Should Ireland seek to increase its population considerably through immigration?

M. Ferguson

Throughout the late 90s and even now the declared aim of offering work permits to those from outside the EU was solely to massage labour strains in the work force. However, in spite, or perhaps because, of this aim the process remains restrictive compared to those operating in other nations. After all, if your intention is only to fill the gaps your own workers can’t then the flow of immigrants is likely to be kept low and forever subject to demands for protection of indigenous jobs. But should the government and political parties initiate a debate or make the case for an aggressive population growth strategy. Might the terms on which immigrants are sought change from a need to fill the cracks to a real drive to swell the country’s population?

Why do it?

In an increasingly inter linked world, caused by closer integration within the EU or globalisation through the lowering of barriers to enable freer trade, having a very small population is not such a great thing. As in the past it results in less influence – undermining the government’s efforts to have Ireland’s point of view heard in international negotiations and discussions. But in today’s world it increasingly means less independence too - both cultural and economic. Like every nation dwarfed by the size of America, Ireland’s TV sets, high streets etc. are filled with the formers assiduous output. Unlike many other countries, however, Ireland’s considerably smaller next door neighbour also bombards it with television channels, programmes, shopping chains, newspapers and just about everything else you can think of. The primary reason for this might be the shared language, but is the UK influenced to the same degree as Ireland is by it? Clearly not, and the reason’s obvious: the disparity in population with Britain containing 15 times as many people as Ireland. As this cultural inflow continues apace Ireland risks having its own identity increasingly diminished.

The economic consequences for such a small nation are possibly even more grave, restraining Ireland’s ability to chart its own course. In decades past it was always said that if Britain sneezed Ireland would catch a cold in reference to the dependency of the latter’s economy on the former. While this has lessened somewhat through increasing trade with other nations, Ireland’s economic fortunes are still closely entwined with the UK and US in particular. In a globalised world this often means a need to formulate economic policy that suits its larger trading partners first, ahead of domestic priorities.

One method of reducing foreign cultural influence and economic power would be protectionism. Increased tariffs and barriers would certainly cut the number of imports entering the state but think of the harm this would cause to the economy and the Irish quality of life. With less exposure to international competition, cosseted indigenous producers would inevitably raise prices and standards would fall. The consumer would be increasingly ripped off – just reflect on prices in protected sectors - and connected domestic industries would see their costs rise causing an inevitable jobs crunch. There’d be a downward economic spiral. Furthermore, implementing the French policy of limits on American films would be pointless, as Ireland is too small to provide an alternative. There’s no domestic film industry to protect. And without instigating a police state, how unearth do you persuade Irish viewers to watch Irish TV channels more and their British counterparts less?

So, it would appear that the only way to maintain or increase economic and cultural independence – as well as influence - in an ever ‘smaller’ world is an increasing population relative to your international peers. As Irish birth rates continue to fall off the ostensible solution would be higher levels of immigration. After all, forcing women to have more children would rightly be unacceptable in a free society!

Victor

No. The reasons are nationalistic and / or economic and are not sustainable in the long run.

simu

Interesting ideas.

Ireland has been uderpopulated since the time of the famine. I think we could do with a population boost but the main worry for me would be that adequate services wold not be available straight away - there are already, for example, problems ensuring adequate school places will be available for housing estates being built for commuters in towns near Dublin. We'd also have to make an effort to make these immigrants feel welcome (stamp out racist name-calling etc)and help them to integrate into society here and make them feel they have a stake in the country's future. This would maybe involve setting up classes to teach them English, maybe even Irish and other aspects of Irish culture, if they want as well. We should also be getting more immigrants involved in politics.

However, I don't think we could ever equal Britain in terms of population - I think we should make an effort to strengthen links with other smaller countries in Europe and beyond. As for cultural issues, I think it's a pity how we close ourselves off from cultural products of non-English speaking countries. For example, in other European countries, there are songs in the charts regularly in different languages. Say, in France, there might be songs in english but also Spanish, Italian etc. This rarely happens in Ireland because we import most of our music through Britain and rarely look further afield. I don't know how to change this attitude - possibly through making language courses in secondary schools more enticing to kids somehow?

