because the new EU countries are denying migration due to cultural values, but then call Britain racist when we want to control it.
Is the EU migrant quota system about to fall apart?
- Thread starter Chris Wilson
- Start date
because the new EU countries are denying migration due to cultural values, but then call Britain racist when we want to control it.
Well, looks like the Hungarians are a bit undecided as to whether they fancy this quota lark thrust upon them <LOL>
Hungary referendum: 95 per cent of voters say 'no' to EU migrant quotas
Hungary has voted emphatically against accepting EU migrant quotas, exit polls suggest, in a cry of defiance against Brussels that is likely to cement the country’s status as the leader of a “counter-revolution” against the bloc’s central powers.
The country’s counter-terrorism centre also revealed this week that Hungary became a “logistics hub” for jihadists in the months leading up to the November 13 massacre in Paris, which left 130 people dead and a further 368 injured.
The “hub” was used to co-ordinate Isil fighters who were posing as refugees with fake passports as they returned to central Europe, intelligence chiefs said.
Data analysts claimed on Sunday evening that Hungary’s media overwhelmingly backed the “No” vote, with 95 per cent of TV broadcasts leading up to the referendum supporting the government’s position.
They also said that 91% of TV coverage about migrants in the same time period depicted them in a negative light.
Though the EU quotas would see only 1,924 migrants added to Hungary’s population of 9.8m, the vote is seen as highly symbolic of a tidal wave of anti-refugee sentiment sweeping across Europe.
Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...migrant-quotas-polls-suggest---but-what-does/
That's what the Hungarians think of the quota then
Hungary referendum: 95 per cent of voters say 'no' to EU migrant quotas
Hungary has voted emphatically against accepting EU migrant quotas, exit polls suggest, in a cry of defiance against Brussels that is likely to cement the country’s status as the leader of a “counter-revolution” against the bloc’s central powers.
The country’s counter-terrorism centre also revealed this week that Hungary became a “logistics hub” for jihadists in the months leading up to the November 13 massacre in Paris, which left 130 people dead and a further 368 injured.
The “hub” was used to co-ordinate Isil fighters who were posing as refugees with fake passports as they returned to central Europe, intelligence chiefs said.
Data analysts claimed on Sunday evening that Hungary’s media overwhelmingly backed the “No” vote, with 95 per cent of TV broadcasts leading up to the referendum supporting the government’s position.
They also said that 91% of TV coverage about migrants in the same time period depicted them in a negative light.
Though the EU quotas would see only 1,924 migrants added to Hungary’s population of 9.8m, the vote is seen as highly symbolic of a tidal wave of anti-refugee sentiment sweeping across Europe.
Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...migrant-quotas-polls-suggest---but-what-does/
That's what the Hungarians think of the quota then
Holy ****!
You really believe that???
In general, yes...
No where did I suggest the current system was correct...
Anyway, these people are still alive, and still going to have children. The difference being they will probably have less in a more developed country, and their children probably will to.
Only if you don't realize that there is a large push towards reducing inequality between developed and developing countries at the moment.
The best option for all of us (as a species)* is broadly equally developed nations with a human population about half it is now. Unfortunately that's going to take centuries.
None of this has much to do with immigration though, especially when said immigration is between either broadly similarly developed countries (and the EU is broadly similar, relative to much of the rest of the world), and asylum seekers and refugees, which the migrant policy is aimed at.
*obviously the best for "us" is probably a continuation of the imperialism of the 19th century, using developing countries as money bowls, siphoning stuff out and keeping them down, while benefitiing outselves from the cheap labour, materials and food. Not really something that's acceptable in the 21st century though.
That's not really the case at all. If you're talking about EU immigrants then they are on average better educated than the British population as a whole. The only other section of immigration that could fit your narrative above would be family of British citizens and family of people granted skilled visas. Neither of which any sane person would really want to turn away.
Also worth pointing out the immigration rate to the UK is not exactly astronomical relative to much of the rest of the western world, and possibly more importantly a couple of countries regularly mentioned as "good" examples.
For example, lets start with Australia, which had a net migration of around 170,000 last year, 10% less than the year before. Thats in a country with a third of the population of the UK. (5.6 per 1,000 - see CIA link below)
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3412.0/
Then the US, which had a net migration of around 1.25m last year. (3.9 per 1,000)
And another example, Canada which had a net migration of around 320,000 last year. (5.6 per 1,000)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ar-highest-number-since-1971/article32102991/
All run "strict" immigration policies that many people appear to want the UK to run (2.5 per 1,000), yet their immigration rates (per capita) are all higher than ours.
https://www.cia.gov/library/PUBLICATIONS/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2112rank.html
So perhaps immigration isn't the main problem, and perhaps an "Australian style system" isn't really the answer?
Because people don't seem to understand the difference?
Got any data on that? I don't remember much of that tbh.
What is well documented (looking at it in the Trump thread), is that in the US the opposite is true. Immigrants are less likely to commit crime and/or be imprisoned.
EDIT: Oh, actually you're (mostly) incorrect in your unsubstantiated statement.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/28732/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/28/immigration-impact-crime
So yes, you can quite rightly deny that immigration is causing crime (except in a few specific circumstances).
EDIT 2: And another one, from a different author and university http://izajom.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-9039-3-12 (this one looks at reporting of crime as well)
And another one https://izajom.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-9039-2-19 (A different paper but one of the same authors at the first)
Last edited:
The London School of Economics is the academic equivalent of the Calais Jungle and their opinion about as unbiased
I assumed someone would say that. That's why I decided to add the other two papers. One a UEA and the other a UCL/LSE joint paper.
Also, how about contradicting recognised, peer reviewed papers with some actual data? If they are actually causing as much crime as some people are suggesting there should be plenty of empirical data out there, rather than conjecture and anecdotal evidence.
Also, how about contradicting recognised, peer reviewed papers with some actual data? If they are actually causing as much crime as some people are suggesting there should be plenty of empirical data out there, rather than conjecture and anecdotal evidence.
Finally! Someone talking sense in a sea of liberal insanity!
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,586
I'm talking about the "migrant crisis", not legal migration.
Soldato
Not sure how its not the case, we have a far more lenient system for EU nationals (obviously) and a less strict policy than Australia for others as well. Even taking the EU migrants into account are people not allowed the opinion they would not have unqualified, possibly non-english people entering the country with relative ease when the country is struggling so much. You can't knock down that opinion as it is an entirely justifiable one.
And re the Australian system not being the answer, evidently not as the goverment rejected it?
And the paper mentions both a period of refugee influx and a period of EU migration. So that covers it as best current data can.
Out of interest why is our system more lenient? It's currently very difficult to gain work visas in the UK as they are fairly rare and sought after, and IIRC the number of people coming through that system is less than my of the other nations on that list. I'd question whether any of the people coming in under skilled worker visas are uneducated layabouts without a job.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you have to have sponsorship by a company to get that kind of visa to work here? Unlike Oz and Canada where you can just come over if you meet the requires skill set, and you don't need a job offer or sponsorship for certain permanent residence classes.
As for the EU it's about give and take, we can go and work there, they can come and work here. Either way on average EU nationals coming here are better educated than the native population.
Basically generally immigrants into the UK as a whole are better educated than the native population.
As has already been pointed out a lot the country is not struggling because of immigration, in fact there is a net benefit from immigration. The country is "struggling" because of government policies and/or things the vast majority are doing (I.e. The natives). Scapegoating immigration is an ancient way of trying to pass the buck and will probably stay that way for a long time to come.
Last edited:
seem like most of the govt propaganda might have been a big waste of money - with that sort of result it was in the bag already, doesn't matter if they'd say won with 70% instead...
What does matter is that because they couldn't get more than half of the electorate out to vote, it's not a valid result.
not knowing the turn out so i assume you're telling the truth on it being less tha 50% turn out.
but is the "not a valid result" you're opinion or hungarian law?
Caporegime
No. You have to meet the required skill set of a job currently classed as 'in demand.' The list is constantly updated, so the people who meet today's requirements might not meet next month's.
Employer sponsorship is still the best way to get into Australia.
The only classes I can think of that match this description are spouse and prospective spouse visas.
So what I said then. The skill set being the job that is in demand (alongside other things like education, age, experience, language etc).
What you don't need explicitly is an offer of a job (but it does help your application somewhat, even though a significant number don't have one). Which as far as I'm aware (outside spouse visas) is not the case for uk visas*.**
For example to get PR for Australia or Canada you could be a geoscientist with the requisite number of points from the other categories and get PR. You can then travel over and start looking for a job (doesn't have to be in the in demand job you applied under). That isn't usually the case in the UK.
*Outside of the ones that are pretty rare - entrepreneurial and "exceptional talent" etc.
** And yes, it we have to be completely finicky there are a number of other hurdles you have to pass, but the point is it's easier to immigrate without a sponsorship/job. I'm not bothered enough to go over all the stages and specifics of each visa system.
Last edited: