[DemolitionRed]

Oh wow. I got censored!!

[arista]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Oh wow. I got censored!!

Thats Fine
I trust Admin

[James]

Originally Posted by James

Obviously quoted a deleted post.

.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I think its perfectly suitable but then I go on other forums where people are a lot more boisterous with their use of language. It just feels bizarre to me that our words on here are so heavily censored by the PC brigade.

These are emotional topics are they not? People will be shocked or annoyed by certain views and may want to express themselves accordingly. What this guy said is tame in comparison to the more active political forum groups and hardly worth getting upset about.

Good for you, insults towards posters are against the rules on this forum, that is why ther is a report button

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by James

.

Are you having a sense of deja vue James

[arista]

Originally Posted by Christmas Sherry

Are you having a sense of deja vue James

Youtube video

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I think its perfectly suitable but then I go on other forums where people are a lot more boisterous with their use of language. It just feels bizarre to me that our words on here are so heavily censored by the PC brigade.

These are emotional topics are they not? People will be shocked or annoyed by certain views and may want to express themselves accordingly. What this guy said is tame in comparison to the more active political forum groups and hardly worth getting upset about.

You should know by now that TiBB membership comes complete with a free "Handle With Care" sticker

[Vicky.]

This hoohaah is a bit weird to me, and I will put it across simply so as not to be misunderstood. Either

Immigrants come to get benefits and not work. Or
Immigrants come to take the jobs

It simply cannot be both. Rags need to work out which line of crap they want to go for, as this swaying to and fro is looking a little silly.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

This hoohaah is a bit weird to me, and I will put it across simply so as not to be misunderstood. Either

Immigrants come to get benefits and not work. Or
Immigrants come to take the jobs

It simply cannot be both. Rags need to work out which line of crap they want to go for, as this swaying to and fro is looking a little silly.

Seems obvious to me. Both apply. Many are dependant on benefits whilst others work.

[Vicky.]

So basically...they can't win? Shocker..

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

So basically...they can't win? Shocker..

Don't really understand your logic. Many are claiming benefits from an already over-burdened system when they have never contributed, which others hear about encouraging them to do the same, whilst others do work but are probably taking jobs from those wanting to get off benefits.

Because they work on the cheap this undermines minimal wage and again takes jobs from people here. Both cause problems which contributes to the bad feeling around mass immigration. How does that equate to those opposed to mass immigration being unreasonable and the migrants being victims as you imply?

[Vicky.]

How does that equate to those opposed to mass immigration being unreasonable

I think you might have misread my post tbh, unless you class right wing rags (or 'papers' as some prefer to all them) who make a huge deal of this to be simply against mass immigration?

When someone thinks its terrible that 'they' come for benefits, yet also thinks its bad that 'they' come to work...it kinda seems like the only tolerable answer is for noone to come at all? Which is slightly problematic, I am sure you agree...

[anne666]

Deleted

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I think you might have misread my post tbh, unless you class right wing rags (or 'papers' as some prefer to all them) who make a huge deal of this to be simply against mass immigration?

When someone thinks its terrible that 'they' come for benefits, yet also thinks its bad that 'they' come to work...it kinda seems like the only tolerable answer is for noone to come at all? Which is slightly problematic, I am sure you agree...

I think like Australia we should only take people with skills, qualifications or the relevant valuable experience that is required in this country - a strict points system so we only get people who benefit our society and who contribute.

[anne666]

Originally Posted by Make Christmas Great Again

New figures show that 1.2million migrants arrived in Germany in past 2 years
However, only 34,000 of those migrants have managed to find employment
In addition figures show a quarter of those in work are on temporary contracts
The numbers mainly apply to those from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Eritrea




Just 34,000 migrants out of the 1.2million who have arrived in Germany in the past two years have managed to find a job, new figures have revealed.

The statistics from the German government's Institute for Labour Research (IAB) reveal how only three per cent of those who travelled to the country are now working.

And in addition out of those who are employed, nearly a quarter are just on temporary contracts, with the numbers applying to migrants mostly from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Eritrea.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-reveals.html

top comment: "We are supposed to be surprised. Half cannot read or write . The want benefits for nothing that's why they head to the UK"

------------------------

Does this surprise you?

Does the the Mail's agenda suiting distortion of the truth and blatant lies ever surprise anyone? It's a lot of unmitigated tosh.
They very conveniently omit to say how many of the 1.2 million are still in Germany. They also omit how many of the number left have actually been granted asylum and are able to work after the set time limit, depending on where they are housed.

http://www.asylumineurope.org/report...-labour-market

The time limit for access to the labour market was reduced to 3 months in November 2014.

However, with the adoption of a new law in October 2015, new restrictions for access to the labour market were imposed. Asylum seekers are now barred from access as long as they are obliged to stay in an initial reception centre. The maximum period for this stay is 6 months for most asylum seekers, but asylum seekers from safe countries of origin are obliged to stay in initial reception centres for the whole duration of their asylum procedures. In principle, the law thus provides that asylum seekers from safe countries of origin do not have access to the labour market at all.

The reality of the report the Mail failed to link, of course.
The also fail to say how many are under working age, 26% of the total of 1.1 million recorded in 2015 were 15yrs old and younger.

http://translate.google.com/translat...tbb=1&ie=UTF-8

34,000 refugees have jobs - 400,000 are still looking

406,000 refugees are registered as job-seekers and registered with employment agencies and job centers. About 160,000 are registered as unemployed.
IAB chief Möller assumes that the integration of refugees into the labor market will continue to be slow, despite the booming economy: "If we succeeded in getting 50 per cent in pay and bread after five years, this is certainly one Success."

Germany has the lowest fertility rate in the world and their economy is under serious threat without 500,000 new workers annually. For some time, to help fill the gap, they've exploited the ever increasing worldwide refugee crisis and they've also allowed people who should have been deported to stay.

They did the same with Turkish migrants.
There is little doubt that economically they will succeed while they rob countries like Syria of the people they will need to rebuild their country.
The better off, young, fit and hopefully, fertile who survive the encouraged death race into Europe.
European and migrant deaths and destabilising Europe, playing straight right into terrorists hands are mere collateral damage.

It's very early days and it would be far more surprising if the numbers of people in employment were higher.
More reality, from the same agency the Mail are misrepresenting.

February 19, 2016
Herbert Brücker, 55, is a migration expert at the Institute for Employment Research, the research arm of Germany's Federal Employment Agency.
What a Million Refugees Mean for Everyday Life.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...075661-20.html

SPIEGEL: All in all, do you think this immigration should be welcomed? Or would we be better off without it?

Brücker:

In the past, only about 10 percent found jobs in the year of their arrival, but after five years, around half the refugees had found work
An open economy would be unimaginable without immigration. Just to keep the labor supply stable between now and 2050, we would need an increase of 500,000 people each year. That still wouldn't be enough for us to completely compensate for the consequences of demographic change, but it would likely at least mitigate them. (Eds. Note: According to the German Federal Statistical Office, which provides two projections, a lower base version and a higher variant based on future immigration, the national population is expected to decline from a 2013 figure of 80.8 million to between 67.6 million and 73.1 million by 2060.)

If other EU countries hadn't stopped them the Turkey deal would never have happened! They're still being allowed to pour in from Northern Africa while Germany cherry pick who they want from Italy and Greece.

[anne666]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I think like Australia we should only take people with skills, qualifications or the relevant valuable experience that is required in this country - a strict points system so we only get people who benefit our society and who contribute.

I agree. It's how any wealthy country should control immigration. The UK fertility rate decreased and the doors were flung open, assisted additionally by damnable EU policy.
We're one of the few countries worldwide who meet the 0.7% GNI commitment to Foreign Aid and contribute more than any other country accordingly. The US donates more money but never anything near 0.7% of their GNI. In 2014 they donated 0.19% the same as a poor country like Portugal and wealthy Japan.
If every country met their commitment refugees would have far more facilities available closer to their home countries where the vast majority are already hosted with desperately insufficient International assistance.

Instead in Europe, inestimable billions have been spent when it was and still is desperately needed elsewhere by Aid agencies.
Including by EU countries like Germany who don't meet their Aid budget, preferring their money to be recirculated around their own economy by their prospective new refugee work force and baby makers.
It would have helped at least ten times more refugees in their neighbouring countries for many years and provided much better facilities, opportunities and preparation to return to their own countries,