Europe submits voluntarily

[whichphilosophy]

Many migrants are attracted to Europe through lies. They're told they'll get good jobs and housing, and then when they show up they're given slave wages and basically screwed out of any profit. {snip}

Just changing the law won't fix it. We need to change the message we're sending. As long as right wing blogs keep complaining about how easy it is to get welfare in Europe African migrants will keep believing it. If they would stop spreading that lie, then perhaps migrants would get the message?

So what "right wing blogs" are these migrants reading that they would get such an idea ? Don't you think it had more to do with Merkel announcing that Europe will welcome everyone ?

Merkel certainly caused that chain reaction. Now millions have paid billions to get into Europe. The problem is it's not just refugees and asylum seekers; it's economic migrants.

Certainly the UK cannot look after its own people so adding hundreds of thousands each year now the equivalent of the size of Leicester each year is not sustainable when hardly any affordable houses are being built. 'Un-affordable' ones are bought up by foreign and private investors. Thus the prices continued to rise though recently I understand these have started to fall slightly.

 

[angelo]

Watch Merkel in election mode backtracking on her " welcome to all" message of 2015 and tell the sheeple the border in Germany is closed, then re-open it straight after the German election.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Watch Merkel in election mode backtracking on her " welcome to all" message of 2015 and tell the sheeple the border in Germany is closed, then re-open it straight after the German election.

Neither the current UK or German governments will take steps to reduce migration to sustainable levels. We don't have enough houses, hospitals and schools as it is.

 

[angelo]

Most polls taken in most European nations show the natives want a halt to immigration. Most politicians, in their right minds, will try to outbid the others to get re-elected.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Most polls taken in most European nations show the natives want a halt to immigration. Most politicians, in their right minds, will try to outbid the others to get re-elected.

Even those who originally immigrated sometimes agree there is too much. We need some but not in the quantities we receive. Priority is of course for asylum seekers and refugees but not economic migrants. I'm not sure if giving aid as suggested by Bill Gates as this will be swallowed up by corruption.
Properly managed settlements whose accounts are audited by the donor may reduce pilferage.

 

[angelo]

Sam Harris podcast with author of The Strange Death of Europe.

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/is-this-the-end-of-europe

 

[bilby]

The idea that migrants move to Europe to get hold of welfare is a just a lie/misconception. They might think that's what they get, but quickly find that's not how it works.

I once volunteered in a homeless shelter in Stockholm. We had a bunch of African migrants there. Illegal aliens. These guys knew nothing. They were farmers who hoped to be able to do farm work in Sweden. That's just ludicrous. Sweden's agricultural sector is highly mechanised. You need to be an engineer to work at a Swedish farm. They had no idea.

Many migrants are attracted to Europe through lies. They're told they'll get good jobs and housing, and then when they show up they're given slave wages and basically screwed out of any profit. Many Italian companies have put this into practice. Their entire business model is based around African migrant slave labour. I spoke to several who had gone to Italy, been totally screwed over, then used their Italian visa to get to Sweden, ie "the promised land of welfare", and found that it's not. And ended up living on the streets, with no hope of getting home.

Migrants don't get welfare. The way the Swedish system works means that migrants will contribute more in taxes than they take out. That's how the rules are designed. And Sweden is one of the more generous countries.

Just changing the law won't fix it. We need to change the message we're sending. As long as right wing blogs keep complaining about how easy it is to get welfare in Europe African migrants will keep believing it. If they would stop spreading that lie, then perhaps migrants would get the message?

The African migrants I spoke to were all here to work. They didn't want to live of welfare. Who does?

How can they pay any taxes when they aren't employed or earn a salary?

Here are refugees entitlements. And lets not argue about genuine or economic migrants. More than 60% are found to be economic refugees.
https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get

In the UK, there's a 20% VAT on most goods and services. Even without a taxable income, it's practically impossible to live in the UK and not pay tax.

 

[whichphilosophy]

How can they pay any taxes when they aren't employed or earn a salary?

Here are refugees entitlements. And lets not argue about genuine or economic migrants. More than 60% are found to be economic refugees.
https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get

In the UK, there's a 20% VAT on most goods and services. Even without a taxable income, it's practically impossible to live in the UK and not pay tax.

The payment is not a lot but they can also receive the following:

free prescriptions for medicine
free dental care for your teeth
free eyesight tests
help paying for glasses

The children will get free education from 5 to 17 and free school meals.

The government often says may on its websites but this is generally an acceptance.

 

[bilby]

In the UK, there's a 20% VAT on most goods and services. Even without a taxable income, it's practically impossible to live in the UK and not pay tax.

The payment is not a lot but they can also receive the following:

free prescriptions for medicine
free dental care for your teeth
free eyesight tests
help paying for glasses

The children will get free education from 5 to 17 and free school meals.

The government often says may on its websites but this is generally an acceptance.

The payment is a fucking pittance; If a government demands that you don't get a job (as is the case for asylum seekers), it has a moral responsibility to provide you with enough money to survive while they assess your application for asylum, and five quid a day plus housing and medical care isn't it.

And 20% of everything that is spent (other than on the most basic food ingredients) goes straight back to the government in the form of VAT.

 

[LordKiran]

The payment is not a lot but they can also receive the following:

free prescriptions for medicine
free dental care for your teeth
free eyesight tests
help paying for glasses

The children will get free education from 5 to 17 and free school meals.

The government often says may on its websites but this is generally an acceptance.

The payment is a fucking pittance; If a government demands that you don't get a job (as is the case for asylum seekers), it has a moral responsibility to provide you with enough money to survive while they assess your application for asylum, and five quid a day plus housing and medical care isn't it.

And 20% of everything that is spent (other than on the most basic food ingredients) goes straight back to the government in the form of VAT.

Why do you act as if his objections are based on any sort of principle? If you countered by suggesting we allow asylum seekers be allowed to find employment, he'd just come up with a reason why that wouldn't be okay too. Any reason. Any reason he can dream of. Because the core of it is that WP doesnt want them getting ANYTHING because he. does. not. want. them. there.

WP doesn't actually care that asylum seekers are given minimal assistance. To him that is nothing more than a symptom of a different problem all together.

 

[bilby]

The payment is a fucking pittance; If a government demands that you don't get a job (as is the case for asylum seekers), it has a moral responsibility to provide you with enough money to survive while they assess your application for asylum, and five quid a day plus housing and medical care isn't it.

And 20% of everything that is spent (other than on the most basic food ingredients) goes straight back to the government in the form of VAT.

Why do you act as if his objections are based on any sort of principle? If you countered by suggesting we allow asylum seekers be allowed to find employment, he'd just come up with a reason why that wouldn't be okay too. Any reason. Any reason he can dream of. Because the core of it is that WP doesnt want them getting ANYTHING because he. does. not. want. them. there.

WP doesn't actually care that asylum seekers are given minimal assistance. To him that is nothing more than a symptom of a different problem all together.

I am not labouring under the misapprehension that WP is even reading my posts. I am writing for the benefit of the audience.

When I write: "In the UK, there's a 20% VAT on most goods and services. Even without a taxable income, it's practically impossible to live in the UK and not pay tax", and the response has nothing whatever to do with tax: "The payment is not a lot but they can also receive the following: ...", I have to assume that my correspondent had already prepared his answer based on what he expected someone to say: "That payment is very little", perhaps, and that he posted the prepared response, without even realizing that it had no relationship to the post he was purportedly responding to.

Given that he objected to the claim he expected me to make, but hadn't, I felt obliged to provide the claim itself for the rest of the people here to read.

 

[LordKiran]

Why do you act as if his objections are based on any sort of principle? If you countered by suggesting we allow asylum seekers be allowed to find employment, he'd just come up with a reason why that wouldn't be okay too. Any reason. Any reason he can dream of. Because the core of it is that WP doesnt want them getting ANYTHING because he. does. not. want. them. there.

WP doesn't actually care that asylum seekers are given minimal assistance. To him that is nothing more than a symptom of a different problem all together.

I am not labouring under the misapprehension that WP is even reading my posts. I am writing for the benefit of the audience.

When I write: "In the UK, there's a 20% VAT on most goods and services. Even without a taxable income, it's practically impossible to live in the UK and not pay tax", and the response has nothing whatever to do with tax: "The payment is not a lot but they can also receive the following: ...", I have to assume that my correspondent had already prepared his answer based on what he expected someone to say: "That payment is very little", perhaps, and that he posted the prepared response, without even realizing that it had no relationship to the post he was purportedly responding to.

Given that he objected to the claim he expected me to make, but hadn't, I felt obliged to provide the claim itself for the rest of the people here to read.

Oh. Alright then that makes more sense.

