Skip to content

Is it really all about rumpy with duskies?

Mrs Moseley, who is married, had previously had an affair with one asylum seeker, a Tunisian man named Mohamed Bajjar, despite having championed her charity’s no sex with migrants policy.
Clare Moseley, founder of refugee charity Care4Calais,

Couldn’t you, perhaps, just have the rumpy, over there, and not ship them by the boatload here?

10 thoughts on “Is it really all about rumpy with duskies?”

  1. Clare Moseley, founder of refugee charity Care4Calais, has stepped down following complaints that she used pepper spray against a refugee in self-defence

    But that’s no reason not to give these men access to British children.

  2. “Mrs Moseley, who is married, had previously had an affair with one asylum seeker, a Tunisian man named Mohamed Bajjar”

    Rough as a bajjar, mate.

  3. complaints that she used pepper spray against a refugee
    Why are people granted refugee status even in Calais? Ah, must be access to that lovely British compassionate pre-Brookside pussy.

  4. A recent Bloomberg article from economist Tyler Cowen which might be gated so I’ll post some selected quotes with a link to follow:

    Falling Fertility Rates Will Turn the Immigration Debate Upside Down

    As the world’s population ages and fertility rates decline, governments will fight to let migrants in, not keep them out.

    The continued decline of global fertility rates, especially in wealthier countries, requires a re-evaluation of global immigration policy. As the funding of public pensions becomes a more pressing issue, might governments work harder to bring migrants in, rather than keeping them out?

    Some countries can be expected to keep their relatively restrictionist immigration policies. But in these countries, the population will become smaller and smaller while taxes on the young will get higher and higher, in part to pay for the retirements and health care of the elderly. The high taxes will in turn lower living standards, and that may depress fertility further yet.

    A less obvious problem is that once nations enter the lower-population-higher-tax cycle, it may be very difficult for them to attract new migrants. If you were thinking of leaving your country, would you rather go to a wealthy country with higher tax rates, or one with lower tax rates?

    The danger is that countries with more restrictionist immigration policies will get locked into low-migration outcomes for the foreseeable future, whether they like it or not.

    It’s hard to say when this point of no return might be reached — but it is another argument for taking in more migrants today. And accepting more migrants today is an investment in accepting more a generation from now, which is when countries will really need them.

    This new world in which immigrants are courted will turn many of the standard intuitions about migration policy upside down.


  5. Then again, maybe not…

    The immigration Ponzi scheme is about to collapse

    Importing workers from abroad cannot defuse the demographic time bomb

    Italy is a nation that has tried to immigrate its way out of its demographic problems, meaning we can fruitfully compare it with Japan, a country with similarly dire demographic problems but which is more averse to immigration.

    The period that is worth looking at is between 2000 and 2013. Within this timeframe, Italy experienced a significant wave of migration. Over 3.72 million more immigrants arrived in Italy than emigrants left.

    Over the same period, Japan’s net migration levels were half that, at 1.88 million. Consider also that Japan has over double the population of Italy, meaning that between 2000 and 2013, on a per capita basis, Italy saw almost four times as much net migration as Japan.

    At the same time, Italy and Japan had roughly identical fertility rates. Italy’s total fertility rate stood at around 1.37 on average, while Japan’s was around 1.35.

    The difference between the two is basically a rounding error, making the comparison extremely precise.

    Now, if immigrants can indeed offset falling birth rates, we should see the median age of Italians rise much slower than the median age of Japanese in this period. After all, Italy had four times the number of net migrants on a per capita basis.

    Do we see this? No. The Italian and Japanese median age move in lockstep. Italy’s larger number of migrants made no difference.

    Why is this? Two reasons.

    First, migrants simply cannot compete with babies when it comes to creating a younger and more vibrant society. Migrants typically arrive in their 20s, meaning that they only have a limited effect on the median age. Babies, on the other hand, arrive at age zero and so have a greater impact.

    Second, when they arrive migrants tend to assimilate to domestic birth rates. Even those who have larger families in their former countries will be exposed to the same challenges and distractions once they arrive on our shores. The pet shop will beckon.

    The reality is that there is simply no easy way out.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *