sicker. In the UK for example right now, 26% of the UK population have some form of psychical/mental disability which causes a noticeable impairment. This figures is growing, pretty rapidly, because the UK average age is rising rapidly. Presently the UK has an average age of 39. By 2050 that will be c.48.
The UK is not alone, for example Germany is presently at c.42 and headed for c.51 by 2050 - This is the exact reason why Merkel is grabbing every immigrant possible because it is seen that once a developed nation passes around age 41, it is in serious economic trouble
The EU as a group and also as singular nations are all lacking people and children to pay the bills and the taxation needed to keep the separate nations afloat... the EU, as in ALL the countries together are trying to avert a very real crisis and social breakdown on a massive scale by 2040/50.
In 1914 the UK was a powerful geopolitical player, it had the world's largest Empire since the Romans and the largest in history covering some 25% of the surface of the Earth. The UK Empire even expanded again after WW1 when it along with France was awarded the Ottoman (Turkish middle eastern) Empire to split up between them by the League of Nations.
I know all the "English by the grace of God..." people will like all that... but what they seem unable to swallow or understand is what happened next.
The UK and France most certainly did not want WW2, neither did Germany at the time, it wanted WW2 started in 1943/44 if it had to have one at all. WW2 starting was an unholy mess, the story oft told is that the UK and France attacked because Germany invaded Poland, it really was not that simple and the UK seems to forget that Russia took the other half of Poland around the same time.
The upshot of WW2 was pretty simple, in any measurable way the UK lost. Wars are fought to obtain a position where your doctrine and ethos is the one to build the peace... wars are all about who builds the peace. The UK was roundly sidelined and ignored by Russia and the USA at the Yalta conference in early 1945, where the USA and Russia decided who got what. Russia gained all the same land (as in countries) it had previously agreed with Hitler in the 1939 Molotov/Ribbentrop pact and America gained all the political financial power it wanted. That for America was the end of a process started in 1916 to make the $US the world's most traded and used currency.
The UK? Nothing. It could not even save Poland from Russia as it had solemnly promised the Polish.
WW2 sent the UK bankrupt, a position it has never recovered from to this day. By 1963 it had lost all of the Empire because it could not afford it. In 1956 the UK and France had their bottoms soundly spanked by the USA over the Suez crisis, at which point both the UK and France majorly lost their geopolitical power. France went fully Francophile, roundly ignored America and set out to rebuild some power in central Africa and the Middle East... the UK slotted into being being the 'gofor' for the USA and has stayed in that supine position.
Because of the vast borrowing the UK embarked on from 1945 it had to have taxation income quickly so it restarted a pre-WW2 manufacturing sector but the world had changed, massively. By 1969 the UK manufacturing economy was in terminal demise. It went from millions of unskilled and semi skilled heavy manufacturing jobs provided some 30%+ of the GDP to now, under 9% manufacturing - which is an major economic problem
When you do not manufacture at a high rate you import at a high rate and that means everyone else decides your economy for you. This again is economic fact.
So what the UK has ended up with is millions of people who really have no worthwhile function, a low wage service based industry and a massive reliance on Financial services, some 28% of the GDP.
Therefore UK has an 'incestuous economy', meaning in very short hand
* Mrs Smith works at the supermarket
* Mr Smith works for the telephone company
* Mr Smith gets paid
* Mr Smith shops at the supermarket with his wages
* Mrs Smith gets paid
* Mrs Smith pays the telephone bill
* Mr Smith gets paid
Ad nauseam... until sickness
Money flows like water, if you move it you lose some, it evaporates or leaks... the closed system of an incestuous economy is therefore always shrinking which is why the UK was in deflation and is now barely at .025% growth and that is of course relative growth. It is therefore not an infinite economy but a shrinking one.
The upshot is that the UK has to have cheap workers who are not linked into the standard economy, people who will work for less, live in poor conditions and still be happy to do so.
The non-political office of the OBR (Office of Budget Responsibility) in Westminster cite that a further 7 million net economic migrants are needed by 2050 to maintain even the present balance.
No matter what, EU or no EU... the immigration simply cannot be stopped unless the UK public and many of the EU would like to return to living in caves with no services.
If you do not believe me then I can only suggest you obtain a library card and start reading..... a very great deal.
NB... This is a statement of factual reality; I do not enter into debates over fact
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
That seems to read that you feel unprepared to take your subsequently (and considerably) involved position. An odd start
49, surely? And that's actually the countries in terms of the top quartile of HDI (>0.8%) and doesn't include countries like Taiwan who aren't UN members. What does that have to do with immigration?
Okay... but what does that have to do with immigration?
Emboldened bits, source required
What does this have to do with immigration, and aren't you ignoring the fact that the UK finished paying its US War Loans in the late '90s? The money was there, just not in the UK.
Bold bits, source required
That's nearer 10%, isn't it?
Perhaps your example would be clearer if you showed another country's alternative?
Wasn't that so in the Auf Wiedersehen, Pet days of the late 80s/early 90s when every gizza worth his salt was in Europe? Isn't that the fluid nature of the market? Isn't that exactly the thing that gives Europe some strength?
Source required. You seem keen that those economic migrants are reasonably well-qualified, it would have been nice to read some more about that.
That is, perhaps, your little joke?
Multiple sources required.
mister dog
(Banned)
- 8,396
- Spain
- misterdog
- misterdog7
The Dutch village of Ede is facing 'issues' with Moroccan youths lately. It all started when they closed down their tea house as it was located in an old shopping mall that is up for demolition. They started hanging around destroying property and setting people's cars on fire more than a week ago. This was Friday night:
Mayor imposed a curfew, but police is wary of actually handling these 'youngsters'. Female journalist almost got stoned when she visited the area this week, police eventually arrived on the scene but just drove away:
I wonder what the apologists will come up with now;.. cars were parked in a provocative way?
Mayor imposed a curfew, but police is wary of actually handling these 'youngsters'. Female journalist almost got stoned when she visited the area this week, police eventually arrived on the scene but just drove away:
I wonder what the apologists will come up with now;.. cars were parked in a provocative way?
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
It makes me feel proud to be British, our native kids have been doing this for years. EDIT: See?*
Definitely that.
Inexcusable and un-apologisable behaviour... but I find it interesting that you wait for Moroccan kids to cause trouble before finally having the will to say so.
*That was the first thing I found, I guarantee I can find you hundreds of stories like that, just from this one Septic Isle. You should be more terrified of the influence those Brits are having on your continent...
Last edited:
mister dog
(Banned)
- 8,396
- Spain
- misterdog
- misterdog7
Where does it say they were native English kids?
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Try this one, it doesn't say native English but do you think all these attacks are caused by immigrants? Actually, I might be able to (jokingly) guess your answer to that one.
You can see there's been at least a 10-year-trend, and you'll find many reports that would be oh-so-keen to mention an immigration factor. But they don't.
mister dog
(Banned)
- 8,396
- Spain
- misterdog
- misterdog7
Meh, your apology isn't a very solid one this time @TenEightyOne . Frankly i'm a bit disappointed in you now 
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
You're right. Ach so
Are you saying that you believe that this "tradition" of attacks on public service personnel (police, fire, ambulance) is down to immigration?
Frankly i'm a bit disappointed in you now
mister dog
(Banned)
- 8,396
- Spain
- misterdog
- misterdog7
It does seem like a majority of this antisocial behavior (robbing folks, vandalizing, setting cars on fire or throwing stones at police of journalists), does occur in Europe's migrant neighborhoods yes.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
I find it fascinating that whenever someone brings up the old, "other people have done it before" analogy they usually get roundly trounced, but somehow here, the fact that British youth may also have had incidents of violence is somehow relevant to the topic of violence in immigrant communities.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Because it demonstrates that this kind of violence is not exclusive to immigrant communities. You know who also commit these acts? Youth. You could just as easily make the case for rounding up and deporting teenagers as you could immigrants.
Some native Britons have been causing massive problems here in their own country for decades. Robbing shops at knife point (we're too old school for guns), carrying blades, assaulting people (usually with blades, or baseball bats), breaking into houses, stealing cars, setting them on fire, dealing drugs, urinating in the street...
At this point, you've probably got the idea. Generally these people are of working class background (although most of the working class are civilised, hard working citizens), although they prefer to scrounge off benefits, than actually work. Not to mention they're poorly educated, which is almost always entirely their own doing. Needless to say, they're a burden on society.
They're no better than immigrants they accuse of this exact same behaviour (yet most immigrants don't behave this way). However they believe they're entitled to lash out and terrorize society as much as they please, because they're white, and British. You needn't be told these are the sort of people that support the BNP.
Last edited:
- 31,711
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
It's the same neighbourhood where they celebrated the attacks of 9/11.
mister dog
(Banned)
- 8,396
- Spain
- misterdog
- misterdog7
White British gangs that number 50+? Or just individual marginals because yes every country has it's native criminals. Is it really a large group of 50+ that are setting cars on fire and throwing rocks? Because the two are different things in my opinion; as in a group with a mentality of disrespect and destruction vs individual thugs.
Or dead infidels in Brussels or Paris for that matter.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Here's what I liken it to. I have family in my home and I have guests. I'll put up with a lot more from the fam damily than I will from a guest. Native born sons and daughters are thrown in jail or otherwise punished when they act up, just as I would punish my son for example. But a guest who might do the same thing gets thrown the hell out. My son could get angry and trash a lawn chair but I'm not going to throw him out of the house for it. A guest does it and out he/she/they/it goes. Recent immigrants IMO, should be treated as guests. We've invited you in, we're spending our resources on you voluntarily out of the goodness of our hearts, but we're going to hold you accountable for your actions. Minor stuff you go to jail like everyone else, but if you act up with violence or commit major crimes you should get thrown the hell out of the country and not be allowed back in.
Similar threads
