White Man: Why Are You Giving Away Your Country?

[Carbonox]

Let's look at the Jewish community in the United States, shall we? A community that's very powerful, very rich, and very willing to let its daughters and wives drive cars.

Whereas those communities with less freedom and less acceptance of "western" culture have marginalized and isolated themselves, and are slowly dying away.

Apart from the fact the successful Jew communities in America are not Hasidic or Haredi, I'd like to point out another part that's bothering me - how are the isolated, non-accepting minority communities "slowly dying away" considering the enormous birth rates of said foreigners?

 

[niky]

Apart from the fact the successful Jew communities in America are not Hasidic or Haredi, I'd like to point out another part that's bothering me - how are the isolated, non-accepting minority communities "slowly dying away" considering the enormous birth rates of said foreigners?

That's in reference to older, more established communities.

The new ones are growing, but there will have to be interaction if they're going to grow or stay stable in the future.

 

[ClydeYellow]

Ironically you are proving my point. It was in fact uncontrolled migration <...>

A point that I had no interest (or intention) in disproving, because it's true that there is a threshold after which demographic increase (whatever the reason) is unsustainable (although such threshold is, in my opinion, grossly underestimated for European countries by political actors which aren't, after all, looking to produce valid sociological or economical theories). However, the migration of Bengalese people in the valley of Arakan wasn't exactly uncontrolled. As the bit you quoted says, the East India Company (and after its dissolution, the British crown) had an extensive control on the demand for immigration, and did arguably take steps to polarize the region (such tactics were particularly favored by Belgium: see, the aforementioned Rwandan genocide). Let's not confuse lack of control with bad control; the latter may be far more dangerous than the former.

There's also the fact that the migration of the Rohingya was, arguably, more horizontal than vertical, but that's anothr matter entirely, which isn't pertinent enough to the point you raised for me to bother.

It's this other bit that troubles me:

Perhaps you can see how this correlates to the European situation with Muslims. The M.O hasn't changed - overwhelm by immigration and breeding and then overthrow (and before I hear chimes of "OMGGG RACIST", it's not like whites weren't known for Imperialism).

After providing ample reason for why Bengalese people would've been interested in moving to Burma, you still assume they were following an M.O. which is connected with the Islamic world - outbreed and overthrow. A M.O. implies an unity of intent and organization, something migrants lack. That's simply nonsense, racism or not, and it disappoints me that it follows a (somewhat) valid, well-exposed point.

Also: imperalistic policies where enacted by nation-States and organized industrial complexes - nation-States can and usually do develop policies and legal or political customs.

So yes, they are persecuted. But to compare them to the Armenians is ignorance at best, apologism at worst.

I don't see how drawing comparisons in between the condition of the Rohingya and the Armenian people (which again, weren't persecuted because of Muslim expansion, which happened some 1200 years prior - if anything, it actually happened as the theocratic Ottoman empire was collapsing and the Turkish territory transitioning towards a secular, strongly nationalist State) could be seen as an act of apologism outside of a certain political agenda.

 

[KSaiyu]

So if its happening only in certain towns/areas then it can't be affecting the whole country. Got you.

So explain again how this is affecting the UK/EU? Migration levels are well below that of the US on a per head basis and its also only in certain areas of the country? Or are you claiming that this is happening in every part of the UK?

You seem to be (unsurprisingly) operating very different standards here, given that what you just acknowledge for the member in question was exactly what you described for the UK/EU.

So what's happening in the UK is that towns and small areas are experiencing this phenomenon, which will continue or get worse under current EU regulations. There are no differing standards being applied - America doesn't face this to the same degree because of control of their borders. I'm merely commenting on @Draggon s example that it is scary how quickly an influx of people from a different culture can change a town.

Is it the same as US or UK immigration? No.

Is it artificially induced? Yes

Wait who said it was the same as US or UK immigration?

Because, again, the change that is happening right now means... nothing? We could circle this all night. I am not a fan of Islam, but even those walls are not insurmountable.

Also, I would love to know what great religious reformation paved the way for minority and women's rights in the US, because last I looked, it was a social, rather than religious thing.

And it was a very recent thing. The reason my mother consented to moving out here, when the pay was better in New York, was that professional advancement as a woman working in the 1960's in a very male-dominated, mysoginistic work place, was nearly non-existent. It's only in recent years that women have become as powerful as they are now... and it's still not a universal given that they will get the same opportunities as men in certain professions in the US.

A social revolution predicated on centuries of removing the state from control of the Church and more equal rights in the religion.

Very scientific approach. Let me know when you have statistics. And please cross-reference years of practice in the UK, age of each doctor, and try to find cases relating to professional issues rather than ethical misconduct. Because, so far, I haven't found one case that is the result of poor academic preparation. (it's a lot of data)

Waiting for statistics for this is like waiting for an honest enquiry into the racial makeup of the majority of rapists in Sweden. Here's a few reasons why:

- It would be career suicide for a doctor or any investigator. Comparing medical aptitude on the basis of race is extremely taboo, and exposing the NHS so publicly would pretty much guarantee they would never set foot in an NHS hospital again.
- No journal would ever publish it. It doesn't matter if anyone was willing to put their name to it, no peer reviewed journal would go within a mile of such a controversial topic. No shortage of articles from the other side however.
- The results would undermine the profession/NHS. And with it public trust in the health service would fall off a cliff. Imagine the fallout when it's proved that the overwhelming majority of doctors struck off come from less than (using statistics you provided) 36.9% of the cohort. The last time I can see anything close to a study is when the press had to use FOI requests to investigate finding:

The figures, disclosed for the first time and obtained by The Sunday Telegraph using freedom of information laws, show:

• Three quarters of doctors struck off the medical register this year were trained abroad.
• Doctors trained overseas are five times more likely to be struck off than those trained in the UK.

In total, 669 doctors have been either struck off or suspended by the GMC over the last five years.

Of those, only 249 were British (37 per cent) while 420 (63 per cent) were trained abroad – whereas one-third of doctors on the register were trained abroad, and two-thirds in Britain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...itains-danger-doctors-are-trained-abroad.html

Bear in mind this was 2012, so used data from the late noughties and didn't take into account the ethnic makeup of those trained in the UK (remember I included those with ethnic sounding names when their PMQ was a British Medical School). I fully expect the situation to be worse considering the NHS's plastering over staff shortages with foreign staff (you can see it in the article - the figure was 63% over 5 years and 75% in the most recent year). This story hopefully opens your eyes to the sort of things I see every shift:
http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/n...hydration-facing-misconduct-hearing-1-6221038

What do you notice about the four doctors who saw the patient?
What do you notice about the one doctor who came up with the correct differential diagnosis of the patient over a telephone?

Here are more details of the case, in the form of the hearing of Dr Arif (who wasn't suspended)
http://www.mpts-uk.org/static/documents/content/Tasnim_Arif.pdf

And I'm betting a great number of those (British) are older doctors and more established practitioners, who are less likely to be summoned for complaints.

For this point to make any sense you would expect there to be a proportional amount of complaints against British doctors at lower stages of training against those trained abroad at the same stage. Let's look a little further....
I took 10 doctors from a random period on the list (starting from 28 October 2014) who were either struck off or suspended, and compared PMQ location (I omitted Sevasti Moschopoulou as this is an interesting case. She was trained in a London uni and struck off after acting as an "expert witness" in Greece despite only being a Junior Doctor. By the looks of it she was an international student)

Ashley James Sibery - British - Suspended for DUI
Alexandre Morgan - British, qualified in 1964 - Struck off for deficient medical performance/misconduct
Praveen Sheelam - International - Suspended for taking sick pay from employer whilst working for another
Kenneth Polard - British - Struck off for being convicted of possession of child/animal porn
Mahesh Patwardhan - International - Consultant gynaecologist struck off for completely inappropriate examination
Colin Millar - British - Suspended for being a creep to a 19 year old
Edward Holloway - British - Struck off for being convicted of fraud
Moudar Mahfoud - International - Suspended for misconduct secondary to being an ****hole to patients and staff, and practiced without a licence
Karthikeyan Swaminathan - International - Suspended following numerous concerns from various Trusts where he worked as a locum
Yusuf Rangoonwala - International - Got caught trying to steal Diazepam, and blaming the Nurse for it

So in this period it was a 50/50 split, but only one of the Brits was suspended/struck off for clinical competency in comparison to 3 Internationals.

Interestingly, on one last note... Foreign doctors in the UK need to meet the same qualifications, whether they're from inside or outside the EU, from what I can glean from the official site. The only difference is VISA requirements for non-EU doctors

Which is the problem - it makes the stupid assumption that a medical degree from Lahore or Palackeho is proof enough that a doctor can practice to the same degree as graduates from some of the best Medical Schools in the world.

The USA is a completely different animal

The fact is we don't want to emulate them because it would crash the NHS. I'll keep this brief but our staff shortages are plugged by people not up to the job, and when anyone questions that the NHS can retort with "Yeah, but they do have a medical/nursing degree so stop being racist". And so more and more come in leading to...

A faulty analogy made even faultier. Because of this:

These workers are unskilled, but come in to work because there are unskilled job openings to be filled. I won't deny that they add pressure to social services, because their income is so marginal, that's a given.

But migrating health workers, are, by definition, skilled workers, trained for their jobs. Even at the most massive influx (In previous decades, chronic shortages of health workers has led to massive migration to the US and UK...), the pool of potential candidates has always been big enough that US and UK hospitals had their pick of the best ones, while the others failed to make it through

With the continual papering over the cracks of socialist medicine with foreign graduates, you get the demographic shift. And what happens when you get a large enough influx....

A race row has erupted at a scandal-hit hospital where claims that up to 50 patients died as a result of alleged medical blunders were exposed by The Mail on Sunday last week.

In an unprecedented move, 24 ethnic minority consultants from the hospital have written to the two main health watchdogs, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and Monitor, protesting about ‘bullying, harassment and racial discrimination’.

They say the 140 consultants at Wexham Park Hospital, Slough – of whom about 90 are white – are split ‘on racial and ethnic lines’, suggesting that a disturbing type of medical apartheid exists.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ng-cases-precarious-state-health-service.html

Don't see what that has to do with immigration, though it is an interesting topic in and of itself.

See my post in the Islam thread about politics in Muslim majority constituencies in the UK. I used it as an example of when a large enough demographic shift can precipitate political upheaval.

It's this other bit that troubles me:

After providing ample reason for why Bengalese people would've been interested in moving to Burma, you still assume they were following an M.O. which is connected with the Islamic world - outbreed and overthrow. A M.O. implies an unity of intent and organization, something migrants lack. That's simply nonsense, racism or not, and it disappoints me that it follows a (somewhat) valid, well-exposed point.

It's just history, can't fault me for calling out what is blatantly obvious. Just like I'm sure you would ascribe a certain M.O to American foreign policy

I don't see how drawing comparisons in between the condition of the Rohingya and the Armenian people (which again, weren't persecuted because of Muslim expansion, which happened some 1200 years prior - if anything, it actually happened as the theocratic Ottoman empire was collapsing and the Turkish territory transitioning towards a secular, strongly nationalist State) could be seen as an act of apologism outside of a certain political agenda.

Because it could be construed as deliberate obfuscation to play to a political agenda that labels the Rohingya as victims of a genocide for the same reasons as the Armenians were subject to a real one a century ago.

 

[Hun200kmh]

I am european. My country's ships sailed from the european shores into the Atlantic, the Indic, and even the Pacific, reached all the known world, and some of the unknown too, from Japan to both Americas. My country's ships were (bar the vikings, in another era) the first to do it.

My country is Portugal. Portugal faces the Atlantic. in a region of Europe the Romans (first of the latins, or should I say "latinos" ?) called ... Hispania.

This begs the question ... am I white? And then ... do I care? Guess not. Because:

Portugal has celt origins (name: Lusitania). Migrating from Central Europe I think. We - together with the North of Spain - still have bagpipes in our folk music.
Then came the Romans. From what is now Italy. They lasted centuries and their works and language remain as their greatest legacy.
Then came the westgoten, our first christian kings, from what is now Germany I think.
Then came the moors, we called them sarracens. From North Africa. Great works they did, mostly visible in Spain where they lasted a few centuries more than on our side of the border.
Then came the crusaders. From France mainly.

And this is all up to about 900 years ago. When Portugal was born (1143). From that point on I guess we built on all this amazing mix.

I have no race.

 

[Scaff]

So what's happening in the UK is that towns and small areas are experiencing this phenomenon, which will continue or get worse under current EU regulations. There are no differing standards being applied - America doesn't face this to the same degree because of control of their borders. I'm merely commenting on @Draggon s example that it is scary how quickly an influx of people from a different culture can change a town.

America faces a greater degree of immigration and has done for far longer than the UK or EU to say that doesn't have an impact on its cultural make-up is quite frankly astonishing thing to claim.

I've pointed this out already:

Sorry when exactly did you establish as a fact that chosen controlled migration doesn't have a cultural impact but un-chosen uncontrolled immigration does have a cultural impact?

As you seriously saying that migration into the US has had no cultural impact at all? That despite having a far higher level of net migration, because its controlled these people therefore bring no cultural baggage with them at all?

The US has had a significantly higher level of net migration for a significantly longer period of time, yet your claiming that because this was quota driven that any cultural impact is reduced or negated?

Yet you seem to be insisting that through some mechanism simply because migration is controlled (which in itself ignores the fact that illegal migration via the southern border is a massive issue in the US) it in someway mitigates the culture that people bring with them and has been in part designed to do so.

That's a rather remarkable and extraordinary claim to make, that simply by controlling migration you influence the cultural influence it brings (even when its at levels twice that of uncontrolled migration and has been for longer periods of time).

You keep making this claim as if it were established fact, and its not, as such can you please explain exactly how simply having a quota (that was twice that of the UK or EU) gets people to leave culture at the door? As the population of the southern border states of the US I'm quite sure would disagree (one has already pointed this out).

 

[mustafur]

lol Uk is fairly new to this immigration game, come to Sydney if you want to see what it looks like.

Fact is most immigrants will go to areas where family is, all races would do the same.

 

[Danoff]

@KSaiyu,

I was kinda wondering why you continue to be concerned about a cultural shift in America given that I've already explained how American culture is more in danger from families who have lived here for generations than people who immigrate to the US. Then I realized that perhaps you've defined the problem a bit circularly.

I'm wondering if you think it's even possible for families who have lived here for generations to attack the culture, or is that simply, in your eyes, what the culture is. In otherwords the culture of America is whatever the people who have been here the longest think it should be? If you define it this way, then of course immigration is going to pose the biggest culture shift, it's the only possible source of culture shift. It becomes tautological.

I'm going to reiterate this a third time just to help drive the point home. Immigrants (even illegal immigrants) in the US seem to understand American culture (a system of human rights) at an intuitive level far better than many Americans who have been here for generations. The biggest single threat to American culture right now (a system of human rights) is longstanding Americans. Every major attack currently underway on our culture is being lead by them.

Let me be blunt...

Illegal immigrant mexicans come here to work. They skirt taxes, it's true, but probably they're doing themselves a disservice by doing so. Because most of them would probably qualify for an earned income tax credit anyway. Only half of American workers actually pay any income tax. Illegal immigrants provide labor, they work their butts off for peanuts. It's amazing that anyone would claim that getting yourself to this country and working your rear end off to make something of yourself is anything but American culturally.

Let's contrast that with the inner city poor who have been here for generations and who riot because they perceive victimhood. These are the people with youtube channels explaining how to use food stamps to order a domino's pizza. These are well established Americans who champion victimhood and handouts as a way of life.

Who is more American? The rioting "I'm a victim" whose grandparents lived in the US? Or the illegal immigrant who works 16 hour days in the field making a few bucks to feed his family?

 

[niky]

Wait who said it was the same as US or UK immigration?

You were citing it as an example of what could happen in the US or UK, were you not?

A social revolution predicated on centuries of removing the state from control of the Church and more equal rights in the religion.

Being a Catholic, haha. No. The equal rights movements were anything but religiously motivated.

- The results would undermine the profession/NHS. And with it public trust in the health service would fall off a cliff. Imagine the fallout when it's proved that the overwhelming majority of doctors struck off come from less than (using statistics you provided) 36.9% of the cohort.

-

In total, 669 doctors have been either struck off or suspended by the GMC over the last five years.

Of those, only 249 were British (37 per cent) while 420 (63 per cent) were trained abroad – whereas one-third of doctors on the register were trained abroad, and two-thirds in Britain.

So now we're going for "where they were trained"... which is where you should have gone in the first place, instead of making silly observations about their family names.

Also, I'd like to point out... 669 doctors out of 233,000 over five years... works out to about 0.05% per year? The rate of malpractice losses in the US is much larger (over 1% to nearly 2% per year, statistics are hard to come by), though outright dismissals are under 1% (at the hospital level) and State Boards are coming under fire for letting those doctors continue practice.

What do you notice about the four doctors who saw the patient?
What do you notice about the one doctor who came up with the correct differential diagnosis of the patient over a telephone?

What doctor gave a correct differential diagnosis over the phone? A nurse said that if the baby's condition was deteriorating, they should take it back to the hospital.

And, here you're going by names instead of checking for academic credentials. Again.

When four doctors see a patient and note no signs of dehydration, and when a nurse sees the patient and records no signs of dehydration (in the hearing report), then there are no outward signs of dehydration (as noted in the results of the hearing you provided).

There is culpability in the failure to catch the red flag of lethargy as noted by the mother, but this is not a major failure, as it is only one sign, and the doctors were assessing based on what they observed, clinically.

It's arrogance, mainly... most doctors will trust their own observations over those of civilians, and that's not a failing limited to foreign-born doctors. As noted in the panel hearing, she made mistakes, but her actions fell within normal clinical practices, which is why she wasn't suspended.

Which is the problem - it makes the stupid assumption that a medical degree from Lahore or Palackeho is proof enough that a doctor can practice to the same degree as graduates from some of the best Medical Schools in the world.

While it would depend on the individual doctor, I would not argue that the academic preparation is comparable. I quite agree that doctors coming from better schools are more likely to be better prepared. The big question is: Why are there not more doctors graduating from those schools?

Still, the doctors meet the minimum requirements set by the UK (which have nothing to do with the open borders and the EU... as I've pointed out, the only difference for EU doctors are the Visa requirements)... so it becomes a problem of the requirements set by the system, as well as training done in the UK afterwards.

The USA is a completely different animal

Some of the issues cited (lack of residency openings) also affect local doctors. Other issues are shared with the UK.

These issues are far from insurmountable. Over 25% of American doctors are foreign-born. We have graduates working as doctors in the United States. Moreso than in the UK.

The fact is we don't want to emulate them because it would crash the NHS. I'll keep this brief but our staff shortages are plugged by people not up to the job, and when anyone questions that the NHS can retort with "Yeah, but they do have a medical/nursing degree so stop being racist". And so more and more come in leading to...

And yet, the issues being identified stem partially from an unfamiliarity with the UK medico-legal system, which is being addressed right now, and due to inadequate preparation on the UK side... said preparation being done for any doctor moving to another country before they're allowed to practice... which they are also looking to strengthen.

With the continual papering over the cracks of socialist medicine with foreign graduates, you get the demographic shift.

Uh, not to put too fine a point to it, but your "demographic shift" is occurring in the United States, as well. And it's not caused by a "socialist medical system"... it's caused by too few people studying medicine in the US and UK, simply because those wonderful schools have become too expensive for most students.

You want better quality doctors? Socialize medical education so more people can afford to go to expensive UK medical schools. Those schools are not producing enough doctors simply because of student-side economics.

And what happens when you get a large enough influx....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ng-cases-precarious-state-health-service.html

Because racism and the cover-up of the failings of native British doctors is the fault of immigrants?

See my post in the Islam thread about politics in Muslim majority constituencies in the UK. I used it as an example of when a large enough demographic shift can precipitate political upheaval.

The failings of a single politician who managed to con people into supporting him say nothing about demographic shifts. There are rotten politicians of every ethnicity.

 

[HKS racer]

The failings of a single politician who managed to con people into supporting him say nothing about demographic shifts. There are rotten politicians of every ethnicity.

Your point is not enough to completely adress what he said.

Just for clarification, you're saying that people have invented ways to try and control other people? If so, that is something I would fight. It is distinct from immigration though.



Good question, but this is a separate issue from culture. States may have trouble accepting large influxes of people, but then this becomes a pressure to do something about the problem causing the people to move in the first place. I would not approach this problem by just shutting down borders immediately.

If our governaments want to create a sustainable life of human being in this planet they need to deal with birth rates sooner or later.

Birth rates, only China after becomin one billion and 500 milllion people realized something was needed to be done in order to keep a somewhat sustainable ratio between resources and number of population before their system collapse.

Let's face it, there are many countries in the so called "third world" that increase birth rates to unsustainable levels, countries with conditions of misery, starvation and war. Obviously all this people will try to escape, causing clogging in western countries on long terms. What will happen in the next 100 years remain to be seen.

Actually there are no ideas by western countries to deal with birth rates, instead of consedring sustainable life plans they prefer to squeeze every speculation opportunity they can get: raw materials, immigration, war, induced economic crisis... they want grab as much as they can and and globalize all the side effects in order to shift society and continue this vicious circle forever or at least since World War III will come. Reaching the ultimate goal of human being: becomin the virus that will erode and destroy this planet by the numbers, hypocrisy, greed and arrogance of our own species.

 

[Scaff]

Let's face it, there are many countries in the so called "third world" that increase birth rates to unsustainable levels, countries with conditions of misery, starvation and war.

Other way around, developing countries have high birthrate because they have high levels of infant mortality as a result of being a developing country with lower levels of healthcare, sanitation, war, etc.

In exactly the same way that the developed world did before it was developed. In fact the lower working classes in Europe faced exactly the same issues with health and sanitation in many countries right into the 20th century.

Obviously all this people will try to escape, causing clogging in western countries on long terms. What will happen in the next 100 years remain to be seen.

Actually many models of it have been carried out and countries that have transitioned out of developing into developed states (and in some unfortunate cases the reverse) and in these models the birthrate of migrant fall within a generation or two to around the same level as the native population.

It can happen quite quickly, my wife's family is from India and she was one of six, her father is from a working class estate in Glasgow and was one of four. However my wife and I have two kids and my brother-in-law and his wife also have two (and both him and I have had the snip - so that's not changing).

Its also worth noting, as I mentioned above, that this was not that uncommon even in the UK as late as the middle of the 20th Century. My father was one of five and the my mother is one of four.

The 'we are going to get overrun claims that fill the Mail and other rags all work on the basis that birth rates for migrants will not change across generations, which is simply not true. The majority will fall to meet the norm for that society, with the exceptions tending to be the very religious, and that counts for all faiths. The largest families I know are those from white Catholics.

 

[HKS racer]

Other way around, developing countries have high birthrate because they have high levels of infant mortality as a result of being a developing country with lower levels of healthcare, sanitation, war, etc.

In exactly the same way that the developed world did before it was developed. In fact the lower working classes in Europe faced exactly the same issues with health and sanitation in many countries right into the 20th century.



Actually many models of it have been carried out and countries that have transitioned out of developing into developed states (and in some unfortunate cases the reverse) and in these models the birthrate of migrant fall within a generation or two to around the same level as the native population.

It can happen quite quickly, my wife's family is from India and she was one of six, her father is from a working class estate in Glasgow and was one of four. However my wife and I have two kids and my brother-in-law and his wife also have two (and both him and I have had the snip - so that's not changing).

Its also worth noting, as I mentioned above, that this was not that uncommon even in the UK as late as the middle of the 20th Century. My father was one of five and the my mother is one of four.

The 'we are going to get overrun claims that fill the Mail and other rags all work on the basis that birth rates for migrants will not change across generations, which is simply not true. The majority will fall to meet the norm for that society, with the exceptions tending to be the very religious, and that counts for all faiths. The largest families I know are those from white Catholics.

I know people from "developing" countries with 10 children and 3 wifes but that's a cultural thing more than a problem of infant mortality. They do it because they just think it's ok and good to have so many children. They problem is when a huge percentage of this people thinks the same. I'm not sure how many white Catholics have the same numbers. Maybe some rare cases can give birth to 10 or more children. But if we want to be fair, the amount of white catholics with 4+ children is considerably inferior to the amount of muslims with 4+ children.

Unfortunately we live in a World with limited resources and geographical limits. Humans of all races will have to deal with it sooner or later. But for now they think it's better to speculate stuff and create these moral taboos preventing any purely logical talking disconnected from religion about what we all should do in order to mantain a sustainable life and long term balance.

 

[ClydeYellow]

It's just history, can't fault me for calling out what is blatantly obvious. Just like I'm sure you would ascribe a certain M.O to American foreign policy

I'm quite sure Muslims aren't a polity, leave alone a State, therefore they cannot develop and enact policy. You may have a grasp of history, but political science clearly isn't your forte.

