peterms Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 ... on a whole Britain has been exposed to a multitude of cultures and religions more than most... I think that's quite a common perception, but is it correct? This table compares our level of migrants to countries with a higher per capita gdp. From here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Why is the figure for Luxembourg so high? Ditto for Iceland (!). Surely there's some unmentioned caveat somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Did you see their logo for their protests... A bloodied meat cleaver. I mean come on. A family has lost their son and you use that image. Horrific. The image was also used in a cartoon in the Independent, to make a serious and sobering point. I imagine the paper might have had some internal discussion about whether to run it - you can easily imagine people thinking it shouldn't have run. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 27, 2013 Moderator Share Posted May 27, 2013 You can't ignore 2 things in that table though. Firstly, most of those countries have small populations meaning any immigration has a bigger influence on any percentage. Secondly, I think you could make an argument for it being easier; throughout history; to migrate across a land border from less prosperous neighbours which would explain USA & Germany. So in many ways, while Britain is 14th in that table, given their unique situation, it is a very high figure for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 You can't ignore 2 things in that table though. Firstly, most of those countries have small populations meaning any immigration has a bigger influence on any percentage. Secondly, I think you could make an argument for it being easier; throughout history; to migrate across a land border from less prosperous neighbours which would explain USA & Germany. So in many ways, while Britain is 14th in that table, given their unique situation, it is a very high figure for them. Still doesn't explain Iceland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 I think he explained it perfectly. 7% of 300k people is not very many people. Iceland is a beautiful country too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Luxembourg is a tax haven by the way, hence the high percentage there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Why is the figure for Luxembourg so high? Ditto for Iceland (!). Surely there's some unmentioned caveat somewhere. Luxembourg may be tax exiles, but I don't know. Iceland's figures vary wildly year to year, according to OECD stats here. There will be all sorts of caveats, such as possible differences in counting, relative lack of information on people leaving and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 What's the definition of "migrant" anyway? Foreign-born? If so, our figure is around 40-50%. Only 2 or 3 countries have higher figures, IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 27, 2013 Moderator Share Posted May 27, 2013 You can't ignore 2 things in that table though. Firstly, most of those countries have small populations meaning any immigration has a bigger influence on any percentage. Secondly, I think you could make an argument for it being easier; throughout history; to migrate across a land border from less prosperous neighbours which would explain USA & Germany. So in many ways, while Britain is 14th in that table, given their unique situation, it is a very high figure for them. Still doesn't explain Iceland.I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 What's the definition of "migrant" anyway? Foreign-born? If so, our figure is around 40-50%. Only 2 or 3 countries have higher figures, IIRC. Yes, in that table it means not born in the host country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 27, 2013 Moderator Share Posted May 27, 2013 ... on a whole Britain has been exposed to a multitude of cultures and religions more than most... I think that's quite a common perception, but is it correct? This table compares our level of migrants to countries with a higher per capita gdp. From here. Apples and Oranges, that - in talking about how many migrants, rather than the variety of origins of those migrants, it's not really addressing the point made about "a multitude of cultures and religions", whichh is, in my anecdotal experience both true and a good thing. You could also argue that showing some nations are both richer and have more migrants, or that some nations are poorer and have less migrants is mistaking correlation for causation. Norway, or Australia are richer in ave. per capita GDP due to natural resources, not due to migration, it could be argued. You could make arguments for poorer nations and less advanced economies, as well. Economies based around agriculture rather than trade, or around weak currency. It's only interesting in so far as looking at the way the world is a continuing flux of people coming and going, and that the UK is a part of that world and it cannot be some sort of enclave, immune from the movement of people in and out, even if that were deemed to be a good (or bad) thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 You can't ignore 2 things in that table though. Firstly, most of those countries have small populations meaning any immigration has a bigger influence on any percentage. Secondly, I think you could make an argument for it being easier; throughout history; to migrate across a land border from less prosperous neighbours which would explain USA & Germany. So in many ways, while Britain is 14th in that table, given their unique situation, it is a very high figure for them. Still doesn't explain Iceland. I did. I know, sorry - still, 7% is pretty high for a country that's geographically very isolated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted May 27, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted May 27, 2013 (edited) You can't ignore 2 things in that table though. Firstly, most of those countries have small populations meaning any immigration has a bigger influence on any percentage. Secondly, I think you could make an argument for it being easier; throughout history; to migrate across a land border from less prosperous neighbours which would explain USA & Germany. So in many ways, while Britain is 14th in that table, given their unique situation, it is a very high figure for them. Still doesn't explain Iceland. I did. I know, sorry - still, 7% is pretty high for a country that's geographically very isolated Iceland has encouraged immigration as it became a bit of a financial powerhouse - traditionally Iceland has had very very low immigration but when it's economy began to boom a migrant worker numbers crept up and then it became migrant families. It's dropped since their economy went pop, but Iceland is still a place where you can make a lot of money quite easily if you know how. I would not be surprised if the Icelandic government also makes immigration fairly easy - it's isolation and small population has started to cause concerns about genetic diversity, Icelanders are all quite closely related on the scale of thing (to the extent they recently launched an app that let you check if you were about to sleep with your cousin...). They also make it very easy for other Nordic nationals to migrate there. Edited May 27, 2013 by Chindie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted May 27, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted May 27, 2013 (edited) Not pointing fingers, but this all seems a bit convenient for me. Edited May 27, 2013 by StefanAVFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Houlston Posted May 27, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted May 27, 2013 @Bill_Hicks_RIP Two EDL did nazi salutes at London demo. EDL now saying they shouldn't be tarred with same brush as 2 idiots. Irony overload! 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post peterms Posted May 27, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted May 27, 2013 Help for Heroes have announced they won't be accepting donations from EDL. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 @Bill_Hicks_RIP Two EDL did nazi salutes at London demo. EDL now saying they shouldn't be tarred with same brush as 2 idiots. Irony overload! Nazi salutes seem to be a regular thing at EDL events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Quite ironic really when the greatest threat England has ever faced was the Nazis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted May 27, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted May 27, 2013 Quite ironic really when the greatest threat England has ever faced was the Nazis. No the greatest threat to England is the liberals, damnit! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts