Bébé boom gives France a little boost

[LaPalice]

France could be the most populous country in Europe in 2005.





Bébé boom gives France a little boost
Matthew Campbell, Paris



THEIR economy is hardly a model for Europe but one French policy, at least, appears to be paying big dividends. After encouraging its citizens to multiply, France is on course to become the most populous country in Europe by 2050, overtaking Britain and even Germany.
The French birth rate is outmatched in Europe only by Ireland and is expected to boost the population from today’s 60m — about the same as Britain — to 75m by 2050. This could turn France, which complains of losing influence in an enlarged European Union, into a dominant force in Europe.



Experts say that only a quarter of the population growth can be explained by immigration. The “bébé boom” heralded in figures released last week owes more to a government policy encouraging people to have children. The 35-hour working week introduced in 1997 has also played a role.

“My husband and I have had more time together since then,” explained Céline Barril, a 34- year-old legal secretary and the mother of three boys whose passage into the world was smoothed by substantial help from the government.

After the birth of each of the babies — the latest was André, one year ago — she received a cheque for £570. She qualifies for £330 a month in child support and the governmental largesse does not stop there.

If Barril, who earns £12,000 a year, stays home to look after the children, she will get £350 more a month to do so. For up to three years her employers would be legally obliged to take her back in the same position, should she wish to return.

Not surprisingly, perhaps, the size of French families is growing and the pavements and parks of Paris are clogged with pushchairs. Family-friendly policies pop up in the least expected places. Bertrand Delanoë, the homo****** mayor of Paris, allows the enormous flat that came with his job in the majestic town hall to be used as a crèche for employees.

He had been on the point of adopting a child with his other half when he changed his mind on the grounds that his political responsibilities left him with too little time to fulfil the duties of a father.

“There is an aspiration among most French people to have children,” said Gérard-François Dumont, a Sorbonne professor and editor of Population & Future magazine. “Children are thought of as wealth.”

Given the level of financial benefits they bring, it is easy to understand why.

Consider the tax advantages. Couples with children can split their income for tax purposes into portions, enabling them to pay less with each additional child; and when Barril takes the children on the high-speed train to Marseilles to visit her sister, she flashes a card at the ticket office window to prove her membership of an exclusive club: la famille nombreuse.

Three children are needed to qualify as a “big family” and claim the 30% discount on train tickets. If she had four children, the reduction would be 40% and for seven, 70%. “We could not afford it otherwise,” said Barril, who also gets a discount on Métro and cinema tickets.

Another benefit for parents is the ability to work part-time if they wish in the first three years of a child’s life. “I am seriously considering it,” said Barril. “Especially when the weather is so nice.”

From the Middle Ages to the beginning of the 19th century, France had the biggest population in western Europe. It was overtaken in the mid-19th century by the future Germany. After the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 the French began fretting about whether they would have sufficient people to fend off future invasions.

This anxiety turned demography into a revered profession in the 1900s and the French have been dreaming up incentives to have children ever since — preferably lots of them.

“In particular there has been strong support for helping women to reconcile work and motherhood,” said France Prioux of the National Demographics Institute. “That has been the key.”
A dense bureaucracy has flourished around the encouragement of child-bearing and there is even a cabinet post for family affairs. The National Union of Family Associations, a lobby group for the family, is a power in the land that has quickly seen off any attempts by politicians to cut family allowances.



Dumont says that these have fallen by 30% in real terms since their 1950s heyday, when mothers got discounts in shops.

Even so there are few complaints: France spends more than any other EU country — 4.5% of GDP — on policies promoting families. This is in stark contrast to Italy and Spain, where opposition to a government role in family affairs has been attributed by some experts to a lingering revolt against the fascist governments of the past that ordered women to produce more babies as an act of patriotism.

While Britain’s population is expected to rise in the next half century to 67m, the Germans are confronting a bleak outlook. Their population is expected to plummet from today’s 82m to 70m by 2050 as more women decide not to have children.

One of the reasons most often given is that they do not want to be considered “cruel mothers” who put their children into day care centres so that they can pursue their careers. Another reason is the lack of an appropriate man to be the father.

Barril was baffled by this.

“I cannot understand anybody saying they don’t want a child,” she said.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1659984_1,00.html

LaPalice.

[walford]

...and the babies will increasingly look like this:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/14/mideast.photograph/vert.baby.bomber.jpg

[Weasel]

...and the babies will increasingly look like this:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/14/mideast.photograph/vert.baby.bomber.jpg

:cantbeli:

[Inconnu]

...and the babies will increasingly look like this:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/14/mideast.photograph/vert.baby.bomber.jpg

???

[Hellraiser]

yes, immigrants from muslim nations will outpopulate the french on their own land, it will turn into a ****hole like middle east.

[Inconnu]

yes, immigrants from muslim nations will outpopulate the french on their own land, it will turn into a ****hole like middle east.


rofl


You know little about France to say that

[walford]

...and the babies will increasingly look like this: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/14/mideast.photograph/vert.baby.bomber.jpg :cantbeli:Hey the truth hurts (http://utopia-unmasked.us/talibanfrance.htm), huh?

[BigBaribal]

Statistically, Walford is sadly right!

[Olybrius]

Statistically, Walford is sadly right!

statistically , Walford is totally wrong ;)
http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/docs_ffc/IP898.pdf
http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/docs_ffc/IP963.pdf
http://www.ined.fr/publications/pop_et_soc/pes400/PES4002.html

[walford]

Statistically, Walford is sadly right!statistically , Walford is totally wrong ;)
http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/docs_ffc/IP898.pdf
http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/docs_ffc/IP963.pdf
http://www.ined.fr/publications/pop_et_soc/pes400/PES4002.htmlStatistically, walford concedes nothing. The entire developed world's birthrates are below replacement levels (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=50222#50222) and likely continuing to plummet. For that to be reversed, we would have to convince our young women to have 2 or 3 babies apiece. Is that what French women [not of Mid-Eastern heritage] are doing now? Doubtful. Either we deal with the consequences of an ageing population or import from places where killing one's own babies in large numbers is not yet fashionable.

Here in the US we're getting ours from Mexico. Europe is importing from the Middle East. In either case, the genetic makeup is not the problem, however we are supplanting our own population with people who culturally and politically have far less experience with market economies, limited government and social tolerance [i.e. not treating women like cattle].

Thus the resultant shift will not only be demographic. Our entire way of life will change dramatically in the next 2 generations -- and not neccesarily for the better.

[GAFES]

Statistically, Walford is sadly right!statistically , Walford is totally wrong ;)
http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/docs_ffc/IP898.pdf
http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/docs_ffc/IP963.pdf
http://www.ined.fr/publications/pop_et_soc/pes400/PES4002.htmlStatistically, walford concedes nothing. The entire developed world's birthrates are below replacement levels (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=50222#50222) and likely continuing to plummet. For that to be reversed, we would have to convince our young women to have 2 or 3 babies apiece. Is that what French women [not of Mid-Eastern heritage] are doing now? Doubtful. Either we deal with the consequences of an ageing population or import from places where killing one's own babies in large numbers is not yet fashionable.

Here in the US we're getting ours from Mexico. Europe is importing from the Middle East. In either case, the genetic makeup is not the problem, however we are supplanting our own population with people who culturally and politically have far less experience with market economies, limited government and social tolerance [i.e. not treating women like cattle].

Thus the resultant shift will not only be demographic. Our entire way of life will change dramatically in the next 2 generations -- and not neccesarily for the better.


And the new candidate for president of the KKK is...Walford!

http://www.auc.dk/praesten/images/1603-ku-klux-klan.jpg

[BigBaribal]

Statistically, Walford is sadly right!

statistically , Walford is totally wrong ;)
http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/docs_ffc/IP898.pdf
http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/docs_ffc/IP963.pdf
http://www.ined.fr/publications/pop_et_soc/pes400/PES4002.html


Sorry, it's in French, but the article is just saying that stats of INED are pure jokes.



Figaro Magazine





IMMIGRATION
L'Insee fâché avec les chiffres
Le solde migratoire en France a été systématiquement sous-évalué par l'Insee depuis quinze ans. La preuve : les résultats des derniers grands recensements complets de la population, en 1990 et en 1999, et de la première vague de recensement tournant de 2004 ne collent pas. Ce qui nécessite de drôles d'acrobaties comptables pour retomber sur ses pieds...
Par Michèle Tribalat *
[12 février 2005]

L'Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (Insee) vient de publier les premiers résultats de la vague 2004 du recensement tournant, auprès de la population de 20% des communes de moins de 10 000 habitants et de celle de 8% des communes de taille supérieure (Insee Première n° 1000 et n° 1001).

Ces publications ne s'appesantissent ni sur le caractère exceptionnel des arrangements comptables, jugés nécessaires dès le recensement de 1999 pour donner l'impression de continuité entre les différents recensements, ni sur leur contenu et leurs implications démographiques, notamment sur le solde migratoire. Pourtant, l'Insee y publie un tableau comptable sur les périodes 1990-1998 et 1999-2003 qui, si l'on prend le soin de se reporter aux publications antérieures (notamment le «Bilan démographique 2003», Insee Première n° 948), donne les éléments de compréhension.

En 1999, la population recensée était alors inférieure de 480 000 personnes aux prévisions établies par l'Insee à partir du recensement de 1990, actualisé grâce aux données annuelles d'état civil (naissances, décès) et aux estimations, toujours difficiles, des soldes migratoires. Nous reviendrons sur ce point. Les prévisions semblaient meilleures que les données tirées directement du recensement de 1999 : si l'on admettait la pertinence de ce dernier, il fallait aussi accepter, dans la foulée, l'hypothèse d'un solde migratoire quasiment nul sur la période, ce qui semblait peu crédible, d'autant que l'on sortait d'une période de régularisation exceptionnelle.

Pour faire face, l'Insee aurait pu mener une enquête complémentaire, comme il l'avait fait après le recensement de 1990, pour connaître l'ampleur et les caractéristiques des omissions et construire une nouvelle évaluation. Mais il ne l'avait pas planifiée, c'était donc trop tard. Il aurait pu rehausser les effectifs recensés au prorata afin de dégager un solde migratoire plus crédible. Il ne l'a pas fait. L'Insee a opté pour le maintien du chiffre du recensement au prix d'acrobaties comptables auxquelles il n'a eu recours, dans l'après-guerre, qu'en 1962-1968, période d'arrivée massive de rapatriés.

A côté des soldes naturel et migratoire est ainsi apparue une «variable d'ajustement» purement fictive, qui n'a pour objet que d'équilibrer le bilan comptable, que l'on n'ose plus appeler démographique. Ainsi, de 1990 à 1998, la population de la métropole aurait crû de 1 867 000 grâce au solde naturel, de 533 000 grâce au solde migratoire, et aurait diminué de 480 000 en raison de l'ovni statistique «variable d'ajustement» !

