Lt Kije Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 It was critical enough for you to claim it. I chose the Heil for you, knowing your views tend to mirror it's and therefore you would be comfy with the stats. None of this matters much anyway as you know you were wrong so nuff said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Not critical at all, the point being they're outbreeding us, which was in line with the topic; until we entered into the semantics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 If 25% of births are to people not born here what percentage are born to indigenous people? I'll give you a clue, it's not a third lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 But, according to your ilk, there's so few of them, that if they're producing 25% of the total; there must be some very large families ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 My ilk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 "of that kind" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 If 25% of births are to people not born here what percentage are born to indigenous people? I'll give you a clue, it's not a third lol two thirds? the big question is not what percentage or what fraction of the whole of the births but surely the exact number of births. for example if only four babies are born in the tested area and one was not to a "native" of that area then the result would be the same as if 25 out of a 100 were born to non "native" people. now then if we are breeding at a rate of three to one then how can they be outbreeding us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 ..... as a proportion of their number Sid. If they represented 25% of the population. which even I wouldn't claim (yet!); they would have the same rate of births as the indigenous population. The smaller their total number, the higher (as a proportion of their numbers), their birth rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 So basically not outbreeding the indigenous population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 This equation should be set as GCSE question. QED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 higher birth rate = outbreeding. Check it out with Red V Grey Squirrels ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 75% of all births in a given period of time can never be a minority, and if these children are born here, aren't they British just like you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 Didn't say they weren't British; but their parents may not be, and in some cases may even be illegal entrants, or have overstayed visas; who suddenly become entitled to "a family life". But it's about numbers and about control, at the end of the day: the numbers are higher than anyone imagined (certainly not the last Labour Gov) and have arrived in a short time frame; creating a strain on public services, and a distortion of our welfare systems, that haven't accounted for such a surge in demand. Most folk recognise this, but the main political parties are playing catch up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 18, 2014 Report Share Posted December 18, 2014 Illegal immigration is what the name implies, illegal so what do you suggest, make it really really illegal? As for other immigration into Britain the only uncontrolled numbers are EU migrants and as we have discussed on here , they are an economic boon to our treasury. If you are looking to reduce the strain on our nhs look no further than our own indigenous people swamping the wards due to smoking, obesity, alcohol abuse etc. all controllable if you want to have a state that controls everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2014 So our E/European guests are all none smokers, none drinkers and extremely thin?! There are various forms of illegality: those that enter the UK on a time limited visa, are here perfectly legally, until their visa runs out. They then receive a letter from the HO, telling them that they'll have to travel back by a given date; giving them plenty of time to disappear off the radar (148,000 this year), and HMG hasn't got a clue where they are ! Then there's the illegal, under a lorry from Calais type, who, if caught, will be kept at a detention facility; giving plenty of time to contact HR lawyers and begin a claim for asylum, at tax-payers expense; some have been as long as 10 years waiting for a decision. Then you've got the direct fly in approach, specifically to claim asylum, having passed over umpteen "safe haven countries"; again more legal aid expense for the tax-payer. As for our EU cousins; Labour are complaining that EU labour is being used to undercut wages, and plan to do something about it; but it gets worse. We've seen a recent case of E/Europeans literally being used as slave labour; so I guess won't be paying any tax ! It's a complete shambles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 18, 2014 Report Share Posted December 18, 2014 There you go again with your anecdotal evidence, its worthless to the argument as the non taxpaying immigrants as well as the rich ones have been included within the study and it shows a significant benefit to the coffers. I can also provide anecdotal evidence of an EU immigrant worker who pays more tax per week than you earned in a couple of years when you were working. I don't use it as it too is worthless as he will have been accounted for too. Illegal immigration is completely different and you will get no argument from me regarding the woeful performance of the Government and its relevant departments in dealing with it. If you are here illegally you should be dealt with far more speedily, efficiently and severely than is happening now. Asylum is a different matter again and I am actually quite proud to be from a country which is compassionate and humane enough to offer sanctuary to genuine seekers. Obviously each case needs to be looked into as it should not be open to abuse as this gives your ilk reason to question all asylum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2014 The case of enslavement of Slovaks was on TV news last week, hardly anecdotal; and we're being given regular news reports of trafficking too; these unfortunates won't be paying taxes, are not even known to the authorities initiatly, so hardly on the radar of an EU funded report body. Even the Labour Party are conceding EU workers are undercutting pay rates, hence election promises to curb it. Wow, we can agree on your second paragraph; pity the Lib/Lab/Cons who've presided over this mess, can't sort it out; as the means might prove too ideologically painfull. International Law, as agreed by the Dublin Convention, requires migrants to seek sanctuary in the next nearest country to their country of origin; that would make us liable to Irish and possibly Icelandic refugees; not to folk travelling half way round the world over or through many safe havens, to get to this land of milk and honey. A presumption against granting asylum and the immediate deportation of applicants would offer that speedy and efficient means of dealing with the problem. Oh, and all these legal aid cases, filling the HR lawyers wallets, are a cost to the UK taxpayer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 So we should crack down on slavery, another thing we agree on and as I said there are very high earning down to very low earning migrants all accounted for in the report and they are more than paying their way. If your xenophobic attitude won't allow you to accept this then tough, its fact and you can grub around for anecdotal evidence all you wish, it changes nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 I won't accept it as it defies common sense and reality, slavery and low pay in the black market isn't on anyone's radar, so won't be "accounted for". it's merely pro-EU propaganda, in the slow run up to a possible referendum. Having just decided that obesity should be treated as a disability; the ECHR has now decided that non-EU nationals who enter the EU, can be exempt from national visa restrictions (thus denying us control over our own borders); no doubt good news for the illegals in Sicily. According to the Telegraph, we're now being assailed by 100 illegal immigrants per day, and these are just the ones that are being caught. So given your desire for a speedy and efficient system; perhaps you could advise on your solution to bring the level of deportations up to this level of illegal entrance; whilst retaining their human rights in line with the ECHR and how could we save the £millions being spent on their legal aid, to pursue spurious asylum claims? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.