UK attracts more Immigrants than the whole of the EU

Graham_Devon

Whole of the EU.

All other EU countries.

Being difficult solely to argue and ignore the point, IMO.

Sampong

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Whole of the EU.

All other EU countries.

Being difficult solely to argue and ignore the point, IMO.

Exactly - all of the posters can see the point regardless of the typo, but nobody wants to answer.

The point is, in every thread we have about the impact of Immigration, Hamish posts data which is either out of date, bogus, or at best questionable and tries to tell us that more migrants go to other EU countries.

Yet the latest info indicates otherwise.

So he was wrong then.

chewmylegoff

No, there is rather a big difference between Britain having more immigrants than the whole of the rest of the EU combined and Britain having the most immigration of any single EU country. The difference is more than 2 million in a one year period.

Furthermore, when you compare gross immigration in 2010 to population level we are behind a number of countries including Belgium, Greece, Spain and Sweden; and we are right in the middle for % of the total population who are immigrants. (Although it does appear that anyone who has become a citizen might not be counted as an immigrat in their methodology - although the same methodology applies to all).

What is notable from the figures is that only 170,000 or 30% of the immigration is from other EU countries and the rest is from outside, so the popular meme that we cannot control immigration because of the EU seems flawed.

Sampong

chewmylegoff wrote: »

If it's not deliberate then I hardly think you're in a position to be calling anyone else a numpty!

Anybody can make a typo. Trying to ignore the point by focusing on the typo is numpty behaviour plain and simple.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Furthermore, when you compare gross immigration in 2010 to population level we are behind a number of countries including Belgium, Greece, Spain and Sweden; and we are right in the middle for % of the total population who are immigrants.

Isn't that a bit of a pointless comparison though?

You may aswell compare to the total mass of the land of each country, or how many mountains the country has.

If a country has a high density population anyway compared to other countries, comparing it against population will always make the numbers look smaller.

As for the typo, yer, great, but it's been pointed out now. I know you like a typo, but you can hardly even get the grips of capitalizing a sentence on many of your posts, so your hardly one to lord it over others!

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Isn't that a bit of a pointless comparison though?

You may aswell compare to the total mass of the land of each country, or how many mountains the country has.

If a country has a high density population anyway compared to other countries, comparing it against population will always make the numbers look smaller.

As for the typo, yer, great, but it's been pointed out now. I know you like a typo, but you can hardly even get the grips of capitalizing a sentence on many of your posts, so your hardly one to lord it over others!

Well, oh king of apostrophes and your/you're usage, I don't agree that the thread title is a "typo". It's not as if a stray letter has changed the meaning of the sentence is it. At best it is a poorly written sentence which fails to convey its intended meaning, at worst it is a deliberate attempt to be disingenuous.

I don't really understand your attempt at making a substantive point - surely the rate of immigration per head of existing population is highly relevant as it measures the rate of "dilution". Or are you suggesting that if UK had immigration of 500,000 and Luxembourg had immigration of 400,000 that UK would still have a higher rate of immigration because the absolute number is higher?

Sampong

chewmylegoff wrote: »

No, there is rather a big difference between Britain having more immigrants than the whole of the rest of the EU combined and Britain having the most immigration of any single EU country. The difference is more than 2 million in a one year period.

Totally irrelevant as everybody (apart from the numpty's) will realise that I meant the UK attracts more immigrants than any single country in the EU.

Furthermore, when you compare gross immigration in 2010 to population level we are behind a number of countries including Belgium, Greece, Spain and Sweden; and we are right in the middle for % of the total population who are immigrants. (Although it does appear that anyone who has become a citizen might not be counted as an immigrat in their methodology - although the same methodology applies to all).

Wow what an amazing fact. Shame you don't actually understand what you are talking about. All of those countries you mention above which rival the UK in the Immigration tables have disproportionate Immigration and problems surrounding it.

Here is an interesting statistic which looks at things from a different perspective. As Hamish often loves to point out - there are around 1.4 million Brits living in the other 26 EU countries. He just loves that stat doesn't he. But that works out to on average 40,000 per country. We have 1.8 million EU citizens in the UK (that we know about) which, on average is 40 times as many as any other country. Since, according to Hamish's logic that Immigration makes the economy grow - surely we should have a booming economy instead of being a trillion pounds in debt?

Wheezy_2

Sampong wrote: »

- there are around 1.4 million Brits living in the other 26 EU countries. He just loves that stat doesn't he. But that works out to on average 40,000 per country. We have 1.8 million EU citizens in the UK (that we know about) which, on average is 40 times as many as any other country.

Are you for real?
You divided 1.8 million by 40,000 to come to this brilliant conclusion? :rotfl:

Sampong

Wheezy wrote: »

You divided 1.8 million by 40,000 to come to this brilliant conclusion?

It's not a brilliant conclusion but a fairly obvious fact that seems to be constantly missed by those who claim that mass immigration is all good

Wheezy wrote: »

Are you for real?
:rotfl:

Yes - are you? Do you have anything of any substance to say? It would seem not. The words "keyboard jockey" spring to mind.

chewmylegoff

Sampong wrote: »

It's not a brilliant conclusion but a fairly obvious fact that seems to be constantly missed by those who claim that mass immigration is all good



Yes - are you? Do you have anything of any substance to say? It would seem not. The words "keyboard jockey" spring to mind.

I don't think mass immigration is all good. I'm pretty xenophobic and insular, plus I am extremely suspicous of organised religion which seeks to strictly control people on the basis of social norms whoch are many hundreds of years out of date, and which would seek to reverse the social freedoms our citizens have gained, which all means I'm not entirely comfortable with ghettoised immigration from Muslim countries. Hamish would probably call me a racist.

I just don't think that the stats which the telegraph article is based on actually bear out your revised claim that the UK has the most immigration of any EU country. There appear to be a number of EU countries where the immigration rate is higher on a per capita basis than it is in the UK. I didn't say that this is a good thing for those countries, just pointed out what the Eurostat figures show.

Using absolute numbers to compare immigration in countries of wildly varying populations (and for that matter population densities) is a completely flawed method of comparison.