First off the political theorists and economists have no definitely concluded that mass immigration is a positive. Anyone who says that something is absolutely clear and a 100% correct is dangerous and obviously a non-realist. Nothing in political and economic theory is a 100% correct or proven correct. Just as you showed studies that "correlated" immigration with favorable changes in a country there are many studies that prove the strains placed by immigrants on housing, land, schools, hospitals, water supply, and transport systems make mass immigration on the scale seen by UK and Germany as very harmful to a country's long-term economic sustainability and social stability.
My documents noted that there was a lack in experiments done on this, but the few that have been are 90% reported net positive effect for immigration.
Not in one country: the whole OECD. Your documents:
Taking into account the children born to future migrants, with net migration at the rate envisaged under the ONS high migration scenario, the UK population would increase by a projected 20 million over the next 50 years and by 29 million over the next 75 years. This growth would be almost entirely due to migration.So the only thing that is keeping Britain's population growing at all is immigrants?
Assuming the extra workers were productively employed, the result would be an appreciably faster growth in total GDP than would otherwise be the case. The effect on GDP per capita would be marginal.As happens on set with natural workers, give or take 0.5%, they are "productively employed". And as the country gets bigger and more powerful, it is harder to hold a good GDP by each head: more folk to share the limited money. But what's better, to lower population and have everyone get relatively richer?
Net migration at the current rate would also have a rejuvenating effect on the national population and increase the share of this population who are of working age. However, these benefits would be modest and once achieved they could only be maintained through further net migration into the indefinite future.The goods' effectiveness depends on how much (and what kind) immigration there is. At Britain's current policies, anything under 500k immigrants is "modest", and obviously the good from immigration will fade out if immigration is stopped.
The economic gains from large-scale immigration come mainly from its impact on the age-structure of the population. Most of these gains could be achieved with a much lower rate of net migration, and hence a much lower rate of population growth, than the UK is currently experiencing.How's that? By having Britain shrivel up into pureblood nobles by low fertility rate?
The age-structure is conveniently summarised by the dependency ratio (number persons aged 65+ per 100 persons aged 15-64). With net migration of 225,000 p.a. the ONS projects that the dependency ratio would increase to 50.5 per cent by 2087 and population would reach 92.9 million. With net migration of 50,000 p.a., the dependency ration in 2087 would be 54.0 per cent and the population 74.2 million. Comparing the two scenarios, the extra migration required to reduce the 2087 dependency ratio by 3.5 percentage points (from 54.0 per cent to 50.5 per cent) adds an extra 18.7 million to the national population. To maintain this minor benefit requires continued net migration at the higher rate in perpetuity.To maintain it for 70 years? Yes, the effects are not going to be that long; as I said before, the goods from immigration will fade away if immigration is cut (probably much sooner than 70 years).
This is how I see it though. Even if the UK and Germany want to destroy and implode their own nation by the forced influx of muslim-islamic immigrants from 3rd World Countries...let them.
And I am not being a racist here...it doesn't matter the religion or ethnicity of the immigrants. And also, what does muslim-islamic mean? Is there Christian-islamic? Muslim-Christian? Muslim-atheist?
What I have such a problem with is the EU forcing member states (Poland, Hungary, Croatia) to take in migrants against their own wishes and the members of their nation. This is an abhorrent violation of self-determination.
Well, for one, the EU is not forcing anybody, it strongly asks them to do it, but they're not. Do you know how many Syrian refugees Poland has pledged to accept from 2016 to 2020? 100. That's 100 times smaller than Britain's 10,000; even by relativity, 50 times. In English relativity, that's powerful tiny; the northernmost, most isolated island in the British Isles, Unst, in the Shetland, has 6 times more than that. And the others are often favouring Christian migrants over Muslims on purpose, for "cultural preservation". That's awful.
Self-determination is a controversial topic, but I don't see much grounds for it, at the rate it's at. It's just divisory desk muckers; supposedly you get to determine your own fate more. Well, let me ask you, will you rule your country, or even be a politician of any kind? Will your vote even count for something? Probably not.
The EU should be a capitalist free-market union of states and not a globalized-internationalist political empire meant to rule over the continent as if they are one people and one culture. Croatia is not the UK, and certainly Belarus is not France. Laws should be country and culture-specific.
What is "one people and one culture"? What is culture? You don't even have to throw away your culture. Look at Switzerland: you can say the same thing, Genève is not Bärn, Bärn is not Zürich, Zürich is not Bellinzona, and Bellinzona is not Grischun. They are all different cultures, but what's wrong with having one law? With that kind of thinking, you better be supporting Russia with its reuniting its culture in Crimea, for Scottish and Welsh independence, and Irish unification.
I never understood how one can be a fan of football club. I mean, for me its just stupid kicking of ball and one time teams kicks more goals, sometimes the other. I think playing football is 100 times better than watching football.
Can you explain what you like about some football companys which are called clubs?
+
I'll agree 100% that playing football is still more fun than watching, but there's something (I'm not exactly sure how to describe it) in supporting a football club. Why do people care so much about the country they're born in? They're 100s of countries why do we treat our native country (or the one we assimilate into) with such fervent love and nationalistic interest? Its hard to describe. I grew up on the game because my grandpa loved it so much, so it just naturally grow in me.
It's very easy to describe. Nationalism is a tool grown by native, imbedded propaganda: To believe your country is the greatest, to be brainwashed, to be ready to die "in freeing" folk from dictatorship. And I'm not talking about football (though this and sports in general are sometimes used in propaganda as well).
