|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 6, 2024 18:13:43 GMT
When you say 'our' birth rate, you refer to the white British population, right? I would assume so as we are discussing why we have immigration. Andrew remains silent on the matter. He must be aware that ethnic minorities typically have higher birthrates, some still above replacement level. Natural growth in the overall population is being driven by historical and present immigration; the native population is declining. The net outcome is that Britain's population is still growing and at a historically fast rate.
But he chooses to ignore that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 6, 2024 18:18:45 GMT
as we are being warned about the massive loss of jobs that will be caused by the introduction of AI, is that not a good thing? But who will get paid? the workers? AI will increase productivity in the economy so we wont need as many people working anyway - so a declining population is entirely workable. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Nov 6, 2024 18:23:06 GMT
Then incentivise the birth rate for net contributors to make childcare etc easier (eg £2-5000 extra personal tax level) and remove all financial incentives for unemployed benefit scroungers to become pregnant and stay taking '' because they ''can't '' work )- once they have become gainfully employed they would be eligible for family financial incentives The obvious contradiction in what you are saying is that immigration is supposedly excessive because there are too many of us already. But wait.... clearly there are so few of us that we need to incentivise more breeding. All of which are clues to where you are coming from. And your contempt for those who cant work makes no distinction between a few swinging the lead, others who might be able to work with the right support, and others who genuinely cant work. Which itself signposts you ignorance and malice. Hater dont do nuance. You come to this forum full of hate and prejudice, reeking of contempt for those less fortunate than yourself, often from a position of extreme ignorance. And of course you are cheer led by your fellow hate fuelled and even more ignorant buffoons who form the dominant population on this forum. It's motto should perhaps be hate not hope. Which is why so many of you are on my ignore list and I only read their posts if I choose to. You yourself are a pig ignorant little hate monger and its all you come here for. If it makes you feel better, bully for you. I have no further interest in the pig ignorant yet malicious shit you come out with, so I will add you to my ignore list after this post. I am more than happy to engage with those who disagree with me yet who bring logic, intelligence, compassion, understanding, and thoughtfulness to the debate - Thomas, Pacifico, Zany are typical examples, even the Squeezed Middle on a good day. But I have no desire to engage with hate fuelled by ignorance and malice. People whose only interest here is to showcase their ignorance, malice, hate, or stupidity, are just going to be blocked from now on. I have no interest in anything you have to say. Let this post sever to let anyone not just you know why I am mostly going to be ignoring you. What a rant ! saying very little apart from highlighting your intolerance of those who disagree with your extreme left wing views - fairly standard for lefties though Those who will not work contribute nothing to the national pot , research shows that those scroungers who live off handouts and will not get a job majorly raise future benefit scroungers - thus they should not be incentivised financially to add to takers such as their birth parent(s). The very few genuine who ''cannot'' work will have great difficulty in raising children they have had - if they are genuinely too ill to work they will be too ill to bring up baby so should not be incentivised to do so. No-one has the right to procreate . Incentivising the givers , rather than the takers may even persuade some of the takers to become givers which will benefit the national pot . That you take pride in your ignore list says much about your already well highlighted intolerance , ignorance , hypocrisy and blind/deafness to officially holding takers to account. It's my long held view that benefit handouts to the working age unemployed should be strictly time limited to an absolute maximum of 5 years between the ages of 18-retirement age and that should also apply to those employed part time who still claim handouts |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 6, 2024 18:27:00 GMT
I would assume so as we are discussing why we have immigration. Andrew remains silent on the matter. He must be aware that ethnic minorities typically have higher birthrates, some still above replacement level. Natural growth in the overall population is being driven by historical and present immigration; the native population is declining. The net outcome is that Britain's population is still growing and at a historically fast rate.
But he chooses to ignore that.
Generally the poorer country you come from the higher the birth rate. But migrants quickly adjust, so second generation birth rates are much closer to local ones. The more important question for me is two fold. One is rate of change, its fine saying we all adjust over time to a homogenous coffee coloured like minded race. But the speed of change is causing conflict and issues for some of the indigenous population. My second is how we manage the big problem of the Western world, aging population and falling living standards. Is there another way that doesn't involve an ever expanding population of any type. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 6, 2024 18:33:33 GMT
I've not seen it myself... Really now? LOL! If, for example, you read any of Andrew's posts you'll see him claim that illegal immigrants aren't illegal if they're "Asylum Seekers" or "Refugees" which is of course entirely self-defined. And the government itself is seeking to blur the lines by attempting to insert the term "Irregular migrant" in place of "Illegal immigrant". Indeed, the term "Migrant" itself seeks to add an veneer of legitimacy by lumping all new arrivals together. So yes, the lines are being deliberately blurred and it's quite obvious. Unless you live under a rock or are simply too dishonest to admit to it that is. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 6, 2024 18:34:31 GMT
Our birth rate is at catastrophically low rates. One of the main reasons is because many cannot afford to have children some are delaying having children, many cannot to afford to buy their own home due to the demand on housing which pushes up the price that many will never be able to afford to buy, lack of social housing which are more affordable but again too many people chasing too few homes. Some people have been on wating lists for Social Housing for up to 10 years or more, those arriving in the UK from overseas either Lawfully or Unlawfully add to the above problems too many people in such a small landmass, the entire UK's infrastructure is overburdened creaking at the seams IMO Yes - you are being sterilised via over-crowding |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 6, 2024 19:01:00 GMT
I've not seen it myself... Really now? LOL! If, for example, you read any of Andrew's posts you'll see him claim that illegal immigrants aren't illegal if they're "Asylum Seekers" or "Refugees" which is of course entirely self-defined. And the government itself is seeking to blur the lines by attempting to insert the term "Irregular migrant" in place of "Illegal immigrant". Indeed, the term "Migrant" itself seeks to add an veneer of legitimacy by lumping all new arrivals together. So yes, the lines are being deliberately blurred and it's quite obvious. Unless you live under a rock or are simply too dishonest to admit to it that is. If they are granted asylum they are no longer illegal. That's simple enough to understand. But, by "The left" I assumed you meant someone of significance in power, not a bloke on a forum. A forum where a right winger insists we don't "invite legal migrants to live here" because they have to apply. Talk about word play. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 6, 2024 19:06:50 GMT
If you are referring to Southport, the man wasn't an immigrant. I thought that you were actually making a point about the workforce being able to be made up purely of those born in this country, i.e. the macro issue. He was second generation migrant. It's just andrea being andrea mate... |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 6, 2024 19:08:25 GMT
Many young girls these days make it a career choice to have kids by multiple fathers even before they have left school. Read that in the Daily Mail did you? Nope...Care to prove otherwise lefty? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 6, 2024 19:12:46 GMT
Really now? LOL! If, for example, you read any of Andrew's posts you'll see him claim that illegal immigrants aren't illegal if they're "Asylum Seekers" or "Refugees" which is of course entirely self-defined. And the government itself is seeking to blur the lines by attempting to insert the term "Irregular migrant" in place of "Illegal immigrant". Indeed, the term "Migrant" itself seeks to add an veneer of legitimacy by lumping all new arrivals together. So yes, the lines are being deliberately blurred and it's quite obvious. Unless you live under a rock or are simply too dishonest to admit to it that is. If they are granted asylum they are no longer illegal. That's simple enough to understand. But, by "The left" I assumed you meant someone of significance in power, not a bloke on a forum. A forum where a right winger insists we don't "invite legal migrants to live here" because they have to apply. Talk about word play. But the bloke on a forum is simply parrotting the official rhetoric.
And you want to complain about "Word play".  |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 6, 2024 19:25:49 GMT
Really now? LOL! If, for example, you read any of Andrew's posts you'll see him claim that illegal immigrants aren't illegal if they're "Asylum Seekers" or "Refugees" which is of course entirely self-defined. And the government itself is seeking to blur the lines by attempting to insert the term "Irregular migrant" in place of "Illegal immigrant". Indeed, the term "Migrant" itself seeks to add an veneer of legitimacy by lumping all new arrivals together. So yes, the lines are being deliberately blurred and it's quite obvious. Unless you live under a rock or are simply too dishonest to admit to it that is. A forum where a right winger insists we don't "invite legal migrants to live here" because they have to apply. Talk about word play. I think a point would make is that these people are not completely innocent. They may not be breaking the law, but they are breaking their own ethical standards. If their homeland towns and cities were being flooded by outsiders to such a degree they became ethnic minorities in these places, they would not like that. Ergo - they know perfectly well that we don't like it either...but still they come. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 6, 2024 19:28:02 GMT
A forum where a right winger insists we don't "invite legal migrants to live here" because they have to apply. Talk about word play. I think a point would make is that these people are not completely innocent. They may not be breaking the law, but they are breaking their own ethical standards. If their homeland towns and cities were being flooded by outsiders to such a degree they became ethnic minorities in these places, they would not like that. Ergo - they know perfectly well that we don't like it either... but still they come.And will be fully supported by starmer and his clan... |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 6, 2024 19:37:59 GMT
He was second generation migrant. It's just andrea being andrea mate... It’s lefties being lefties . They try to pass around the Koolaid that second generation migrants would automatically integrate into British society …something refuted by simple observation.For instance ,The ethnic minorities in the East end of London have not become crafty cockney West Ham supporters, some have but it’s obvious that many, if not most have no intention of integrating with the white locals . A small example is the influx of Charedi Jews in Canvey island Essex . They are a nightmare to those who live near them and never intergrate with the Islanders . They couldn’t even if they wanted to , their culture forbids it . |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Nov 6, 2024 20:26:17 GMT
Our birth rate is at catastrophically low rates. When you say 'our' birth rate, you refer to the white British population, right? I'm talking about British born and bred. I couldn't give a shit about the colour of someone's skin. If you do, that's your issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 6, 2024 20:32:52 GMT
When you say 'our' birth rate, you refer to the white British population, right? I'm talking about British born and bred. I couldn't give a shit about the colour of someone's skin. If you do, that's your issue. That didn’t answer the question but it raises another question . Would you give a shit if the white British population was dwindling ? |
|
