How many Syrian children are coming here?
Discussion
poo at Paul's said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
The other side of that coin if we want to be economically minded :
Who's more likely to be a worker, the one who gets himself (and yes, he's a young man) across the continent or the one sitting on his arse in the desert?
And who is likely to be a law abiding citizen, the er law abiding citizen, or the guy who has illegally travelled across many borders and most likely paid law breakers to help him with funds possibly from a dubious source. Oh, not forgetting he threw his documents away so we have no clue who it actually is!Who's more likely to be a worker, the one who gets himself (and yes, he's a young man) across the continent or the one sitting on his arse in the desert?
BTW, why do you think they are all trying to get to Britain....to WORK? They can WORK in any country theyb claim asylum, and they are all pretty civilised countries, even France!
They are trying to get to Britain as our welfare state ie the most lucrative. We have even been blamed for the crisis by the likes of France and Netherlands for having such a generous policy toward people who do f
k all! I wonder sometimes if the Home Office isn't deliberately making a mess of things like this to turn the public off the idea.
All they had to do was find 14 Syrian kids who were so young , homeless and helpless, no right thinking person could possibly object.
What turned up was a bunch people, most of who don't seem to be Syrian or kids, but a mixed bunch including a Dr Spock lookalike. This then gets splashed over the front pages of the papers, public opinion crashes, soft touch/dumb mug Britain only then encourages more people to come and lie about there age and the town of Calais probably wishes the UK wouldn't keep making itself a magnet for chancers.
All they had to do was find 14 Syrian kids who were so young , homeless and helpless, no right thinking person could possibly object.
What turned up was a bunch people, most of who don't seem to be Syrian or kids, but a mixed bunch including a Dr Spock lookalike. This then gets splashed over the front pages of the papers, public opinion crashes, soft touch/dumb mug Britain only then encourages more people to come and lie about there age and the town of Calais probably wishes the UK wouldn't keep making itself a magnet for chancers.
s3fella said:
FredClogs said:
Describing people as "rapey" because of the part of the world they come from is to assign moral signatures to people based on their "race". It's an abhorrent thing to do and wholly inaccurate which not only leads you to look like a bigoted prick but when this rhetoric of hatred based on race permeates through a culture it also leads to all sorts of nonsense and logical fallacy at best. Your behaviour and opinions are no better than those which you espouse to hate so much, calling me names won't change any of that.
And what part of the world is that then? You seem to know it all? Because of course, the rest of us are not allowed to know the part of the world these people are from! So how can it be "racist"? I don't know their race, and neither do you. Fool
poo at Paul's said:
They are trying to get to Britain as our welfare state ie the most lucrative. We have even been blamed for the crisis by the likes of France and Netherlands for having such a generous policy toward people who do fk all!
It isn't thoughk all! Asylum seekers get about a fiver a day, can be detained
Even if they get leave to remain, UK benefits are lower than most of Europe
Boosted LS1 said:
I don't believe most of them are children. They're economic migrant chancers.
Yes agree 15 is an adult where they come from, why don't we accept the middle east is a st hole and stop meddling and starting civil wars..Bliar,Bush, kerry ,clinton should be held and tried for crimes against humanity they should atleast be striped of their ill gotten gains and the money given to help these countrys rebuild...
964Cup said:
Heavens this is so depressing.
Let's deal with the truth that dare not speak its name. Why do you think Merkel allowed 1m migrants into Germany? Compassion? Not really. Germany's birth rate is around 1.4 children per woman of child-bearing age. It's been around that level for some time. What that means is that Germany, like Japan before it, is storing up a massive demographic time bomb. As the current population ages, the ratio of workers to retirees will keep decreasing, meaning that fewer and fewer tax payers have to support more and more pensioners. This isn't viable. Eventually, with that birth rate, you get outright population decline and eventually cease to function as a modern state - Japan, which strongly discourages migration, is heading that way quite quickly. Letting in migrants, whatever the short-term cost, is a very shrewd investment in a future workforce, especially since the migrants in question are from cultures with a higher reproductive rate - although their children will likely tend to the German mean, so it's not necessarily a long-term fix unless sustained. Incidentally, pretty well all European countries are in this position.
The UK's birth rate? 1.9. Better than Germany, but still below replacement rate by some way. We are also even more dependent on current tax payers to fund our welfare state, and have lower productivity (therefore lower tax take per head). We have a stark choice: breed more, with precisely the same impact on schools and social care in the short term as admitting migrants; let in lots of migrants who are young enough to have working lives ahead of them - and let them work; accept that our old age will be hard, poor and shorter than expected. Oh - alternatively we could cull the elderly, or deny them welfare and health care.
So - if you don't want net migration, start shagging now.