D'habitude, le solde migratoire se déduit du bilan démographique en comparant la population à une date t augmentée de l'accroissement naturel entre t et t + x à la population recensée à la date t + x. Il est toujours connu imparfaitement, car il dépend de la qualité des recensements.

Cette fois, l'Insee a dû décider du solde migratoire, qu'il a choisi de maintenir au niveau estimé dans ses prévisions (533 000, soit 59 000 en moyenne annuelle). Ce solde est en fait inconnu puisqu'il est la résultante de quatre variables (entrées et sorties d'étrangers et entrées et sorties de Français), dont une seule - l'immigration étrangère - est connue (au moins l'immigration légale), même si aucun accord n'a été à ce jour trouvé sur la manière de la compter, mais c'est une autre histoire.

Après cette décision arbitraire, l'Insee se trouvait sans véritable boussole. Il a donc estimé des soldes migratoires en 1999-2003, qu'il est obligé de démentir aujourd'hui : 47 000 en 1999, 52 000 en 2000, 62 000 en 2001, 67 000 en 2002 et, cerise sur le gâteau, 57 000 en 2003 (série DOM compris). Cerise sur le gâteau, car l'Insee improvise, en 2003, une baisse dont on ne comprend guère ce qui la justifie. Cette innovation ne s'est pas faite en catimini et a reçu un écho très important dans la presse titrant, sans l'ombre d'un doute, sur la baisse de l'immigration en 2003. Que disait l'Insee dans son bilan démographique publié en février 2004 ? «La baisse du solde migratoire s'explique en grande partie par une forte diminution des entrées sur le territoire de familles de Français et de familles de réfugiés. De plus, comme en 2002, les entrées de travailleurs étrangers sont également en baisse.» Or, les chiffres élaborés par Xavier Thierry, chercheur à l'Institut national d'études démographiques (Ined), montrent une progression quasi ininterrompue (un léger reflux en 1999 après la régularisation) des flux d'immigrants étrangers de long terme depuis 1997. En 2002, on a franchi la barre des 200 000 entrées. Et, sur la période 1999-2003, l'accroissement aura été de l'ordre de 50%.

Avec la première vague du recensement tournant de 2004, l'équation comptable s'est améliorée, mais, cette fois, un peu trop, au goût de l'Insee. La population de la métropole se serait accrue de 1,13 million grâce au solde naturel et de 564 000 pour une autre raison, qu'avant on aurait attribuée sans coup férir au solde migratoire.

Mais l'Insee se trouve alors confronté à un problème épineux : un solde migratoire de 113 000 en moyenne annuelle, alors que ses propres prévisions le situaient autour de 50 000-60 000, dans le voisinage de celui improvisé pour la période 1990-1998. Un doublement, en somme.

Que faire ? L'Insee recourt à nouveau à l'ovni statistique «variable d'ajustement», mais dans l'autre sens, cette fois, pour diminuer le solde migratoire et le réintégrer en douceur dans une tendance qui préserve au moins la fiction antérieure. Il choisit donc de fixer le solde migratoire à 410 000 sur les cinq ans (82 000 en moyenne annuelle) : 60 000 en 1999 ; 70 000 en 2000 ; 85 000 en 2001 ; 95 000 en 2002 et 100 000 en 2003 (sans les DOM). Soit une progression des deux tiers, bien supérieure à celle des entrées d'étrangers, qui est la seule variable connue.

Ces pratiques sont accueillies depuis quelques années sans grande critique. Le sujet est resté tabou dans la profession. L'Ined, qui jouait autrefois un rôle d'aiguillon, de partenaire critique, a conforté l'Insee dans ses évaluations acrobatiques des soldes migratoires. On se souvient de l'article «Cinq idées reçues sur l'immigration», signé par le directeur de l'Ined lui-même (NDLR : François Héran) dans la revue Population et Sociétés et qui avait fait grand bruit l'an dernier. Alors que Xavier Thierry élabore une statistique de l'immigration de long terme à partir du fichier du ministère de l'Intérieur, publiée dans l'autre revue de l'Ined, Population, le directeur de l'Ined se fonde sur le solde migratoire estimé par l'Insee pour décrire l'immigration étrangère. Or, c'est sur ce solde que l'Insee revient aujourd'hui de manière pathétique, en urgence absolue. Il suffisait pourtant au directeur de l'Ined de s'informer auprès d'un de ses chercheurs pour savoir que cette immigration étrangère franchissait en 2002 la barre des 200 000.

Si l'on en croit les résultats de la vague 2004 du recensement tournant, les immigrés adultes (rien n'est donné sur les moins de 18 ans) seraient 4,5 millions. C'est 450 000 de plus qu'en 1999, soit une hausse de 11%, sans compter les mineurs. Le solde migratoire (entrées/sorties) des immigrés adultes, une fois les décès défalqués, serait bien supérieur à ce chiffre et donc au solde migratoire global choisi par l'Insee (410 000), ce qui laisse entendre un solde négatif pour les natifs (y compris les Français de naissance nés à l'étranger). Cet accroissement aurait donc été de 90 000 par an en moyenne, soit un accroissement relatif de 2,2% (= 90 000/4,05 millions), rythme qui rappelle celui des années qui ont précédé les restrictions mises à l'immigration. Cette hausse rapide ferait suite à un accroissement annuel moyen de l'ensemble de la population immigrée de 0,4% (1990-1998).