 

[angelo]

Yet they sometimes place their lives in danger in a stampede to get to Europe and Britain to live on a pittance? There are many do gooder charities who are also partly funded by government that contribute to the well being of illegal immigrants. If it was so bad, why leave your homeland in the first place!
Muammar Gaddafi once stated that “There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without sword, without gun, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists; we don’t need homicide bombers. The 50 plus million Muslims (in Europe) will turn it into the Muslim Continent within a few decades.”
The numbers support him.
This could be part of the reason..........

 

[whichphilosophy]

Yet they sometimes place their lives in danger in a stampede to get to Europe and Britain to live on a pittance? There are many do gooder charities who are also partly funded by government that contribute to the well being of illegal immigrants. If it was so bad, why leave your homeland in the first place!
Muammar Gaddafi once stated that “There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without sword, without gun, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists; we don’t need homicide bombers. The 50 plus million Muslims (in Europe) will turn it into the Muslim Continent within a few decades.”
The numbers support him.
This could be part of the reason..........

We are told that you cannot prevent Immigrants from entering Europe if they want to.
Yet Gaddafi was doing that until he was overthrown. Now Libya is a key departure point.

Things are pretty bad in Syria and hopefully if the peace deal in Syria is not sabotaged (possibly by the CIA) then those areas without conflict can settle displaced Syrians.

Western aid would pay US£3,000 per year per person instead on £30,000 per year per person in the UK. A very few asylum seekers could then be permitted to the UK (e.g, minority religions and atheists who are in danger).

 

[LordKiran]

Yet they sometimes place their lives in danger in a stampede to get to Europe and Britain to live on a pittance? There are many do gooder charities who are also partly funded by government that contribute to the well being of illegal immigrants. If it was so bad, why leave your homeland in the first place!
Muammar Gaddafi once stated that “There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without sword, without gun, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists; we don’t need homicide bombers. The 50 plus million Muslims (in Europe) will turn it into the Muslim Continent within a few decades.”
The numbers support him.
This could be part of the reason..........

We are told that you cannot prevent Immigrants from entering Europe if they want to.
Yet Gaddafi was doing that until he was overthrown. Now Libya is a key departure point.

Things are pretty bad in Syria and hopefully if the peace deal in Syria is not sabotaged (possibly by the CIA) then those areas without conflict can settle displaced Syrians.

Western aid would pay US£3,000 per year per person instead on £30,000 per year per person in the UK. A very few asylum seekers could then be permitted to the UK (e.g, minority religions and atheists who are in danger).

It's easier to keep people from leaving than it is to keep them from showing up. Pretty simple stuff really.

 

[bilby]

Yet they sometimes place their lives in danger in a stampede to get to Europe and Britain to live on a pittance? There are many do gooder charities who are also partly funded by government that contribute to the well being of illegal immigrants. If it was so bad, why leave your homeland in the first place!

Because your homeland is WORSE.

Think about that.

Imagine that you had to live on $70 per week - that's $10 a day. That would suck, right? But being in Syria, where your house and family are in constant danger, where you may come under shellfire, gas attack, or aerial bombardment at any time, is worse. MUCH worse.

You seem to imagine that 'economic migrants' ought to be happy with whatever they have in their home countries - but if YOU were in the position they WANT to be in; If YOU had to live wherever the government told you to, probably in a shitty housing commission flat, on $70 a week, you would fucking HATE it. And it would be so much better than what they left behind as to be worth risking their lives to attain.

When someone's life is so shit that they may not eat every day, and they are in constant fear of their own or their children's deaths, they do something about it. And you would too.

Yes, they "sometimes place their lives in danger in a stampede to get to Europe and Britain to live on a pittance". You find that incredible, because you haven't given a moment's thought to the actual reality of their previous situation. You literally cannot imagine what life was like for them, so your brain just defaults to 'It was probably similar to what I am familiar with; I know poor people, they live on as little as $18.29 an hour, and I feel sorry for them, but it's really not such a bad life'. But that's NOT what we are talking about. We are talking about people to whom $18.29 a DAY would be a huge step up in circumstances.

You are so utterly clueless about what life is actually like. But you still feel justified in spouting off about how fucking wonderful $70 a week, with zero possibility of getting any kind of work, must be. It's not wonderful. it's SHIT. And it is STILL so much better than what they had, that they are happy to risk their lives to get it. Because staying home is an even greater risk to their lives.

