Francois Mitterand was a socialist, Konrad Adenaeur was a centralist.
Those numbers relate to people who are accepted. It's hard to be sure they didn't come from some one with a particular axe to grind.
www.cadcol.ac.uk
The indigenous population is declining rapidly owing to being against anyone having more kids. I reckon the elites are attempting to replicate british india. It worked out fine for them then, and will do so again.
The area that collage is in is very far from being occupied by lets say minority ethnic people. So you missed the point of the post. You should notice the word minority too.
If the 51% of migrants being employed is a comparative figure against indigenous employed, how on earth do you know it relates to successful asylum seekers, rather than all immigrants? Also, what is your explanation for the difference? I can think of several reasons for the difference.
Maybe just another dimension to everyone else.One thing I sometimes wonder about is this place. A level Btech etc
Home page - Cadcol
Here at Cadbury Sixth Form College we pride ourselves on offering young people an extensive range of over 50 advanced level subjects
Why is it that when I drive past when people are coming and going I could get confused at times and decide I am in another country?
My experience of inner city 'minority ethnic' shops is that they, by and large, stock the same sort of goods as other shops, but are open much longer, and are frequented by as many white shoppers as minority ethnic shoppers. (but of course, I can't differentiate between immigrants and indigenous purely by sight, as you appear to be able to do so). Perhaps occasionally allowing for your observation of the area being high immigrant populated areas.
New bad population isn't a benefit to anyone. It's a drain. A blight on civilised existence. You end up with more people sharing less and less of everything, until everyone has nothing.. A race to the bottom.
It can not apply to people who are being processed as was pointed out by both you and me earlier. They can't work.
Let me see if I understand you correctly, you claim that your 51% data set relates only to successful asylum seekers?
Your facetiousness is no disguise for your blinkered mind processes. Of course I've heard of google, I'm asking you for your links to your supposed understanding of the issue. As I said, I can think of multiple explanations for your presented data.
Then your presentation of a scenario was a very clumsy presentation and it came across as a prejudiced view of a multi-cultural area.
I am not surprised. If you disallow people with talent to do their thing, all you end up is the mediocre 1.7 children. It is a race to extinction.
Some chose to see it that way which I actually found to be interesting, I expanded further next time I was on here. It's an instance of a narrow minded view and lack of thought about alternative views.
but I might say the same about you. I have highlighted a negative about people arriving but there are other factors such as kids produced will benefit from our education system. Some older arrivals will too. The way people are paid which can include hand outs is how our system works. Living on the dole isn't exactly comfortable especially now. Actually for most it never has been. The humanitarian aspects can't be ignored either. There is a none obvious balance to the whole area. Those that can get jobs will. I should have said people given leave to stay for various reasons.
