UK: 53% Muslim Men Don't Work...Live Off Infidels
Posted in the Columbus Forum
“animis opibusque parati”
Since: Oct 12
#1 Jul 12, 2013
53% of Muslim men are depending upon the kuffar. It's the jiyza. It's the duty of non-Muslim to pay for the upkeep of the non-Muslim.
Muslim Economic Activity in the UK Islam vs. Europe
Politicians constantly argue that immigration brings economic benefits. Even if that were true in general, it clear that Muslim immigration does not.
Here are links to a few relevant sources of information on the subject:
MigrationWatch reports that:
"For example, compared with the UK average of 22% of the working age population being economically inactive, Somali, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Iranian immigrants are likely to be 81%, 56%, 55% and 48% economically inactive respectively"
The Daily Mail has a similar report here.
These figures come from the Institute for Public Policy report "Britain's Immigrants: an economic profile" which can be downloaded for free here.
According to the document Briefing on British Muslims: Socio-Economic Data and Attitudes:
"More than half of all Muslims are economically inactive (52 percent)."
The Equalities Commission report "How Fair is Britain?", published in early 2011, contained some interesting observations about Muslim unemployment levels in the UK.
In the UK only 47% of Muslim men and 24% of Muslim women are employed.
The Wikileaks cables also contained some interesting revelations about the levels of "disability" among Muslims in Britain.
Muslims were also found to have the highest disability rates - with 24 per cent of men and 21 per cent of women claiming a disability - while the cable also cited statistics claiming Muslims were also the most likely group to be unavailable for work or not actively seeking employment due to illness, their studies or family commitments.
The original source for this information seem to have been this page on the Office of National Statistics website. It notes that "Muslim males and females in Great Britain had the highest rates of reported ill health in 2001."
Unsurprisingly, the Muslim-friendly Guardian, although at the forefront of the Wikileaks revelations, did not see fit to print this one, although the Daily Mail did.
“animis opibusque parati”
Since: Oct 12
#2 Jul 15, 2013
SWEDEN: Luxury lifestyles of the welfare-dependent Muslim immigrants
In Socialist Sweden,(mostly Muslim) immigrants on welfare get over ten times more money than a Swedish citizen on welfare. In the video below, we see palace-like accommodations given to uneducated, unskilled immigrants paid for by Swedish citizens, to the tune of nearly $1 million per head, per year.
In Sweden, the average immigrant receives 10.2 times more than what an average Swedish person on welfare does. It is the highest figure in the OECD, whose average is 1.7 (Table 3.A1.3). High costs connected with immigration are a major social problem that should not be swept under the carpet.”
Norway is no better. The Norwegian Central Bureau of Statistics announced in April this year, an interesting investigation concluded that the average non-European immigrants in their lifetime costing the government 4.1 million Norwegian kroner more than he generates in revenue.
For more than two decades ago, Sweden had full employment and one could speak of a labor shortage. But since the worldwide recession, no more. There is no economic benefit whatsoever in taking in third world Muslim immigrants. The only thing that is growing are the crime rates and Muslim on non-Muslim sexual attacks in Sweden.
#3 Jul 15, 2013
I travel to the middle east often. There is nothing special about those people, even the non muslim ones so is it that they are given ao much more in Scandinavia? And if the are bringing in South east asian ones in that is dumber because you can by them in indonesia and malaysia for around 300the bucks USD.
#5 Aug 20, 2013
If you stop feeding them they will leave if they get hungry enough!
#6 Aug 20, 2013
How many come from other nations within the Commonwealth? My understanding is that all citizens of the Commonwealth (which are mostly former British possessions) have a right to move about Commonwealth nations freely and can live in whichever nation they choose.
#7 Aug 20, 2013
You hicks have a big surprise on the way. Barry O, is going to sign for hundreds of Syrian refugees to come here like Clinton did for the Somalis. There's only so many empty corner store buildings and cabbies in this country. They're not going to be working more than likely, so that means more EBT, more WIC, and more votes for democrat politicians.
When are you rebels going to take the country back? You're getting French kissed and shafted at the same time. Barry O, is opening the front door to members of five or six mooslim jihadis groups from Syria, and he'll take another vacation, and you lumps just sit still and take it raw up the exit route. Where's the rebel yell?
#8 Aug 20, 2013
Commonwealth citizenship and High Commissioners
Main article: Commonwealth citizen
In recognition of their shared heritage and culture, Commonwealth countries are not considered to be "foreign" to each other. When engaging bilaterally with one another, Commonwealth governments exchange High Commissioners instead of ambassadors. Between two Commonwealth realms, they represent the Head of Government rather than the Head of State. Outside of bilateralism, however, some Commonwealth states do consider other members to be foreign for certain purposes. For example, the High Court of Australia ruled, in Sue v Hill, that the United Kingdom is a foreign power for the purposes of Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia.
In addition, some members treat resident citizens of other Commonwealth countries preferentially to citizens of non-Commonwealth countries. Britain and several others, mostly in the Caribbean, grant the right to vote to Commonwealth citizens who reside in those countries. Some states, such as Canada and New Zealand, have abolished such preferences. In non-Commonwealth countries in which their own country is not represented, Commonwealth citizens may seek consular assistance at the British embassy.
Since: Jun 13
#9 Aug 20, 2013
That's not really the case anymore. Until 1983 it was a lot easier. Today, a Canadian is considered the same as an American when it comes to applying for residency in Britain.
Since: Jun 13
#10 Aug 20, 2013
Since you booners don't work outside of government set asides, you don't care. You sit back on the dole and laugh as whitey gets the shaft.
Add your comments below
|Xenos Christian Fellowship is a CULT! (Jul '12)||10 min||SCOTUS||1,178|
|Melissa Allen Lowes Easton||1 hr||GlitterSucks_||3|
|Good News for Glitter/Gokeefe (Mar '12)||1 hr||GlitterSucks_||26|
|Justice Insider: Missing comma gives judges pause||2 hr||Linda||1|
|Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13)||2 hr||WhackoBird||6,385|
|Columbus police ask for public's help at Red, W...||3 hr||Quiting My Job Do...||1|
|Kasich Not Invited To Speak At Big Conservative...||3 hr||SpaceBlues||189|
|Panty hose vs bare skin What is your preference?||4 hr||Catman Dave||74|
|Bumper Stickers||6 hr||Cat D||52|
Find what you want!
Search Columbus Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC