Oh and annualised rate would 1.5 million. Which would mean 0.4% of European population.
Terrifying meh ? XD
that european population has a below replacement birthrate (below 1.5 in every european country) and already includes 50 million muslims, factor in an extra 1.5 million muslims a year with their 3-4 offspring per family and imagine what sort of europe we're going to have 50 or 100 years from now
And the baby boomers getting older fast...
from that which i have from credible sources been reading, the statistics do not show an increase in crime corresponding to recent migration.
What a load of crap, its no secret there has been in a huge spike in rapes, sexual assaults, violent crimes and theft.
Several police forces were under orders to cover it up but the truth always gets out.
Very true!
the invaders are Amiricains in Iraq, the French in Africa; but those people are human being in search of a better lifestyle, fleeing famine and disease.
quite simply they are refugees.
What a bunch of super Chinese propaganda for the first part... Then very true. The problem is that rather than admit the problem of violence and breach of consent and negation of free will that certain illegals criminal migrants did, and fight the problem realistically. Some super smart advisors and spinners decided that it was better to deny it rather than inform the population.
There is no contradiction in helping war refugees while at the same time fighting those hidding among them. However then if the goal is really to help them, closer to their home is cheaper, less cultural shock and faster. Then on those fleeing 3rd world shit holes... It super serious. They breed like crazy, a few enjoy palaces will the rest scrap for food and breed like mad. Then if you live over a desert, and every ones want 10 children... There will be a problem soon enough... Look at China. If they
didn't do something about their exponential demographic they would be 4 or 6 billions people surviving in China. So this is the problem.
The money that is taken from the people who host for the benefits of other people children will not be spend on the parents children. It doesn't change anything for Peter Sutherland or George clooney ( one mansion less) but for most people a few 1/10 % of disposal income is always appreciated. Why spend it on some else child? Needless to say infrastructure spending, welcoming, educating what ever public services cost increases... And too much people decrease quality of life... Because if not addressed it is one global slum before people start to eat people...