Il ne suffit donc pas de bricoler l'addition comptable globale pour s'y retrouver. Il est probable que le recensement de 1999 a sous-estimé la population immigrée, ce qui a eu pour effet de sous-estimer sa croissance dans les années 90 et de surestimer l'accroissement relatif qui suit. Il a donc fait apparaître des immigrés qui étaient déjà là cinq ans plus tôt.

Faisons l'hypothèse que la vague du recensement tournant de 2004 a été de qualité voisine de celle du recensement de 1990, en oubliant le recensement de 1999 et l'idée de toute variable d'ajustement. La population métropolitaine serait passée de 56 577 000 à 60 200 000, soit un accroissement de 3 623 000 personnes se décomposant en un solde naturel de 2 997 000 et un solde migratoire de 626 000, ce qui représente, en moyenne annuelle, un solde migratoire d'environ 45 000 par an. Sur la même période, le nombre d'immigrés s'est accru de 4,17 millions à disons 4,75 millions (4,5 millions d'adultes, le nombre de mineurs étant estimé à 250 000), soit un accroissement de 580 000 personnes. Le solde migratoire de la population immigrée, après avoir pris en compte grossièrement la mortalité des immigrés, aurait donc été voisin de 950 000 sur la période 1990-2004, soit un solde un peu inférieur à 70 000 personnes en moyenne annuelle. Il peut paraître bas, mais ce n'est pas un ordre de grandeur déraisonnable, car de nombreuses sorties d'immigrés ont pu se produire en quatorze ans. Ce n'est pas parce que nous n'avons jamais mesuré les sorties d'immigrés qu'elles n'existent pas. Quoi qu'il en soit, le solde migratoire des seuls immigrés se révèle supérieur au solde migratoire de l'ensemble de la population de la métropole. Ce qui conduit à prendre au sérieux l'hypothèse d'un solde migratoire négatif pour les natifs de l'ordre de 20 000 à 25 000, en moyenne annuelle, pendant quatorze ans. Bien que l'on ait parlé très souvent du départ de jeunes Français préférant travailler à l'étranger, en Grande-Bretagne ou ailleurs, il semble que l'on n'ait pas vraiment pris, statistiquement, cette hypothèse au sérieux. Evoquée dans un document de travail de Guy Desplanques, de l'Insee (référence F0403, février 2004), elle n'a finalement pas été retenue. Pour que le solde migratoire des natifs ne soit pas négatif, il faudrait supposer une détérioration de collecte dans la vague du recensement tournant de 2004.

Autre hypothèse, le recensement tournant de 2004 a été de qualité voisine de celle du recensement de 1999, ce qui redonnerait du sens à l'équation comptable 1999-2004, tout en en privant de manière définitive celle de 1990-1998. Et il faut alors admettre le solde migratoire apparent de 113 000 en moyenne annuelle.

Toutes les hypothèses intermédiaires peuvent évidemment être envisagées.

Les contradictions que révèle le recensement tournant sont trop fortes pour maintenir la fiction orwellienne bâtie à la hâte. Il va donc nous falloir un peu de courage pour envisager sérieusement toutes les hypothèses, y compris celle d'une sortie importante de Français, et revisiter certaines analyses démographiques grevées par un taux d'omission sans doute exceptionnellement élevé en 1999. La prédiction du solde migratoire va s'en trouver encore plus ardue. La solution qui consistait à l'indexer d'une manière ou d'une autre sur la série des entrées d'étrangers, en négligeant les migrations de Français, n'est plus tenable.

Par voie de conséquence, il est plus que jamais risqué de laisser croire que ces soldes globaux, si difficiles à prévoir, pourraient rendre compte de l'immigration étrangère. Un retour à la lucidité est indispensable si l'on veut que la statistique publique recouvre quelque crédit auprès de l'opinion. Une opinion qui s'en méfie déjà viscéralement, notamment lorsqu'il s'agit d'immigration, et qui n'apprécie guère d'être tancée à mauvais escient.





Sorry for the babelfish ugly (but fast) translation:

