Migration Watch is increasingly recognised as the authority on migration figures.

By who?

The Daily Mail

And…

By who?

They were chosen to provide the current figures and forecasts for the cross-party parliamentary working group on immigration.

Their figures have been used by the mainstream media, including The Independent and The Guardian, although for the most part the “leftwing” media prefers to use Migration Observatory (their figures and forecasts are pretty much the same as they operate out of the same department at Oxford).

To claim that Migration Watch is an impartial, independent organisation is frankly laughable.

Have a look at its website here and then come back and see if you can use the words ‘impartial’ or ‘independent’ with a straight face. On the first page of their own website, they define immigration as the main ‘problem’ and then come up with their ‘solutions’ (doesn’t say if these are ‘final’ ones or not) to ‘the problem’

Could you just run me through on precisely which planet that could be regarded as ‘impartial’ or ‘independent’? 😆

And frankly they need hoofing in the slats for their hideous use of green, green and green, and that school-art-project logo on their website too 😛

To claim that Migration Watch is an impartial, independent organisation is frankly laughable.

I didn’t claim they were politically independent (I consider such a term an oxymoron, an impossibility).

What I claimed is that their research into current migration numbers and their forecasts are widely recognised as the most accurate out there.

Migration Watch’s longterm forecasts have proved to be broadly accurate… Though, only on headline numbers, their demographic work turned out to be mostly wrong, which imo means it’s mostly just luck that their numbers are right (they predicted far higher immigration from eastern europe, but the shortfall was made up from other sources that they didn’t predict. Which is like forecasting your household income for the next year as a million quid, then winning the lottery and claiming you were right.)

They do claim to be apolitical, which seems to be obvious bollocks but you don’t have to be apolitical to have valid points.

OTOH, I will always love them for that mid-2000s economic benefit campaign they ran, when they spent ages trailing their forthcoming report that was going to “blow out of the water” all claims that migration was a net economic benefit. Then released it rather quietly when it turned out that it was, after all, a net economic benefit.

Quick change of tack to claim that it wasn’t enough of an economic benefit- at which point it turned out that they’d got the numbers completely wrong anyway and included only the economic benefits from 8 eastern european countries and spread that over all immigrants worldwide, yet still found an ecomomic benefit. It’s still a frequently quoted report, despite that, which may say a lot about the way migration watch’s figures are used.

Anyway… Not entirely sure why we’re suddenly talking about migration watch, tbh? Diversion tactic? Uh oh, Jambalaya’s gone fully Alf Garnett and started raving about jungles and very black people, look, the migrationwatch blimp!

What I claimed is that their research into current migration numbers and their forecasts are widely recognised as the most accurate out there.

How on earth can you regard statistics as reliable when gathered by an organisation with a clearly stated political agenda that would benefit hugely from the manipulation of those figures?

I’d suggest that the only people who’d regard those figures as worth the paper they were written on were people who shared the same political agenda, and morons.

I didn’t claim they were politically independent (I consider such a term an oxymoron, an impossibility).

Eh? In what way is it an oxymoron?

Calais Migrant camp- a conversation

Eh? In what way is it an oxymoron?

It assumes one can have an “independent” point of view. I disagree with this. Everybody has a point of view and hence a bias.

For example, “The Independent” newspaper. This is a contradiction in terms. A newspaper has an editor, hires its journalists in its own image, and hence inevitably has a political bias.

I’d prefer more honest titles, “The Northern Socialist”, “The Southern Tory Boy”, “The Hackney Lesbian” etc.

How on earth can you regard statistics as reliable when gathered by an organisation with a clearly stated political agenda that would benefit hugely from the manipulation of those figures?

Their figures turned out to be the most accurate when the 2011 Census was published. The government had underestimated the true number by a factor of 4; and Migration Watch had also under-estimated the true figure.

“Eh? In what way is it an oxymoron?”

It assumes one can have an “independent” point of view. I disagree with this. Everybody has a point of view and hence a bias.

Umm. That’s not an oxymoron.

Their figures turned out to be the most accurate when the 2011 Census was published.

All that proves is that there are no reliable statistics available, which given the nature of immigration is hardly surprising really.

Surely the first rule of anything you read is to question the motivations of the person publishing it. In this case, they have a clearly stated political agenda which is anything but impartial. The fact of the matter is that nobody can prove or disprove much when ALL the stats, collected by both sides of the arguament are pretty much guesswork

An oxymoron is a compressed paradox, “politically independent” is according to my reasoning as outlined above, an oxymoron.
Unless you’d like to point out why it is not rather than just asking mono-syllabic questions like a Spanish waiter>?

