Rapefugee lied about his age to get to stay in Germany, ...

[Derec]

You wouldn't know proper argument and debate if it bit you on the balls and left a big purple welt.

Funny, but completely false. I am one of the few who engages in proper argument and debate. Jimmy Higgins' contributions to this thread begin and end with his unhealthy obsession with my sex life...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You wouldn't know proper argument and debate if it bit you on the balls and left a big purple welt.

Funny, but completely false. I am one of the few who engages in proper argument and debate. Jimmy Higgins' contributions to this thread begin and end with his unhealthy obsession with my sex life...

Unhealthy obsession. Be mirror speak I hear, ye' arge.

 

[laughing dog]

By the way, there are more rapefugees in Germany.
Polizei ermittelt nach Gruppenvergewaltigung in Haltern am See
A woman was gang raped by a number of residents of a "refugee home".
Dollars to donuts these guys don't get deported because "their homeland is too dangerous". That they make Germany more dangerous is being ignored by the powers that be.

Some Middle Eastern looking people (probably Afghans) and their German useful idiots (nützliche Idioten) holding banners and signs against deportations to Afghanistan.
View attachment 12397]

Just because people disagree over policy does not make them idiots.

I am one of the few who engages in proper argument and debate.

People making proper arguments do not rely on hyperbolic rhetoric and name calling.

 

[LordKiran]

You wouldn't know proper argument and debate if it bit you on the balls and left a big purple welt.

Funny, but completely false. I am one of the few who engages in proper argument and debate. Jimmy Higgins' contributions to this thread begin and end with his unhealthy obsession with my sex life...

You rarely IF EVER do this. The reason people call you names is because even though you're frequently wrong in your postings and you never seem to get it. It never sinks in. So people get tired of having to humor you, because it never amounts to anything. You're as ignorant before a conversation as you are after.

 

[Derec]

Just because people disagree over policy does not make them idiots.

Their position enables mass migration into Germany of unsavory characters who should by rights be deported because Afghanistan is supposedly "too dangerous". That not only makes them idiots, it makes them useful idiots, i.e. pawns of the Islamists and rejected asylum seekers.

People making cogent arguments do not rely on hyperbolic rhetoric and name calling.

Saying that somebody is an useful idiot is not "name calling". It's an actual term of art in politics.

In political jargon, a useful idiot (also useful fool[1]) is a person perceived as a propagandist for a cause the goals of which they are not fully aware, and who is used cynically by the leaders of the cause.[1] According to the Oxford Dictionary of Euphemisms, the phrase stems from useful fool to refer to "a dupe of the Communists" and was used by Vladimir Lenin to refer to those his country had successfully manipulated.[1]

 Useful Idiot

 

[Derec]

You rarely IF EVER do this. The reason people call you names is because even though you're frequently wrong in your postings and you never seem to get it.

Bullshit. I am almost always right. I am rarely politically correct though, and many posters here confuse what is politically correct with what is actually correct.

So people get tired of having to humor you, because it never amounts to anything. You're as ignorant before a conversation as you are after.

No. People who defend mass migration without restrictions and vetting are wrong. People who equate support of any restrictions on migration as "xenophobic" and "racist" are wrong. People who object to deporting illegal migrants and legal migrants who commit serious crimes (robbery, assault, rape, (attempted) murder) are wrong.

 

[Kharakov]

Yeah, because all borders should be completely open and everybody should be allowed to immigrate everywhere?

That's a rational response.

I mean, you think these people are going to want to put a tyranny in place, since they are fleeing one?

99% of Afghans support Sharia Law.

Yeah. When you can get your head chopped off if you don't say that...

And they are mostly migranting for economic reasons, not to escape tyranny.

Ok, Syrians are fleeing tyranny. All of the Persians I know who came to the US around '79 said they came here to avoid a tyranny that was establishing itself. They fucking hate Islam, and think that US Christianity is so much nicer (although they don't like the financial corruption of Christianity, they say it's better than theocracies, but that's just the US constitution preventing Christians from being the complete pieces of shit that they would become).

The Persians I've meet were also pissed off about the stupid theocratic tyranny reversing the trend towards Iran's establishment as a great economic power in the world (oil + blooming democracy, then the Shah + CIA crushes dreams of a modern civilization??). Tyranny was one reason, among the 100s of economic reasons, that they left, but tyranny created the economic reasons.

And the proxy wars in Afghanistan that constantly cripple its economy are not examples of tyranny? The Taliban was not a tyrannical regime, because people were too scared to speak against Sharia law because they've been beaten down so much?

As usual, everything you say is 100% accurate.

 

[fromderinside]

Ouch!!

 

[whichphilosophy]

Just because people disagree over policy does not make them idiots.

I am one of the few who engages in proper argument and debate.

People making proper arguments do not rely on hyperbolic rhetoric and name calling.

The host country is not obliged to accept those who fail the qualification standards to remain.
If the applicant is rejected within the correct legal framework including appeals, and/or the applicant has broken the law then he/she must expect to be deported.

 

[laughing dog]

Their position enables mass migration into Germany of unsavory characters who should by rights be deported because Afghanistan is supposedly "too dangerous". That not only makes them idiots, it makes them useful idiots, i.e. pawns of the Islamists and rejected asylum seekers.

People making cogent arguments do not rely on hyperbolic rhetoric and name calling.

Saying that somebody is an useful idiot is not "name calling". It's an actual term of art in politics.

In political jargon, a useful idiot (also useful fool[1]) is a person perceived as a propagandist for a cause the goals of which they are not fully aware, and who is used cynically by the leaders of the cause.[1] According to the Oxford Dictionary of Euphemisms, the phrase stems from useful fool to refer to "a dupe of the Communists" and was used by Vladimir Lenin to refer to those his country had successfully manipulated.[1]

 Useful Idiot

Do you realize your defense of your hypocrisy and bigotry (a term of the art in politics) is the kind of argument an useful idiot for xenophobic racists and the thought-control police would make?

 

[Derec]

Do you realize your defense of your hypocrisy and bigotry (a term of the art in politics) is the kind of argument an useful idiot for xenophobic racists and the thought-control police would make?

No, because you are, as always, wrong. Being against some migrants or some (too high) levels of migration is not even within a parsec of "xenophobia" or "racism".

 

[laughing dog]

Do you realize your defense of your hypocrisy and bigotry (a term of the art in politics) is the kind of argument an useful idiot for xenophobic racists and the thought-control police would make?

No, because you are, as always, wrong. Being against some migrants or some (too high) levels of migration is not even within a parsec of "xenophobia" or "racism".

No one claimed it was. As usual, you pull another straw man to deflect from your hypocrisy and bigotry.

 

[whichphilosophy]

No, because you are, as always, wrong. Being against some migrants or some (too high) levels of migration is not even within a parsec of "xenophobia" or "racism".

No one claimed it was. As usual, you pull another straw man to deflect from your hypocrisy and bigotry.

We shouldn't be packing so many people into Europe when we are short of housing schools and hospital facilities ourselves.
The UK has a housing crisis as hundreds of small builders go out of business due to Austerity measures where banks make it very difficult to borrow money.

The UK is around two million houses short and prices have shot up in the past decade.

 

[bilby]

No one claimed it was. As usual, you pull another straw man to deflect from your hypocrisy and bigotry.

We shouldn't be packing so many people into Europe when we are short of housing schools and hospital facilities ourselves.
The UK has a housing crisis as hundreds of small builders go out of business due to Austerity measures where banks make it very difficult to borrow money.

The UK is around two million houses short and prices have shot up in the past decade.

Who is 'ourselves'? Just you? Your immediate family? Your extended family? Your family and close friends? Your family and all of your friends, even including casual acquaintances?

I am certain that even the broadest definition of any of those groups adds up to no more than a couple of thousand people; But let's be generous, and estimate that there could be as many as 5,000 people in the world who are not complete strangers to you.

Given that the other ~58 million people who were both born in, and are currently living in, the UK are TOTAL STRANGERS - people you know nothing about, and who know nothing about you - Why are you so convinced that they qualify as 'ourselves' and are not unfairly competing with you for housing; While the ~8 million equally TOTAL STRANGERS born in other parts of the world, and now living in the UK, somehow are the ones whose competition for housing is a major problem?

It makes no sense. Almost everyone - regardless of where they were born - is a stranger. You can't even tell, without looking at their papers, who is an immigrant and who is native born; and yet you seem to have (for no reason whatsoever) the opinion that the ~58 million people born in the UK are somehow not the cause of your ~2 million shortfall in housing. That's stupid. If London flats are hard to come by, how is that the fault of the Londoner born in Paris, or Krakow, or Kabul, or Montego Bay; But not the fault of the Londoner born in Birmingham, or Glasgow, or Cardiff? All of these people are total strangers to you, and owe you nothing - just as you are a stranger to them, and owe them nothing. But you let the majority off the hook for your difficulty in finding high quality and low cost accommodation, while blaming the minority, simply because they were born on the other side of the wrong kind of international border - apparently the Welsh and Scots are fine, but the Afghans are not. WHY??

What is your reasoning here? It's not about paying taxes - adult immigrants pay far more in tax than British born children do, but you are not whining about too many children being born in the UK. It's not about religion - most UK born people don't ave one, but plenty do, and there is a huge variety of different religious beliefs and practices amongst people born in the UK. It's not about language either - there are plenty of Yorkshiremen who are unintelligible to Londoners, and vice-versa, and of course there are Gaelic and Welsh speakers whose language is impenetrable to monoglot Englishmen; while many immigrants speak fluent English. Nor is it about 'culture' - UK born people exhibit vast cultural differences just across social class divides, that dwarf the differences between people of similar social status from different countries.