IMMIGRATION INSEE annoyed with the figures the migratory balance in France has been systematically underestimated by INSEE for fifteen years. The proof: the results of the last great complete censuses of the population, in 1990 and 1999, and of the first wave of revolving census of 2004 do not stick. What requires the funny ones of countable acrobatics to fall down on its feet... By Michele Tribalat * [ February 12, 2005 ] The national Institute of the statistics and the economic surveys (INSEE) has just published the first results of vagueness 2004 of the revolving census, near the population of 20% of the communes of less than 10 000 inhabitants and that of 8% of the communes of higher size (INSEE First n° 1000 and n° 1001). These publications dwell too long neither on the exceptional character of the countable arrangements, judged necessary as of the census of 1999 to give the impression of continuity between the various censuses, nor on their demographic contents and their implications, in particular on the migratory balance. However, INSEE publishes a countable table there over the periods 1990-1998 and 1999-2003 which, if one takes the care to refer to the former publications (in particular the "Population balance 2003", INSEE First n° 948), gives the elements of comprehension. In 1999, the listed population was then lower of 480 000 people than the forecasts established by INSEE starting from the census of 1990, brought up to date thanks to the annual data of marital status (births, death) and with the estimates, always difficult, of the migratory balances. We will reconsider this point. The forecasts seemed better than the data drawn directly from the census of 1999: if the relevance of this last were admitted, it was also necessary to accept, in the tread, the assumption of a migratory balance almost no one over the period, which seemed not very credible, the more so as one left one period of exceptional regularization. To face, INSEE could have carried out a further enquiry, as it had done after the census of 1990, to know the extent and the characteristics of the omissions and to build a new evaluation. But it had not planned it, it was thus too late. It could have raised the manpower listed with the proportion in order to release a more credible migratory balance. It did not do it. INSEE chose the maintenance of the figure of the census at the countable prices of acrobatics to which it did not have recourse, in the post-war period, which in 1962-1968, period of massive arrival of repatriates. At side of the balances natural and migratory thus appeared a purely fictitious "variable of adjustment", which has as an aim only to balance the countable assessment, that one does not dare more to call demographic. Thus, of 1990 to 1998, the population of the metropolis would have grown of 1 867 000 thanks to the natural balance, of 533 000 thanks to the migratory balance, and would have decreased by 480 000 because of the statistical UFO "variable of adjustment"! Usually, the migratory balance results from the population balance by comparing the population with a date T increased by the natural increase between T and T + X with the population listed at the date T + X. It is always known imperfectly, because it depends on the quality of the censuses. This time, INSEE had to decide migratory balance, which it chose to maintain at the level estimated in its forecasts (533 000, is 59 000 on average annual). This balance is in fact unknown since it is the resultant of four variables (entered and left from abroad and entries and exits of French), of which only one - foreign immigration - is known (at least legal immigration), even if no agreement were not to date found on the manner of counting it, but it is another history. After this arbitrary decision, INSEE was without genuine compass. It thus considered balances migratory in 1999-2003, which it is obliged to contradict today: 47 000 in 1999, 52 000 in 2000, 62 000 in 2001, 67 000 in 2002 and, cherry on the cake, 57 000 in 2003 (series DOM included/understood). Cherry on the cake, because INSEE improvises, in 2003, a fall which one hardly includes/understands what justifies it. This innovation was not done in catimini and received a very important echo in the press titrating, without the shade of a doubt, on the fall of immigration in 2003. What said INSEE in its population balance published in February 2004? "the fall of the migratory balance is explained mainly by a strong reduction in the entries on the territory of families of French and families of refugees. Moreover, as in 2002, the entries of immigrant workers are also in fall." However, the figures worked out by Xavier Thierry, researcher in national Institut of demographic studies (Ined), show a quasi uninterrupted progression (a light backward flow in 1999 after the regularization) of flows of foreign immigrants of long term since 1997. In 2002, one crossed the bar of the 200 000 entries. And, over the period 1999-2003, the increase will have been about 50%. With the first vagueness of the turning census of 2004, the countable equation improved, but, this time, a little too, with the taste of INSEE. The population of the metropolis would have increased by 1,13 million thanks to the natural balance and 564 000 for another reason, that before one would have allotted without blow to férir with the migratory balance. But INSEE is then confronted with a thorny problem: a migratory balance of 113 000 on average annual, whereas its own forecasts located it around 50 000-60 000, in the vicinity of that impromptu over the period 1990-1998. A doubling, all things considered. What to make? INSEE resorts again to the statistical UFO "variable of adjustment", but in the other direction, this time, to decrease the migratory balance and to carefully reinstate it in a tendency which preserves at least the former fiction. It thus chooses to fix the migratory balance at 410 000 over the five years (82 000 on average annual): 60 000 in 1999; 70 000 in 2000; 85 000 in 2001; 95 000 in 2002 and 100 000 in 2003 (without the DOM). That is to say a progression of two thirds, quite higher than that of the entries from abroad, who is the only known variable. These practices have been accomodated for a few years without much criticism. The subject remained taboo in the profession. Ined, which played a part of pivot formerly, of critical partner, consolidated INSEE in its lifting evaluations of the migratory balances. One remembers the article "Five generally accepted ideas on immigration", signed by the director of Ined itself (note: François Héran) in the review Population and Companies and which had made great noise last year. Whereas Xavier Thierry works out statistics of the immigration of long term starting from the file of the ministry for the Interior, published in the other review of Ined, Population, the director of Ined bases himself on the migratory balance estimated by INSEE to describe foreign immigration. However, it is on this balance that INSEE returns today in a pathetic way, in top priority. It was however enough for the director to Ined to be informed near one of its researchers to know that this foreign immigration crossed in 2002 the bar of the 200 000. If one believes of them the results of vagueness 2004 of the revolving census, the adult immigrants (nothing is given on less than 18 years) would be 4,5 million. They is 450 000 of more than in 1999, that is to say a rise of 11%, without counting the minors. The migratory balance (inputs/outputs) of the adult immigrants, once the deducted deaths, would be quite higher than this figure and thus with the total balance migratory chosen by INSEE (410 000), which implies a negative balance for the natives (including the French of birth born abroad). This increase would thus have been 90 000 per annum on average, that is to say a relative increase in 2,2% (= 90 000/4,05 million), rate/rhythm which points out that of the years which preceded the restrictions put on immigration. This fast rise would follow upon an average annual increase in the whole of the immigrant population of 0,4% (1990-1998). It is not thus enough to arrange the total countable addition to find itself there. It is probable that the census of 1999 underestimated the immigrant population, which caused to underestimate its growth in the Nineties and to over-estimate the relative increase which follows. It thus revealed immigrants who were five years already there earlier. Let us make the assumption that the vagueness of the turning census of 2004 was of similar quality to that of the census of 1990, by forgetting the census of 1999 and the idea of any variable of adjustment. The metropolitan population would have passed from 56 577 000 to 60 200 000, that is to say an increase in 3 623 000 people breaking up into a natural balance of 2 997 000 and one migratory balance of 626 000, which represents, on average annual, a migratory balance from approximately 45 000 per annum. Over the same period, the number of immigrants increased by 4,17 million with say 4,75 million (4,5 million adults, the number of minors being estimated at 250 000), that is to say an increase in 580 000 people. The migratory balance of the immigrant population, after having taken into account coarsely the mortality of the immigrants, would thus have been close to 950 000 over the period 1990-2004, that is to say a balance a little lower than 70 000 people on average annual. It can appear low, but it is not an unreasonable order of magnitude, because of many exits of immigrants could occur in fourteen years. It is not because we never measured the exits of immigrants who they do not exist. At all events, the migratory balance of the only immigrants appears higher than the migratory balance of the whole of the population of the metropolis. What results in taking with serious the assumption of a negative migratory balance for the natives of about 20 000 to 25 000, on average annual, during fourteen years. Although one spoke very often about the departure of young French preferring to work abroad, in Great Britain or elsewhere, it seems that one did not really take, statistically, this assumption with the serious one. Evoked in a working paper of Guy Desplanques, INSEE (F0403 reference, February 2004), it was not finally retained. So that the migratory balance of the natives is not negative, it would be necessary to suppose a deterioration of collection in the vagueness of the turning census of 2004. Another assumption, the turning census of 2004 was of similar quality to that of the census of 1999, which would give again direction with the equation accountant 1999-2004, while depriving some in a final way that of 1990-1998. And it is then necessary to on average admit the apparent migratory balance of 113 000 annual. All the intermediate assumptions can obviously be considered. Contradictions which reveals the turning census are too strong to maintain the fiction orwellienne built with haste. It thus we will need a little courage to consider all the assumptions seriously, including that of an important French exit, and to revisit certain demographic analyses burdened by a rate of omission undoubtedly exceptionally high in 1999. The prediction of the migratory balance will be some even more difficult. The solution which consisted to index it in one way or another on the series of the entries from abroad, by neglecting the French migrations, is not bearable any more. Consequently, it is more than ever be likely to let believe that these total balances, if difficult to envisage, could account for foreign immigration. A return to clearness is essential if it is wanted that the public statistics cover some credit near the opinion. An opinion which is wary about it already viscéralement, in particular when it acts of immigration, and which hardly appreciates to be tancée ill-advisedly.

[BigBaribal]

Btw, Gafes, such a sentence "La Patria es primero" looks very nationalistic and even supremacist. It's perhaps you who is in the KKK style?

[Moledet]

I have to admit that I enjoy watching France sinking, finaly you'd taste your own stew. :lol:

[XTC]

I have to admit that I enjoy watching France sinking, finaly you'd taste your own stew. :lol:

Tell that to the Jews attacked by muslims in Paris

http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000647.html

[ViktorNavorski]

Btw, Gafes, such a sentence "La Patria es primero" looks very nationalistic and even supremacist. It's perhaps you who is in the KKK style?

Well, you can't certainly discuss the immigration problem between U.S. and Mexico without at least one Mexican resorting to the "racist" trump card, so what else is new.

[GAFES]

Btw, Gafes, such a sentence "La Patria es primero" looks very nationalistic and even supremacist. It's perhaps you who is in the KKK style?

Awful comeback.

This motto was not invented by me. You should go back to college and learn world history.

The motto was stated by one of our founding fathers; VICENTE GUERRERO. Nowadays is our national motto.

If you pay attention, you will see the engraving in the upper part of the congress's wall.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/4137/fox04grande1ug.th.jpg (http://img231.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fox04grande1ug.jpg)

Have a nice day.

[roland]

A whole generation of women have childrens later than before. So now it's an adjustment.
About the origine of those babies, the women who have children later are generally NOT new immigrants.
Anyway there is nothing such 1/2 or 3/5 French in France, there is only 0% or 100% French.
This being said, are most babies from ultra bigot islamoretard family like walford suggest (a quite insulting way btw) ? well some probably. That's a problem but lets not over do it, we can still quite easilly deal with it. I'm confident we are going to restrict immigration of illiterates or bigots even more and work better and more firmly on immigrant's sons assimilation.
We speak only of the problems, but there is already a lot of good honest and rational French Arabs. The huge majority is moderate muslim btw.
That's not easy for them because a lot live in guettoes, the Republican secular school is in crisis because it's now in the service of socialist trade unions, and the unemployment is high because, again, of our business unfriendly socialist system.
Lets get rid of socialism, lets go back to our Republican roots, that may solve the problem. No need to panic yet.

[BigBaribal]

I have to admit that I enjoy watching France sinking, finaly you'd taste your own stew. :lol:


More precisely, human rights associations like "Touche pas à mon pote", very cleverly managed in the back office by jewish lobbyists like Julien Dray (1), have been very efficient in the France sinkink. They constantly pushed the arab agenda in France, while it was useful for them against the French patriots. Now that the arabs in France are directly targeting the jews, these lobbyists are trying to manipulate the rightists and even some radical-rightists in the islamo-fascism rhetoric: very strange to see on some sites (2) pro-israelian propaganda next to racist and ultra-nationalist argumentation.









(1) Julien Dray, a very typical case: socialist and mondialist in France, but close to his brother's (deputee at the Knesset) ultranationalistic views when in Israel.

(2) http://www.france-echos.com/
It's rather easy to identify such sites: they attack the muslims in Europe with a very strong and often racist way, but they don't say anything about the other alien immigration in Europe.

[BigBaribal]

Btw, Gafes, such a sentence "La Patria es primero" looks very nationalistic and even supremacist. It's perhaps you who is in the KKK style?

Awful comeback.

This motto was not invented by me. You should go back to college and learn world history.

The motto was stated by one of our founding fathers; VICENTE GUERRERO. Nowadays is our national motto.

If you pay attention, you will see the engraving in the upper part of the congress's wall.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/4137/fox04grande1ug.th.jpg (http://img231.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fox04grande1ug.jpg)

Have a nice day.


So it's a national motto in the style "Deutschland über alles": it looks supremacist and ultra-nationalistic in my way. So, not clever to attack a guy saying he's KKK, when using such a motto.

[BigBaribal]

I have to admit that I enjoy watching France sinking, finaly you'd taste your own stew. :lol:

Tell that to the Jews attacked by muslims in Paris

http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000647.html


So, it was perhaps not a good tactic for the French jewish lobbies to attack, from the sixties to the nineties, with the "you, nazi" trick the French patriots who were trying to say that the immigration from muslim countries could cause big trouble in the future.

You know the history of the sprinkled sprinkler?


Happily, there are too French-jewish intellectuals like Pierre-André Taguieff or Alain Finkelkraut who are rather on the conservative and patriot side and who have perfectly understood the current situation. I just hope that such guys will be more heard by the French jewish community in the future.

[BigBaribal]

Anyway there is nothing such 1/2 or 3/5 French in France, there is only 0% or 100% French.


I read some weeks ago in the French hebdo "Le Point" an article about the French army in which a poll showed that 4/5 of the muslim soldiers would not fight for France if France was at war with a muslim country.

Myself, I would have no problem with the 1/5 staying in France, the others one could go back to the countries they would prefer to defend.

[roland]

Anyway there is nothing such 1/2 or 3/5 French in France, there is only 0% or 100% French.


I read some weeks ago in the French hebdo "Le Point" an article about the French army in which a poll showed that 4/5 of the muslim soldiers would not fight for France if France was at war with a muslim country.

Myself, I would have no problem with the 1/5 staying in France, the others one could go back to the countries they would prefer to defend.

I don't believe this 4/5 number. French armies fought in Lebanon, Comores, Chad or GW1 against Muslim enemies and we never had any trouble because of ultra religious traitors.

[BigBaribal]

Anyway there is nothing such 1/2 or 3/5 French in France, there is only 0% or 100% French.


I read some weeks ago in the French hebdo "Le Point" an article about the French army in which a poll showed that 4/5 of the muslim soldiers would not fight for France if France was at war with a muslim country.

Myself, I would have no problem with the 1/5 staying in France, the others one could go back to the countries they would prefer to defend.

I don't believe this 4/5 number. French armies fought in Lebanon, Comores, Chad or GW1 against Muslim enemies and we never had any trouble because of ultra religious traitors.


I've not the article under the hand now, but here's anyway a good prospective study from the Ministry of Defence on multicultarism in France:

http://www.college.interarmees.defense.gouv.fr/03pub/memoire/geo/GCHARDEF31031.pdf


Btw, you're right about the former wars, the problem is only with the current generation.

[walford]

Statistically, Walford is sadly right!statistically , Walford is totally wrong ;)
http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/docs_ffc/IP898.pdf
http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/docs_ffc/IP963.pdf
http://www.ined.fr/publications/pop_et_soc/pes400/PES4002.htmlStatistically, walford concedes nothing. The entire developed world's birthrates are below replacement levels (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=50222#50222) and likely continuing to plummet. For that to be reversed, we would have to convince our young women to have 2 or 3 babies apiece. Is that what French women [not of Mid-Eastern heritage] are doing now? Doubtful. Either we deal with the consequences of an ageing population or import from places where killing one's own babies in large numbers is not yet fashionable.

Here in the US we're getting ours from Mexico. Europe is importing from the Middle East. In either case, the genetic makeup is not the problem, however we are supplanting our own population with people who culturally and politically have far less experience with market economies, limited government and social tolerance .

Thus the resultant shift will not only be demographic. Our entire way of life will change dramatically in the next 2 generations -- and not neccesarily for the better.And the new candidate for president of the KKK is...Walford!
http://www.auc.dk/praesten/images/1603-ku-klux-klan.jpgIf you must resort to personal attacks to a specific, reasonable projection you confess to your own inadequacy. I would pity you your intellectual impotence if I could spare you the effort that it takes to cut a fart.

BTW, my mother's maiden name is Maldonado. [i]Yo tengo el sangre.

[roland]

And the new candidate for president of the KKK is...Walford!
http://www.auc.dk/praesten/images/1603-ku-klux-klan.jpg
If you must resort to personal attacks to a specific, reasonable projection you confess to your own inadequacy. I would pity you your intellectual impotence if I could spare you the effort that it takes to cut a fart.


ROFL
When we are an emotional pussie and we can't stand this kind of exageration, we don't post such thing:

...and the babies will increasingly look like this:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/14/mideast.photograph/vert.baby.bomber.jpg

that is @ss holish, understand ?

[walford]

And the new candidate for president of the KKK is...Walford!
http://www.auc.dk/praesten/images/1603-ku-klux-klan.jpg
If you must resort to personal attacks to a specific, reasonable projection you confess to your own inadequacy. I would pity you your intellectual impotence if I could spare you the effort that it takes to cut a fart.
ROFL When we are an emotional pussie and we can't stand this kind of exageration, we don't post such thing:
...and the babies will increasingly look like this:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/14/mideast.photograph/vert.baby.bomber.jpgthat is @ss holish, understand ?Emotional pussy? You don't know me very well, sweetie. I'll take on all comers. How nasty do you want it? Apparently we cannot suffer to be jolted from our fool's paradise in being sanguine about a rising birthrate w/o taking into account the details and implications. Well, deal with it, baby doll, because unless you can convince a mod to ban me, there will be more of the same.

Was the suicide baby pic slanderous, then? People from parts of the world who hate us are not being brought in to make up for our falling birthrates (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=50222#50222)? It was perfectly reasonable to call me a Klansman because I'm telling lies about the future we're facing? And what implication is this having upon our society, hmm?

http://www.weblog.nohair.net/archives/steyn.html
...During their gang rapes, the lucky lady would be told she was about to be "f- --ed Leb style" and that she deserved it because she was an "Australian pig."

But, inevitably, it's the heavy sentence that's "controversial." After September 11th, Americans were advised to ask themselves, "Why do they hate us?" Now Australians need to ask themselves, "Why do they rape us?" As Monroe Reimers put it on the letters page of The Sydney Morning Herald:

"As terrible as the crime was, we must not confuse justice with revenge. We need answers. Where has this hatred come from? How have we contributed to it? Perhaps it's time to take a good hard look at the racism by exclusion practised with such a vengeance by our community and cultural institutions."

...Five days before 9/11, the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet reported that 65% of the country's rapes were committed by "non-Western" immigrants -- a category which, in Norway, is almost wholly Muslim. A professor at the University of Oslo explained that one reason for the disproportionate Muslim share of the rape market was that in their native lands "rape is scarcely punished" because it is generally believed that "it is women who are responsible for rape."

So Muslim immigrants to Norway should be made aware that things are a little different in Scandinavia? Not at all! Rather, the professor insisted, "Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes" because their manner of dress would be regarded by Muslim men as inappropriate. "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it." Or to modify Queen Victoria's wedding-night advice to her daughter: Lie back and think of Yemen.

France? Well, I can't bring you any ethnic rape statistics from the Fifth Republic because the authorities go to great lengths not to keep any. But, even though the phenomenon of immigrant gang rape does not exist, there's already a word for it: the "tournante" -- or "take your turn." Last year, 11 Muslim men were arrested for enjoying a grand old tournante with a 14-year old girl in a cellar.

Denmark? "Three quarters of rapes are carried out by non-Danes," says Peter Skaarup, chairman of the People's Party, a member of the governing coalition.

...Even President Bush, in the month after September 11th, felt obliged to line up a series of photo-ops so he could declare that "Islam is peace" while surrounded by representatives of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization which objected, on the grounds of "ethnic and religious stereotyping," to the prosecution of two men in Chicago for the "honour killing" of their female cousin.

...The "code of silence" that surrounds rape in tightly knit Muslim families is, so to speak, amplified by the broader "code of silence" surrounding multicultural issues in the West. If all cultures are of equal value, how do you point out any defects?

...in the case of those Muslim ghettoes in Sydney, in Oslo, in Paris, in Copenhagen and in Manchester, multiculturalism means that the worst attributes of Muslim culture -- the subjugation of women -- combine with the worst attributes of Western culture -- licence and self-gratification. Tattoed, pierced Pakistani skinhead gangs swaggering down the streets of Northern England are as much a product of multiculturalism as the turban- wearing Sikh Mountie in the vice-regal escort at Rideau Hall. Yet even in the face of the crudest assaults on its most cherished causes -- women's rights, gay rights -- the political class turns squeamishly away.

Once upon a time we knew what to do. A British district officer, coming upon a scene of suttee, was told by the locals that in Hindu culture it was the custom to cremate a widow on her husband's funeral pyre. He replied that in British culture it was the custom to hang chaps who did that sort of thing.

...As one is always obliged to explain when tiptoeing around this territory, I'm not a racist, only a culturist. I believe Western culture -- rule of law, universal suffrage, etc. -- is preferable to Arab culture: that's why there are millions of Muslims in Scandinavia, and four Scandinavians in Syria. Follow the traffic. I support immigration, but with assimilation. Without it, like a Hindu widow, we're slowly climbing on the funeral pyre of our lost empires. You see it in European foreign policy already: they're scared of their mysterious, swelling, unstoppable Muslim populations.

Islam For All reported the other day that, at present demographic rates, in 20 years' time the majority of Holland's children (the population under 18) will be Muslim. It will be the first Islamic country in western Europe since the loss of Spain. Europe is the colony now.But you go ahead and vilify me for pointing it out. Enjoy your future.

[hughdotoh]

I'd be glad to help France repopulate itself. Ethnically I'm not European, but culturally open, secular, and I prefer brunettes.

BigBaribal, it's our chance to spread our seed.



























p-) :lol: