New EU members

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Drogue
Have you been to London? It's not English anymore. Many shops don't have signs in English, because all the locals speak another language.

This is a wild exaggeration. Whilst certain shops can be found catering for specific ethnicities, I could have shown you shops 15 years ago in Birmingham that did the same. London is still an English city, and it will take more than a few signs in other languages, or concentrated pockets of specific ethnicity to change that.

Originally posted by VetLegion
Herreson is exactly right. Poles are going to be Brits with strange surnames in a generation. Pakistanis will still be marrying their cousins and plotting blowing up Big Ben in a generation. I'd worry about the latter more.

Indeed. I am a Brit with a strange central-European surname, and ancestors from hither-and-thither over the generations. London has had wave after wave of immigration for centuries, and this has helped to make it the city it is. I'm the first say though, that integrationist policies are needed, rather than divisive, identitarian ones.

If there is an economic problem it is the tax-free ride given to people whose residency is considered to be abroad. This basically makes the place a tax haven for rich foreigners, as I understand it, with the cost of an intolerably high cost of living for ordinary people.

[VetLegion]

If my country was an immigrant magnet I would be supporting restrictionist policies. Since it is not, I don't care too much.

However I can point out that while immigration is not economically harmful, it is neither economically, demographically or in any other way neccessary. That's just bull used to sell it to the general public easier.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I think the old appeasement of Germany plus capitulation to the USSR argument is overblown. Britain was in no position to militarily oppose Nazi Germany's early expansion, especially with imperial overstretch. It may have needed to have been fascist or communist itself to have been strong enough to compete with Germany duing the so-called 'appeasement' years.

Poland proposed a preventive war against Germany after Hitler came to power. France denied.
I am sure if Hitler was treated with less tolerance, he would not be so sure his next steps will be successful as well. West didn't even TRY to stop him.

Nor were the Western allies in a realistic position to deny the USSR the gains it had made after repulsing the Nazi's attack. The USA was still at war with Japan, Britain has lost its empire and would remain broken and exhausted for nearly another twenty years, and was never very strong anyway. It only ever held the old empire together by bluff.

Oh, they didn't have to start another war. But
- they didn't have to carve the eastern Europe into "spheres of influence"
- USA and Britain didn't have to deceive Poland when it comes their talks with USA concerning its eastern boarders
- they could've supported polish gouverment against USSR in Katyn case
- they didn't have to acknowledge soviet puppet-gouverment of Poland
- they didn't have to opt for limiting territory of Poland more than Stalin did
- they could've pressured Stalin to support, or let them support, Warsaw uprising
- the death of gen. Sikorski remains a mistery, with soviet or british intelligence involved - the British still haven't declasified files concerning it.
- Brits could've allowed Poles to participate in the military parade held at the end of war
I'm sure other states have their own concerns toward Britain and UK as well
Britain and US preferred to make use of their east-european allies and, after the job was done, leave them in the lurch completely.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by VetLegion
If my country was an immigrant magnet I would be supporting restrictionist policies. Since it is not, I don't care too much.

However I can point out that while immigration is not economically harmful, it is neither economically, demographically or in any other way neccessary. That's just bull used to sell it to the general public easier.

I'll avoid commenting on the first point. (Multi-ethnicity in Croatia.)

With regard to the other point - the British State would not agree, historically. Immigration has been needed to fill key labour shortages at various stages over the last 50 years - from transport workers to health workers to plumbers and more.

There's a bit of an education crisis in Britain at the moment, as a result of Government policies that have resulted in some qualifications being handed out rather than earned, with the resulting devaluation and inability for some 'qualified' youngsters to actually be able to do anything. Eastern European immigrants, once the language factor is negotiated, are proving far more skilled and able than much of the output of Britains dumbed-down and dysfunctional education system.

[Sandman]

Re: Datajack

Your own graph proves my point. You said that any rate below 2.1 means the overall population is decreasing. Obviously that is incorrect, given that Japan's population continued to grow even after a rate below 2.1 had been reached.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
With regard to the other point - the British State would not agree, historically. Immigration has been needed to fill key labour shortages at various stages over the last 50 years - from transport workers to health workers to plumbers and more.

The thing about labour shortages is that most of the time the second part of the sentence is dropped. "There is a shortage of health workers" should actually be phrased "there is a shortage of health workers at current health-worker wages".

There is no natural right to cheap health or plumbing services. The prices are the result of supply and demand working their thing (there are some qualifications to that statement because there are often cartels fixing prices, regulations and other obstructions, however it is generally true). As such, the prices are fair.

I find complaints about labour shortages pretty snobbish in most cases.