(Also, one doesn't need to ascribe a damn thing to American foreign policy, since their intl. policies often had a name and a father during the Cold War. But that's another matter entirely)

Because it could be construed as deliberate obfuscation to play to a political agenda that labels the Rohingya as victims of a genocide for the same reasons as the Armenians were subject to a real one a century ago.

It is clear that you have some problems seeing a genocide not commited by Muslims (regardless of the actual reasons of such genocide), but on Muslims, as such. The only difference between the predicament of the Rohingya and any other genocide is that the former is happening right now.

Let's face it, there are many countries in the so called "third world" that increase birth rates to unsustainable levels, countries with conditions of misery, starvation and war.

And here's your problem. Birth rates are high in the Third World mostly as a consequence of staggering child mortality figures. Culture has little to do with it; or rather, it has a lot to do in it as it is a culture that has to deal with a high child mortality.
Raise the standard of living, culture will change, and the birth rates will plunge. But to increase the standard of living, you also need to ease the demographic pressure on those areas. If you are really interested on understanding such dynamics in detail, I'd suggest you start reading Banfield's Moral Basis of a Backwards Society. It's not a perfect explaination of such phenomena, and should generally be taken with a pinch of salt, but as I said, it should be just a start.

Obviously all this people will try to escape, causing clogging in western countries on long terms.

Not quite. Let's not make the mistake of thinking that all of Africa wants to come to Europe, shall we? Already most of African emigration leads... To Africa. So-called "illegal" immigrants (to use a term so popular in Italian media; the scientifically correct term would be "refugees") are a "special case" of sorts; they are fleeing from situations of clear and present danger. While their numbers may seem enormous, they are actually quite small from a demographic standpoint.

Actually there are no ideas by western countries to deal with birth rates

Actually, there are plenty of ideas and well drawn out plans... But being able to apply them is a different matter, since developing nation-States have their own sovereignity too, and leaving it to what Malthus called "positive checks" on the population growth is generally frowned upon (because it means leaving people to starve, basically).

Perhaps you both need to accept uncertainity. Not everything is part of a plan, and not everything can be planned.

P.S: @HKS racer, Christian African countries have about the same demographic growth rate as Muslim ones, and higher than Arab or Middle Eastern countries; therefore, your point about Islam having anything to do with it is moot.

 

[Soundtrack]

I know people from "developing" countries with 10 children and 3 wifes but that's a cultural thing more than a problem of infant mortality. They do it because they just think it's ok and good to have so many children. They problem is when a huge percentage of this people thinks the same. I'm not sure how many white Catholics have the same numbers. Maybe some rare cases can give birth to 10 or more children. But if we want to be fair, the amount of white catholics with 4+ children is considerably inferior to the amount of muslims with 4+ children.

Globally, Muslims have the highest fertility rate, an average of 3.1 children per woman – well above replacement level (2.1), the minimum typically needed to maintain a stable population. Christians are second, at 2.7 children per woman.

source: previous link full report

Unfortunately we live in a World with limited resources and geographical limits. Humans of all races will have to deal with it sooner or later.

Hopefully...

 

[Danoff]

Lots of Atheists are converts...

 

[HKS racer]

And here's your problem. Birth rates are high in the Third World mostly as a consequence of staggering child mortality figures. Raise the standard of living, and the birth rates will pummel. But to increase the standard of living, you also need to ease the demographic pressure on those areas.

Easing demographic pressure will not automatically lead to better standard of living. If that's the case you are actually admitting accepting great numbers of immigrants will lead to worsen standards of living for common people.

Not quite. Let's not make the mistake of thinking that all of Africa wants to come to Europe, shall we? Already most of African emigration leads... To Africa. Already so-called "illegal" immigrants are a "special case" of sorts; they are fleeing from situations of clear and present danger. While their numbers may seem enormous, they are actually quite small from a demographic standpoint.

I'm interested to hear more about how these Africans migrate to where exactly in Africa, South Africa?
And what do you really mean with "While their numbers may seem enormous, they are actually quite small from a demographic standpoint."?

Actually, there are plenty of ideas and well drawn out plans... But being able to apply them is a different matter, especially considering that developing nation-States have their own sovereignity too, and leaving what Malthus called "positive checks" on the population growth is generally frowned upon (because it means leaving people to starve, basically).

Developing nation-States with their own sovereignity which often runs alongside terrorist groups for their own political gains like the case of Nigeria as admitted by a nigerian guy to me yesterday.

Perhaps you both need to accept uncertainity. Not everything is part of a plan, and not everything can be planned.

And this is where comes into play the morals taboo I was talking about. Honestly your last sentence is good for a love song not as good in a discussion about how living in the world without eroding resources at the speed of light.

@HKS racer, Christian African countries have about the same demographic growth rate as Muslim ones, and higher than Arab or Middle Eastern countries; therefore, your point about Islam having anything to do with it is moot.

If that's so and I don't want to deny your sources, it could be a "race" thing instead. But that's a bad word I guess.

 

[ClydeYellow]

Easing demographic pressure will not automatically lead to better standard of living.

Heh, it's something. Of course economic growth and the achievement of political stability are necessary if the depressed areas of Africa are to come out of their precarious condition, but that can't be achieved if there aren't enough available resources to sustain the population of those areas. This means increasing the production of resources and their rate of conversion in consumable goods, sure, but it may also mean reducing the population as a way of controlling demographic growth.

If that's the case you are actually admitting accepting great numbers of immigrants will lead to worsen standards of living for common people.

Actually, no. 30-40,000 immigrants per year won't add a significant demographic pressure to our country; however, they may make a significant difference in certain areas where a reduced competition for resources may lead to growth. That's what happened in many areas of rural southern Italy, for example.

I'm interested to hear more about how these Africans migrate to where exactly in Africa, South Africa?

Heh. I will leave finding out the full details on rural African migration and inter-African exoduses to you. However, I believe an example will suffice. The 2011 Lybian Civil War displaced about one million people. Of these, 45,000 came to Italy (the number of them that left for another European country is actually unknown to me, but it's safe to assume they all remained here). The rest stopped in Tunisia, and not because they missed their boat to Italy or something, mind you. Most returned or are returning to Lybia as the dust settles.

And what do you really mean with "While their numbers may seem enormous, they are actually quite small from a demographic standpoint."?

I mean that the aforementioned 45,000 Lybian refugees amount to about 0.08% of the Italian population. It may seem like a huge number, but from a demographical perspective, it isn't.

Of course, there may be a problem when all those 45,000 refugees are put on a tiny island, such as Lampedusa. But that's another matter entirely.

(To put it another way, if you take all the immigrant population into account, including second-generations of immigrants, only 4 people in 1000 are non-immigrants in Italy. Not that many, I guess?)

Developing nation-States with their own sovereignity which often runs alongside terrorist groups for their own political gains like the case of Nigeria as admitted by a nigerian guy to me yesterday.

Unless that guy is Goodluck Jonathan, I wouldn't give much weight to his words.

And this is where comes into play the morals taboo I was talking about. Honestly your last sentence is good for a love song not as good in a discussion about how living in the world without eroding resources at the speed of light.

Actually, uncertainity is a very important concept that affects a wide range of academic disciplines, and also policies and the action of governments. Not everything is predictable or controllable, and ignoring this can only lead to disaster.

If that's so and I don't want to deny your sources, it could be a "race" thing instead. But that's a bad word I guess

It's not that it is a bad word; it's that it's pure nonsense to think that "race" affects behavior (as neuropsychology has shown time and time again). Shall we say it's an "extreme poverty" thing? After all, we have had our periods of localized unsustainable demographic growth, too, and the principle is always the same: people will make more kids if they're less certain they will grow to be adults. That's, after all, a mechanism that has served us well for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[Carbonox]

Lots of Atheists are converts...

Deconverts.

 

[Scaff]

I know people from "developing" countries with 10 children and 3 wifes but that's a cultural thing more than a problem of infant mortality.

Citation required

They do it because they just think it's ok and good to have so many children. They problem is when a huge percentage of this people thinks the same.

Citation required

I'm not sure how many white Catholics have the same numbers. Maybe some rare cases can give birth to 10 or more children. But if we want to be fair, the amount of white catholics with 4+ children is considerably inferior to the amount of muslims with 4+ children.

Well as has been shown they would actually be rather close to each other.

Unfortunately we live in a World with limited resources and geographical limits. Humans of all races will have to deal with it sooner or later. But for now they think it's better to speculate stuff and create these moral taboos preventing any purely logical talking disconnected from religion about what we all should do in order to mantain a sustainable life and long term balance.

We do indeed, but hyperbole and speculation will not help, quite the opposite.

Easing demographic pressure will not automatically lead to better standard of living. If that's the case you are actually admitting accepting great numbers of immigrants will lead to worsen standards of living for common people.

And that's why its such a difficult cycle to break, to the point (that you keep either missing or ignoring) that is was still common in Europe as little as 60 years ago.

I'm interested to hear more about how these Africans migrate to where exactly in Africa, South Africa?
And what do you really mean with "While their numbers may seem enormous, they are actually quite small from a demographic standpoint."?

Africans migrate from one african country to another based on exactly the same demands that see those fro Europe migrate around Europe.

You seem to be under the impression that every part of is some kind of hell hole?

Oh and what he means, the numbers may look big to you but in terms of global or even African population they are not.

Developing nation-States with their own sovereignity which often runs alongside terrorist groups for their own political gains like the case of Nigeria as admitted by a nigerian guy to me yesterday.

Was he a member of the Nigerian government?

And this is where comes into play the morals taboo I was talking about. Honestly your last sentence is good for a love song not as good in a discussion about how living in the world without eroding resources at the speed of light.

No its reality, you can't plan for everything and have to accept that you will have to work with unknowns. I had no way of planning into the project I'm working on that one member of my team would injure their back, another's father woudl die or that one of the customer sites we were working on would get struck by lightning today.

If that's so and I don't want to deny your sources, it could be a "race" thing instead. But that's a bad word I guess.

No its a poverty thing. It's a one time or another affected every race and religion on the planet and it doesn't care about either of those things.

 

[KSaiyu]

@KSaiyu,

I was kinda wondering why you continue to be concerned about a cultural shift in America given that I've already explained how American culture is more in danger from families who have lived here for generations than people who immigrate to the US. Then I realized that perhaps you've defined the problem a bit circularly.

I'm wondering if you think it's even possible for families who have lived here for generations to attack the culture, or is that simply, in your eyes, what the culture is. In otherwords the culture of America is whatever the people who have been here the longest think it should be? If you define it this way, then of course immigration is going to pose the biggest culture shift, it's the only possible source of culture shift. It becomes tautological.

I'm going to reiterate this a third time just to help drive the point home. Immigrants (even illegal immigrants) in the US seem to understand American culture (a system of human rights) at an intuitive level far better than many Americans who have been here for generations. The biggest single threat to American culture right now (a system of human rights) is longstanding Americans. Every major attack currently underway on our culture is being lead by them.

This is as it stands at the moment in America with controlled migration. This is what we had too, up until mid nineties, when we had controlled migration. My area has always been a town of immigrants. My parents are immigrants, my neighbours are immigrants, my school friends are immigrants or descendants of immigrants. "We" came and created a niche where we were proud to be British but also brought our culture - be it the Afro Caribbean Shepherd's Bush Market or South Asian Southall Broadway. Indeed, you could say the East Europeans are doing what immigrants did in the fifties and sixties in creating areas full of Polish supermarkets. The crucial difference is however in the speed with which it happened, and the capacity to control it. This is a graph of percentage foreign born in England and Wales

Taken from "Migration Watch":

14.3. After the war, immigration increased, but this did not have a marked effect on the size of the foreign born population between the 1951 and 1961 census, with the number only increasing by about 225,000. The pace of change between the 1961 and 1971 censuses was quicker- increasing by almost a million in a decade. Between 1971 and 1981, the foreign born population only grew by about 100,000 and then by about 400,000 in the subsequent decade.


14.4. It was in the next decades that the pace and scale of immigration increased dramatically. Between 1991 and 2001 the foreign born population increased by about 1.1 million (with by far the highest levels of immigration taking place from 1997 onwards). It then increased by almost three million between 2001 and 2011. The change in the size of the foreign born population between 2001 and 2011 was absolutely without precedent in British history.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/Briefingpaper/document/48

Compare that with the USA:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...ta_on_foreign_born_population_percentage.html

At first glance you will notice that the rate matches the jump from the 70s to 2010, and may conclude that America has faced the same test as Britain, but again you have to look beyond "rate for rate" comparisons:

1. America is a country of immigrants. As such you know how to handle immigration - in fact the rate is a return to "normal" for you (Just don't mention the fact that the lowest levels coincided with your post war boom, something addressed in the article). A glaring example in our differences on handling immigrants is illustrated by my previous post showing the "standards" we set for foreign doctors.
2. America controlled this surge. Mexico, and other nations didn't, and as such can control better than us who comes in and when it stops.
3. Land mass + public services. These do play a critical factor. In the UK population density is 263 people per sq km. In America it is 34. Bear in mind that England has a density over 400. For public services my previous posts should explain the problems we're facing.

Expanding on point 1 for a second because I believe this is the major difference between the problems we are seeing: Immigrants buy into the American dream. When a Mexican comes to America, they work hard and believe they can live life the American way. In contrast a lot of our current migrants see Britain as a place with lots of jobs. They are XXXX first, and work in Britain. This is hugely important, and it is the result of Brits losing their identity of what it means to be British. We have no equivalent "British Dream" (interestingly, one of the best books predicting such a scenario that we're currently facing was called this, and emphasised the need for a strong national identity.) We saw the bruhaha over "British Values" being introduced at schools, and the whining over the attempted introduction of a more British central history curriculum. We are shamed to express patriotism, which results in the outbursts of flag waving at Royal events and football matches. In my area if I see a flag of St. George I think either England are playing or its an NF (National Front) home. This isn't true for most of the country, but is a reflection of what living in a white minority area is like in Britain. Can you say the same is true in America?

Illegal immigrant mexicans come here to work. They skirt taxes, it's true, but probably they're doing themselves a disservice by doing so. Because most of them would probably qualify for an earned income tax credit anyway. Only half of American workers actually pay any income tax. Illegal immigrants provide labor, they work their butts off for peanuts. It's amazing that anyone would claim that getting yourself to this country and working your rear end off to make something of yourself is anything but American culturally.

Oh you don't need to tell me twice. Because of my previous jobs I've worked with illegals, and no-one works harder. But, to use a science analogy there is a selective pressure driving them to do this. If they don't do it, off they go. You have this in America at the moment and it is, again, massively important. I'd argue (very controversially) that racism is another selective pressure. Your immigration policy dictates this, as does your culture. It acts as a filter to see who will sink or swim in America. Britain has lost both. Let's say this "America's Union" forces freedom of movement across the South/North American nations. I think everyone here will agree you will see a massive surge of immigration from Mexico, among other nations into the US. Now an added effect of this will be a dilution in the "quality" of those coming from Mexico et al. There's no need to compete with each other since everyone can show up - Socialist border control!
Now those who don't want to work in Mexico will be free to come across the border since you've killed the competition that kept them out.
And what motivation will there be to assimilate, and change their outlook in America - they've come for the easy living not to make something of themselves.
And without that assimilation, bang goes the American dream on this group of migrants.
And so they stick to Spanish because, well, what's the point learning English?
And so they stay, with little aspirations and a dead end job. Just like in Mexico.

Let's contrast that with the inner city poor who have been here for generations and who riot because they perceive victimhood. These are the people with youtube channels explaining how to use food stamps to order a domino's pizza. These are well established Americans who champion victimhood and handouts as a way of life.

Well victimhood is the mainstay of the British Muslim community, a group outbreeding the indigenous layabouts (who equally claim a sense of victimhood and fight any cuts to their benefits, although to be honest the worst group to belong to at the moment is British White Working Class) by some degree.

Who is more American? The rioting "I'm a victim" whose grandparents lived in the US? Or the illegal immigrant who works 16 hour days in the field making a few bucks to feed his family?

With "American" meaning living by the founding principles of America the illegal immigrant. But who is more British, the immigrant from Pakistan in the 70's who spoke to their neighbours, took an active part in the community and was interested in the democratic process....or the immigrant from the 2010's, protesting about British intervention in the Middle East, living on benefits and calling for Sharia law nationwide.

You were citing it as an example of what could happen in the US or UK, were you not?

I said it was uncontrolled. The UK at the moment is uncontrolled, but the reasons are different.

So now we're going for "where they were trained"... which is where you should have gone in the first place, instead of making silly observations about their family names.

Also, I'd like to point out... 669 doctors out of 233,000 over five years... works out to about 0.05% per year? The rate of malpractice losses in the US is much larger (over 1% to nearly 2% per year, statistics are hard to come by), though outright dismissals are under 1% (at the hospital level) and State Boards are coming under fire for letting those doctors continue practice.

You can't do a scientific study or investigation with the only available information being family names - you'd need access to their ethnicity (good luck with that). And no, they aren't silly observations. In fact, it's silly to ignore it in the name of PC. And I'm afraid you're misreading the situation with regards to the statistics. Here is a great story about British surgeons, and how they didn't even face a GMC hearing:
http://www.capitalbay.com/news/4161...-of-chaos-in-surgery-that-shames-the-nhs.html

What doctor gave a correct differential diagnosis over the phone? A nurse said that if the baby's condition was deteriorating, they should take it back to the hospital.....

Read the story again. I'm afraid the answer isn't very PC.

While it would depend on the individual doctor, I would not argue that the academic preparation is comparable. I quite agree that doctors coming from better schools are more likely to be better prepared. The big question is: Why are there not more doctors graduating from those schools?

Still, the doctors meet the minimum requirements set by the UK (which have nothing to do with the open borders and the EU... as I've pointed out, the only difference for EU doctors are the Visa requirements)... so it becomes a problem of the requirements set by the system, as well as training done in the UK afterwards.

Everyone knows socialist medicine can't work but the British public can't accept this truth, and so we don't change the system.

Some of the issues cited (lack of residency openings) also affect local doctors. Other issues are shared with the UK.

These issues are far from insurmountable. Over 25% of American doctors are foreign-born. We have graduates working as doctors in the United States. Moreso than in the UK.

The point was about the entry criteria, a higher selective pressure if you will.

Uh, not to put too fine a point to it, but your "demographic shift" is occurring in the United States, as well. And it's not caused by a "socialist medical system"... it's caused by too few people studying medicine in the US and UK, simply because those wonderful schools have become too expensive for most students.

You want better quality doctors? Socialize medical education so more people can afford to go to expensive UK medical schools. Those schools are not producing enough doctors simply because of student-side economics.

No that would be a disaster. With socialism you get social engineering, which requires quotas. Bad, bad, bad. Instead you have to adopt a grammar school type system, where high achievers can benefit from education beyond their means. Some medical schools do this already - my first two years of Medical School have been paid for by the government as I fit into the lowest income bracket. The problem facing education in Britain at the moment is we are recovering from socialist policies (one of which was trying to get rid of grammar schools) that has dumbed our high school leavers down to the point of ridicule on the world stage. But....for another thread I'm afraid

Because racism and the cover-up of the failings of native British doctors is the fault of immigrants?

Nope. The fault of Political correctness

The failings of a single politician who managed to con people into supporting him say nothing about demographic shifts. There are rotten politicians of every ethnicity.

Doesn't explain all the constituencies in that post.

It is clear that you have some problems seeing a genocide not commited by Muslims (regardless of the actual reasons of such genocide), but on Muslims, as such. The only difference between the predicament of the Rohingya and any other genocide is that the former is happening right now.

Reaaallllllly?

 

[niky]

You can't do a scientific study or investigation with the only available information being family names - you'd need access to their ethnicity (good luck with that). And no, they aren't silly observations. In fact, it's silly to ignore it in the name of PC. And I'm afraid you're misreading the situation with regards to the statistics. Here is a great story about British surgeons, and how they didn't even face a GMC hearing:
http://www.capitalbay.com/news/4161...-of-chaos-in-surgery-that-shames-the-nhs.html

Again, why is this an issue of immigration, when this article, just like the last one you shared, notes that White British surgeons were at fault, but weren't being penalized, purportedly because they were White British?

Read the story again. I'm afraid the answer isn't very PC.

It's obvious you didn't. I read both the story and the hearing report. Again. None of the clinical staff who saw the baby noted physical signs of dehydration. Again, there were lapses in history taking, but the clinical presentation of the baby was quite atypical. Nothing in the news report you shared stated a doctor gave a diagnosis over the phone (and any doctor who does is criminally incompetent).

Everyone knows socialist medicine can't work but the British public can't accept this truth, and so we don't change the system.

Don't tell that to the Netherlands. Or Canada.

The point was about the entry criteria, a higher selective pressure if you will.

So you're now saying foreign-born doctors need to be pushed twice as hard as local doctors in order to perform properly? And you're basing this on observing illegal, unskilled laborers? Stretch much?

While I would agree that there is a need for stricter selection criteria, that applies equally to all doctors.

You're arguing here over an ostensibly systemic issue with the NHS, one which is not caused by immigration. Immigration, rather, is a symptom of another issue, which is the lack of local doctors. A problem shared with the American medical system.

No that would be a disaster. With socialism you get social engineering, which requires quotas. Bad, bad, bad. Instead you have to adopt a grammar school type system, where high achievers can benefit from education beyond their means. Some medical schools do this already - my first two years of Medical School have been paid for by the government as I fit into the lowest income bracket. The problem facing education in Britain at the moment is we are recovering from socialist policies (one of which was trying to get rid of grammar schools) that has dumbed our high school leavers down to the point of ridicule on the world stage. But....for another thread I'm afraid

Socialized tuition does not necessarily mean quotas or the lowering of standards. It simply means giving scholarship support to students, as long as they meet the academic requirements.

My mother went through college with three scholarships and a job. Her family was too poor to afford to pay for anything. And yet she graduated with high marks and got a job at NYU before we moved here.

Would it be a disaster to extend those academic and social scholarships to more students? Maybe. Maybe not.

I know most people here would be against subsidizing the education of others, but this is how it stands: You want more graduates from British schools, you need to make sure people can afford to go to British schools. This is the same problem (again) facing the American medical system, which doesn't have socialist policies in regards to higher education. A problem that has been facing it for the past four decades... which has helped keep us in business for quite a while, thanks to a very favorable dollar exchange rate.*

Nope. The fault of Political correctness

It's politically correct to enact racist policies favoring British doctors? Did we even read the same news articles?

Doesn't explain all the constituencies in that post.

Your point is not enough to completely adress what he said.

Doesn't explain how people can support a corrupt Muslim politician who plays the sympathy card based on his religion, just as others have supported corrupt Christian politicians who've played the religion card in the past?

As per the article:

betrays an attitude that would not be out of place on the white far-right.

I fully agree Political Correctness is a bad thing. But this is not an issue of immigration. It is simply an issue of reverse-racism.






*I make about $700 net at my office job. I'd quit that one to work at the magazine full time, but the last opening offered to me paid even less.

 

[Exorcet]

Actually there are no ideas by western countries to deal with birth rates, instead of consedring sustainable life plans they prefer to squeeze every speculation opportunity they can get: raw materials, immigration, war, induced economic crisis... they want grab as much as they can and and globalize all the side effects in order to shift society and continue this vicious circle forever or at least since World War III will come. Reaching the ultimate goal of human being: becomin the virus that will erode and destroy this planet by the numbers, hypocrisy, greed and arrogance of our own species.

Well if anything, I would attack that instead of immigration then.

Even if the governments don't want to focus on the root issues that doesn't completely prevent solving them. Government intervention is not the only way to get things done. If you can show enough of the population what the cause of the problem is, and how it's hurting them, they will probably be willing to do something about it. They could also be more responsive and flexible than the government itself.

 

[KSaiyu]

Again, why is this an issue of immigration, when this article, just like the last one you shared, notes that White British surgeons were at fault, but weren't being penalized, purportedly because they were White British?

That was to show how the statistics you used showing the low percentage of GMC sanctions is moot. Bad doctors get away with a whole lot of things depending on the politics. And yes they were white - I hope you're not getting from this debate that my stance is White British doctors are the best in the world. My "hero" doctor is an Indian who graduated in America. What you should be getting out of this is that a system assuming all doctors from every nation are equal is a fallacy and is killing patients. This is the same rationale that leads to uncontrolled immigration.

Ratatouille sums up my view better that I can:

"In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto, "Anyone can cook." But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist; but a great artist *can* come from *anywhere*."

So yes, we have great foreign doctors as we have horrible British doctors. But to assume that they will be in similar proportions without a standardising test is madness.

It's obvious you didn't. I read both the story and the hearing report. Again. None of the clinical staff who saw the baby noted physical signs of dehydration. Again, there were lapses in history taking, but the clinical presentation of the baby was quite atypical. Nothing in the news report you shared stated a doctor gave a diagnosis over the phone (and any doctor who does is criminally incompetent).

No, not a confirmed diagnosis but a suspected one - which was the correct one. All over a phone:

After phoning the GP out-of-hours service, the family spoke to Dr Mary McCracken who said they should bring him in to the out-of-hours service as he may be suffering from dehydration.

Don't tell that to the Netherlands. Or Canada.

I think you're confusing socialist with public...

Health care in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded health care system, which is mostly free at the point of use and has most services provided by private entities

Health insurance in the Netherlands is mandatory. Healthcare in the Netherlands is covered by two statutory forms of insurance:

• Zorgverzekeringswet (Zvw), often called ‘basic insurance’, covers common medical care.
• Algemene Wet Bijzondere Ziektekosten (AWBZ) covers long-term nursing and care.

While Dutch residents are automatically insured by the government for AWBZ, everyone has to take out their own basic healthcare insurance (basisverzekering), except those under 18 who are automatically covered under their parents' premium. If you don’t take out insurance, you risk a fine. Insurers have to offer a universal package for everyone over the age of 18 years, regardless of age or state of health – it’s illegal to refuse an application or impose special conditions. In contrast to many other European systems, the Dutch government is responsible for the accessibility and quality of the healthcare system in the Netherlands, but not in charge of its management.

----

Basically my dream for healthcare in Britain. Problem is the NHS has become a political football and the British public have been fed a lie that private providers will only care about the money to such an extent they're willing to ignore the shocking standard of care from the NHS. Utterly brainwashed.

So you're now saying foreign-born doctors need to be pushed twice as hard as local doctors in order to perform properly? And you're basing this on observing illegal, unskilled laborers? Stretch much?

No that was my previous jobs. I work in a hospital now, and study for a career in the NHS.

Socialized tuition does not necessarily mean quotas or the lowering of standards. It simply means giving scholarship support to students, as long as they meet the academic requirements.

My mother went through college with three scholarships and a job. Her family was too poor to afford to pay for anything. And yet she graduated with high marks and got a job at NYU before we moved here.

Would it be a disaster to extend those academic and social scholarships to more students? Maybe. Maybe not.

I know most people here would be against subsidizing the education of others, but this is how it stands: You want more graduates from British schools, you need to make sure people can afford to go to British schools. This is the same problem (again) facing the American medical system, which doesn't have socialist policies in regards to higher education. A problem that has been facing it for the past four decades... which has helped keep us in business for quite a while, thanks to a very favorable dollar exchange rate.*

Subsidizing I'm fine with. What we have at some unis at the moment (quotas) not so much, which is what happens from socialised education. One of my peers struggled to get into Medical school despite achieving 1A* and 3As at A level. Her crime was being white and coming from a private school. Another peer got in with 3 B's and is close to being kicked out after not taking the course seriously and almost committing fraud with her paperwork. I once asked my tutor how could it be fair that the second student was given a prize placement in a major London teaching hospital by virtue of a lottery system that doesn't take into account grades or performance during the year when there are so many other students more deserving of the place. I was told, after she left the placement halfway through that if they were given according to grade and performance only the best students would get to experience them....

It's politically correct to enact racist policies favoring British doctors? Did we even read the same news articles?

No, the political correctness allows the racism to fester. It is political correctness that allows substandard doctors in from various other countries - in this case Pakistan/India, and a splitting of the Surgical and Medical camps along ethnic lines. Even doctors aren't immune from the pressures of massive ethnic upheaval. The surgeons case is a different part of the story.

 

[niky]

That was to show how the statistics you used showing the low percentage of GMC sanctions is moot. Bad doctors get away with a whole lot of things depending on the politics. And yes they were white - I hope you're not getting from this debate that my stance is White British doctors are the best in the world. My "hero" doctor is an Indian who graduated in America. What you should be getting out of this is that a system assuming all doctors from every nation are equal is a fallacy and is killing patients. This is the same rationale that leads to uncontrolled immigration.

You're showing me how systemic corruption that selectively refuses to sanction British doctors renders the low percentage of GMC sanctions moot. GMC sanctions that you personally brought up as evidence that foreign trained doctors are worse than British doctors.

If you're drawing on that as an example, then it suggests that British doctors in authority are less likely to report or sanction British doctors who've committed grave abuses. Which suggests that the statistics regarding disciplinary actions themselves could be skewed to favor British doctors.

Of course, you're going to say: "No, that shows they could be skewed to hide the true extent of the issue with foreign doctors." Which is a bit like saying the Patriots' deflated balls are evidence that the Colts could have done the same thing themselves when they were playing against the Patriots.

Uhh... how does that work again?

-----

The system assumes that all doctors trained in a standardized system, who meet certain standards, have a certain minimum competency. That is not a fallacy. And it says nothing about where the best doctors come from.

It's also interesting, since you brought it up, that UK-trained doctors don't need to pass a National Licensure Exam, as foreign doctors need to. So the field is indeed not level.

Ratatouille sums up my view better that I can:

"In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto, "Anyone can cook." But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist; but a great artist *can* come from *anywhere*."

So yes, we have great foreign doctors as we have horrible British doctors. But to assume that they will be in similar proportions without a standardising test is madness.

That is true. But it is not the fault of immigrants that such a test doesn't exist.

No, not a confirmed diagnosis but a suspected one - which was the correct one. All over a phone:

After phoning the GP out-of-hours service, the family spoke to Dr Mary McCracken who said they should bring him in to the out-of-hours service as he may be suffering from dehydration.

Again, are you suggesting that it is acceptable practice to make a diagnosis over the phone? And that said diagnosis, without the results of clinical tests or a clinical examination, should be accepted at face value?

I've gotten lucky making correct mechanical diagnoses of car problems in the past over the phone, but I would simply have said the same as Miz McCracken: "may be"

It is up to the attending physician on the ground to verify the diagnosis. That they couldn't was partly because the child, from the records, appeared to present atypical symptoms.

I think you're confusing socialist with public...

Health care in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded health care system, which is mostly free at the point of use and has most services provided by private entities

Health insurance in the Netherlands is mandatory. Healthcare in the Netherlands is covered by two statutory forms of insurance:

• Zorgverzekeringswet (Zvw), often called ‘basic insurance’, covers common medical care.
• Algemene Wet Bijzondere Ziektekosten (AWBZ) covers long-term nursing and care.

While Dutch residents are automatically insured by the government for AWBZ, everyone has to take out their own basic healthcare insurance (basisverzekering), except those under 18 who are automatically covered under their parents' premium. If you don’t take out insurance, you risk a fine. Insurers have to offer a universal package for everyone over the age of 18 years, regardless of age or state of health – it’s illegal to refuse an application or impose special conditions. In contrast to many other European systems, the Dutch government is responsible for the accessibility and quality of the healthcare system in the Netherlands, but not in charge of its management.

I'm not confusing anything. Canada and the Netherlands are more socialist in spirit than the UK.

The truth is, there are many ways to run a welfare system, and the use of private subcontractors does not contravene the spirit of socialism.

Basically my dream for healthcare in Britain. Problem is the NHS has become a political football and the British public have been fed a lie that private providers will only care about the money to such an extent they're willing to ignore the shocking standard of care from the NHS. Utterly brainwashed.

Here, it will probably shock you that I agree that having private subcontractors, who can easily be sanctioned or removed from the system, is probably much better than having the NHS. Government has no business running a business.

Subsidizing I'm fine with. What we have at some unis at the moment (quotas) not so much, which is what happens from socialised education.

One of my peers struggled to get into Medical school despite achieving 1A* and 3As at A level. Her crime was being white and coming from a private school. Another peer got in with 3 B's and is close to being kicked out after not taking the course seriously and almost committing fraud with her paperwork. I once asked my tutor how could it be fair that the second student was given a prize placement in a major London teaching hospital by virtue of a lottery system that doesn't take into account grades or performance during the year when there are so many other students more deserving of the place. I was told, after she left the placement halfway through that if they were given according to grade and performance only the best students would get to experience them....

That's not socialism. That's a racial quota. And that's racist. I agree it stinks, but that's a completely different issue.

No, the political correctness allows the racism to fester. It is political correctness that allows substandard doctors in from various other countries - in this case Pakistan/India, and a splitting of the Surgical and Medical camps along ethnic lines. Even doctors aren't immune from the pressures of massive ethnic upheaval. The surgeons case is a different part of the story.

Doctors who have to meet the requirements. So in this case, it's not political correctness at work, since all foreign doctors, regardless of race or origin, have to meet the same.

And the splitting of doctors along racial lines that you cited, that's pure racism from upper management. Which is as far as you can get from political correctness.

-

Basically, what you've shown to be issues are:

1. The possible inadequacy of the British medical system in certifying foreign doctors, and the lack of standardized testing for medical licenses.

2. The possible inadequacy of the government-run National Health System.

3. The possible non-reporting of poor performance of doctors.

None of which are problems originating due to immigration, but rather problems affecting the immigration of foreign doctors to the UK.

 

[Com Fox]

Whites, Blacks, Asians. Why do we even need these and label ourselves? We're just people, we're all different people no matter what race with our own opinions and motives, what makes a "group" so much important than another?

 

[ClydeYellow]

Whites, Blacks, Asians. Why do we even need these and label ourselves? We're just people, we're all different people no matter what race with our own opinions and motives, what makes a "group" so much important than another?

As far as I am concerned, the fact that other people care.

Subsidizing I'm fine with. What we have at some unis at the moment (quotas) not so much, which is what happens from socialised education. One of my peers struggled to get into Medical school despite achieving 1A* and 3As at A level. Her crime was being white and coming from a private school. Another peer got in with 3 B's and is close to being kicked out after not taking the course seriously and almost committing fraud with her paperwork.

Well, that has little to do with socialized education and a lot to do with the fact that Britain is, for the most part, run by morons who care for political correctness because they don't care for equality for all. Your friend shouldn't have had a problem getting into medical school.

What your friend experienced is the result of bad planning; and as I said, bad planning is more often than not worse than no planning at all.

 

[KSaiyu]

You're showing me how systemic corruption that selectively refuses to sanction British doctors renders the low percentage of GMC sanctions moot. GMC sanctions that you personally brought up as evidence that foreign trained doctors are worse than British doctors.

If you're drawing on that as an example, then it suggests that British doctors in authority are less likely to report or sanction British doctors who've committed grave abuses. Which suggests that the statistics regarding disciplinary actions themselves could be skewed to favor British doctors.

Nope. Re-evaluate the evidence.
-----

It's also interesting, since you brought it up, that UK-trained doctors don't need to pass a National Licensure Exam, as foreign doctors need to. So the field is indeed not level.

Errrr UK trained doctors have to undergo a standardised assessment before they enter the Foundation Program in the form of OSCEs and SJTs that have to abide by the GMC's curriculum. And if you're somehow suggesting that this extra hoop makes foreign graduates up to the standard of British trained as a cohort I again suggest you re-evaluate the evidence.

Again, are you suggesting that it is acceptable practice to make a diagnosis over the phone? And that said diagnosis, without the results of clinical tests or a clinical examination, should be accepted at face value?

I've gotten lucky making correct mechanical diagnoses of car problems in the past over the phone, but I would simply have said the same as Miz McCracken: "may be"

It is up to the attending physician on the ground to verify the diagnosis. That they couldn't was partly because the child, from the records, appeared to present atypical symptoms.

None of this makes any sense at all.

1. She gave a differential diagnosis - suggesting the child may be suffering from dehydration (which he was).
2. The doctors who examined the patient all failed to make the correct diagnosis. Something which was suggested from taking a history over a phone
3. "Appeared to present atypical symptoms". I really don't know where you got this. Let's take a closer look:

This is a typical presentation of a dehydrated patient.

This is the closest we can get to the notes of Dr Arif's management.

-You will note that stool output is crucial in taking history of a query dehydrated patient. Found proved that he failed to record this.
-You will also see that any vomiting is critical too. Found proved he failed to record this, and didn't ask for the frequency or volume of either.
-You see that sunken eyes are a clinical sign of dehydration. He failed to record this in the notes and we have only his words that they were normal.
-The hydration status is CRUCIAL in assessing a query dehydrated patient. Found proved he failed to record this.
-Consciousness level, looking for lethargy - a red flag symptom for dehydration. Found proved he did not record this, despite the mother telling 2 previous doctors he was lethargic.
-An expert panel concluded that he failed to adequately assess the clinical factors of dehydration.

I wouldn't want Dr Arif near any of my kids, nor any other paediatric patients for that matter. That he can continue as a ST4 registrar without at least a suspension is a joke.

That's not socialism. That's a racial quota. And that's racist. I agree it stinks, but that's a completely different issue.

The problem is if there were no quotas, they wouldn't get in.

Doctors who have to meet the requirements. So in this case, it's not political correctness at work, since all foreign doctors, regardless of race or origin, have to meet the same.

Political correctness drives the policy, since people are afraid to say "Hang on, you're from XYZ and we've had a lot of problems with doctors from there"

And the splitting of doctors along racial lines that you cited, that's pure racism from upper management. Which is as far as you can get from political correctness.

No, because that wouldn't explain the splitting of the Rohingya and Burmese from racial lines. The split is from a massive, uncontrolled influx, and in this example stems from political correctness dictating hiring policy.

 

[Imari]

Why do we even need these and label ourselves?

Because having different names for things that are clearly different is useful.

While I'm with you on there being no need to treat people differently depending on their race, there are valid uses for describing what race someone belongs to.

Since this is a car site, I'll make the analogy to cars. We could just say all cars are blork colour. But actually, there's value in calling them red, or blue, or hot pink, or whatever colour they happen to be.

Likewise with race. Some races have specific medical issues. I remember I went in to see a doctor in Japan once. I had a fair dose of the flu, so they took my temperature. It was 37.1 or something, and so the doctor said "Oh, you have a slight fever". But I didn't, because I'm white and my natural body temperature is higher than your average Japanese person. Likewise, black people can have issues with Vitamin D that other races don't.

I'm sure there's a whole bundle of medical differences between all the races, not to even start going into the social and cultural differences if they're actually native to their racial origin. Nothing that makes a group more important than another, but it doesn't mean that the names themselves aren't useful.

 

[Com Fox]

Because having different names for things that are clearly different is useful.

While I'm with you on there being no need to treat people differently depending on their race, there are valid uses for describing what race someone belongs to.

Since this is a car site, I'll make the analogy to cars. We could just say all cars are blork colour. But actually, there's value in calling them red, or blue, or hot pink, or whatever colour they happen to be.

Likewise with race. Some races have specific medical issues. I remember I went in to see a doctor in Japan once. I had a fair dose of the flu, so they took my temperature. It was 37.1 or something, and so the doctor said "Oh, you have a slight fever". But I didn't, because I'm white and my natural body temperature is higher than your average Japanese person. Likewise, black people can have issues with Vitamin D that other races don't.

I'm sure there's a whole bundle of medical differences between all the races, not to even start going into the social and cultural differences if they're actually native to their racial origin. Nothing that makes a group more important than another, but it doesn't mean that the names themselves aren't useful.

That's what I mainly meant but thanks for the other info 👍.

 

[KSaiyu]

Never saw this coming:

One third of England’s young pupils are from ethnic minorities

The growth in the number of migrants, combined with a baby boom, is putting unprecedented pressure on schools. A growing number of primary schools have become supersized as they struggle to cope with the increase in population.

In only one year there has been a 2.1 per cent increase in the number of pupils at state primary schools in England. This equates to almost 94,000 more children. Ethnic minority pupils made up 71 per cent of the increase.

The report said: “The number of children born to non-UK-born women more than doubled between 1999 and 2010, the years in which most children currently in schools were born, and the number of non-UK-born women also increased.”

The proportion of ethnic minority pupils has increased to 30.4 per cent in primary schools and 26.6 per cent in secondaries. Of the primary population, 4.3 per cent are from a Pakistani background, 3.7 per cent are black African, 2.8 per cent are Indian, 1.7 per cent are Bangladeshi, 1.2 per cent black Caribbean and 0.4 per cent Chinese.

Overall, there are 8.4 million pupils at England’s state and independent schools, the data reveal.

There has been a 0.1 per cent increase in the number of pupils at state secondaries — the first growth in five years as children born during the latest baby boom start to leave primary school.

As primary schools struggle to cope with the booming population, more have become supersized, with 87 taking more than 800 pupils, compared with 77 in 2014 and 16 in 2010.

A DfE document published with the figures highlighted the pressure on schools, saying: “In 2009, less than 20 per cent of pupils in state-funded secondary schools were from ethnic minority backgrounds, so in six years the proportion of pupils in secondary schools from such backgrounds has increased by more than 30 per cent as the increased numbers in primary schools flow through into secondary schools.”

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/education/article4467994.ece

Expect to see stories about the strain on the NHS in the winter. My advice for those living in the UK is to get private medical insurance as we still don't have a bill anywhere close to addressing the problems with the NHS. I've already been called in to work as we only had 2 healthcare workers for 18 patients one shift.