This thread has become a perfect example of why politics is a farce , what was the question again ?
There was no question. There was an observation that some part of a loosely defined population do not behave as well as we would like. An easy postulation to agree with for anyone who is English and has seen a news report from a major football tournament.
Unfortunately there is a war being fought in the country, a war where not a single bullet is being fired or a single drop of blood spilt, but as each day passes, they are slowly winning.
And like any war (and personally I wouldn't use the term war here, since I don't think either protaganist is defined by any hostile intent) there will be a cost to fighting. In this case the cost will be increased competition for welfare which realistically will lead to people having to work longer or having smaller state pensions. That's fine for me, I thoroughly enjoy my job, it's not physical and I have a reasonable private pension. Others will not be so fortunate.
If we start importing young workers (and let's assume they all want to work for arguments sake),
1, the first thing they often do is bring the whole family, probably 15 to 20 strong, with a high percentage needing support.
Any facts to back this up? Or just your assumption? If you live in a house with income generating family there isn't much support available to you.
In Syria before the war there, 3.8% of people were over 65, compare that to 16.4% in the UK. Even if one person bought in other family members the demographics work in our favour. There simply aren't extended families of pensioners. Yes there may be some children under working age, but they won't be under working age for long. If there aren't enough schools the potential is there to boost our economy through publicly funded building. We currently spend a third of pension costs on education, that doesn't sound healthy to me.
2, if the family doesn't get imported, the money they earn is exported to the family or to build a better life when they return.
Except of course the money that goes to the treasury through PAYE.
3, for every job we have the option of employing the indigenous or migrants and for a finite number of jobs that means either end up without work, even if they want to work. As a nation we do not allow anyone to go without food and housing, that means additional strain on the welfare system.
Leaving aside the question of who is indigenous, and even someone of strong Celtic origin could have arguments against them, the number of jobs available is only governed by the size of the population and the strength of the economy.
4, the Muslim faith allows many wives and with many wives come many more children and young people.
Polygamy is illegal in Syria, and many Muslim states. It's certainly illegal in the UK, so I think an irrelevant point.
To bring young people in purely to fix the pension shortfall, which BTW is why this country and others like it has descended into and can never be out of ever increasing massive debt, simply kicks the can down the road.
I agree that to an extent it does kick the can down the road. But hopefully down the road is a solution, probably technological. Otherwise I can see no future other than an aging workforce which to be blunt is going to be a pain in the back if you are a manual labourer, or someone whose job requires a lot of physical exertion. A nurse for example.
In 1945 Mumbai contained 100,000 people, Sikhs, Hindus, etc. Now it contains 24 million mostly Muslims.
Mumbai is an island on the western coast of India where the good work is. The U.K. Is an island on the western side of Europe. Along with Germany it is where the good work is. The U.K. could well be now what Mumbai was in 1945 to 1950.
Mostly Muslims? What figures are you basing that on? I had a quick look, and found that the entirely impartial sounding "Destroy Islam Now" blog cites the figure at 20%, which is nowhere near "mostly" and I have some doubts around trusting their figures. And I know Wikipedia is far from the arbiter of truth but that cites the 1941 population of Mumbai as 1.7 million. I think Mumbai has grown because of huge migration from the countryside to a big city. Exactly the pattern we expect to see in a developing nation, and exactly what happened in the UK in the late 18th and early 19th century. I don't think it's useful to use it to draw an analogy with a technologically and economically advanced nation like ours.
does this make me lucky or convenient ?
.
