(Apr 27, 2017, 03:58 PM)Humla Wrote: [ -> ] (Apr 26, 2017, 03:05 PM)francysol3c Wrote: [ -> ] Just look at his avatar. Probably some race purity/xenophobical ranting. This.
We are taking refugees, as we have no other option (Shooting them or denying rescue would just make them come illegally, skyrocketing the human trafficking/prostitution/slavery problems).
They are coming illegally, the things you are mentioning is already a huge problem.
To put it simple: The fertility rate of Europeans doesn't keep up with the fertility rate of, for example, muslims. Add that to the mass-immigration and Europe and Europeans as we know it now will cease to exist in a few years. I am not against people seeking refuge but if you are desperate to get to saftey why continue from one safe country to another one just because they have better benefits? When you are safe you stay there until the war and what not is over then you are supposed to go back to the country.
Why doesn't Israel or Saudi-Arabia open their borders for example? Countries that are closer than Sweden and Germany who has massive influx of refugees.
Also; many, if not most, of the so called refugees are not even refugees. They are just coming for the easy money.
Haha oh boy here we go again.
Fertility rate of Muslims vs Non-Muslims in Europe.
According to Pew Research (1a), the current difference in fertility rates between 0 and 1.5 children per woman, for Muslims and Non-Muslims in European countries, with the weighted average being 0.7 extra children per woman. This is projected to be 0.4 per woman in 2030. Now, you may say that "Muslims are overrunning Europe because their women pop out more babies.", and technically, the second half is true. Looking at the trends, this will be statistcally insignificant by 2050. Let's do some calculations on those numbers.
Calculations
Using an online calculator (2) (since I don't know fertility rate to population growth formulae), I filled in the data for Europe, and attempted to find the year that the Muslim population equals the non-Muslim population.
Data Used
Where avaliable, all data is 2011 or 2010. If not, then differences are noted.
Total Fertility Rate Source: 1
TFR, Muslim: 2.2
TFR, Non-Muslim: 1.5
Immigration Source: 3a
Immigration Total: 356,000
Immigration Percentage, Muslim, Average: 28.3%
Immigration, Muslim: 100,748
Immigration, Non-Muslim: 255,252
Starting Population Source: 3b, 3c
Starting Population, Muslim: 44.1E6
Starting Population, Non-Muslim: 736.9E6
Please, during this stage, you need to add 6 years (data is from 2011, it's currently 2017). Therefore, for 2050, I measured data at 2056.
Muslim population by 2050: 52.2E6
Non-Muslim population by 2050: 609.9E6
Oh dear. Not even including the decrease in Muslim TFR over this period, we still haven't been overrun.
Let's go a bit further into the future. 150 years, in fact. So we're in the year 2167 (measured at 2173).
Muslim population by 2167: 99.1E6
Non-Muslim population by 2167: 155.6E6
We still haven't been overrun. Let's not forget, we're not correcting for the drop in fertility rates.
Decrease in Fertility Rate over time.
Europe has an aging population. It's true. The population growth rate is decreasing. But then again, so is the Muslim population growth rate.
Looking at Pew Research again (3d), we can see that the drop in Muslim Population Growth rate is 0.9 percentage points (projected) over 40 years. The non-muslim growth rate decrease? 0.6 percentage points.
However, this is world-wide. Let's look at Europe specifically.
Drop in non-Muslim growth rate? 0.2 percentage points. The drop in Muslim growth rate? Dropped by 5 times the amount, dropping by a percentage point.
Performing linear regression equations on that data, the Muslim growth rate drops past the non-Muslim growth rate in 2076. That's way before my 150 year estimate.
So no. The Muslims are not taking over Europe because we're not shagging enough.
Moving on.
Isreal and Saudi-Arabia/
Why do they not open their borders? No idea. It's their internal politics, and whilst I find it morally bankrupt that they are not taking in refugess, that doesn't mean that other countries shouldn't. That being said, many of the border countries around Syria and other countries there are trying to accept refugees, but they are poor countries which are unprepared for such a massive influx of people.
The "so called" refugees.
You say that they are not refugees, but coming for easy money. Taking a look at a Reuters article on the subject of refugees in Germany (4), it shows that 975,000 migrants are receiving benefits in 2015. The bill seems to be 5.3 billion euros. However, since the source for this claim isn't given, it may be total or yearly. I'll assume yearly for the purpose of this argument.
This means that, yearly, refugees get 5,300 Euros, on average.
Taking the average monthly rent of a one bed apartment to be 500 Euros per month (5), this leaves... nothing... For living expenses... Let's also bear in mind. The average monthly income in Germany is 2,200 Euros. Month.
The average wage in two months is more than these refugees get. Easy money?
Oh, I'm sure you'd be willing to travel half-way across the world, risk your life on a boat, possibly be arrested, for less money that you'd get at a shitty office job.
Sorry my sources ain't as neat as last time.
Sources
1- Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life, The Future of the Global Muslim Population, January 2011, Highlights.
1a - Page 9 of Source 1.
2-
https://ilkkah.com/population-calculator
3- Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life, The Future of the Global Muslim Population, January 2011, Full Source.
3a- Page 134
3b- Page 15
3c- Page 121
3d- Page 16
3e- Page 123
4-
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europ...SKCN11B11M
5-
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/co...ry=Germany
. Merry Christmas.