So what is it? If you were to argue that everyone should be required to remain permanently in the town, or better still the suburb or street of their birth, then that would be fucking stupid - but at least it would be an internally consistent stance. But your position - that the 'THEM' who are total strangers are fine, as long as they were born inside an arbitrary and very large border, is not even internally consistent.

If you have a problem with Austerity (and you should), then the target of your ire should be the government, not immigrants. It's not immigrants who are causing your problems; It's the inhabitants of Westminster.

 

[whichphilosophy]

We shouldn't be packing so many people into Europe when we are short of housing schools and hospital facilities ourselves.
The UK has a housing crisis as hundreds of small builders go out of business due to Austerity measures where banks make it very difficult to borrow money.

The UK is around two million houses short and prices have shot up in the past decade.

Who is 'ourselves'? Just you? Your immediate family? Your extended family? Your family and close friends? Your family and all of your friends, even including casual acquaintances?

I am certain that even the broadest definition of any of those groups adds up to no more than a couple of thousand people; But let's be generous, and estimate that there could be as many as 5,000 people in the world who are not complete strangers to you.

Given that the other ~58 million people who were both born in, and are currently living in, the UK are TOTAL STRANGERS - people you know nothing about, and who know nothing about you - Why are you so convinced that they qualify as 'ourselves' and are not unfairly competing with you for housing; While the ~8 million equally TOTAL STRANGERS born in other parts of the world, and now living in the UK, somehow are the ones whose competition for housing is a major problem?

It makes no sense. Almost everyone - regardless of where they were born - is a stranger. You can't even tell, without looking at their papers, who is an immigrant and who is native born; and yet you seem to have (for no reason whatsoever) the opinion that the ~58 million people born in the UK are somehow not the cause of your ~2 million shortfall in housing. That's stupid. If London flats are hard to come by, how is that the fault of the Londoner born in Paris, or Krakow, or Kabul, or Montego Bay; But not the fault of the Londoner born in Birmingham, or Glasgow, or Cardiff? All of these people are total strangers to you, and owe you nothing - just as you are a stranger to them, and owe them nothing. But you let the majority off the hook for your difficulty in finding high quality and low cost accommodation, while blaming the minority, simply because they were born on the other side of the wrong kind of international border - apparently the Welsh and Scots are fine, but the Afghans are not. WHY??

What is your reasoning here? It's not about paying taxes - adult immigrants pay far more in tax than British born children do, but you are not whining about too many children being born in the UK. It's not about religion - most UK born people don't ave one, but plenty do, and there is a huge variety of different religious beliefs and practices amongst people born in the UK. It's not about language either - there are plenty of Yorkshiremen who are unintelligible to Londoners, and vice-versa, and of course there are Gaelic and Welsh speakers whose language is impenetrable to monoglot Englishmen; while many immigrants speak fluent English. Nor is it about 'culture' - UK born people exhibit vast cultural differences just across social class divides, that dwarf the differences between people of similar social status from different countries.

So what is it? If you were to argue that everyone should be required to remain permanently in the town, or better still the suburb or street of their birth, then that would be fucking stupid - but at least it would be an internally consistent stance. But your position - that the 'THEM' who are total strangers are fine, as long as they were born inside an arbitrary and very large border, is not even internally consistent.

If you have a problem with Austerity (and you should), then the target of your ire should be the government, not immigrants. It's not immigrants who are causing your problems; It's the inhabitants of Westminster.

It’s clear that you don’t understand the economics of the problem. There are insufficient houses, schools and hospitals in existence coupled by a lack of development which for every year since Blair fell behind target. These cannot keep up with mass migration being driven into the UK.

Added to this hundreds of property developers have gone out of business due to restrictions by banks on lending.

If there are no houses, it means there is no room. In Southall London there is something like 2,000 known sheds with beds which pack around 4 people or more into a tiny shed. These are built by British Indians to exploit illegal Indians who pay around £1,000 per month.

This has got nothing to do with people not knowing each other as you are saying. It has to do with the huge influx of uncontrolled illegal immigration into the country, not the fact that people wish to move around the UK from time to time.

