Incident at Roscommon hotel (asylum seekers)

Wibbs

Boggles wrote: »

Have you a link to where you saw that stat please?

Here you go, the highlighted orange bit in the number of asylum applicants table. Oh and my apologies, since 08. Oh and just above that a breakdown of gender. You'll note the blue bars(men) are around two thirds of the orange(women).

You want official EU stats? OK then, have a gander at this page.

The distribution of first-time asylum applicants by sex shows that more men than women were seeking asylum. Among the youngest age group (0–13 years), males accounted for 52 % of the total number of applicants in 2017. There was a greater degree of gender inequality for asylum applicants who were 14–17 or 18–34 years old, where around three quarters of first-time applicants were male, with this share dropping back to just over three fifths for the age group 35–64. Across the EU-28, female applicants outnumbered male applicants in 2017 for asylum applicants aged 65 and over, although this group was relatively small, accounting for just 0.6 % of the total number of first-time applicants.[emphasis mine]

The only area where women outnumber men are the tiny percentage of pensioners. They're only the applications by the way, those that actually came forward officially.

SnakePlissken

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

You're wasting your time trying to argue with racists.

With these kinds of people, anyone who is in in the slightest way different is automatically deemed untrustworthy/dangerous. .

If that were even remotely true there would be no shortage of threads critical of the ideologies of Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism... and so on and so forth but there's not.

It's very easy to label those who are critical of Islam's homophobia and sickening mysoginy as racists because, well you do not have an argument, you and other supporters of this stoneaged religion are on the wrong side of the facts when it comes to increased crime and sexual abuse in western nations where Islam has gained a foothold.

Wibbs

Grayson wrote: »

You've moving the goal posts by saying that it's a "de facto" open borders. The fact is that no-one here has said they wanted open borders.

You're also moving goal posts like a groundskeeper on speed. Banging this drum to keep attention away from maybe more relevant debate points that you'll find a lot more difficult to deflect from?

SnakePlissken

Grayson wrote: »

Literally no-one has said that open borders are bad and has been called a racist for it.

I have, and...
I have.

jmayo

elperello wrote: »

It's a shame really.
It was a lovely hotel.
The food was good and a beautiful location on the Shannon.

Food was not really that good.

Berserker wrote: »

Not really, these rural communities are in need of regeneration. Keep hearing that rural Ireland is dying. ...

Still spouting this shyte I see.

Yep nothing like adding a bunch of totally incompatible people, probably with questionable skills and education, dependent on state handouts to kickstart a revival in a part of the country where even the indigenous population can't really survive.

jmayo

Grayson wrote: »

You said that anyone here who's against open borders for economic migrants is called a racist in this thread.

is there anyone here who's actually for open borders? is there anyone here who's said that we should have no checks for anyone at all? Is there anyone who's said that we need some kind of control and has been called a racist?

Everyone here believes in some controls. No-one here believes in having an open border. What people are arguing about is whether or not we should be accepting refugees and how many we should accept.

Literally no-one has said that open borders are bad and has been called a racist for it.

Actually had long discussion with someone, can't be ar**ed remembering who, about taking in migrants and so called refugees.
I questioned about how come there was a Cameroonian dying in refugee camp in Greece and how the feck he ended up there when he keep being told they are ALL Syrians. :rolleyes:

The poster of course dragged up something about how crap it is to live in Cameroon and thus by extension how this guy should be allowed into Europe.

This posters immigration policy basically boiled down to letting everyone in after of course "some checks".
Let them in for short while and see if they made a go of it.
If not then they could be deported.
A bit of a suck and see job.
Shure what could go wrong. :rolleyes:

First off, we all know the "checks" have let in some seriously dodgy scumb**s and secondly how are authorities meant to keep track of people and go chasing after them if we can't even deport half the ones that are in court every other day.

When someone of your opinion is pushed I usually find the following.

1. there will be checks of people coming in ...

Of course no one can really quantify how good the records are in some of these cr**holes from which the applicant claims to hail from and how reliable any check will be.
It is not quite like the US immigration authority checking about Mick from Ballydehob or someone here checking about Heine from Munich.

2. there are some awful places in the world (besides Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia) and we should help them.

Of course no one ever spells out how we in Europe can afford to take the many millions from Africa, Asia, who want to get out of the cr**holes they are in at the moment.
There is never a number mentioned, thus it is basically a free for all take them all in.

3. When confronted with the huge issues often caused by the offspring of past immigrants from these areas there are usual claims that it is the fault of Europe for not integrating them, multiculturalism is great and will work swimmingly in the future.

And especially here in Ireland because we have had some immigrants living here for a long time and nothing ever happened here.
We are different of course.

4. When confronted by the sizable issues around crime and in particular sexual violence perpetrated by some of the young male migrants/refugees/asylum seekers that have come to Europe you will rubbish those claims by alluding to indigenous population of rapists, the catholic church, etc.

And if anyone continously questions immigration policy then they are alt -right, racist, fascist, etc, etc.

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

Here you go, the highlighted orange bit in the number of asylum applicants table. Oh and my apologies, since 08. Oh and just above that a breakdown of gender. You'll note the blue bars(men) are around two thirds of the orange(women).

Nothing I have read from either of those 2 links suggest that nearly 80% of the 5 million were male or fighting age?

What is fighting age?

Robert Wolfe

Grayson wrote: »

Because most africans are young men? That sentence doesn't make any sense. And is it bad that they are men (If they are. I assume at least some are)?

Of course it's bad when these idiots bring their ****ty taharrush 'culture' with them.

Robert Wolfe

HiGlo wrote: »

And being Syrian/an asylum seeker doesn't automatically make you a criminal....

Ok, tell me how to seperate the good ones from the dregs?

Questioning sacred Cows

The locals have spoken. They don’t want asylum seekers dumped on their doorstep and why should they?

Wibbs

Boggles wrote: »

Nothing I have read from either of those 2 links suggest that nearly 80% of the 5 million were male or fighting age?

Nothing you have read eh? You seem to want to ignore what's there in black and white, but let me cut down this seeming confusing clutter of words:

There was a greater degree of gender inequality for asylum applicants who were 14–17 or 18–34 years old, where around three quarters of first-time applicants were male,

Any clearer? Oh and I'm sorry, my mistake, around 75% were male and the only age category where women outnumbered men was in the elderly at 0.6%. 18-35 is the age range considered to be males of fighting age.

If a picture makes it easier?



The blue bits are male.

SnakePlissken

Wibbs wrote: »

The blue bits are male.

That graph is racist.

GinAndBitter

Wibbs wrote: »

Nothing you have read eh? You seem to want to ignore what's there in black and white, but let me cut down this seeming confusing clutter of words:

There was a greater degree of gender inequality for asylum applicants who were 14–17 or 18–34 years old, where around three quarters of first-time applicants were male,

Any clearer? Oh and I'm sorry, my mistake, around 75% were male and the only age category where women outnumbered men was in the elderly at 0.6%. 18-35 is the age range considered to be males of fighting age.

If a picture makes it easier?



The blue bits are male.

How was this even questioned anyway? Anyone with a pair of eyes could see what was In the boats coming across the med.

Prime example here in the opening scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPelTu3iupc

Wibbs

SnakePlissken wrote: »

That graph is racist.

Nah, SP it's sexist. Men are over represented and they're coloured blue, while the women are orange. So the old sexist notion that blue is a boys colour still holds, but they changed the pink of girls?* Haaaaruuumph.









*odd aside, pink used to be the colour for boys and blue for girls. And well into the twenty century too. Look at depictions of the Virgin Mary, she's usually dressed in white with pale blue accents, cos girls like. Pink wasn't even a colour until the 18th century. It was just another red. As was orange before it. And the Old Testament doesn't contain the word blue. But I digress... as per usual.

Ultimate Seduction

What has "fighting age" got to do with anything?

Wibbs

GinAndBitter wrote: »

How was this even questioned anyway?

It doesn't fit the narrative G. But let's play a game of Where's Wally Women?







That's the ME direction, but what about the African I hear ye say? To be fair you might, if you look closely enough spot a couple of ladies in these pics, so that's running on easy level.





Yet if you look at pics of actual war refugees across the history of the camera, you'll notice that the gender and age ratios are reversed. Women, young kids and the elderly. France 1939.

[IMG]http://ww2today.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Bundesarchiv_Bild_121-0622_Frankreich_Dainville_Flüchtlinge.jpg[/IMG]

Look at the current Venezuelan refugees, have an oul gander at them. Way more women, like a mad figure like 50%.

Naturally as the very young and the very old and women are the most vulnerable and not usually involved in the fighting, so men want them outa the war zone. Usually on both sides too. An opposing army will usually let "women and kids and the elderly" pass.

However when it's primarily a financial migration it's mostly men crossing borders to send money back etc. Look at the stats for migrant Mexican workers who jump back and forth across the border. More men than women.

Hmmmmm.

GinAndBitter

Some statistics from 2016

http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/08/02/4-asylum-seeker-demography-young-and-male/

Wibbs

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

What has "fighting age" got to do with anything?

Basic stats. Along with being good at coming up with the better mousetrap, men aged between 18 and 30 are statistically about the most on the ground dangerous and troublesome demographic there is(but the old order them about, so there's that). Look at the stats for crime, violence, physical and sexual, terrorism, even driving like nutbags. Men from 18 -30 are right at the top. Of all the demographics one would be wise to be suspicious and mindful of are men of that age, usually unattached without families, often with lower education standards, with a very different culture, who will face racism and will harbour it themselves and are not exactly, or shouldn't be your top choice.

Ultimate Seduction

Wibbs wrote: »

Basic stats. Along with being good at coming up with the better mousetrap, men aged between 18 and 30 are statistically about the most on the ground dangerous and troublesome demographic there is(but the old order them about, so there's that). Look at the stats for crime, violence, physical and sexual, terrorism, even driving like nutbags. Men from 18 -30 are right at the top. Of all the demographics one would be wise to be suspicious and mindful of are men of that age, usually unattached without families, often with lower education standards, with a very different culture, who will face racism and will harbour it themselves and are not exactly, or shouldn't be your top choice.

Yeah I know all that, I just don't understand why "fighting age" is the term used. They're not coming from warzones so why not say 18-30 year old males.

Odhinn

Wibbs wrote: »

A wise choice. (...............)way all the way to Sweden? Eh...

You didn't. There are over a million in Jordan, a million in the lebanon, and certainly two million in turkey.n Churning out that 'where are the women' trope is inaccurate, ignores previous migrations patterns and is plain intellectual dishonesty.

Odhinn

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

Yeah I know all that, I just don't understand why "fighting age" is the term used. They're not coming from warzones so why not say 18-30 year old males.

"fighting age" = 'be scared of scary scary scary muslims'.

Wibbs

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

They're not coming from warzones so why not say 18-30 year old males.

Hang on, they're not coming from war zones? I thought that was why so many were applying for EU(the rich part) asylum and refugee status because they were fleeing war zones. Maybe the EU have added the category of "well it can get a bit sticky in summer" as a space on the form for refugee application.

Odhinn

jmayo wrote: »

Food was not really that good.



Still spouting this shyte I see.

Yep nothing like adding a bunch of totally incompatible people, probably with questionable skills and education, dependent on state handouts to kickstart a revival in a part of the country where even the indigenous population can't really survive.

You know what people are being sent there? Do please share with the rest of us.

Wibbs

Odhinn wrote: »

You didn't. There are over a million in Jordan, a million in the lebanon, and certainly two million in turkey.n

You note I mentioned that someone would be along with Turkey and Jordan. I must be psychic but fair play you did add Lebanon. And as I also said that's where the vast majority of ME "refugees" into the EU transit through. You seem to have quietly dropped the other ME countries you were cock sure were paragons of asylum friendliness.

Churning out that 'where are the women' trope is inaccurate, ignores previous migrations patterns and is plain intellectual dishonesty.

Oh do tell O, please explain. I could in turn accuse you of intellectual dishonesty, but I fear one of the words would be wrong.

Odhinn wrote: »

"fighting age" = 'be scared of scary scary scary muslims'.

The men from Africa aren't Muslims for the most part.

Odhinn

Wibbs wrote: »

You note I mentioned that someone would be along with Turkey and Jordan. I must be psychic but fair play you did add Lebanon. And as I also said that's where the vast majority of ME "refugees" into the EU transit through. You seem to have quietly dropped the other ME countries you were cock sure were paragons of asylum friendliness.

I couldn't be arsed putting pearls out for the unappreciative, seeing as they were ignored the last time as well. The numbers are accessible via the UN and other sources for those interested.

Wibbs

So that would be a no then. Just now I'm doing quite a good not shocked meme, if I say so myself. As usual you tend to be long on reactive rhetoric from your position, but disappointingly short on arguments and fact reinforcements of your position.

VeryTerry

Wibbs wrote: »

You note I mentioned that someone would be along with Turkey and Jordan. I must be psychic but fair play you did add Lebanon.

What other Middle Eastern countries do you expect to take Syrian refugees out of interest? The 3 stable countries that border Syria are doing their part. Iraq and Palestine are hardly in a position to take them.

Your earlier point that they're "transit" countries to the EU is nonsense as well. Jordan has generations of Palestinian and Iraqi refugees living there.

Wibbs

VeryTerry wrote: »

What other Middle Eastern countries do you expect to take Syrian refugees out of interest? The 3 stable countries that border Syria are doing their part. Iraq and Palestine are hardly in a position to take them.

Your earlier point that they're "transit" countries to the EU is nonsense as well. Jordan has generations of Palestinian and Iraqi refugees living there.

You may have missed the part where I said; in particular fair play to Jordan. However and on the rest, you seem to think the Middle East is all a war zone. Do you consider Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait etc, all extremely wealthy nations and one the very founding centre of Islam, to be war zones, to be "hardly in a position to take them"? Yemen or Saudi are a lot closer to Syria than Sweden, or Germany and certainly Ireland.

VeryTerry

Wibbs wrote: »

You may have missed the part where I said; in particular fair play to Jordan. However and on the rest, you seem to think the Middle East is all a war zone. Do you consider Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait etc, all extremely wealthy nations and one the very founding centre of Islam, to be war zones, to be "hardly in a position to take them"? Yemen or Saudi are a lot closer to Syria than Sweden, or Germany and certainly Ireland.

Things aren't exactly going swimmingly in Yemen like.

The Saudis aren't going to take any refugees and Syrians can't reach the rest of the counties you mentioned without traversing Saudi.

There's a reason they're largely going to Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey and a lot of that reason is geographical.

tretorn

Why can’t Russia take some, jeepers, share them out.

4068ac1elhodqr

tretorn wrote: »

Why can’t Russia take some, jeepers, share them out.

Same reason as Poland or Hungary^ - they simply don't want them.

Hungary this week, offered their native ladies (that have 4 or more kids) tax-free work... for the rest of their lives! That's an incentive to boost their native population, if ever there was one.

As for folks asking the relevance of 'working-age' young men...

Aside from the obvious possible risks, this group is the 'single most likely' to suffer from 'human resource redundancy' as automation replaces the unskilled in this 4th industrial reveloution.

Ultimate Seduction

Kaysen Thoughtless Billiards wrote: »

Same reason as Poland or Hungary^ - they simply don't want them.

Hungary this week, offered their native ladies (that have 4 or more kids) tax-free work... for the rest of their lives! That's an incentive to boost their native population, if ever there was one.

As for folks asking the relevance of 'working-age' young men...

Aside from the obvious possible risks, this group is the 'single most likely' to suffer from 'human resource redundancy' as automation replaces the unskilled in this 4th industrial reveloution.

Fighting age was the term used not working age

4068ac1elhodqr

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

Fighting age was the term used not working age

Maybe it was (not by me, although can understand this point also).

The fact remains that all young men will face issues finding work going forward. Even nationals with moderate levels of education and high levels of literacy/fluency.

By 2030 upto 50% of all current roles will be replaced by automation, Males of 18-25 face the highest risk, of any group.

Thus except in rare cases it's unlikely to see these AS aiding to the economy in any meaningful way, after processing and entering the economy as jobseekers in year/decades to come.

That's fair enough, if they are 'genuine' cases, and it is considered 'goodwill' or 'charity' to help these people, again if fully genuine cases.

Ultimate Seduction

Kaysen Thoughtless Billiards wrote: »

Maybe it was (not by me, although can understand this point also).

The fact remains that all young men will face issues finding work going forward. Even nationals with moderate levels of education and high levels of literacy/fluency.

By 2030 upto 50% of all current roles will be replaced by automation, Males of 18-25 face the highest risk, of any group.

Thus except in rare cases it's unlikely to see these AS aiding to the economy in any meaningful way, after processing and entering the economy as jobseekers in year/decades to come.

That's fair enough, if they are 'genuine' cases, and it is considered 'goodwill' or 'charity' to help these people, again if fully genuine cases.

50% of ALL current roles replaced by automation in 11 years time? Doubtful.

I agree they will struggle to get work, they mightn't want to work seen as they can live the high live (compared to their own countries) on the dole!

4068ac1elhodqr

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

50% of ALL current roles replaced by automation in 11 years time? Doubtful.

I agree they will struggle to get work, they mightn't want to work seen as they can live the high live (compared to their own countries) on the dole!

(upto 50% for OECD group), some countries will manage better than others, 37.5% is probably a better expectation. Even France/Italy will be 40% Slovakia 44% for both sexes.

Ire fairs slightly better, but with Males still looking at 35% replacement across all industries. However for low-skilled 'and' medium skilled, it's 38.5%.



In typically male dominated industries such as manufacturing it's 60%. Retail 45-49%, transport as an industry may be severely affected, later towards end 2030s.

SnakePlissken

Grayson wrote: »

Zorya wrote: »

Well, anyone who disagrees with open borders for economic migrants has been openly called a racist on this thread, good going. How does one continue with such a disgraceful epithet hanging over one's head....

How does one continue with a discussion when people like you are making sh1t up.

The irony of who has thanked your post 😉

I openly disagree with open borders and have been called a racist for it, this is indeed a disgraceful lie which was made by one who cannot debate facts. Unless of course Timberr would like to quote one single racist post I have made in any forum, I am confused though, said poster claimed my entire post history consisted of nothing but racist statements, when called out on this lie they have been completely unable to provide one quote... but this was two days ago, and I might assume this particular poster has no shortage of free time to scour my post history yet has produced nothing.

The games up, all the name calling and baseless accusations can no longer obfuscate the debate on the correaltion with muslim migration and the increase in sexual violence.

Annasopra

Robert Wolfe wrote: »

In Freiburg in Germany a bunch of Syrians gang raped an 18 year old girl outside a nightclub. Dragged her into the bushes and raped her. And then the quisling scumfuk German politicians announce a few days later they still won't deport Syrians, no matter what crimes they commit.

Being an asylum seeker does not automatically make you a good person.

Ah but many here believe it automatically makes you a rapist

Annasopra

Kivaro wrote: »

I see we have the usual pro-open-borders supporters on here making fun of the issues that other countries have with asylum seeker integration and their adjustment to western norms e.g. respect for women etc.

It always amazes me how people who never ever gave a sh>t about womens rights suddenly jump in to advocate them. But then I look and it gets couched in a mysogynistic narrative of "our women" where they feel they own them.

Ulysses Gaze

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

Yeah I know all that, I just don't understand why "fighting age" is the term used. They're not coming from warzones so why not say 18-30 year old males.

So why are they allowed into Europe and why should we even countenance giving them asylum?

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

Nothing you have read eh? You seem to want to ignore what's there in black and white, but let me cut down this seeming confusing clutter of words:

There was a greater degree of gender inequality for asylum applicants who were 14–17 or 18–34 years old, where around three quarters of first-time applicants were male,

Yeah, I read that but unfortunately for you putting it in bold still doesn't back up your claim.

Which was

Wibbs wrote: »

The same EU policy has let over five million in since 09. Nearly 80% of whom were men of fighting age.

So nearly 4 million out of the 5 million were males between 18-34, that is your claim correct?

The stat you keep referencing which I assume is accurate, states 75% of 2 specific age categories are 75% male. Only one of those age categories are what you define as "fighting age".

So how do you we get to the real number?

You take the number of refugees who are of "fighting age" and express that as a percentage of the total amount. Correct?

So according to the Eurostat link you provided. From 2008 up until last week.

Total No. of Refugees = 6.121 m
Total No. of "Fighting Age" = 2.4m

That's not nearly 80% is it? It's actually just nearly 40%.

---

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and we will write it off as you being confused by maths.

But this is the exact sort of tactic the likes of the Daily Mail uses, they take a perfectly accurate figure and embellish it to get their headline.

80% of Refugees are of Fighting Age

The term fighting age of course is to nicely paint the narrative of young males in fatigue with AK47s invading Engeeerland!

Of course your average Daily Mail loves it, because they love a little bit of racist scaremongering.

Wibbs

Boggles wrote: »

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and we will write it off as you being confused by maths.

You seem to be more than a little confused by the oul maths yourself Ted. Like I said earlier maybe a picture will help?



40% eh? Clearly women are in the majority. If one is colour blind maybe, or reside in cloud cuckoo land. Meanwhile back in the real world the consistent year on year significant majority of migrants officially recorded coming into Europe are male. That's before we get to the numbers that are illegally passing through safe countries on their way to the better countries for social welfare.

Kivaro

Boggles wrote: »

.........

Of course your average Daily Mail loves it, because they love a little bit of racist scaremongering.

The open-border types just cannot stop themselves with the racist cry, can they.
They really dumb down anything they said previously with their hysterical insults.

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

40% eh?

Yes, the simple maths are broken down and explained to you quite clearly above.

Wibbs wrote: »

Clearly women are in the majority.

Nobody claimed that.

Again your claim was.

Wibbs wrote: »

The same EU policy has let over five million in since 09. Nearly 80% of whom were men of fighting age.

That's clearly not true, correct?

Reposting that graph won't make it any truer.

Your welcome by the way.

Wibbs

Kivaro wrote: »

The open-border types

Well I wouldn't class them as "open border types". The vast majority of people outside of a few nutters - funny enough on the extremes of socialism and capitalism - aren't calling for open borders. I would class them as believing in the multicultural ideal. Which is laudable enough, on the surface. Unfortunately it doesn't work out too well. While monocultural societies have social problems, multicultural societies have more social problems on top and this has been demonstrated over decades in European societies that have run this experiment, or brought it upon themselves because of imperial pasts. Yet Ireland which has so far not had such problems because we weren't a multicultural society, nor imperial powers like the others are supposed to now import this idiocy? Makes no sense to me.

Galwayguy35

They seem to be having a bit of trouble across the pond with second generation muslims born in the UK who went off to join ISIS and now want to come back, also in countries like France and Belgium it's often muslims born in the country who are the ones who carry out the attacks.

And yet it seems we have learned nothing from this and want to bring thousands of them in, we're setting ourselves up for a lot of trouble in years to come I fear.

Actually only for the information MI6 are passing on we wouldn't know the half of what is going on in our own country, we should be upgrading our security here and not sending off millions to tin pot countries who are not our responsibility.