The fact of the matter is that nobody can prove or disprove much when ALL the stats, collected by both sides of the arguament are pretty much guesswork

With the greatest respect, I think you’re struggling a bit here Binners. Are you saying that the Census is “pretty much guesswork”?

Because “politically independent” does not embody a paradox, compressed or otherwise. It’s like saying “absolute zero” is a paradox – it may be unattainable, but it’s not a paradox. It is oxy with no moron.

Having looked into it a bit further, I’d give you the benefit of the doubt on this one DrJ.
I would consider “politically independent” to be a contradiction in terms and hence a paradox/oxymoron. But it is not a classic oxymoron in the sense it uses two opposing concepts, e.g. dark light.
I stand corrected!
(Stands up from chair)

This story is just ripe for BS headlines.

Asylum seekers are neither a problem nor even a big issue. They are refugees suffering an appalling plight. Nationality – Africa/not Africa doesn’t matter – and other issues are largely irrelevant. We should be helping them in their plight.

Migration itself is full in nonsense claims and xenophobia eg let’s stop Polish workers etc. And asylum seekers is even worse – they represent about 8% of total migration ie a small number. They should be treated with respect and helped in their time in need.

Yes it’s overwhelming sitting in Calais watching people trying to find a route to the UK in desperation. But that should not deflect us from the reality of the situation – there is no asylum crisis. But there are people suffering from crisis. Good that we are helping them – we should be doing more.

Indeed THM. This is the biggest movement of people since the second world war. And there are some bloody good reasons for that. So the attitudes of countries like ours absolutely has to change to acknowledge and address the shear scale of this issue.

Like the Germans have, who’s openness and humanity shames us all

If we refuse to engage with the issue as a serious player, and take on the xenophobes and small-minded bigots presently framing the narrative in this country, to reassert ourselves as being possessed of at least a modicum of compassion and humanity, then we are truly cutting ourselves off from the world, and properly retreating into a depressingly insular UKIP inspired Little Englander mentality. And the rest of the world, especially our EU partners will not forget that quickly.

Our separation from, and aloof uncaring hostility to such a huge human catastrophe will be how the rest of the world will judge us. And right now, thats not looking too clever. Right now we look like a right shower of selfish, inhumane ****s!

I think that is too harsh Binners. Our inflow figures have largely remained unchanged over the past few years. Yes, other EU countries have seen greater numbers (so our share has gone down but we are still the sixth biggest EU recipient) but that seems to be largely a result of geography more that actual policy. As I read somewhere, I doubt any migrant has knowledge of which countries have more or less stringent asylum policies. They are simply fleeing a terrible plight.

The migrants in Calais know they’ll get twice the cash allowance in the uk, they’ll get it a bit quicker, there’s a good chance of a (black) job and they have a couple of months less to wait to be able to get an official job, their friends/relatives are doing well there and they speak English. (Source – TF1)

As one of millions of economic migrants who have left the UK over the years British emigration I understand anyone who wants to improve their quality of life with a move. So I don’t blame the migrants themselves. If there is blame I’ll cite Mr Blair(and his mate Bush). And if there’s an answer it’s in helping the countries in the front line to keep people out and most importantly – making it safe for people to prosper in the places they are now fleeing.

In the greater scheme of things Calais is a minor detail. A visible few thousand when millions are on the move.

hat do they get in France then ?
In the Uk they get £36.95 for each person in your household.
Not sure how we can have any [reliable/meaningful]figures for illegal worker that are worth anything.
Agree that language is the main cause

Housing paid for too ?

https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get

Or is that only for refused cases ?

11.45e per day

Yes housing is paid in the UK but he said cash in the hand hence I only mentioned that

I assume th French house them in some fashion as well.

To be clear I dont disagree with the thrust of his piece I just queried those figures/ wanted a source other than [ what i assume] is a tv channel.

EDIT:

Cheers and given the full allowances I assume they will end up being broadly similar – i assume Frnech give money but no Housing Benefit
If not theirs is way more generous than other

Maximum monthly resources
Number of people

FIGURES ARE SINGLE AND COUPLE
NUMBERS ARE I ASSUME KIDS

0

€ 524.16

€ 786.24

1

€ 897.44

€ 943.49

2

€ 1,121

1 € 100.74

3

€ 1,346

1 € 310.40

4

€ 1,571

1 € 467.65

And if there’s an answer it’s in helping the countries in the front line to keep people out and most importantly – making it safe for people to prosper in the places they are now fleeing.

