Immigration and Welfare [SPLIT from Abortion]

[The Ripper]

Not really... just one factor- sexual intercourse...

Besides, we need the children. Our birthrate is dangerously low. Unless you want to go the way of Europe and be forced to import millions of 3rd worlders to sustain your social security model (which is built upon the presumption that people will always breed at at least replacement rate).

How exactly is importing unemployable people benefiting our welfare state? If anything, 3rd world immigration is subverting the welfare state, on several fronts. First, it becomes less sustainable with more and more resources spent on people who will not live a single productive day in their lives, but instead will be a burden for those who do work. Secondly, it breaks the national and social solidarity and cohesion that are the prerequisites for such a state in the first place.

http://imgload.info/files/rgh1293098130y.jpg

And I can't wait for you guys to kick out third worlders! When's this going to happen? Right after Obama declares himself Führer of the White Race? :coffee:

[Joe McCarthy]

How exactly is importing unemployable people benefiting our welfare state? If anything, 3rd world immigration is subverting the welfare state, on several fronts. First, it becomes less sustainable with more and more resources spent on people who will not live a single productive day in their lives, but instead will be a burden for those who do work. Secondly, it breaks the national and social solidarity and cohesion that are the prerequisites for such a state in the first place.

http://imgload.info/files/rgh1293098130y.jpg

And I can't wait for you guys to kick out third worlders! When's this going to happen? Right after Obama declares himself Führer of the White Race? :coffee:

What data I've seen indicates that Third World immigrants, while a drain on social services, still put more into the system than they take out; so yes, these socialistic welfare programs do add to the argument for immigration, coupled with a declining birthrate which tracks with all of the causes championed by femilunatics.

[The Ripper]

What data I've seen indicates that Third World immigrants, while a drain on social services, still put more into the system than they take out; so yes, these socialistic welfare programs do add to the argument for immigration, coupled with a declining birthrate which tracks with all of the causes championed by femilunatics.

Can we also see this data?

[Joe McCarthy]

Can we also see this data?

I'm thinking specifically of a study I saw offline from Britain during the Blair years, but here's a similar study from the US:

http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_14274340

[The Ripper]

I'm thinking specifically of a study I saw offline from Britain during the Blair years, but here's a similar study from the US:

http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_14274340

California is not in any way comparable to a European welfare state so that's not of much use.

[Joe McCarthy]

California is not in any way comparable to a European welfare state so that's not of much use.

Why's that? If anything the fact that California is less of a welfare state just compounds the problem for European welfare states, for if the argument can be used even in California, how much stronger can the argument be used in Europe?

[The Ripper]

Why's that? If anything the fact that California is less of a welfare state just compounds the problem for European welfare states, for if the argument can be used even in California, how much stronger can the argument be used in Europe?

The job market is completely different, the study does not differentiate between legal and illegal, 1st and 3rd world immigrants in anyway, just to mention a couple of issues. Saying that, "in California its like this" has no implications for European welfare states. And even they are not one monolithic bloc with the same circumstances.

[la bombe]

California is not in any way comparable to a European welfare state so that's not of much use.

Not to mention


The study supports calls for proposed changes in immigration laws that would "allow immigrants to contribute more fully to the California economy," said Reshma Shamasunder, director of the California Immigrant Policy Center, which released the report.

The California Immigrant Policy Center describes itself as a nonpartisan, nonprofit statewide organization that focuses on supporting pro-immigrant policies.

The study made no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants because of limitations in the available data, most of which came from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey in 2005-07.

[The Lawspeaker]

Sweden and the Netherlands are completely different in the ways their economies and social system work. And they cannot be compared in any way. Let alone be compared to California which is only slightly more social then the rest of America.

So far for the American notion of the "European welfare state".

[Joe McCarthy]

Here is some data from the UK showing that immigrants paid 37% more in taxes than they did in taking social services. Let's just say that I would be very surprised if this didn't hold on the Continent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom_since_1922

[The Ripper]

Here is some data from the UK showing that immigrants paid 37% more in taxes than they did in taking social services. Let's just say that I would be very surprised if this didn't hold on the Continent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom_since_1922

Read again:


Research published by University College London in July 2009 showed that EU migrants made a "substantial net contribution to the UK fiscal system", paying 37 per cent more in taxes than they received in welfare payments.

No EU country is third world, so far. :coffee:

In other words, those immigrants are from the continent.

[The Lawspeaker]

Ah, Joe.. so you are trying to claim now that we should take as many immigrants as possible ?
European immigrants shouldn't be a problem though but this is not the case with the third-worlders.

[Joe McCarthy]

Not to mention

The study supports calls for proposed changes in immigration laws that would "allow immigrants to contribute more fully to the California economy," said Reshma Shamasunder, director of the California Immigrant Policy Center, which released the report.

Yes, which only adds yet more fuel to the fire. In other words, we have a nanny state, and we need to normalize the status of illegals so they can more fully pay into the system.

Face it: in life one can't have his cake and eat it too. Trying to oppose immigrants with welfare statism is sort of akin to putting out a fire with gasoline.

[The Ripper]

Yes, which only adds yet more fuel to the fire. In other words, we have a nanny state, and we need to normalize the status of illegals so they can more fully pay into the system.

Face it: in life one can't have his cake and eat it too. Trying to oppose immigrants with welfare statism is sort of akin to put out a fire with gasoline.

After having backed up your argument so well, I suppose we are forced to agree in face of the indisputable facts you've laid on us.

[Joe McCarthy]

Read again:



No EU country is third world, so far. :coffee:

In other words, those immigrants are from the continent.

I read it the first time. Polish migrants are not exactly known as big achievers in Britain, you know. They do menial jobs. I'll tell you what... why don't you post some data indicating that any immigrants take more out of the system than they put in... anywhere.

[The Lawspeaker]

Ah.. now the monkey comes out of the sleeve. (Dutch expression).

[The Ripper]

I read it the first time. Polish migrants are not exactly known as big achievers in Britain, you know. They do menial jobs. I'll tell you what... why don't you post some data indicating that any immigrants take more out of the system than they put in... anywhere.

Yes, but they work. If you can't prove your argument, its not up to me to disprove it. You have no case, as someone might say on an American attorney of law series.

Of course, whenever "xenophobic populists" ask for the numbers, we are told, oh its impossible to know. Swedish university lecturer (in Gbg) Lars Jansson has made some calculations in his book "Multiculture or Welfare" (http://www.bgf.nu/fpol/ljbok.html).

Some quotes:

"... Kostnaden för invandringen uppgick till 267 miljarder kronor (mdkr) 1999. Den utgjorde 24 procent av vad hela den offentliga sektorn kostade."

= 267 billion Swedish Crowns in 1999, nearly a quarter of the public sector.

"I relation till BNP har kostnaden för invandringen fördubblats, från 7 procent 1990 till 13,5 procent 1999."

= the proportion of GDP spent on immigration doubled from 1990 to 1999, from 7 to 13,5%

If I was retarded, I'd be LOLing and LMAOing my butt off right about now. :coffee:

[Joe McCarthy]

Yes, but they work. If you can't prove your argument, its not up to me to disprove it. You have no case, as someone might say on an American attorney of law series.

Of course, whenever "xenophobic populists" ask for the numbers, we are told, oh its impossible to know. Swedish university lecturer (in Gbg) Lars Jansson has made some calculations in his book "Multiculture or Welfare" (http://www.bgf.nu/fpol/ljbok.html).

Some quotes:

"... Kostnaden för invandringen uppgick till 267 miljarder kronor (mdkr) 1999. Den utgjorde 24 procent av vad hela den offentliga sektorn kostade."

= 267 billion Swedish Crowns in 1999, nearly a quarter of the public sector.

"I relation till BNP har kostnaden för invandringen fördubblats, från 7 procent 1990 till 13,5 procent 1999."

= the proportion of GDP spent on immigration doubled from 1990 to 1999, from 7 to 13,5%

If I was retarded, I'd be LOLing and LMAOing my butt off right about now. :coffee:

Well, as I suspected, you have no data substantiating that immigrants take more out of the system than they put in, which was your implied argument initially and which caused me to chime in in the first place.

Thanks for your time.

[The Lawspeaker]

So we should just take more immigrants until Europe get's destroyed, right Joe ? First you tried to divide Europeans ("British aren't European") and then you just say "Well.. there is no reason not to take immigrants".

[Joe McCarthy]

So we should just take more immigrants until Europe get's destroyed, right Joe ? First you tried to divide Europeans ("British aren't European") and then you just say "Well.. there is no reason not to take immigrants".

Shut up, Civis.

[The Ripper]

Well, as I suspected, you have no data substantiating that immigrants take more out of the system than they put in, which was your implied argument initially and which caused me to chime in in the first place.

Thanks for your time.

The proportion of immigrants in Sweden in 1999 did not exceed 25%. And it is you (or was it Savant) who said that the welfare state relies on 3rd world labour, who, as every European here knows, are a net burden on our welfare states. But, since you cannot present a case, I'm not going to spend time at this hour fishing for stats. The simple fact is that if you were indeed right, and illiterate nomads from the Horn of Africa were indeed profitable from the point of view of our welfare states (and not, say, our welfare bureaucrats), you would have no trouble whatsoever to find all the sources splashed all over, because that would be good news for the the current status quo. At the moment, since its so atrociously expensive, "no one can know for sure".

[The Lawspeaker]

Well Joe...Good we know your position on the matter. And no you shut up because every idea that you seem to come up with a lot to do with the destruction of Europe for the benefit of your own country.

[Joe McCarthy]

Well Joe...Good we know your position on the matter. And no you shut up because every idea that you seem to come up with a lot to do with the destruction of Europe for the benefit of your own country.

My position is that welfare statism fuels immigration, not that that I like immigration. My position should be very clear: get rid of the welfare state so as to reduce support for immigration. Some European nationalist parties actually understand this to some extent, as parties like Progress in Norway and the PVV in the Netherlands favor weaker safety nets than exist currently in their countries. Tellingly for this conversation, the True Finns are mega welfare statists.

[The Ripper]

My position is that welfare statism fuels immigration, not that that I like immigration. My position should be very clear: get rid of the welfare state so as to reduce support for immigration. Some European nationalist parties actually understand this to some extent, as parties like Progress in Norway and the PVV in the Netherlands favor weaker safety nets than exist currently in their countries. Tellingly for this conversation, the True Finns are mega welfare statists.

And they're also the most anti-immigrant party in parliament. :coffee:

Your argument was that 3rd world immigration benefits the welfare state. No takesies backsies. It will forever remain a blemish on your forum rep. ;)

[Joe McCarthy]

And they're also the most anti-immigrant party in parliament. :coffee:


Just an indicator of their political immaturity. What little I've read of them indicates they are less polished than the other groups I've mentioned.


Your argument was that 3rd world immigration benefits the welfare state. No takesies backsies.

Which I supported by linking to a study citing California.

[The Lawspeaker]

It's actually very odd that here in the Netherlands the immigrants were not brought in by the big welfare party of the PvdA but under the VVD and KVP which were more right-wing parties. And they were brought in to lower wages and not despite of what is being claimed "because the Dutch didn't want to do those jobs" This was noted by the way in a 1983 report from the Socialist Party that said "it would be good to give them each 75.000 guilders now and send them to their own country instead of letting the problem fester on". The report can be found on this very forum.

[Joe McCarthy]

It's actually very odd that here in the Netherlands the immigrants were not brought in by the big welfare party of the PvdA but under the VVD and KVP which were more right-wing parties. And they were brought in to lower wages and not despite of what is being claimed "because the Dutch didn't want to do those jobs" This was noted by the way in a 1983 report from the Socialist Party that said "it would be good to give them each 75.000 guilders now and send them to their own country instead of letting the problem fester on". The report can be found on this very forum.

I'm unsure who was in power at the time, but I've studied immigration a bit in the Netherlands, and I know that the beginning of the race problem started with asylum seekers fleeing Suriname. Having studied immigration history in Europe, I will say that as a rule the center-left has favored weaker immigration laws than the center-right. Britain and Germany both come to mind. I don't know for sure if that's the case in your country, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't. It's to be noted though that the VVD also ran on a less immigration platform this last time around, which helped pave the way for the deal with the PVV to reduce immigration by as much as half.

[The Lawspeaker]

I'm unsure who was in power at the time, but I've studied immigration a bit in the Netherlands, and I know that the beginning of the race problem started with asylum seekers fleeing Suriname. Having studied immigration history in Europe, I will say that as a rule the center-left has favored weaker immigration laws than the center-right. Britain and Germany both come to mind. I don't know for sure if that's the case in your country, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't. It's to be noted though that the VVD also ran on a less immigration platform this last time around, which helped pave the way for the deal with the PVV to reduce immigration by as much as half.
Wrong again. It started before that. The Surinamese only started coming in after 1973-1975.
The first immigrants (apart from the repatriated Indo's that came in the 1950s) of the modern wave first Spaniards and Italians (in 1963) and then Turks, Moroccans etc (from around 1965 onwards).

Those were the days of the Kabinet-Marijnen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijnen_cabinet) and the Kabinet-Cals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cals_cabinet). In the first one no social democrats were present and in the second a minority was.

So.. I think you should study it again. Immigration yet again exploded in the early 1980s with the Kabinetten Van Agt I,II,III, Lubbers I, II,III (in which there was only a brief intermezzo with the PvdA) and in the cabinets of the 1990s which were "zakenkabinetten" of VVD, CDA and PvdA. It's always funny to see that when the biggest wave comes along it is usually when the right-wing VVD is in the cabinet which are people that are slightly more aligned with your economic ideology.

And it may sound weird to you but the reason that Surinamese and West Indians (from the 1990s) could come to the Netherlands around 1973 was because of their Dutch passport as from 1973 onwards (because of the worsening economy from 1968 onwards) the migration policy got stricter (yes.. de Kabinet- Den Uyl). In 1975 15.000 were naturalised as it is has been the previous (right-wing) cabinets that had made such a mess of the migration policy. It was made easier to get here again by the 1980s (under Lubbers) when countless refugees were basically invited in ("brood en bed-regeling") and even the previous government had tried (and failed) to stem the flood of Surinamese (that couldn't be stopped because of their Dutch passport.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Civis Batavi
The first immigrants (apart from the repatriated Indo's that came in the 1950s) of the modern wave first Spaniards and Italians (in 1963) and then Turks, Moroccans etc (from around 1965 onwards).


The Indos were never seen as a problem as they assimilated well, and many of them were white anyway. The Spaniards and Italians were culturally compatible. Heck, by your logic, states like France had an immigration problem during the time of Louis Bonaparte!

And since we're on the subject of France, they had a trickle of Algerians going back before WW2 just as the Netherlands did. The beginning of the crisis began in the 70's with Suriname. I have no idea who was in power then, but I do know that center-left governments just adore asylum seekers...

[The Lawspeaker]

It didn't start back and if you would have bothered to read you would have read that it started in the 1960s. You just try to blame it on the Den Uyl-kabinet because it fits your political ideological needs.

The Surinamese couldn't be stopped if they tried. They were after all: Rijksgenoten. Citizens of the Realm. And actually the first groups that came were put in separate camps.

When it comes to the group of the 1960s under the right-wing cabinets they were denied Dutch lessons, they were denied any chance to fit in because "they would be send back anyways after we have stopped using their labour." In the 1980s it was the same again. Both were right-wing cabinets. And you can deny it as much as you like but likely I know my countries history.

[Osweo]

In other words, those immigrants are from the continent.

Heh, I bet the bulk of the 'contribution' is from IRISH, who would be here with or without the EU, Welfare State or whatever! I bet my own Grandmother is included in these figures, having worked here all her adult life at the Gas Board, and yet still technically being a non-citizen!

And FUCK all this 'economics data' crap. As if that were the only thing to measure the mass replacement of your nation with... :tsk:

[Joe McCarthy]

And FUCK all this 'economics data' crap. As if that were the only thing to measure the mass replacement of your nation with... :tsk:

A romantic but shortsighted view. Immigration is driven by several factors, including economics. If we expect to stem the tide, we'll need a mite bit more than 'Somalians move in and fuck our women'.

[Eldritch]

Tellingly for this conversation, the True Finns are mega welfare statists.

I'll let you in on a little secret, Joe: immigration is not osmosis.

[Osweo]

A romantic but shortsighted view. Immigration is driven by several factors, including economics. If we expect to stem the tide, we'll need a mite bit more than 'Somalians move in and fuck our women'.

Rational arguments and data do nothing. Daily experience of failed utopias turning into anger and frustration is the important thing. Discontent nudges the politicians to make up some excuse for a change of policy.

You can't convince the politicians of their error when those of them with any brains KNEW they were cooking up problems all along, deliberately, so they could then come along and 'solve' them.

[Joe McCarthy]

You can't convince the politicians of their error when those of them with any brains KNEW they were cooking up problems all along, deliberately, so they could then come along and 'solve' them.

I don't really think it had anything to do with plots. I think it was guilt and psychological recoil. Both the French and Germans opened the gates due to guilt over fascism. In the French case, they moved away from their eugenics-based policy that was tarred by Vichy. Initially that wasn't even so bad as it brought in culturally compatible immigrants, but when Algeria fell, it opened the door to the Third World.

In truth though, the case of France can be seen as an invasion as much as anything. The French government attempted to stop immigrants in the 70's, and they just kept coming. I'm afraid nothing short of an armed camp will do the trick, and this will become more the case, not less, in the coming years.

[Osweo]

I don't really think it had anything to do with plots.

No 'plots'. No 'conspiracies'. Just EASY responses to short term problems for the sake of immediate political gain, despite easily predictable long term disasters. We don't have to dress it up as illuminati and freemasons or aliens, you know.

[Savant]

Certainly it doesn't actually work, but that's the economic pretense under which it's done. The vast hordes of 3rd worlders are supposed to fund social security models. The social security models (and european social security models in particular) all presume a birthrate at or above replacement level. When that fails to happen, people have to come from somewhere. Therefore, since everyone is equal, multiculturalism is so wonderful, and 3 worlders are the most eager to come and in some places, the only people willing to come. Meanwhile vast amounts of resources are spent keeping the 3rd world alive, instead of incentivizing people from modern, western nations to breed. These billions we spend on 3rd world nonwhites through aid money, medical treatment, aids treament programs etc, keep the 3rd world non whites alive to immigrate to white, western nations.


How exactly is importing unemployable people benefiting our welfare state? If anything, 3rd world immigration is subverting the welfare state, on several fronts. First, it becomes less sustainable with more and more resources spent on people who will not live a single productive day in their lives, but instead will be a burden for those who do work. Secondly, it breaks the national and social solidarity and cohesion that are the prerequisites for such a state in the first place.

http://imgload.info/files/rgh1293098130y.jpg

And I can't wait for you guys to kick out third worlders! When's this going to happen? Right after Obama declares himself Führer of the White Race? :coffee:

[Savant]

Bingo. The fact that Euro welfare states are even more obese necessarily means that additional people to feed the leviathan are even more of a necessity for the European model. This means that either Europeans need to breed ALOT, or some people have to come from somewhere. The fact is Euros are breeding even less than Americans. For Europe to reverse it's migration policies(which I think they should) they also have to transfer to a more modern, laissez faire, western economic model for it to be a conceivable policy. Again, I think they ought to do both.


Why's that? If anything the fact that California is less of a welfare state just compounds the problem for European welfare states, for if the argument can be used even in California, how much stronger can the argument be used in Europe?

No, you should reverse your quasi marxist, antiquated obese welfare states, and do whatever is necessary to repair your birth rate.


So we should just take more immigrants until Europe get's destroyed, right Joe ? First you tried to divide Europeans ("British aren't European") and then you just say "Well.. there is no reason not to take immigrants".

:pound: :rotfl:




And FUCK all this 'economics data' crap. :tsk:

[The Lawspeaker]

No, you should reverse your quasi marxist, antiquated obese welfare states, and do whatever is necessary to repair your birth rate.

Trolling again are we ? You never come up with any ideas. Just trolling. Note: birth rates will plummet even more when there is no welfare state as people no longer have any wish to reproduce as they don't want to leave their children in poverty.

[Eldritch]

No, you should reverse your quasi marxist, antiquated obese welfare states, and do whatever is necessary to repair your birth rate.

That's kind of like telling someone to shoot himself in the foot first, and then to start training for a marathon.

Civis and gang: please don't take G.I. Joe and co.'s bait anymore. It's tiresome how he manages to pull his trick of turning the thread into an anti-Euro hatefest every time.