Child benefit is now reduced. Effective 06-April-2017, child benefit applies only to the 1st and 2nd child. Any 3rd and subsequent ones born after that date, receive no child benefit. We cannot accommodate huge families from abroad, especially Somalia where ‘they like having lots of children.
See:

Afghan and Somali women in Britain have FOUR times as many kids as UK born mums

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/598783/Immigration-increasing-British-family-size-official-figures

The average Afghan-born woman living in the UK has 4.25 children and the average Somali-born woman has 4.19 children.
The average for Pakistani women is 3.82. UK-born women have an average of 1.79 children, according to the data from European statistics agency Eurostat.
That compares with 2.19 for women living in the UK who were born in one of the 12 eastern European states, and 1.52 for women born in western European countries.END OF QUOTE

There is also an acute shortage in particular for large houses with 3 or 4 bedrooms exacerbated by population explosions in some existing communities.
Now more and more families are packing into one house.

See:
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/feb/06/300000-concealed-families-share-home-ons

Almost 300,000 'concealed families' share their home with another family
ONS study shows housing availability and cost in relation to earnings has seen an increase in the number of families who share a property with the main householders

The number of homes occupied by two or more families grew by 70% between 2001 and 2011, driven in part by the cost and availability of housing, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Analysis of data from the 2011 census showed there were 289,000 "concealed families" in England and Wales – couples and families who share a property with the main householders – compared with 170,000 in 2001. END OF QUOTE.

See:

Population growth sharpest in 70 years after 'record' migration levels

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...th-sharpest-70-years-record-migration-levels/

The UK population has seen its sharpest increase in 70 years, driven by record levels of migration, official figures show.

Britain has experienced a population increase of five million people in just over a decade, between 2005 and 2016.

The previous five million took 35 years to achieve, between 1970 and 2005.

Figures released on Thursday by the Office of National Statistics, showed that the population increased by 538,000 during the year to June 2016, the largest numerical increase since 1947. END OF QUOTE

The solution is very simple. Turn off the flow of illegal immigrants and restrict legal immigrants to visiting relatives or those with a work visa. We should also encourage the Middle Eastern countries to take in more asylum seekers within their own borders. It’s far cheaper where the UK can contribute.

 

[bilby]

Who is 'ourselves'? Just you? Your immediate family? Your extended family? Your family and close friends? Your family and all of your friends, even including casual acquaintances?

I am certain that even the broadest definition of any of those groups adds up to no more than a couple of thousand people; But let's be generous, and estimate that there could be as many as 5,000 people in the world who are not complete strangers to you.

Given that the other ~58 million people who were both born in, and are currently living in, the UK are TOTAL STRANGERS - people you know nothing about, and who know nothing about you - Why are you so convinced that they qualify as 'ourselves' and are not unfairly competing with you for housing; While the ~8 million equally TOTAL STRANGERS born in other parts of the world, and now living in the UK, somehow are the ones whose competition for housing is a major problem?

It makes no sense. Almost everyone - regardless of where they were born - is a stranger. You can't even tell, without looking at their papers, who is an immigrant and who is native born; and yet you seem to have (for no reason whatsoever) the opinion that the ~58 million people born in the UK are somehow not the cause of your ~2 million shortfall in housing. That's stupid. If London flats are hard to come by, how is that the fault of the Londoner born in Paris, or Krakow, or Kabul, or Montego Bay; But not the fault of the Londoner born in Birmingham, or Glasgow, or Cardiff? All of these people are total strangers to you, and owe you nothing - just as you are a stranger to them, and owe them nothing. But you let the majority off the hook for your difficulty in finding high quality and low cost accommodation, while blaming the minority, simply because they were born on the other side of the wrong kind of international border - apparently the Welsh and Scots are fine, but the Afghans are not. WHY??

What is your reasoning here? It's not about paying taxes - adult immigrants pay far more in tax than British born children do, but you are not whining about too many children being born in the UK. It's not about religion - most UK born people don't ave one, but plenty do, and there is a huge variety of different religious beliefs and practices amongst people born in the UK. It's not about language either - there are plenty of Yorkshiremen who are unintelligible to Londoners, and vice-versa, and of course there are Gaelic and Welsh speakers whose language is impenetrable to monoglot Englishmen; while many immigrants speak fluent English. Nor is it about 'culture' - UK born people exhibit vast cultural differences just across social class divides, that dwarf the differences between people of similar social status from different countries.

So what is it? If you were to argue that everyone should be required to remain permanently in the town, or better still the suburb or street of their birth, then that would be fucking stupid - but at least it would be an internally consistent stance. But your position - that the 'THEM' who are total strangers are fine, as long as they were born inside an arbitrary and very large border, is not even internally consistent.

If you have a problem with Austerity (and you should), then the target of your ire should be the government, not immigrants. It's not immigrants who are causing your problems; It's the inhabitants of Westminster.

It’s clear that you don’t understand the economics of the problem. There are insufficient houses, schools and hospitals in existence coupled by a lack of development which for every year since Blair fell behind target. These cannot keep up with mass migration being driven into the UK.

Added to this hundreds of property developers have gone out of business due to restrictions by banks on lending.

If there are no houses, it means there is no room. In Southall London there is something like 2,000 known sheds with beds which pack around 4 people or more into a tiny shed. These are built by British Indians to exploit illegal Indians who pay around £1,000 per month.

This has got nothing to do with people not knowing each other as you are saying. It has to do with the huge influx of uncontrolled illegal immigration into the country, not the fact that people wish to move around the UK from time to time.

Child benefit is now reduced. Effective 06-April-2017, child benefit applies only to the 1st and 2nd child. Any 3rd and subsequent ones born after that date, receive no child benefit. We cannot accommodate huge families from abroad, especially Somalia where ‘they like having lots of children.
See:

Afghan and Somali women in Britain have FOUR times as many kids as UK born mums

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/598783/Immigration-increasing-British-family-size-official-figures

The average Afghan-born woman living in the UK has 4.25 children and the average Somali-born woman has 4.19 children.
The average for Pakistani women is 3.82. UK-born women have an average of 1.79 children, according to the data from European statistics agency Eurostat.
That compares with 2.19 for women living in the UK who were born in one of the 12 eastern European states, and 1.52 for women born in western European countries.END OF QUOTE

There is also an acute shortage in particular for large houses with 3 or 4 bedrooms exacerbated by population explosions in some existing communities.
Now more and more families are packing into one house.

See:
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/feb/06/300000-concealed-families-share-home-ons

Almost 300,000 'concealed families' share their home with another family
ONS study shows housing availability and cost in relation to earnings has seen an increase in the number of families who share a property with the main householders

The number of homes occupied by two or more families grew by 70% between 2001 and 2011, driven in part by the cost and availability of housing, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Analysis of data from the 2011 census showed there were 289,000 "concealed families" in England and Wales – couples and families who share a property with the main householders – compared with 170,000 in 2001. END OF QUOTE.

See:

Population growth sharpest in 70 years after 'record' migration levels

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...th-sharpest-70-years-record-migration-levels/

The UK population has seen its sharpest increase in 70 years, driven by record levels of migration, official figures show.

Britain has experienced a population increase of five million people in just over a decade, between 2005 and 2016.

The previous five million took 35 years to achieve, between 1970 and 2005.

Figures released on Thursday by the Office of National Statistics, showed that the population increased by 538,000 during the year to June 2016, the largest numerical increase since 1947. END OF QUOTE

The solution is very simple. Turn off the flow of illegal immigrants and restrict legal immigrants to visiting relatives or those with a work visa. We should also encourage the Middle Eastern countries to take in more asylum seekers within their own borders. It’s far cheaper where the UK can contribute.

OK, now that I have read your repeat of your earlier nonsense, would you like to try reading my post again, and actually responding to what I asked you in it?

Assume, for the sake of argument, that I am 100% in agreement with your claim that there is a desperate shortage of housing in the UK, about which something must be done; and explain to me why it is that you think total strangers from other towns and rural areas inside the UK, are less of a contributor to this problem than total strangers from outside the UK - despite being MASSIVELY outnumbered by them.

You said "we are short of housing schools and hospital facilities ourselves". Who is 'ourselves'? What is your criterion for deciding that UK born total strangers count as 'ourselves' for whom provision must be made; while foreign born total strangers do not? Why is the foreign born minority a justifiable target for your concern, while the locally born majority are not?

You say "This has got nothing to do with people not knowing each other as you are saying. It has to do with the huge influx of uncontrolled illegal immigration into the country, not the fact that people wish to move around the UK from time to time." But this is just a restatement of the position I am questioning; What makes immigration into the country substantively and importantly different, in its effects on YOU, from people moving around the UK from time to time?

Leaving aside that there is no uncontrolled illegal immigration into the UK (significant time, money and effort is expended on controlling it), and leaving aside whether or not any given movement of people is legal (which is an arbitrary government decision - they could equally make it illegal to move to London from Sheffield, if they felt that Sheffield migrants were the cause of the London housing crisis); WHY, in your opinion, is it sensible and reasonable to have a law against migration from Kabul to London, but NOT sensible and reasonable (for the same underlying reasons) to outlaw migration from Sheffield to London?

 

[whichphilosophy]

It’s clear that you don’t understand the economics of the problem. There are insufficient houses, schools and hospitals in existence coupled by a lack of development which for every year since Blair fell behind target. These cannot keep up with mass migration being driven into the UK.

Added to this hundreds of property developers have gone out of business due to restrictions by banks on lending.

If there are no houses, it means there is no room. In Southall London there is something like 2,000 known sheds with beds which pack around 4 people or more into a tiny shed. These are built by British Indians to exploit illegal Indians who pay around £1,000 per month.

This has got nothing to do with people not knowing each other as you are saying. It has to do with the huge influx of uncontrolled illegal immigration into the country, not the fact that people wish to move around the UK from time to time.

Child benefit is now reduced. Effective 06-April-2017, child benefit applies only to the 1st and 2nd child. Any 3rd and subsequent ones born after that date, receive no child benefit. We cannot accommodate huge families from abroad, especially Somalia where ‘they like having lots of children.
See:

Afghan and Somali women in Britain have FOUR times as many kids as UK born mums

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/598783/Immigration-increasing-British-family-size-official-figures

The average Afghan-born woman living in the UK has 4.25 children and the average Somali-born woman has 4.19 children.
The average for Pakistani women is 3.82. UK-born women have an average of 1.79 children, according to the data from European statistics agency Eurostat.
That compares with 2.19 for women living in the UK who were born in one of the 12 eastern European states, and 1.52 for women born in western European countries.END OF QUOTE

There is also an acute shortage in particular for large houses with 3 or 4 bedrooms exacerbated by population explosions in some existing communities.
Now more and more families are packing into one house.

See:
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/feb/06/300000-concealed-families-share-home-ons

Almost 300,000 'concealed families' share their home with another family
ONS study shows housing availability and cost in relation to earnings has seen an increase in the number of families who share a property with the main householders

The number of homes occupied by two or more families grew by 70% between 2001 and 2011, driven in part by the cost and availability of housing, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Analysis of data from the 2011 census showed there were 289,000 "concealed families" in England and Wales – couples and families who share a property with the main householders – compared with 170,000 in 2001. END OF QUOTE.

See:

Population growth sharpest in 70 years after 'record' migration levels

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...th-sharpest-70-years-record-migration-levels/

The UK population has seen its sharpest increase in 70 years, driven by record levels of migration, official figures show.

Britain has experienced a population increase of five million people in just over a decade, between 2005 and 2016.

The previous five million took 35 years to achieve, between 1970 and 2005.

Figures released on Thursday by the Office of National Statistics, showed that the population increased by 538,000 during the year to June 2016, the largest numerical increase since 1947. END OF QUOTE

The solution is very simple. Turn off the flow of illegal immigrants and restrict legal immigrants to visiting relatives or those with a work visa. We should also encourage the Middle Eastern countries to take in more asylum seekers within their own borders. It’s far cheaper where the UK can contribute.

OK, now that I have read your repeat of your earlier nonsense, would you like to try reading my post again, and actually responding to what I asked you in it?

Assume, for the sake of argument, that I am 100% in agreement with your claim that there is a desperate shortage of housing in the UK, about which something must be done; and explain to me why it is that you think total strangers from other towns and rural areas inside the UK, are less of a contributor to this problem than total strangers from outside the UK - despite being MASSIVELY outnumbered by them.

You said "we are short of housing schools and hospital facilities ourselves". Who is 'ourselves'? What is your criterion for deciding that UK born total strangers count as 'ourselves' for whom provision must be made; while foreign born total strangers do not? Why is the foreign born minority a justifiable target for your concern, while the locally born majority are not?

You say "This has got nothing to do with people not knowing each other as you are saying. It has to do with the huge influx of uncontrolled illegal immigration into the country, not the fact that people wish to move around the UK from time to time." But this is just a restatement of the position I am questioning; What makes immigration into the country substantively and importantly different, in its effects on YOU, from people moving around the UK from time to time?

Leaving aside that there is no uncontrolled illegal immigration into the UK (significant time, money and effort is expended on controlling it), and leaving aside whether or not any given movement of people is legal (which is an arbitrary government decision - they could equally make it illegal to move to London from Sheffield, if they felt that Sheffield migrants were the cause of the London housing crisis); WHY, in your opinion, is it sensible and reasonable to have a law against migration from Kabul to London, but NOT sensible and reasonable (for the same underlying reasons) to outlaw migration from Sheffield to London?

All Britons regardless of ethnicity are Britons.
Internal movements within the UK are nothing to do with movements within the UK for it is movements from outside the UK which have contributed to the population explosion in the UK, plus some migrant communities who have huge amounts of children. The latter I am sure will eventually resolve.

 

[bilby]

OK, now that I have read your repeat of your earlier nonsense, would you like to try reading my post again, and actually responding to what I asked you in it?

Assume, for the sake of argument, that I am 100% in agreement with your claim that there is a desperate shortage of housing in the UK, about which something must be done; and explain to me why it is that you think total strangers from other towns and rural areas inside the UK, are less of a contributor to this problem than total strangers from outside the UK - despite being MASSIVELY outnumbered by them.

You said "we are short of housing schools and hospital facilities ourselves". Who is 'ourselves'? What is your criterion for deciding that UK born total strangers count as 'ourselves' for whom provision must be made; while foreign born total strangers do not? Why is the foreign born minority a justifiable target for your concern, while the locally born majority are not?

You say "This has got nothing to do with people not knowing each other as you are saying. It has to do with the huge influx of uncontrolled illegal immigration into the country, not the fact that people wish to move around the UK from time to time." But this is just a restatement of the position I am questioning; What makes immigration into the country substantively and importantly different, in its effects on YOU, from people moving around the UK from time to time?

Leaving aside that there is no uncontrolled illegal immigration into the UK (significant time, money and effort is expended on controlling it), and leaving aside whether or not any given movement of people is legal (which is an arbitrary government decision - they could equally make it illegal to move to London from Sheffield, if they felt that Sheffield migrants were the cause of the London housing crisis); WHY, in your opinion, is it sensible and reasonable to have a law against migration from Kabul to London, but NOT sensible and reasonable (for the same underlying reasons) to outlaw migration from Sheffield to London?

All Britons regardless of ethnicity are Britons.
Internal movements within the UK are nothing to do with movements within the UK for it is movements from outside the UK which have contributed to the population explosion in the UK, plus some migrant communities who have huge amounts of children. The latter I am sure will eventually resolve.

So your position rests upon a tautology?

I can't pretend to be surprised, but it remains really disappointing to encounter someone who is quite so bad as this at such a basic skill as thinking.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It’s clear that you don’t understand the economics of the problem. There are insufficient houses, schools and hospitals in existence coupled by a lack of development which for every year since Blair fell behind target. These cannot keep up with mass migration being driven into the UK.

Added to this hundreds of property developers have gone out of business due to restrictions by banks on lending.

If there are no houses, it means there is no room. In Southall London there is something like 2,000 known sheds with beds which pack around 4 people or more into a tiny shed. These are built by British Indians to exploit illegal Indians who pay around £1,000 per month.

This has got nothing to do with people not knowing each other as you are saying. It has to do with the huge influx of uncontrolled illegal immigration into the country, not the fact that people wish to move around the UK from time to time.

Child benefit is now reduced. Effective 06-April-2017, child benefit applies only to the 1st and 2nd child. Any 3rd and subsequent ones born after that date, receive no child benefit. We cannot accommodate huge families from abroad, especially Somalia where ‘they like having lots of children.
See:

Afghan and Somali women in Britain have FOUR times as many kids as UK born mums

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/598783/Immigration-increasing-British-family-size-official-figures

The average Afghan-born woman living in the UK has 4.25 children and the average Somali-born woman has 4.19 children.
The average for Pakistani women is 3.82. UK-born women have an average of 1.79 children, according to the data from European statistics agency Eurostat.
That compares with 2.19 for women living in the UK who were born in one of the 12 eastern European states, and 1.52 for women born in western European countries.END OF QUOTE

There is also an acute shortage in particular for large houses with 3 or 4 bedrooms exacerbated by population explosions in some existing communities.
Now more and more families are packing into one house.

See:
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/feb/06/300000-concealed-families-share-home-ons

Almost 300,000 'concealed families' share their home with another family
ONS study shows housing availability and cost in relation to earnings has seen an increase in the number of families who share a property with the main householders

The number of homes occupied by two or more families grew by 70% between 2001 and 2011, driven in part by the cost and availability of housing, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Analysis of data from the 2011 census showed there were 289,000 "concealed families" in England and Wales – couples and families who share a property with the main householders – compared with 170,000 in 2001. END OF QUOTE.

See:

Population growth sharpest in 70 years after 'record' migration levels

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...th-sharpest-70-years-record-migration-levels/

The UK population has seen its sharpest increase in 70 years, driven by record levels of migration, official figures show.

Britain has experienced a population increase of five million people in just over a decade, between 2005 and 2016.

The previous five million took 35 years to achieve, between 1970 and 2005.

Figures released on Thursday by the Office of National Statistics, showed that the population increased by 538,000 during the year to June 2016, the largest numerical increase since 1947. END OF QUOTE

The solution is very simple. Turn off the flow of illegal immigrants and restrict legal immigrants to visiting relatives or those with a work visa. We should also encourage the Middle Eastern countries to take in more asylum seekers within their own borders. It’s far cheaper where the UK can contribute.

OK, now that I have read your repeat of your earlier nonsense, would you like to try reading my post again, and actually responding to what I asked you in it?

Assume, for the sake of argument, that I am 100% in agreement with your claim that there is a desperate shortage of housing in the UK, about which something must be done; and explain to me why it is that you think total strangers from other towns and rural areas inside the UK, are less of a contributor to this problem than total strangers from outside the UK - despite being MASSIVELY outnumbered by them.

You said "we are short of housing schools and hospital facilities ourselves". Who is 'ourselves'? What is your criterion for deciding that UK born total strangers count as 'ourselves' for whom provision must be made; while foreign born total strangers do not? Why is the foreign born minority a justifiable target for your concern, while the locally born majority are not?

You say "This has got nothing to do with people not knowing each other as you are saying. It has to do with the huge influx of uncontrolled illegal immigration into the country, not the fact that people wish to move around the UK from time to time." But this is just a restatement of the position I am questioning; What makes immigration into the country substantively and importantly different, in its effects on YOU, from people moving around the UK from time to time?

Leaving aside that there is no uncontrolled illegal immigration into the UK (significant time, money and effort is expended on controlling it), and leaving aside whether or not any given movement of people is legal (which is an arbitrary government decision - they could equally make it illegal to move to London from Sheffield, if they felt that Sheffield migrants were the cause of the London housing crisis); WHY, in your opinion, is it sensible and reasonable to have a law against migration from Kabul to London, but NOT sensible and reasonable (for the same underlying reasons) to outlaw migration from Sheffield to London?

Ourselves = All citizens and those permitted to stay in the UK e.g. asylum seekers, persons working on contract.

If we have 10 million people move about there is still housing for others to move into but there will be some shortages in certain areas. However flood in another 1 million people there will be a huge influx of shortages for there are nil houses left behind in other towns.

There is very little extra at borders needed to reduce illegal immigration. For instance refusing to provide fingerprints and date of birth (in the absence of passports) should be refused entry as refugees or asylum seekers. Airlines taking people on without passports should be fined. In fact they should electronically scan the passports onto their data bases. The airlines should be given the task to return such persons (at own cost) to points of origination.

Those who came in hiding in trucks would be turned back to to the point where these vehicles were before coming to the UK

 

[bilby]

OK, now that I have read your repeat of your earlier nonsense, would you like to try reading my post again, and actually responding to what I asked you in it?

Assume, for the sake of argument, that I am 100% in agreement with your claim that there is a desperate shortage of housing in the UK, about which something must be done; and explain to me why it is that you think total strangers from other towns and rural areas inside the UK, are less of a contributor to this problem than total strangers from outside the UK - despite being MASSIVELY outnumbered by them.

You said "we are short of housing schools and hospital facilities ourselves". Who is 'ourselves'? What is your criterion for deciding that UK born total strangers count as 'ourselves' for whom provision must be made; while foreign born total strangers do not? Why is the foreign born minority a justifiable target for your concern, while the locally born majority are not?

You say "This has got nothing to do with people not knowing each other as you are saying. It has to do with the huge influx of uncontrolled illegal immigration into the country, not the fact that people wish to move around the UK from time to time." But this is just a restatement of the position I am questioning; What makes immigration into the country substantively and importantly different, in its effects on YOU, from people moving around the UK from time to time?

Leaving aside that there is no uncontrolled illegal immigration into the UK (significant time, money and effort is expended on controlling it), and leaving aside whether or not any given movement of people is legal (which is an arbitrary government decision - they could equally make it illegal to move to London from Sheffield, if they felt that Sheffield migrants were the cause of the London housing crisis); WHY, in your opinion, is it sensible and reasonable to have a law against migration from Kabul to London, but NOT sensible and reasonable (for the same underlying reasons) to outlaw migration from Sheffield to London?

Ourselves = All citizens and those permitted to stay in the UK e.g. asylum seekers, persons working on contract.

Why?

What makes those particular strangers more important to you than any other strangers?

You are hiding behind the law - but the law is not immutable, but rather is something you could wish to see changed, so that's not a position at all.

If the law was changed to allow any person from Afghanistan, say, to move to the UK as a permanent resident with no restrictions, presumably you would oppose that change to the law. So the question remains; Why do YOU define people who are total strangers but who happen to be citizens as part of 'ourselves', while defining people who are total strangers who happen to not be citizens as 'not ourselves'? Or is my presumption incorrect - would you say "Well, that's the law now, so now Afghans are now part of 'Ourselves', and I think that we should keep out the non-British non-Afghans, because it is them who are causing a problem, and we British and Afghans need to keep the housing we have for ourselves"?

I am not interested in what the law currently says; I am interested in why YOU define 'ourselves' to include people who you have never met, likely will never meet, and with whom you have nothing in common other than an arbitrary permission to reside in the UK under current UK law.

If we have 10 million people move about there is still housing for others to move into but there will be some shortages in certain areas. However flood in another 1 million people there will be a huge influx of shortages for there are nil houses left behind in other towns.

This is nonsense; Wherever people come from, they leave houses behind in the towns they came from. If people move to London from Sheffield, there are houses left in Sheffield; If they move from Krakow, there are houses left in Krakow; If they move from Kabul, there are houses left in Kabul.

A house in Sheffield does exactly as much to alleviate London housing issues as one in Kabul - ie Nothing at all. So why are people in Sheffield part of 'ourselves' to you; but not people in Kabul?