There's a bit of an education crisis in Britain at the moment, as a result of Government policies that have resulted in some qualifications being handed out rather than earned, with the resulting devaluation and inability for some 'qualified' youngsters to actually be able to do anything. Eastern European immigrants, once the language factor is negotiated, are proving far more skilled and able than much of the output of Britains dumbed-down and dysfunctional education system.

I'll hazard disagreeing here too. I don't really know anything about British educational system. But what seems far more logical to me (than it being dysfunctional) is that the system simply maxed out and now can't come to terms with the fact that human abilities aren't evenly distributed. I doubt that those who have the abilities to advance are hampered by the system. It seems far more likely that the system is struggling with those less endowned.

[Datajack Franit]

Originally posted by Sandman
Re: Datajack

Your own graph proves my point. You said that any rate below 2.1 means the overall population is decreasing. Obviously that is incorrect, given that Japan's population continued to grow even after a rate below 2.1 had been reached.

The graph shows that population grows no matter how many births there are. Period. Even 1 single birth within all Japan counts as an increasing population. The aging of population only slows the arrival of the infamous "peak" date, when elderly people, at last, reach the end of their lives and start to die at large groups.


Maybe you will find this other graph more helpful




The graph tells (not only the graph but every newspaper) that Japan (along with Italy, Spain, Greece and other countries less affected by immigration) already reached its peak.

Reaching peak= no expected growth beyond that point, without an external migration or radical change of behaviours.

With a birthrate that is LESS of 2.1, (2 children for replacing their own parents, 0.1 for replacing those that die before being able to reproduce themselves) the overall population cannot in any way increase.

Now I'm still waiting for your explanation of all the wrong things stated in my previous post

[Combat Ingrid]

If you can make people immortal any birthrate higher than zero will lead to a natural increase in population. Maybe that's what Sandman is hoping for

[Sandman]

With a birthrate that is LESS of 2.1, (2 children for replacing their own parents, 0.1 for replacing those that die before being able to reproduce themselves) the overall population cannot in any way increase.

It can if the average life expectancy is growing. Which it is. It's not growing fast enough to completely offset population decline, but that may not be the case forever. I don't disagree about Japan, just your blanket statement that lower than 2.1 = decline.

Now I'm still waiting for your explanation of all the wrong things stated in my previous post

Muslims constitute 3-4% of the EU population. For them to become a majority by 2100 requires implausible social conditions including no secularisation, an improbable rate of conversion and no non-Muslim immigration.

The fear of Catholics taking over Protestant countries by birth, immigration, marriage and conversion was common in the 1930s. One gloomy Church elder predicted that Scotland would become a wholly Catholic country by 1990. Funnily enough, that hasn't panned out.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Sandman
One gloomy Church elder predicted that Scotland would become a wholly Catholic country by 1990. Funnily enough, that hasn't panned out.

[Datajack Franit]

It can if the average life expectancy is growing. Which it is. It's not growing fast enough to completely offset population decline, but that may not be the case forever. I don't disagree about Japan, just your blanket statement that lower than 2.1 = decline.

I think Combat Ingrid said it all

Originally posted by Sandman


Muslims constitute 3-4% of the EU population. For them to become a majority by 2100 requires implausible social conditions including no secularisation, an improbable rate of conversion and no non-Muslim immigration.


The fear of Catholics taking over Protestant countries by birth, immigration, marriage and conversion was common in the 1930s. One gloomy Church elder predicted that Scotland would become a wholly Catholic country by 1990. Funnily enough, that hasn't panned out.

Muslims constitute:

10% of population in France - 6,000,000
6% in The Netherlands- 1,000,000
22% in Serbia - 2,200,000
12% in Bulgaria- 1,000,000

Muslim women have a fertility rate between 5 and 7 (in their own countries, as making such statistics in Europe is labelled as racist), and is currently predicted that Europe's overall Muslim population (44,000,000 with the Russian Federation) will double within 2015/2020. Need more?

[VetLegion]

The figure for Serbia is correct only if you count Kosovo.

[Datajack Franit]

Indeed, but go figure out if Serbia manages to join the EU before Kosovo finds a way for secession. We are already having our troubles with those bus services unloading masses of desperates from Romania into every italian major city.

[Sandman]

Muslim women have a fertility rate between 5 and 7

Not universally they don't. Some Muslim countries even have a fertility rate below 2.1.

The CIA Factbook is your friend

Afghanistan: 6.69
Pakistan: 4
Saudi Arabia: 4
Egypt: 2.83
Indonesia: 2.4
Algeria: 1.89
Turkey: 1.92

[VetLegion]

I know, since news from Italy sometimes filter to our newspapers.

I think Italians have one of the worst immigration problems, probably due to ineffective police and courts.