The problem with immigration as a "solution" is that the afflicted countries will end up replacing one culture with another just to make the numbers add up. It won't matter to those at the top of the pile - one peasant is much the same as any other to them. But it is a sad thing for the declining culture, who were never asked if they wanted this, and in truth were never offered an informed choice on the policies that led to it.Let's deal with the truth that dare not speak its name. Why do you think Merkel allowed 1m migrants into Germany? Compassion? Not really. Germany's birth rate is around 1.4 children per woman of child-bearing age. It's been around that level for some time. What that means is that Germany, like Japan before it, is storing up a massive demographic time bomb. As the current population ages, the ratio of workers to retirees will keep decreasing, meaning that fewer and fewer tax payers have to support more and more pensioners. This isn't viable. Eventually, with that birth rate, you get outright population decline and eventually cease to function as a modern state - Japan, which strongly discourages migration, is heading that way quite quickly. Letting in migrants, whatever the short-term cost, is a very shrewd investment in a future workforce, especially since the migrants in question are from cultures with a higher reproductive rate - although their children will likely tend to the German mean, so it's not necessarily a long-term fix unless sustained. Incidentally, pretty well all European countries are in this position.
The UK's birth rate? 1.9. Better than Germany, but still below replacement rate by some way. We are also even more dependent on current tax payers to fund our welfare state, and have lower productivity (therefore lower tax take per head). We have a stark choice: breed more, with precisely the same impact on schools and social care in the short term as admitting migrants; let in lots of migrants who are young enough to have working lives ahead of them - and let them work; accept that our old age will be hard, poor and shorter than expected. Oh - alternatively we could cull the elderly, or deny them welfare and health care.
So - if you don't want net migration, start shagging now.
964Cup said:
The UK's birth rate? 1.9. Better than Germany, but still below replacement rate by some way. We are also even more dependent on current tax payers to fund our welfare state, and have lower productivity (therefore lower tax take per head). We have a stark choice: breed more, with precisely the same impact on schools and social care in the short term as admitting migrants; let in lots of migrants who are young enough to have working lives ahead of them - and let them work; accept that our old age will be hard, poor and shorter than expected. Oh - alternatively we could cull the elderly, or deny them welfare and health care.
So - if you don't want net migration, start shagging now.
UK population forecastsSo - if you don't want net migration, start shagging now.
64.6 million now
69 million 2024
74.3 million 2039
Source ONS
and most of that increase is in England which already is Europe's most densely populated large country.
To put it mildly we don't appear to be in a state of demographic collapse and immigrants are only aiding in dealing with fiscal problems caused by ageing when they are net contributors themselves.
Deptford Draylons said:
I wonder sometimes if the Home Office isn't deliberately making a mess of things like this to turn the public off the idea.
All they had to do was find 14 Syrian kids who were so young , homeless and helpless, no right thinking person could possibly object.
What turned up was a bunch people, most of who don't seem to be Syrian or kids, but a mixed bunch including a Dr Spock lookalike. This then gets splashed over the front pages of the papers, public opinion crashes, soft touch/dumb mug Britain only then encourages more people to come and lie about there age and the town of Calais probably wishes the UK wouldn't keep making itself a magnet for chancers.
(Genuine question, I've only seen one picture) how likely is it that a British editor would publish pictures of purported child orphan refugees being taken into the country where they looked clearly or even just possibly under 18?All they had to do was find 14 Syrian kids who were so young , homeless and helpless, no right thinking person could possibly object.
What turned up was a bunch people, most of who don't seem to be Syrian or kids, but a mixed bunch including a Dr Spock lookalike. This then gets splashed over the front pages of the papers, public opinion crashes, soft touch/dumb mug Britain only then encourages more people to come and lie about there age and the town of Calais probably wishes the UK wouldn't keep making itself a magnet for chancers.
oyster said:
s3fella said:
FredClogs said:
Describing people as "rapey" because of the part of the world they come from is to assign moral signatures to people based on their "race". It's an abhorrent thing to do and wholly inaccurate which not only leads you to look like a bigoted prick but when this rhetoric of hatred based on race permeates through a culture it also leads to all sorts of nonsense and logical fallacy at best. Your behaviour and opinions are no better than those which you espouse to hate so much, calling me names won't change any of that.
And what part of the world is that then? You seem to know it all? Because of course, the rest of us are not allowed to know the part of the world these people are from! So how can it be "racist"? I don't know their race, and neither do you. Fool
But of course it is the predictable straw man reaction that is pedalled out against anyone that questions the "goody two shoes" liberal left wing claptrap pedalled in the media, and, sadly, on here too.
poo at Paul's said:
He was on TV this morning saying exactly this.
He looks to be like a really old boy who is trying to leave some legacy from him time in office, massaging his ego at the same time.
I'm pretty sure the majority (ie 50% +) of the country think the "refugees" in Greece, a country we have collectively bailed out for years and where many of us aspire to holiday, are absolutely none of the UK' collective responsibility or indeed business.
Some interesting info on Lord Dubs, c/o Wikipedia I should add, but seems legit. I'm not sure I like being told what we as a nation "have" to do (nor preached at on some form of moral grounds) by this fellow. He looks to be like a really old boy who is trying to leave some legacy from him time in office, massaging his ego at the same time.
I'm pretty sure the majority (ie 50% +) of the country think the "refugees" in Greece, a country we have collectively bailed out for years and where many of us aspire to holiday, are absolutely none of the UK' collective responsibility or indeed business.
"Dubs lists his main home as a cottage in the Lake District in Cumbria, which enabled him to claim over £26,000 of overnight subsistence expenses in 2007/2008 although he has lived in Notting Hill, west London, since 1964. He argued in justification in May 2009 that Lords regard the overnight allowance as a payment in lieu of salary. "We are the only legislators in the world that don’t get paid," he said. "The overnight thing is quite generous because it compensates for not having a salary. In practice that’s how it works."
And of course, that "salary" as he sees it, is Tax Free!
Lets see if some of these "migrants" he has forced on us get digs in Notting Hill and or Lake District. What odds is PH offering...!?
Edited by poo at Paul's on Wednesday 26th October 09:14
W124 said:
964Cup said:
Heavens this is so depressing.
Let's deal with the truth that dare not speak its name. Why do you think Merkel allowed 1m migrants into Germany? Compassion? Not really. Germany's birth rate is around 1.4 children per woman of child-bearing age. It's been around that level for some time. What that means is that Germany, like Japan before it, is storing up a massive demographic time bomb. As the current population ages, the ratio of workers to retirees will keep decreasing, meaning that fewer and fewer tax payers have to support more and more pensioners. This isn't viable. Eventually, with that birth rate, you get outright population decline and eventually cease to function as a modern state - Japan, which strongly discourages migration, is heading that way quite quickly. Letting in migrants, whatever the short-term cost, is a very shrewd investment in a future workforce, especially since the migrants in question are from cultures with a higher reproductive rate - although their children will likely tend to the German mean, so it's not necessarily a long-term fix unless sustained. Incidentally, pretty well all European countries are in this position.
The UK's birth rate? 1.9. Better than Germany, but still below replacement rate by some way. We are also even more dependent on current tax payers to fund our welfare state, and have lower productivity (therefore lower tax take per head). We have a stark choice: breed more, with precisely the same impact on schools and social care in the short term as admitting migrants; let in lots of migrants who are young enough to have working lives ahead of them - and let them work; accept that our old age will be hard, poor and shorter than expected. Oh - alternatively we could cull the elderly, or deny them welfare and health care.
So - if you don't want net migration, start shagging now.
Well put. It's true that our economy needs immigration if it is to continue to function. We haven't let hundreds of thousands of people in out of some altruistic folly. We need them. It's cold, but it's true. Let's deal with the truth that dare not speak its name. Why do you think Merkel allowed 1m migrants into Germany? Compassion? Not really. Germany's birth rate is around 1.4 children per woman of child-bearing age. It's been around that level for some time. What that means is that Germany, like Japan before it, is storing up a massive demographic time bomb. As the current population ages, the ratio of workers to retirees will keep decreasing, meaning that fewer and fewer tax payers have to support more and more pensioners. This isn't viable. Eventually, with that birth rate, you get outright population decline and eventually cease to function as a modern state - Japan, which strongly discourages migration, is heading that way quite quickly. Letting in migrants, whatever the short-term cost, is a very shrewd investment in a future workforce, especially since the migrants in question are from cultures with a higher reproductive rate - although their children will likely tend to the German mean, so it's not necessarily a long-term fix unless sustained. Incidentally, pretty well all European countries are in this position.
The UK's birth rate? 1.9. Better than Germany, but still below replacement rate by some way. We are also even more dependent on current tax payers to fund our welfare state, and have lower productivity (therefore lower tax take per head). We have a stark choice: breed more, with precisely the same impact on schools and social care in the short term as admitting migrants; let in lots of migrants who are young enough to have working lives ahead of them - and let them work; accept that our old age will be hard, poor and shorter than expected. Oh - alternatively we could cull the elderly, or deny them welfare and health care.
So - if you don't want net migration, start shagging now.
Take any of the men brought over earlier in the week - those without so called family;
Do we know their name - probably not most will have lost their documents
Do we know their age - no
Do we know their level of education - no
Do we know if they have any criminal record - no
Do we know if they have any unusual cultural beliefs - no
Do we know if they will be of benefit to UK society - no
Do we know if they have any negative views of women and women's role in society - some of us can hazard a guess but we would be accused of all manner of things.