The difference between an economic migrant and a refugee is that a refugee will DIE if he doesn't flee, because he will be shot, gassed, or blown up; While an economic migrant is totally different, in that he will DIE if he doesn't flee, from starvation, malnutrition, or disease.

You seem to be of the opinion that the latter is somehow OK; and that people in that position should just put up with a slow death, so as not to inconvenience you to the tune of the about $10 per YEAR of your taxes that go towards payments to and for asylum seekers. That's a seriously ugly and evil position to take.

I wish I could do you the favour of believing that you are just fucking moronic, and have no idea what you are really standing for; But I have to suspect that, given the number of times people have tried to explain this shit to you, in fact you are genuinely that evil, as to feel that $10 per annum from your pocket is too much to pay to save tens of thousands of lives.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Why do you act as if his objections are based on any sort of principle? If you countered by suggesting we allow asylum seekers be allowed to find employment, he'd just come up with a reason why that wouldn't be okay too. Any reason. Any reason he can dream of. Because the core of it is that WP doesnt want them getting ANYTHING because he. does. not. want. them. there.

WP doesn't actually care that asylum seekers are given minimal assistance. To him that is nothing more than a symptom of a different problem all together.

I am not labouring under the misapprehension that WP is even reading my posts. I am writing for the benefit of the audience.

When I write: "In the UK, there's a 20% VAT on most goods and services. Even without a taxable income, it's practically impossible to live in the UK and not pay tax", and the response has nothing whatever to do with tax: "The payment is not a lot but they can also receive the following: ...", I have to assume that my correspondent had already prepared his answer based on what he expected someone to say: "That payment is very little", perhaps, and that he posted the prepared response, without even realizing that it had no relationship to the post he was purportedly responding to.

Given that he objected to the claim he expected me to make, but hadn't, I felt obliged to provide the claim itself for the rest of the people here to read.

If you read my posts, the problem is the volume of people coming in and the government is doing nothing to build new houses.

They get free housing, light, water, gas, medicare, dental treatment, glasses, school meals, maternity pay, but I will agree a pretty poor daily allowance. Yet there are poor working people in the UK who are as bad off.

We have to take responsibility for our leaders poodling up to the US and causing this situation in the Middle East. So reparations are in order. However it costs 10X as much to look after displaced people in the UK than it does on safe places in the Middle East.

Then if any of our governments actually starts to build houses we can also house our own homeless or those who live in crowded accommodation.

We should turn back boats full of economic migrants as we don't have a lot of jobs or houses.

 

[whichphilosophy]

We are told that you cannot prevent Immigrants from entering Europe if they want to.
Yet Gaddafi was doing that until he was overthrown. Now Libya is a key departure point.

Things are pretty bad in Syria and hopefully if the peace deal in Syria is not sabotaged (possibly by the CIA) then those areas without conflict can settle displaced Syrians.

Western aid would pay US£3,000 per year per person instead on £30,000 per year per person in the UK. A very few asylum seekers could then be permitted to the UK (e.g, minority religions and atheists who are in danger).

It's easier to keep people from leaving than it is to keep them from showing up. Pretty simple stuff really.

Not for Merkel.

 

[angelo]

Yet they sometimes place their lives in danger in a stampede to get to Europe and Britain to live on a pittance? There are many do gooder charities who are also partly funded by government that contribute to the well being of illegal immigrants. If it was so bad, why leave your homeland in the first place!

Because your homeland is WORSE.

Think about that.

Imagine that you had to live on $70 per week - that's $10 a day. That would suck, right? But being in Syria, where your house and family are in constant danger, where you may come under shellfire, gas attack, or aerial bombardment at any time, is worse. MUCH worse.

You seem to imagine that 'economic migrants' ought to be happy with whatever they have in their home countries - but if YOU were in the position they WANT to be in; If YOU had to live wherever the government told you to, probably in a shitty housing commission flat, on $70 a week, you would fucking HATE it. And it would be so much better than what they left behind as to be worth risking their lives to attain.

When someone's life is so shit that they may not eat every day, and they are in constant fear of their own or their children's deaths, they do something about it. And you would too.

Yes, they "sometimes place their lives in danger in a stampede to get to Europe and Britain to live on a pittance". You find that incredible, because you haven't given a moment's thought to the actual reality of their previous situation. You literally cannot imagine what life was like for them, so your brain just defaults to 'It was probably similar to what I am familiar with; I know poor people, they live on as little as $18.29 an hour, and I feel sorry for them, but it's really not such a bad life'. But that's NOT what we are talking about. We are talking about people to whom $18.29 a DAY would be a huge step up in circumstances.

You are so utterly clueless about what life is actually like. But you still feel justified in spouting off about how fucking wonderful $70 a week, with zero possibility of getting any kind of work, must be. It's not wonderful. it's SHIT. And it is STILL so much better than what they had, that they are happy to risk their lives to get it. Because staying home is an even greater risk to their lives.

The difference between an economic migrant and a refugee is that a refugee will DIE if he doesn't flee, because he will be shot, gassed, or blown up; While an economic migrant is totally different, in that he will DIE if he doesn't flee, from starvation, malnutrition, or disease.

You seem to be of the opinion that the latter is somehow OK; and that people in that position should just put up with a slow death, so as not to inconvenience you to the tune of the about $10 per YEAR of your taxes that go towards payments to and for asylum seekers. That's a seriously ugly and evil position to take.

I wish I could do you the favour of believing that you are just fucking moronic, and have no idea what you are really standing for; But I have to suspect that, given the number of times people have tried to explain this shit to you, in fact you are genuinely that evil, as to feel that $10 per annum from your pocket is too much to pay to save tens of thousands of lives.

The problem is that your "tens of thousands " are in reality hundreds of millions from Africa, Asia and middle east and elswhere. Letting them all in as you advocate is not possible. By all means try help these people at the source, which Western governments already do. Socialism as you advocate would assure 100% of a country's population would live in poverty . That's the problem with Socialism. Sooner or later other people's money runs out!

 

[bilby]

Because your homeland is WORSE.

Think about that.

Imagine that you had to live on $70 per week - that's $10 a day. That would suck, right? But being in Syria, where your house and family are in constant danger, where you may come under shellfire, gas attack, or aerial bombardment at any time, is worse. MUCH worse.

You seem to imagine that 'economic migrants' ought to be happy with whatever they have in their home countries - but if YOU were in the position they WANT to be in; If YOU had to live wherever the government told you to, probably in a shitty housing commission flat, on $70 a week, you would fucking HATE it. And it would be so much better than what they left behind as to be worth risking their lives to attain.

When someone's life is so shit that they may not eat every day, and they are in constant fear of their own or their children's deaths, they do something about it. And you would too.

Yes, they "sometimes place their lives in danger in a stampede to get to Europe and Britain to live on a pittance". You find that incredible, because you haven't given a moment's thought to the actual reality of their previous situation. You literally cannot imagine what life was like for them, so your brain just defaults to 'It was probably similar to what I am familiar with; I know poor people, they live on as little as $18.29 an hour, and I feel sorry for them, but it's really not such a bad life'. But that's NOT what we are talking about. We are talking about people to whom $18.29 a DAY would be a huge step up in circumstances.

You are so utterly clueless about what life is actually like. But you still feel justified in spouting off about how fucking wonderful $70 a week, with zero possibility of getting any kind of work, must be. It's not wonderful. it's SHIT. And it is STILL so much better than what they had, that they are happy to risk their lives to get it. Because staying home is an even greater risk to their lives.

The difference between an economic migrant and a refugee is that a refugee will DIE if he doesn't flee, because he will be shot, gassed, or blown up; While an economic migrant is totally different, in that he will DIE if he doesn't flee, from starvation, malnutrition, or disease.

You seem to be of the opinion that the latter is somehow OK; and that people in that position should just put up with a slow death, so as not to inconvenience you to the tune of the about $10 per YEAR of your taxes that go towards payments to and for asylum seekers. That's a seriously ugly and evil position to take.

I wish I could do you the favour of believing that you are just fucking moronic, and have no idea what you are really standing for; But I have to suspect that, given the number of times people have tried to explain this shit to you, in fact you are genuinely that evil, as to feel that $10 per annum from your pocket is too much to pay to save tens of thousands of lives.

The problem is that your "tens of thousands " are in reality hundreds of millions from Africa, Asia and middle east and elswhere. Letting them all in as you advocate is not possible. By all means try help these people at the source, which Western governments already do. Socialism as you advocate would assure 100% of a country's population would live in poverty . That's the problem with Socialism. Sooner or later other people's money runs out!

Who the fuck said anything about socialism?

Most people are happy to stay where they are. The number who are currently in Australia and using government support is tens of thousands, and no amount of dreaming about hundreds of millions will make that fantasy a reasonable basis for policy. You delusional fears are not a reasonable basis for decision making.