I agree. The question I’d ask is: how do we make them safer?

The unpleasant truth is those countries were safer places when they were run as police states by political autocrats.

TF1 TV also showed a new design of tent which is going to be used in a newconcentration camp not too far from Calais. A form of “house them”.

The vast majority of migrants aren’t from war zones, badnewz. They are from relatively stable countries the west trades with. Time to start negotiating etter conditions for minorities with Pakistan (for example) rather than flying drones at their behest. Nigeria isn’t safe for minorities despite being run as a police stzate by political despots autocrats.

We have today the highest global numbers of refugees since the end of World War 2.

They haven’t become refugees because they live in “relatively stable countries”, nor because they have suddenly discovered that they can get better wages/benefits/housing somewhere else, something which they previously were unaware of.

http://www.unhcr.org/558193896.html

“Globally, one in every 122 humans is now either a refugee, internally displaced, or seeking asylum. If this were the population of a country, it would be the world’s 24th biggest.”

The migrants in Calais know they’ll get twice the cash allowance in the uk,

Is that what they are looking for? I thought someone said earlier they were looking for jobs.

Nice way to label them all as benefit scroungers. Good Dailymailing there.

Selective quoting, Molgrips. Everyone else will read all my post. Besides it’s not Dailymailing, it’s TF1ing, my first paragraph was lifted straight from TF1 hence my credit – source TF1.

You quoted it though.. hmm.

So TF1 does a report on the jungle and the reasons migrants congregate there and you go “hmm” in disapproval when I quote the reasons given by the migrants themselves to a TV journalist, Molgrips. Have a look at the thread title and the OP’s request for conversations.

Do you want to be informed of the reasons the migrants favour the UK or would you rather hear politically correct lies?

Edit:

If you read Hurtmore’s post above mine you’ll have seen:

I doubt any migrant has knowledge of which countries have more or less stringent asylum policies

On the basis of the migrants interviewed by TF1 the migrants are intelligent, well-informed, know the advantages and disadvantages of countries and want the best for themselves. On the bright side this suggests they’ll be equally determined to prosper once in the UK and work hard to achieve their ambitions.

Well you said TF1 said it now you are saying migrants said it
Your own figures show they have more cash in France
Now you are ranting about PC lies when you have changed from TF1 said to seekers said.

Same old same old you start off rational you go to frothing indignation [ ranting about PC ]so so quickly.

What next racism in Leicester in the 70’s?

gofasterstripes – Member

I just said I could do a better job than most and that I am here to compete for a job.

Well, good for you.[/quote]

Yes, as ZM I am better than the ZMs here.

I just said I could do a better job than most and that I am here to compete for a job.

Hang on a minute![/quote]

Deja Vu? Cut the long story short … I kick the ZM arse! (Merican accent)

Yes, I did but Not via backdoor nor illegal means. I did not beg nor used force entry or even in fear of my life.

And in the modified version of that…. what’s the big deal?

[/quote]
The big deal is they have not queued! Queue!
Everybody queues in BritLand … what makes them so special that they do not have to queue? Queue up be processed or go somewhere else where you rush in like hungry animals …

If they are not qualified then go fight the war …

Do you want to be informed of the reasons the migrants favour the UK or would you rather hear politically correct lies?

TBF you claimed that “migrants in Calais know get twice the cash allowance in the UK”, and yet your figure of 60 quid a week in France seems to be a lot more than Junkyard’s 37 quid in the UK.

Someone’s telling porkies but I’m not sure who.

Now you are ranting about PC lies when you have changed from TF! said to seekers said.

Same old same old you start off rational you go to frothing indignation [ ranting about PC ]so so quickly.

What next racism in Leicester in the 70’s?

Thread reported. First time ever.

Thread reported. First time ever.

You reported the whole thread because people had the nerve to challenge your rather dubious claims ?

ernie_lynch – Member

Edukator – Troll

Thread reported. First time ever.

You reported the whole thread because people had the nerve to challenge your rather dubious claims ? [/quote]

😆 Bloody hell I shall wait for you outside the school gate … (like school waiting for a fight but in this case hang bags …)