Zorya

Kivaro wrote: »

The open-border types just cannot stop themselves with the racist cry, can they.
They really dumb down anything they said previously with their hysterical insults.

To be fair there is a certain (and large) segment of the population, especially among young people, who seem to have very idealistic ideas about ''One World'', and they are genuinely feeling these open borders sentiments, and also genuinely feel that old fogeys resisting the New One World are racist and backwards.

I know this because a couple of my own young adult sprogs have told me so to my face

I am not sure exactly how this idealised version of what the planet is came to be implanted in their heads - but then there is so much ridiculous propgandising that has gone on in the past couple of decades, and if pressed I would have to inadequately explain it by blaming the cynical promotion of globalism.

This idea has been fostered, this Star Trek type thinking, as if we have leap-frogged political evolution, as if we have sorted out the MAHOOSIVE differences between cultures and civilisational ethos - which we simply have not.

Worst of all this idea is purely an economic one - there is nothing philosphical, idealist, or progressive about it at all - it is a fake ideal whereby elites make endless money and gain power - cheap labour, flattened barriers, annihilation of workers rights, neo-feudalism, endless hedonic consumption and consumers, etc.

Wibbs

Boggles wrote: »

Yes, the simple maths are broken down and explained to you quite clearly above.

OK then, so let's take your figure of roughly 40% are males of that age range. Cool. What is the normal average percentage of males of that age range in a population? I had a look at marketing site looking at "millennials" in the US, roughly if handily defined as between 18-34. 18-34: 76.0 million (23.3%). That's already nearly half of the migrant percentages. Oh and that's men and women, so it's more like around 12% are men of that age range in an average population, yet the migrant population demographics are just over three times that figure.

tretorn

I do feel sorry for young teenage girls who were radicalised in the UK by older men. They left thinking there were going to help fight some cause but in reality they ended up as brood mares and then couldnt get out.

One who left at fifteen is now nine months pregnant and she wants to be allowed back to the UK, if these twats were over eighteen I would say they made their bed let them lie on it but really a fifteen year old is just a child. The pregnant woman had two children already and she is only nineteen now, both these children died and this woman has probably had a terrible few years.

The problem is if the child she is carrying is male will he grow up to try and behead fellow Londoners in the streets or plant bombs on buses. This is the crux of the issue and if this child and more like him put my family at risk then I dont want him growing up anywhere in Europe.

Kivaro

Wibbs wrote: »

Well I wouldn't class them as "open border types". The vast majority of people outside of a few nutters - funny enough on the extremes of socialism and capitalism - aren't calling for open borders. ....

I am constantly hearing Wibbs, from Sinn Fein representatives on television and especially RTE radio programs advocating for open borders ..... and I'm talking about complete open borders along the lines of their passed Ard Feis motion i.e. Sinn Fein will work for the achievement of the optimal position of no restriction on immigration to Ireland and deplores all attempts to limit the numbers of political and economic refugees into the country. RTE never challenges them on this stance, which should not shock anyone.

This view has never changed since 1998, but it doesn't surprise me though. This is the same party who support the Venezuelan dictator, much to the detriment of the millions of poor people suffering at the hands of the dictator's policies and death squads.

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

OK then, so let's take your figure of roughly 40%. are males of that age range. Cool.

I's not my figure, it's not my opinion, it's not something I pulled out of the air, it's not something I misinterpreted on a Wikipedia page.

It's the actual percentage take from the eurostat link you provided.

Wibbs wrote: »

What is the normal average percentage of males of that age range in a population? I had a look at marketing site looking at "millennials" in the US, roughly if handily defined as between 18-34. 18-34: 76.0 million (23.3%). That's already nearly half of the migrant percentages. Oh and that's men and women, so it's more like around 12% are men of that age range in an average population, yet the migrant population demographics are just over three times that figure.

I haven't a scooby.

I would suggest though if you are looking for a more accurate number, look at the population make up of the countries where the refugees are coming from.

I would imagine some constantly war ravaged country in Africa or the Middle East would have a different make up to the richest country on the planet.