Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To get back to the topic, this whole problem is really depressing. They just showed some ways migrants are smuggled into the EU, An African adult for instance was found hidden in the engine department of a car, incredible
Found a photo of that: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/...1117162114.jpg
And there are clashes between different groups of migrants, which does not exactly help the image of those migrants.
Americans should be happy their illegal immigrants come from the south, i.e. also Western countries, not Muslim ones.
Really? Mexico in particular is a corrupt country and lawlessness seems to be an accepted cultural thing.
The editors of the New York Times believe Europe has a duty to accept millions more Africans.
Africa has more than a billion people now and is projected to have 4 billion by the end of the century. I wonder how many of those the NYT would like to see living in Europe. Is South Africa the demographic model they envision for Europe's future?
Hey, New York Times... The UK has taken on enough people over the last 10 years... Now we need to control our boarders and only take in skilled workers! This to preserve our countryside and to ensure that British born citizens come first in Britain! So stick out of it!!!
Hey, New York Times... The UK has taken on enough people over the last 10 years... Now we need to control our boarders and only take in skilled workers! This to preserve our countryside and to ensure that British born citizens come first in Britain! So stick out of it!!!
The Conservative government are doing quite a bit though, or at least trying to heal the UK from Blair/Browns left wing, communist and socialist destruction of the UK... As a result, child benefit is only going to be given to the first child, then halved by the second, and then if one wants more children one has to afford it. The Conservative Government are tightening boarder controls, Prime Minister Cameron aims to take immigration down to the tens of thousands, and they are making the benefits system much more strict. To top this, we the British people get to vote on whether to stay in the EU or not - if we leave, then we can control our own destiny... Britain aint screwed, we're tidying up, and all we need to do is build taller buildings as a replenishment for not building on the countryside...
No obligation exists for the civilized world to support the byproducts of the recreational reproductive activities of savages.
Obligation? No.
The pragmatic self-interest to encourage population control/family planning in those areas via campaigns, funding, etc? Yes.
This would be both a practical and a humane thing to do.
For whatever reason though, the intervention is not quite in the interest of the big game players.
It would be in the interest of everybody else though - which is exactly why it is not going to happen.
Obligation? No.
The pragmatic self-interest to encourage population control/family planning in those areas via campaigns, funding, etc? Yes.
This would be both a practical and a humane thing to do.
For whatever reason though, the intervention is not quite in the interest of the big game players.
It would be in the interest of everybody else though - which is exactly why it is not going to happen.
Maybe a few million 3rd world people need to die before those countries grow up and start acting like adults in controlling their breeding. Cultures DO change over time. I'm of Irish family and the Irish culture was pretty damn bad before my "people" started stepping up and taking care of business.
Obligation? No.
The pragmatic self-interest to encourage population control/family planning in those areas via campaigns, funding, etc? Yes.
This would be both a practical and a humane thing to do.
For whatever reason though, the intervention is not quite in the interest of the big game players.
It would be in the interest of everybody else though - which is exactly why it is not going to happen.
Population control in poor countries was a hugely popular progressive cause a generation or two ago. But now it is seen as racist. In all the reporting on the current migrant crisis I don't recall hearing that potential solution mentioned even once.
Maybe a few million 3rd world people need to die before those countries grow up and start acting like adults in controlling their breeding. Cultures DO change over time. I'm of Irish family and the Irish culture was pretty damn bad before my "people" started stepping up and taking care of business.
So you'd rather have lots of humans die what are likely to be horrible deaths than help prevent those births in the first place...just because "YOUR people" learned to control their breeding eventually - and now Africans should follow the example of "your" people.
1. First, you would be a nasty, wretched soul whom I should not dignify with an answer if you really felt that way. I choose to believe you don't. So here you are, being dignified.
2. Second, your analogy is very poor. The conditions under which "your people" "learned" to control their breeding were very different than the ones these people will have. If you heard of that thing called "history", it was not poverty that caused "your" people to slow down breeding.
3. Are you sure "your" people learned said control? For the kind of society they inhabit (modern, developed, individualistic) their breeding rates are quite high, as far as I am concerned. I know more families of Scott-Irish descent than I care to with more than their western share of kids.
Population control in poor countries was a hugely popular progressive cause a generation or two ago. But now it is seen as racist. In all the reporting on the current migrant crisis I don't recall hearing that potential solution mentioned even once.
Well, too bad. It shouldn't be. And the solution SHOULD be mentioned.
If too many people on various points on the political continuum fail to understand that this solution would benefit ALL parties involved and would be both pragmatic and humane - all because of idiotic ideologies, both left and right - then we are all screwed, I guess.
The 3rd world would be perfectly well served by switching to small size families and the 1st world would feel less invaded.
Well crafted propaganda extolling the virtues of small families and other interventions - could do wonders.
Propaganda always works when done right. It would work on this topic too and it would be for a great cause.
People in these dirt poor countries have a duty to humanity to stop having kids. If life is so bad that you need to swim across an ocean just to have a decent life, you should not be bringing more children in this world. I was watching 60 minutes about the Syrian refugee crisis, and these people are traveling with 9 kids.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
