Large slums developing in France

cells

kinger101 wrote: »

I think you're reinforcing the point he was originally making. If they're refugees, it's definitely women and children first. What kind of a man leaves his family behind to face Assad or Isis?

I doubt its the case that there is a horde running towards you and you need to flee to another continent women and children first. if it gets that close your already dead

It probably starts with people feeling insecure about their property and person. They probably first try migrating to a safer part of the country eg from rural villages or smaller towns held by xyz group to the cities where maybe the military and policy can do a better job. but even there if its the case of hearing or reading or witnessing a couple heading dead per weak by bombs or bullets or masked men and knives you might decide its not safe enough anymore

I doubt many refugees got here after being tortured raped or killed. if that was the criteria for admission then were would truely have very few. its probably the fear of it realistically happening that drives people away.

also a lot of them might well be economic migrants but not in the way you think. In a lot of the less developed country certain groups might be economically hugely disadvantaged and that is the route of their grievances and poverty. lots of wars have been fought over economic 'sanctions' between nations so it seems we were happy enough to kill and be killed for such things. however if you are a minority in a crap country the government might not be torturing and raping you but if they are keeping you in perpetual poverty then I think its a reasonable thing to want to try and escape that (the alternative is civil war)

cells

kinger101 wrote: »

(b) wouldn't it be better to have migration from genuine asylum seekers and selected skilled workers rather than some economic migrants of which we know nothing?

no it isn't, because we need all levels of people and people are not just of one use and one fixed skill when they come

I know one chap who is a professor in a London university who came to London when he was a 15 year old boy by himself through multiple countries didn't know a word of English on arrival

kinger101 wrote: »

(c) also, migration aside, the population does not decrease because birth rate <2.0. It declines when the number of deaths exceed the number of births; the difference between the two numbers either side of the dash on the tombstone is a variable. The key thing though is having sufficient income to the treasury.

that only works if the life expectancy is increasing.
So you can indeed have a low fertility rate and no migration and a population which isn't falling (and even one that is rising) but most (and in a short time all) of the population growth will be at the 60+ end of the spectrum


but as i already said the uk and france seem to be ok with ~2 kids per woman, the other eu nations like spain germany itlay etc closer to 1.3 would be in trouble with no net migration

wymondham

PasturesNew wrote: »

The problem with homelessness/housing is that you can't solve it.

If you rip down those slums and send those people off down the road .... they will simply have to stop up the road and set up somewhere else. Problem is just moved, not solved.

If you create/find/generate housing for them, then others come as they hear there's housing there. Problem is increased, not actually solved.

Only 'solution' is to move them to somewhere else entirely .... e.g. housing back in their own country.

Thanks PN... that is a very sensible solution and I can see it working... now, when will the leaders do this do you think? I cant see any leader even willing to say what you have in public unfortunately... this is our problem - weak leaders..

Mistermeaner

There's something called the overseas aid budget which gets slated. Particularly by those who don't like foreigners

missbiggles1

Marktheshark wrote: »

That is the solution, we are run by a bunch of communists who want to flood our entire country with as many of these people they can get away with and they will.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

CLAPTON

Mistermeaner wrote: »

There's something called the overseas aid budget which gets slated. Particularly by those who don't like foreigners

Many foreigners slate overseas aid as they know it mainly goes to maintaining the corrupt elites in power.
Where it is 'targetted' on poverty it often destroys indigenous industry.

The best solution to poverty is via trade, so that people can build a proper sustainable businesses through trade.
Unfortunately the EU has always built high tariff walls to keep out agriculture products to protect EU farmers.

kinger101

cells wrote: »

I doubt its the case that there is a horde running towards you and you need to flee to another continent women and children first. if it gets that close your already dead

It probably starts with people feeling insecure about their property and person. They probably first try migrating to a safer part of the country eg from rural villages or smaller towns held by xyz group to the cities where maybe the military and policy can do a better job. but even there if its the case of hearing or reading or witnessing a couple heading dead per weak by bombs or bullets or masked men and knives you might decide its not safe enough anymore

I doubt many refugees got here after being tortured raped or killed. if that was the criteria for admission then were would truely have very few. its probably the fear of it realistically happening that drives people away.

also a lot of them might well be economic migrants but not in the way you think. In a lot of the less developed country certain groups might be economically hugely disadvantaged and that is the route of their grievances and poverty. lots of wars have been fought over economic 'sanctions' between nations so it seems we were happy enough to kill and be killed for such things. however if you are a minority in a crap country the government might not be torturing and raping you but if they are keeping you in perpetual poverty then I think its a reasonable thing to want to try and escape that (the alternative is civil war)

You might think that, but the 1.6 million Syrians now living in Turkey might disagree with you. The point is genuine refugees normally need to take their families with them. Women and children also tend to get killed by bombs, guns and the starvation that occurs when the soldiers steal all the food.

kinger101

cells wrote: »

no it isn't, because we need all levels of people and people are not just of one use and one fixed skill when they come

I know one chap who is a professor in a London university who came to London when he was a 15 year old boy by himself through multiple countries didn't know a word of English on arrival

that only works if the life expectancy is increasing.
So you can indeed have a low fertility rate and no migration and a population which isn't falling (and even one that is rising) but most (and in a short time all) of the population growth will be at the 60+ end of the spectrum


but as i already said the uk and france seem to be ok with ~2 kids per woman, the other eu nations like spain germany itlay etc closer to 1.3 would be in trouble with no net migration

The life expectancy rate is increasing in case you hadn't noticed. I was simply pointing out the mathematics.

I'm not sure that we want to determine our net immigration based on birth rates in Spain. The main reason for the recent population decline in Spain BTW is all the Romanians going home now the work has dried up. The Spanish are leaving too.

If we want people to contribute to the economy, then they need skills to match the vacancies we have. The professor anecdote is nice, but I can assure you that there are no shortage of visas for academics.

I'm not arguing against controlled immigration. I just have a problem with taking random people from Calais who are not genuine refugees. They don't contribute all that much to the UK economy when they end up working for some slavemaster because they don't have a visa. If we need people, they can come through the front door.

kinger101

CLAPTON wrote: »

Many foreigners slate overseas aid as they know it mainly goes to maintaining the corrupt elites in power.
Where it is 'targetted' on poverty it often destroys indigenous industry.

The best solution to poverty is via trade, so that people can build a proper sustainable businesses through trade.
Unfortunately the EU has always built high tariff walls to keep out agriculture products to protect EU farmers.

The farming subsidies don't help either. The US is just as bad. A number of countries in Africa can no longer produce cotton because of all the cheap US cotton on the market. It used to me an important cash crop in many countries.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

maybe its difficult to distinguish between them especially if they have lost their papers

and anyway how do you deport people ?

I agree that those problems would need to be addressed but my point is that if there were secure areas for genuine asylum seekers and better living conditions, it might be easier to deal with the problem.

For those who are economic migrants who cannot prove they have EU citizenship they can be deported.