Do they have any skills to offer the UK - probably not.
We know nothing about these people at all, I cant see how unskilled uneducated immigrants who may or may not have a criminal record is the solution to anything ?
https://www.ft.com/content/d5d0bb96-49a8-11e6-8d68...
I had read 64 migrants, but the general gist is that out of 1 million of these super skilled super educated migrants less than 100 have found jobs with the top companies in Germany. Fixing beaten up cars in say Afghanistan is not going to go very far in BMW's modern plant.
How about make all childcare free ?
Women would be more likely to return to work and contribute and families may think about having more than one child.
Have any of these people calling for more child refugees to be taken in by the UK ever looked at the numbers of children on the foster care / adoption list ? Diane Abbott said she would take in a refugee, and yet there has been a shortage of Black foster / adoptive parents for years.
del mar said:
How about make all childcare free ?
Women would be more likely to return to work and contribute and families may think about having more than one child.
Have any of these people calling for more child refugees to be taken in by the UK ever looked at the numbers of children on the foster care / adoption list ? Diane Abbott said she would take in a refugee, and yet there has been a shortage of Black foster / adoptive parents for years.
Don't come on the net with your right wing Nazi nonsense, why should we pay for our fellow countrypersons who's forefathers/mothers built this country and who have contributed to it's growth and development for many years to actually be able to afford to bear a child? Far easier and "fairer" to import one (along with the huge extended family) from some less economically and culturally developed nation and get everyone else to change so they can "fit in".Women would be more likely to return to work and contribute and families may think about having more than one child.
Have any of these people calling for more child refugees to be taken in by the UK ever looked at the numbers of children on the foster care / adoption list ? Diane Abbott said she would take in a refugee, and yet there has been a shortage of Black foster / adoptive parents for years.
Get away from here with your racist diatribe!
techiedave said:
Personally I don't think most of those I have seen are CHILDREN
How many have you seen?I ask because I've only seen a couple of photos. As with all news stories these were obviously selected from a large number that were taken and used to support the viewpoint that was being presented.
poo at Paul's said:
oyster said:
s3fella said:
FredClogs said:
Describing people as "rapey" because of the part of the world they come from is to assign moral signatures to people based on their "race". It's an abhorrent thing to do and wholly inaccurate which not only leads you to look like a bigoted prick but when this rhetoric of hatred based on race permeates through a culture it also leads to all sorts of nonsense and logical fallacy at best. Your behaviour and opinions are no better than those which you espouse to hate so much, calling me names won't change any of that.
And what part of the world is that then? You seem to know it all? Because of course, the rest of us are not allowed to know the part of the world these people are from! So how can it be "racist"? I don't know their race, and neither do you. Fool
But of course it is the predictable straw man reaction that is pedalled out against anyone that questions the "goody two shoes" liberal left wing claptrap pedalled in the media, and, sadly, on here too.
(In fact it's probably one of the most intolerant and right wing forums going)
chrispmartha said:
Yes you're correct PH is very liberal and 'PC'.
(In fact it's probably one of the most intolerant and right wing forums going)
Yes, we both know that, which is why we get comments like S 3 Fella's, but there are still the predictable handwringers who throw the "R" word about with gay abandon, the misuse of which just dilutes it to a meaningless nonsense!! (In fact it's probably one of the most intolerant and right wing forums going)
The argument often advanced in favour of large-scale immigration is that we need the taxes from all these extra migrants to help pay for the care of our older citizens. But what happens when the next generation (including the migrants) get old? A larger population of older people will mean that we have to import even more migrants to take care of them. Then that generation will require even larger numbers of migrants to help plug the gap for their care. This inevitably leads to a spiral of population growth, which is never ending. In many respects, it resembles nothing less than a giant Ponzi scheme, which will eventually come crashing down. The answer surely is to help train our current population with the skills and technical knowledge needed to become more efficient at work and therefore wealthier, which means greater GDP per capita
Just wondering why this thread has diverged to yet another discussion of large scale migration?
That's not what's happening with the camp clearance though, is it. They're only taking those already at the camp - any new arrivals aren't being considered, but are being bussed off with the others to the new centres, where they have to apply for asylum in a set time or will be deported back to their declared country of origin.
That's not what's happening with the camp clearance though, is it. They're only taking those already at the camp - any new arrivals aren't being considered, but are being bussed off with the others to the new centres, where they have to apply for asylum in a set time or will be deported back to their declared country of origin.
hairykrishna said:
techiedave said:
Personally I don't think most of those I have seen are CHILDREN
How many have you seen?I ask because I've only seen a couple of photos. As with all news stories these were obviously selected from a large number that were taken and used to support the viewpoint that was being presented.
I haven't.
If the BBC had any such photos, then they would have shown them.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff