While Holland threatens to boil over and all of Europe has begun to reconsider its short-sighted and culturally suicidal immigration policies (which have brought millions of Muslims who evidently are still attached to the Sharia into Europe), the world-class dhimmis at the UN say Europe needs more immigrants. From Bulgaria's Novinite, with thanks to Anthony:
Immigration can offset many of the consequences of population ageing and labour shortages in Europe, a United Nations global study has concluded.From 1995 to 2000, the European population would have shrunk by 4.4 million if 5 million migrants had not arrived during that period. However European countries' labour strategies do not solve the problems of struggling pension programmes, says this year's UN World Economic and Social Survey.
Even if 600,000 immigrants a year arrive in Europe between 2000 and 2050, the European population is still likely to decline by 96 million in that period.
Population decline is a serious problem. Is allowing Sharia to come to Europe really its best solution?
If the immigrants in question only add to the welfare burden rather than contribute to the economies, it will only make the problem worse, rather than better. That's what's happening in Europe today. Many Muslims were allowed in to make sure that Euros could keep their welfare state and pension benefit Ponzi schemes going. . .but the Muslim immigrants by and large don't contribute that much, and cost a lot in terms of extra expenses for welfare, policing, security services, etc.
The UK is just overpopulated already. During the last 30 years its inhabitants have risen from 55 to over 60 million people.
There is the problem of building millions of extra homes without spoiling the countryside.
More people means more traffic too, and traffic jams and motorway tailbacks are an unpleasantness and an inconvenience that costs the economy more that 10 billion pounds a year.
In the future jobs will be done by computers and robots which will put people out of work, so the fewer people the better.
There are still more than a million people without work.
Even if this wasn't so, the Islamification of Britain is too high a price to pay.
Many Muslims were allowed in to make sure that Euros could keep their welfare state and pension benefit Ponzi schemes going. . .but the Muslim immigrants by and large don't contribute that much, and cost a lot in terms of extra expenses for welfare, policing, security services, etc.
Posted by: Suzan
I read a recent study about immigration in Canada. It basically said that although a generation ago most immigrants were better educated, (and more motivated) earned a higher income than Canadians, this is no longer the case. Immigrants these days are poorly educated and never obtain the income or education levels of native Canadians. This annuls the reason for having immigrants, which has always been that we need well-educated and high-income earners so we can keep our ponzi welfare schemes going. It looks like these social engineers are going to reap what they sow.
So that's what the UN says, is it?
I have lost my faith in the UN and I wouldn't trust it if it told me what day of the week it was.
The UN seems to be co-operating quite nicely with those who would Islamify Europe.
I think immigration is a fine idea - just choose where they come from. Canada is fortunate enough to have thousands of immigrants from east Asia (e.g. China) and India - almost all well educated and many very entrepreneurial. I work with these groups daily and they have no trouble fitting in and contributing. Those from the Middle East and North Africa - that's a diferent story
Re: Sheik Canuck:
I think the problem you are referring to is the almost unfettered access to Canada of "refugees" who are essentially bogus economic migrants with no job skills and, in many cases, dubious work ethic.
"Population decline is a serious problem. Is allowing Sharia to come to Europe really its best solution?"
Hey, were not Canada! Give us a brake!
Perhaps we'll have to reconsider taking back the EU's 'njet' to the Ukraine in 10 years or so. Apart from that I don't take this problem serious.
The Netherlands has become an emigration country the last years, due trobably the toughest policy in the EU. The rest of Europe is allways slow to follow Dutch guidance, but it will - eventually.
The UN has lost ALL credibility with me anyway. For numerous reasons.
The Single Convention against Drugs is one of them. Guess what the only really enforced UN treaty is? That's right - 100% prohibition of plants like cannabis worldwide - well done! [/sarcasm]
Seriously though, IMO this is a weak spot in America's foreign policy. Other nations, like for instance the Taliban, or another future democratic Afghan government could have the US by their balls the way they are playing the "Great Game" of the Global War on Drugs.
As dictator of the Netherlands I would demand at least legal cannabis, but that's something else.
Re: Sheik Canuck:
I think the problem you are referring to is the almost unfettered access to Canada of "refugees" who are essentially bogus economic migrants with no job skills and, in many cases, dubious work ethic.
Posted by: johnb
You may be right about refugees being the problem rather than immigrants. However I think that part of the problem is the change of policy from just accepting the most qualified immigrants and their immediate family (e.g. spouse and minor children) to a policy of “family reunification” (e.g. spouse, minor children, siblings, parents, grandparents, cousins, etc., etc.) Whatever the actual cause, the result is as I said, uneducated, poor immigrants who adhere to a vastly different culture and religion than the native population. They do not and can not contribute to the economy in any meaningful, positive way, and indeed, they are becoming a burden just when we need a larger number of productive taxpaying people to support all these programs that the socialists have stuck us with. A recipe for trouble if not disaster.
The word "immigration" without more is dangerous. Pim Fortuyn was described, for example, as "anti-immigrant." He was not. He was against Muslim immigration. Muslim immigration imposes hidden costs and risks. Muslim migrants carry with them a belief-system that makes them immutably hostile to all Infidels. That hostility may be muted, or hidden, or nuanced, or not felt at all times, or acted upon at all times, but every encounter with Qur'an and hadith and sira will renew that hostlity. And it will be hard to withstand -- both the ideology, and the family members and circumambient Muslim society that constantly reinforces the message. The attitude toward Infidels is: this is our land, because all land is Allah's and belongs, by right, to the People of Allah, the Believers. Your property is ours, your women are ours. We do not owe allegiance to your laws, though we may, in order for now to get along, obey those that do not directly contradict the laws of Islam. But as we gain strength, we will of course demand more and more. This is just, this is right. For Infidels to rule over Unbelievers, or to attempt to, is simply unnatural, contra naturam. It cannot be permanently accepted.
With such beliefs, Muslim migrants now pose a permanent and growinng threat -- through Da'wa and overbreeding (often on the dole of the Infidel state), which steadily increases the percentage of Muslims in the population.
The Muslims in Europe have created a world ever more unpleasant, expensive (the cost of monitoring them is not cheap, from spies in the mosques, to phone taps, to police-informers, to security guards at every train station, police station, metro stop, or patrolling churches, synagogues, other Infidel groups, threatened political figures, threatened journalists, etc.), and of course much more dangerous. There is not a sane Englishman, Italian, Dutchman, Frenchman, German, Belgian, Spaniard who would not, if he could, undo the past 30 years of Muslim migration. And there is not one who does not bitterly regret that the leaders of his country, those who were supposed to instruct and protect him, and the country, did not thoroughjly investigate the teachings, and history, of Islam and of Muslims, before such migration into the Bilad al-kufr was so heedlessly allowed.
Now everyone is lurching about, denying, hoping, making excusses, grabbing at straws, wondering what oh what can we do? So even now the obvious -- the Czechoslovakian answer to the Sudeten threat, through expulsion -- is seen as simply off-limits in polite company. Why, exactly? Why should Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, and Turkey (the Surgun system of the Seljuks, and even into this century), all be able to practice mass expulsions, or the Poles, Hungarians, Russians, and Czechs do so after World War II -- but now it is simply not to be contemplated? Again, why?
As for immigrants, they can be found in the Philippines (Filipinos are now all over Italy, employed as domestic servants), Latin America, among black African Christians, and especially from the former Soviet bloc nations, including Russia itself. There is no need to let in any more Muslims -- and a great need to diminish the Muslim population now in Europe, and to make Europe Muslim-unfriendly or even Muslim-hostile. A series of intelligent measures can do that -- but they must be presented carefully. This is the minimum that can be done to protect Europe's legacy, from the negligence of some of its recent and present ruling elites.
Chirac and D. de V., and Solana-Prodi-Patten et al., are the quislings of the age. That should be understood. And they should be talked about as such.
The only reason these pseudo-intellectuals are worth paying attention to is because their vacuity is becoming increasingly more dangerous to the Free World. Whatever they say, it's safe to assume the opposite is the proper course of action.
Profitsbeard:
A protection racket it is!
Our welfare system attracks these parasites and they take it for granted.
If we want migration in Europe we would be much better off accepting peoples from the former SU, as well as Polish, Hungarians, Romanians etc. They are well educated, they work, they share our values and in 10 years (or even sooner) they are integrated.
We don't need - and we certainly do not want- any more Muslims! We have to find a way to get rid of those we're already feeding.
What is this fallacy of 'the need for the population to constantly increase' based upon?
The diminishing global water tables? The erosion of arable soils worldwide? The potential for drastic climate change and extinctions from the unintended consequences of both uncontrolled growth and jury-rigged solutions to occuring problems?
Why -other than the (perfectly put) Ponzi schemes of social welfare plans- would you want to keep overburdening the land, air, water and straining the unknown interconnectivities of these systems with more and more people? It was the enlightened Europeans and Americans and Canadians who saw this coming and have put a brake on their population explosions, knowing that a little quiet and solitude are also part of the needs of a sane soul.
Europe needs LESS immigration. It needs to go within to study and solve the dangers inherent in blithely opening the endless technological, genetic and ecological "Pandora's boxes". Not 'throw bodies' at the dimishing pensions of those who were fools enough to invite in the 'cuckoo's eggs' of immigrant guest workers for forty years or more.
Maybe a smaller stipend would get them out of their stupors and worrying a little more about their grandchildren, and not just another 6 week vacation to a nice-exchange rate Turkish resort.
On a smaller note:
My house has four bedrooms. I use three for other things. Should I have to let in a trio of strangers to sleep there just because it would look nice on some bureaucrats pie chart about the best distribution of resources?
As Mark Twain said- "There are three kinds of untruths: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Europe is being led to its doom by these statistico-ethereal technocrats ...who remind me of a story about a lab tech who was supposed to take care of vivesectional cats in a research facility's cages. The technician came to the professor one day and looked worried. "Professor, one of the cats is making a very bizarre noise. I don't know if it needs to be euthanized." The professor went into the lab's animal room with the tech and approached the caged cat. The tech said: "There! It's making the noise again!" The professor leaned in closer and listened, then looked up at the student as said: "It's purring."
Demographics will eventually lead to Islamic separatist movements in Europe and America. Primary immigration is now a red herring. It is muslim growth from within, that is the greatest danger. Bradfordistan etc will be the talk of the News media in the coming decades. There is no doubt of this eventuality. It is predictable. One just has to look at the muslim separatist movements around the world. Once a new muslim state is created, non-muslims will be forced out or worse. Muslims in the remainder of the non-muslim state will then continue to increase, till a new separatist demand is made, and so on.
So what are the choices
1. Wage war selectively in the Arab/Muslim world
2. A civil war within the West
3. Expulsion of muslims from the West.
4. Separation of Christendom from dar al islam, followed by an exchange of Muslims populations here, for Christians in Muslim countries.
The first is unlikely to work unless it takes the form of total war. This leads to unimaginable mega-death scenarios, for that is what it takes to change cultural attitudes of a nation. With Islam it will require much worse.
The second is again going to be bloody beyond imagination, besides being totally arbitrary.
The third option is not politically possible. In Bosnia and Kosovo, we made it clear that ethnic cleansing was not going to be tolerated, even though that was the only choice the Serbs had to save their cultural heritage. In effect, we ourselves closed that option for us.
That leaves the fourth option. It is the least expensive in all terms - mortality rates as well economic. This option though not nice and difficult to implement, is still the least expensive and bloody of all.
One must bear in mind that in the event of a really bloody civil war in Europe or America, the victors will exact a heavy price. In effect, if Europeans win, muslims will be expelled anyway. In retaliation, Christians in muslim countries will be slaughtered and the survivors expelled.
Two birds with one stone. We save ourselves as well as save the remnants of Eastern Christianity. Another plus, is that exchanges of populations, have happened quite often in recent history when cultures are unable un-able to coexist, and are recognised as legal.
In the meantime, as a first step, we have to name the enemy. Then make the practice of islam and its rituals as difficult as possible. Public calls to prayer to be banned, as it invades the public sphere and is also offensive to others.
Immigration to the West has occurred as the West has been friendly to islamic ritual as part of the multi-cultural ethos. We can make the West as muslim un-friendly as possible and hopefully reverse the tide of muslim immigration.
Difficult options all round and we have no one to blame but ourselves, but better we do so now, or else the price may be so high, that even we in the West will not be able to pay the piper.
A quarantine of the islamic world, as we did with the Warsaw pact, will soon bring down Islam. In fact, in the last 100 years, islam was on its way to extinction. It has been saved from that fate by the West, firstly by the West's exploitation of oil, and second, by allowing muslims into the West. Both of these, have given islam a new lease of life - if you like, the West has supplied the oxygen and life support to an ideology that was on its last legs.
If you want war put Milosevitch in charge!
Mladic and Karadjic are still on the loose, their coutrymen have so far resisted hading them over to the tribunal in the Hague.They have the necessary experience when it comes to Muslims...
Perhaps here the West (or should we say the US of A under Clinton!) slaughtered the wrong pig?
What wrong with Europe depopulating?
It will mean greater area of countryside for people to enjoy, and cheaper housing. People will be able to actually live in houses, rather than be crammed like sardines in flats and apartements.
The UN is funny but stupid; solving economic problems with more immigration. That's comparable when someone who has got a cold, is going to stand naked in the chilly rain to restore himself to health. Immigration in the Netherlands and probably the rest of Europe did cost us more money than we earned with it. New immigration a la UN will:
- cost us more money than we can afford
- lead to conflicts between populationss
- lead to the decline of western culture
- have the sharia as a result
And it will also make the more poor countries (3rd World) even more poor, since their best educated young people will leave their country. Therefore, immigration is a very stupid thing to stimulate in these times.
Also, it is most welcome when there are less people. The world now has 6,5 billion people and at the end of the century our planet will bulk with 12 billion people. For those who like whales, rhino's and rainforests, I suggest they start a campaign *against* overpopulation. Go Europe!