[Archived] Extra ! Extra ! Read All About It !

[Norbert Rassragr]

Funny really. My uncle moved to New Zealand almost 20 years ago now, yet he isn't slated for being an economic migrant. Nor are the millions of British people who live in Spain, all the football players who have come here to get a better wage at our clubs, or the Irish over many years. They're not seen in the same way as let's say a Bulgarian/Nigerian/Polish/Pakistani person who wants to make a better life for themselves.

Saying that though I am curious about the desperation to come to the UK in particular. We're all right c--ts.

[Baz]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3863392/Foster-mother-discovers-12-year-old-Afghan-refugee-orphan-cared-21-year-old-jihadi.html

Is Lily Allen going to take a 'Jihadi man' into her house. Answers on a postcard

But in all seriousness - why does nobody ever ask the burning question; why are all the modern day 'migrants' men?

The same at Calais - those well-dressed and well-fed 'poor migrants' jumping into trucks like Olympic athletes - all men.

Fleeing war and conflict is the biggest lie ever as there aren't any wars in those safe European countries of passage.

There are a number of logical reasons why its predominantly men. These are my thoughts, but I don't think they are unreasonable.

1) Its expensive to travel, so the family nominate one member who goes first, claims asylum, and when its granted the immediate family can be granted asylum status and travel much easier, cheaper etc.

2) No family is going to send a young girl on their own - it's not a safe journey for the men, must be a much higher risk for a female.

3) Moving the whole family together is a big task, especially if there are kids around too.

4) A single person is much more likely to be able to evade border patrols, get cash for casual labour along the way in order to keep going.

The camps in Turkey and Lebanon are predominantly women, children and elderly males, which supports 1)

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37735368

Interesting article on the BBC website about the sometimes horrible online treatment of women.

Not particularly unusual in its wide-scale theme, very worthy of an article sure, but the BBC are as obsessed with defending/promoting women as they are with defending/promoting "refugees" and minorities. So you get about one of these kind of articles a day in the magazine or features sections of the site.

More interesting to me is the way the BBC always somehow manage to tip-toe around issues that would seem to set their 2 favourite groups at loggerheads, whilst failing to criticise either. I mean take this article, primarily concerning the ultra-conservative facist demands on women in Muslim socities. Surely you can't defend one group without criticising the other in such a case?

Usually the BBC get around the problem by insisting a crime is being done against women but being massively vague about who in particular is doing it, so it generalises to all men. But then as there's one particular demographic of men that they're more than happy to have a pop at (white), they're the ones who usually end up being the main target despite the lecture being least needed/relevant to them.

For a change this article doesn't do that, no drifting over to topics such as Ched Evans or Donald Trump halfway through to redirect the criticism, and it doesn't manage its usual sitting on the fence balancing act either. It actually seems to criticise Muslim culture for its treatment of women.

So there ya go, when it comes to women vs minorities, women actually take priority for the BBC. Always wondered who wins in that one. White men will as ever remain the villainous punching bag I'm sure. Apart from of course white men who have the decency to enthusiastically and consistently slate white men, theyre omitted and can have a metaphorical seat alongside Jeremy Corbyn and Dianne Abbot (if they can metaphorically fit).

[Husky]

There are a number of logical reasons why its predominantly men. These are my thoughts, but I don't think they are unreasonable.

1) Its expensive to travel, so the family nominate one member who goes first, claims asylum, and when its granted the immediate family can be granted asylum status and travel much easier, cheaper etc.

2) No family is going to send a young girl on their own - it's not a safe journey for the men, must be a much higher risk for a female.

3) Moving the whole family together is a big task, especially if there are kids around too.

4) A single person is much more likely to be able to evade border patrols, get cash for casual labour along the way in order to keep going.

The camps in Turkey and Lebanon are predominantly women, children and elderly males, which supports 1)

But I thought they were fleeing 'war-zones'?

So the main man is leaving his family in the 'war-zone' whilst he lives the life of Riley in several safe European countries? That doesn't sound like a very nice man to me.

Unless it's the standard norm of the man leaving the family to 'go to war'?

[Amo]

Funny really. My uncle moved to New Zealand almost 20 years ago now, yet he isn't slated for being an economic migrant. Nor are the millions of British people who live in Spain, all the football players who have come here to get a better wage at our clubs, or the Irish over many years. They're not seen in the same way as let's say a Bulgarian/Nigerian/Polish/Pakistani person who wants to make a better life for themselves.

Saying that though I am curious about the desperation to come to the UK in particular. We're all right c--ts.

The cultural divide between Middle-Easterns/North Africans and Western Europe is far greater than the examples you provided.

A silly analogy to make, really.

[joey_big_nose]

As I feared to be honest. I find it incredible that people don't get this. That so many people aren't even close to getting it is scary. I'll go through it anyway, this is for England:

The average children per fully westernised family has been extensively reported as being below self-sufficiency across the western world for a while now. The white race (and Japanese for that matter) is declining in numbers because they aren't having 2 kids per family on average. In England the white population is currently about 40 million, let's say the birth rate is 1.75 kids per family, on that basis 2 generations from now (about 2065) it'll be about 30 million.

I doubt there are any stats on the birth rate of Muslim families in this country so let's just try to be honest based on anecdotal evidence. I would say 4 kids per family on average. Meaning the existing Muslim population in this country doubles roughly every generation (25 years). It's currently about 7 million, by 2065 it'll be 28 million.

Then add in the immigration figures. 300,000 per year. Well a few years ago that was 150,000. Mainstream parties seem unwilling/unable to tackle it so estimate it tops out at 500,000. Again, lets be honest, the vast majority are Muslim. Say 450,000 are. By 2065 that's 50 years x 450,000 additional Muslims, about 22.5 million. Add the 28 million in the paragraph above, approx 50 million.

And I haven't even factored in the family growth of any immigrants over the next 50 years. Maybe people don't get it because it's like compound interest, it starts slow and accelerates. In any case it's abolutely inevitable. Let's just hope integration has worked by then.

This sort of analysis is totally reasonable, although the way you have gone about it in terms of using guesses instead of research is bizarre. The facts are out there on birth rates very easy to find (eg. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom). The actual decline of white population and growth of minority populations is not as dramatic as you have highlighted.

That said that there is will be a relative decline in the proportion of native population versus immigrants is as rock certain as it gets. The reason for this is families with less money always have more kids - this is a trend seen across the globe irrespective of race and religion. As a result immigrant minority groups will have larger families and assume a growing part of the population over time. Its happened with Irish, Italians, Indian, Pakistanis etc for centuries. People with fewer resources will, somewhat counter-intuitively, have more children. If you take race and religion out of the picture entirely and compare rich white families to poor white families you will also see the poorer families have more kids.

Why this is has been the result of a lot of speculation (eg. "having lots of kids is like social security/pension for poor parents", or "the increased risk of child death in poor families creates the instict to have more children" etc) but no definitive cause has been identified.

Religion as a driver is very interesting too - it would be tempting to say Irish and Italians should have very high birth rates because of the devout catholic nature of those countries and the anti contraception position of that faith. However analysis of the data shows that - same as Protestant countries - the birthrate rapidly declines as the wealth of the population increases. Ireland has a birth rate of 2.02 and Italy a tiny 1.40 (compared to the UK which is 1.90 or Norway 1.85)

These basic fact of population trends suggests that the non-white population will grow relative to the white population until a point where the mean wealth of the two groups is similar.

[yoda]

Funny really. My uncle moved to New Zealand almost 20 years ago now, yet he isn't slated for being an economic migrant. Nor are the millions of British people who live in Spain, all the football players who have come here to get a better wage at our clubs, or the Irish over many years. They're not seen in the same way as let's say a Bulgarian/Nigerian/Polish/Pakistani person who wants to make a better life for themselves.

Saying that though I am curious about the desperation to come to the UK in particular. We're all right c--ts.

I think you will find that your uncle went through the proper channels and procedures to emigrate to New Zealand, just like all the other Brits abroad that you mention.

Don't describe me as you did the rest of the UK citizens

[JBiz]

The cultural divide between Middle-Easterns/North Africans and Western Europe is far greater than the examples you provided.

A silly analogy to make, really.

What does culture have to do with being an economic migrant? What's stopping you "upping sticks" to go anywhere you could make more money?

The cultural differences between the UK with Dubai or China are vast - doesn't stop thousands of people from the uk, finding tax free work in both those example countries. I've considered Dubai myself, but I think I'll be going to NZ to teach in a few years.

I don't think anybody believes ALL refugees are moving for the same reason, but I'm sure all of us can agree that focusing on turning them away should come after focusing on finding solutions to the issues or reasons for their movement!

I guess it's just what an individual's personal definition of "us" is. For me it's just "life" in general.

[Baz]

But I thought they were fleeing 'war-zones'?

So the main man is leaving his family in the 'war-zone' whilst he lives the life of Riley in several safe European countries? That doesn't sound like a very nice man to me.

Unless it's the standard norm of the man leaving the family to 'go to war'?

So the family as a whole moves to outside the warzone. Say to one of the tent cities in the Turkish desert, where there is just enough food and water to stay alive, but no schools jobs etc to build a life.

At that point they send the young men off. Now you could claim, at this moment they then move from asylum seekers to economic migrants. I see that point of view, but disagree - I think they should be allowed to claim asylum where they wish to.

Anyhow I think it's a perfectly reasonable argument as to why the vast majority are young men.

[Steve Moss]

There are many reasons, good and bad, as to why the vast majority are young men. Even in the good side, that means as soon as they get residency, they'll have many times their current number following them.

Will they assimilate?

Will they work?

Will they collect benefits?

Will they obey the laws of the land, as opposed to what passes for law where they come from?

[Al]

There are many reasons, good and bad, as to why the vast majority are young men. Even in the good side, that means as soon as they get residency, they'll have many times their current number following them.

Will they assimilate?

Will they work?

Will they collect benefits?

Will they obey the laws of the land, as opposed to what passes for law where they come from?

I've yet to see any Muslim immigrants assimilate. Most of the others (Chinese, Jewish, Caribbean etc.) assimilate quickly.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

I think they should be allowed to claim asylum where they wish to.

Might I ask why? Asylum is a charitable act. No charitable act should ever be forced on the giver. I couldn't leaflet your street for say Oxfam, get a positive response from your neighbour but then demand a contribution from you instead (because you looked wealthier say).

That's the principle side of things. What about the practical side. There are no checks that I'm aware of where migrants have to prove they set off from a conflict zone. I've no idea how you'd prove that anyway or even how you'd define it. So, practically speaking, anyone could claim asylum, and you say they should be allowed to claim it anywhere. People want to come here rather than say Turkey because it's a more affluent country, can I go live in say Norway or Switzerland for the same reason? Can everyone on the planet?

[Amo]

What does culture have to do with being an economic migrant? What's stopping you "upping sticks" to go anywhere you could make more money?

The cultural differences between the UK with Dubai or China are vast - doesn't stop thousands of people from the uk, finding tax free work in both those example countries. I've considered Dubai myself, but I think I'll be going to NZ to teach in a few years.

I don't think anybody believes ALL refugees are moving for the same reason, but I'm sure all of us can agree that focusing on turning them away should come after focusing on finding solutions to the issues or reasons for their movement!

I guess it's just what an individual's personal definition of "us" is. For me it's just "life" in general.

You know the difference. Stop being deliberately obtuse for the sake of argument.

[yoda]

There are many reasons, good and bad, as to why the vast majority are young men. Even in the good side, that means as soon as they get residency, they'll have many times their current number following them.

Will they assimilate?

Will they work?

Will they collect benefits?

Will they obey the laws of the land, as opposed to what passes for law where they come from?

The question and answer is

Will they fxxk

yes

strange that they don't like Christians but follow one of the teachings to the letter

go forth and multiply

[Baz]

Might I ask why? Asylum is a charitable act. No charitable act should ever be forced on the giver. I couldn't leaflet your street for say Oxfam, get a positive response from your neighbour but then demand a contribution from you instead (because you looked wealthier say).

That's the principle side of things. What about the practical side. There are no checks that I'm aware of where migrants have to prove they set off from a conflict zone. I've no idea how you'd prove that anyway or even how you'd define it. So, practically speaking, anyone could claim asylum, and you say they should be allowed to claim it anywhere. People want to come here rather than say Turkey because it's a more affluent country, can I go live in say Norway or Switzerland for the same reason? Can everyone on the planet?

As a uk citizen you have free reign to go and live in Norway, you just need to register with the local authorities when you arrive. I don't know about Switzerland, but I doubt it's much different to be honest, since I know a few people who over there a few years ago without any problems Im aware of.

To claim asylum as a refugee then its my understanding that you (the claimant) have to prove you meet the criteria to be allowed the status.

The current situation is slightly different to normal in that there are several million displaced Syrians and a good deal of Afghans in the mix too, meaning that in my opinion the burden of responsibility shouldn't just be left to the most geographically close safe country, it should be shared around. If you where Turkish for example, Id imagine you'd agree the burden is very high on them at present.

Controversial as it is, its not like we dont need further immigration to support an aging population. The number of centurians in the country has quadrupled since 1980 and will continue to increase accordingly (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3554122/Will-live-100-Figures-reveal-massive-rise-centenarians-predicts-3-7-million-2050.html), so the obvious question is who is going to pay our pensions? In the south-east the average age of a first time buyer is now over 30, and most are unable to save money for a private pension because of this.

[JBiz]

You know the difference. Stop being deliberately obtuse for the sake of argument.

Good one. Next time someone asks me a question about my post, I'll try that.

[jim mk2]

194 out of 8,000: Britain's shame

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2016/10/calais-jungle-camp-evacuation-map-161024141901166.html

[otto man]

That'll confuse the racists (visions of wires sparking in their befuddled brains!!)

:lol:

Just as they spark in your befuddled brain when confronted with Australians and Americans eh Jim? Hypocrisy much?

[jim mk2]

Republicans and the NRA in the case of the US; and English people who support Australia at sport.

Just so you get the facts straight next time you make an ad hominem attack.

[Mike E]

Is there an echo?

Otto and Jim, keep any personal flirtation between you via PM please.

[Husky]

194 out of 8,000: Britain's shame

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2016/10/calais-jungle-camp-evacuation-map-161024141901166.html

Obviously not to any of the super rich Muslim countries - as they don't want them.

https://twitter.com/KenRoth/status/639127974512603136/photo/1

[Steve Moss]

This is getting very little coverage in the USA.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/10/war-in-europe-ho-hum.php

[jim mk2]

Best line in that piece is "the plebian Daily Mail"

[Paul]

This is getting very little coverage in the USA.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/10/war-in-europe-ho-hum.php

Good. It's all bullocks.

[Paul]

On BBC Question Time last night Greg Clark dismissed Ken Loach's I, Daniel Blake "as a work of fiction."

Tonight as the film finished at Bolton Cineworld the audience exited in total silence other than the sound of sniffling.

The finest film I've seen and a devastating indictment of the governments we live under. I'm too young to understand the impact Cathy Come Home had but I fully understand this message and pray it has the same effect.