I know we couldn't have rules stipulating that x% of films shown should be Irish but why not have quotas for films made in countries outside the USA? It's ridiculous to allow one country to dominate the minds of the world so much. I have nothing against America but I think we'd be better if if we got to hear voices from other countries more often. You could argue that ppl vote with their feet and that that is why US films are so popular - I'm not so sure - in most towns in Ireland, you're forced to go see what films the local cinema decides to show -US film companies have larger marketing depts and better distribution facilities so the question of choice is a bit laughable.

The same applies in trade - we need to look further ahead than the English-speaking world! There are plenty of people in this country with language skills so I think the reason for this problem is an unwillingness in companies to try for new markets,to do something different and thus risky.

Paddy20

Absolutely not, we are not caring for our current population enough i.e. the Hospital beds disaster, high unemployment figures, a housing crisis of mammoth proportions whereby even locals are being forced too live outside their home communities etc, etc, and emigration figures are back too almost the disgraceful figures of the fifties?.

I believe we should get our own house in order, before allowing wholesale immigration. Which most people know is simply not a viable proposition, while we will always have too allow in professionals that are bably needed.

Paddy20

M. Ferguson

Victor, I don't follow your post. Do you think higher levels of immigration or your viewpoint is unsustainable? If you could elaborate on that point then we could discuss it. I'd be interested to here your nationalistic reasons too.

On the issue of the sustainability, there are a number of comments to be made. In the past Ireland suffered from a number of barriers to supporting a larger population. Prior to independence, imperialism resulted in Ireland being poorly governed and to a large degree exploited. Furthermore, its population felt alienated from the source of that power and so resisted it, as opposed to acquiescing with British rule. This resulted in poor economic performance leading to high infant mortality/death rates and high levels of emigration when the opportunity arose. Needless to say, this had a negative long-term effect on population growth.

Even if Ireland had been an independent nation centuries ago it’s still not certain whether it would have had a much higher population than that which exists today. Prior to the industrial revolution, the key to establishing a high population was a strong agricultural economy and proximity to trading partners. With a climate and land unsuitable to high crop yields, Ireland could never have rivalled agricultural production in areas such as south eastern England, northern France and many other heavily populated parts of Europe. On top of this, in an age when travel was much more arduous and dangerous its isolation would have strongly counted against the emergence of a solid trading base. Scotland, Norwegian and Portuguese’ poverty centuries ago – even whilst independent - are testament to the baleful effects of unsuitable climates and isolation.

Then, during the industrial revolution, Ireland suffered again from a scarcity of the resources – coal etc. – or the location of heavy industry required to sustain a population boom. Although, completely unjust, the clearance of poor tenants from estates because of rent defaults during times of harvest failure happened right across Britain and Ireland, not just the latter. However, as most of Ireland had no industrialised cities most peasants faced starvation or emigration. Hence, the disastrous effect on the country’s demography of the Great Famine. On the other hand, tenant impoverishment and eviction in the north east and across the water did not bare the same results. The poor in these areas could flock to jobs in booming people intensive factories. Accordingly, Ireland’s population collapsed and remained stunted throughout the later half of the 19th century while England’s soared through continued high natural growth and high levels of emigration from its three poorer peers. Obviously, the even more well endowed US was the recipient of much emigration from all four, but more so the poorer Celtic fringe.

After independence, Ireland’s population growth prospects suffered again as early governments, particularly those led by Devalera, appeared to eschew the now pan European move to foster industry following Britain, Germany and the US’ lead. Instead, they focused on attempts to maintain an agrarian society. This though, did not create the jobs required to support a population with a still high birth rate. There remained high unemployment and strong emigration. Corresponding Northern Irish emigration levels - where industrialisation was pursued - were considerably lower during this period. The Republic also missed the jobs bonanza created in the UK during WW2 with intense demands for armaments production. It was only really from the 1960s onwards that Ireland began to modernise economically with an ensuing fall off in emigration. There were blips such as the 80s but this was probably made up for during the inflow resulting from the recent boom.

So, in times past, Ireland was harmed from a lack of the factors required to sustain strong economic growth and the accompanying population increase. It always suffered from missing one or more of the keys to success: sovereignty, good governance, resources (agricultural then industrial) or location. But, as the 90s demonstrated, and possibly for the first time in its history, all of the cards have fallen in Ireland’s favour. It’s true that it’s been independent for decades and government has pursued broadly the right direction since the 60s but the previous failings of resource scarcity and poor location no longer seem to matter. With globalisation resulting in an ever ‘smaller’ world and tariff free access to the earth’s largest single market, Ireland’s peripheral position – not to mention small size – is no longer a barrier to high tech sectors establishing here. As for natural resources, these industries simply require a well-educated population/good infrastructure. Things that can be self-generated unlike coal or oil deposits. It would seem that Ireland could at last look forward to a long period of prosperity, give or take the odd blip that all wealthy nations succumb to.

Looking ahead to the rest of the 21st century, where locations and resources should matter less and less, the present juncture would seem ripe to consider substantial population growth. Look at other nations that have averaged steady growth over a long period and who used it to swell their populations. In 1950, the US had a pop. of 150 million, it now has one of almost 300 million. A staggering increase of nearly 150 million people in the space of half a century. Much of this was achieved through continuing high levels of immigration, especially as the nation’s ‘indigenous’ birth rate fell with increasing rapidity since the 70s.

Australia’s population too, has benefited from a long period of growth and immigration. It’s estimated the country’s census figures would only show 12 million inhabitants today instead of almost 20 million but for the abolition of the British/Irish immigrant preference (somebody really loved us) laws in 1950. Furthermore, the ending of the rather abhorrent ‘White Australia’ policies have seen the net widen with immigrants coming from all over the globe over the past twenty years.

Like the US and Australia, provided Ireland maintains steady economic growth (given that it’s averaged an annual GDP growth rate of about 5% since the early 70s it should be more than capable) it too could sustain much immigration. It has, rather ironically because of previous low population growth, the one characteristic England, for example, lacks – space! Ireland is one of Europe’s most sparsely populated nations with a density of only 53 people per sq. km. If, however, it could one day increase this level to that of England’s – 376 people per sq. km – it would have 26 million inhabitants as opposed to the current 3.9. Throw in Northern Ireland and that figure jumps to more than 30 million for the whole island. Unlike almost entirely mountainous Scotland and Wales, Ireland is similar to England in that a majority of its landmass is habitable. So there really is no reason why Ireland – north and south - couldn’t aspire to a population upwards of at least 20 million sometime in the latter half of this century. Just think, Australia went from 4 to 20 million in the space of 50 years! Could Ireland do something similar?

PH01

I'm absolutely in favour of this. This has got to happen if Ireland is to prosper.
But it's going to put a bit more pressure on the current infrastructure, but these are problems which we can over come.
The benefits far out weigh the negatives.

mike65

Not sure if agree completly with the proposistion as in apart it seems to be based on a pissing contest with England. The population of Ireland will need to be increased and as the birth-rate has been falling steadily over the medium term it seems
only sensible to use immigrants as a way of filling the economic gap. All those OAPs will need financing in 30 years time!

However I really dont see the need to boost the population with more than what one might call "natural" growth rates, as has been pointed out the infrastructure as things stand is woeful and given our leaders propensity for screwing up grand plans (see Nat Dev Plan, Spatial Stategy etc) matters would only get worse before they ever got better, in fact thats already the case.

Growth is needed but it has to be managed carefully and the natives need some serious educating too...

Mike.

dathi1

Yes I sort of agree.
Overhaul the immigration system and delete the current free for all assylum shopping system that's in place. Then introduce a system that allows people to apply and come here legally to work and live. A steady increase in population might be desirable through natural population growth and small amount of immigrants. We don't want another Fiji in the north west Atlantic.

Sarky

When Ireland doesn'y have an infrastructure able to handle its current population, what's the point in actively making it worse?

Sand

Its ironic you mention Devs dreams of an agrarian Ireland, with dancing at the crossroads which hindered Irelands economic development and yet harbour dreams of a similarly utopian Ireland.

A large population is grand but Ireland doesnt have the infrastructure and the costs of building it would be huge. A large population does not mean economic prosperity and neither does it mean a larger say at any table. You note cultural reasons for building a large population to ward of the spectre of foreign influences - and yet mass immigration such as you propose would work far greater and more permament changes to Irish cultural identity.

Irelands population will grow or fall as circumstances dictate - leave the social engineering and grand dreams for the megalomaniacs.

M. Ferguson

Hi Simu,

There are indeed strains with accommodating the current population, but then all nations experience these from time to time. These problems have not, however, stopped Canada, the US and Australia from pursuing aggressive population growth strategies. The issue of racism and hostility to immigrants is an issue that has to be discussed and overcome if new comers are to be welcomed and enabled to integrate fully into Irish society. You’re quite right, they have to feel they belong. That’s why I believe there is a pertinent need for a real debate if ever such a policy was to be implemented. Parties would have to make the case for population growth demonstrating that the potential benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Indeed, many institutions, such as RTE could play a valuable role in dispelling fear of those who look different and from other cultures. In essence, as in the US, what would hopefully emerge in the long run would be a plural society but with all groups feeling Irish. Really, the idea of what it is to be Irish would have to evolve somewhat. As we’ve witnessed the change in attitudes across the water from the view fifty years ago that to be English you had to white, a similar metamorphosis in opinion would have to occur here.

Ultimately, for real acceptance of those who are different to develop emigration will have to take place for a considerable period of time. You can attempt to prepare your population for new arrivals all you want but the only real way to adapt to immigrants and no longer feel threatened by them is to live with them. You just can’t construct the tolerance that accompanies living in a plural society before it actually exists. Some groundwork possibly, but attitudes will only mould to fit their environment. Suffice to say, not until many see someone of African descent playing for a county football team will they be accepted as truly Irish. Likewise for someone with a Polish surname holding ministerial office, and so on and so forth.

I agree that Ireland would never equal Britain in terms of population. It simply isn’t big enough and concepts of personal space would have to alter significantly in such an event. However, we’re getting a long way ahead of ourselves. You don’t know what the future holds and anyway the process of substantial population increase would take a very long time indeed. This is a policy direction that would really only bare fruit more than a century hence. It would, if you like, be aimed at giving future generations of Irish people a legacy that would put them on a more solid footing in an ever more inter linked world. Ensuring the Ireland of the distant future more independence and influence.

I understand your concerns about the lack of interest shown in cultural exports from non-English speaking countries. I find many European films (with subtitles I hasten to add) enjoyable and of an excellent standard. But I only have access to them on Channel 4 and the BBC. Both British stations with varying degrees of public service remit. This in many ways highlights another case for a larger population. With its much greater populous Britain has both the market for and the tax revenues to fund much more extensive forays into the sphere of European film and insights into international culture. Irish channels simply cannot command the advertising revenue or the subsidies due to a much smaller pool of viewers/tax payers. The range of cultural attractions in Britain – from museums to cultural festivals – will always dwarf that available in Ireland as long as the gulf in population remains.

Paddy20

M.Ferguson,

I do not know if you ever actually lived in the UK Mainland?. I did and believe me I did not find the overcrowding, the race riots, the multitude of cultures, segregating themselves in their own conclaves too help them feel at home.

In a Country where the average English born citizen deeply resents the unbearably overcrowded mixed society which has practically stolen their identity from right under their noses has made living in England a no no, for most.

Personally, I am delighted too be back in my own home Country. Where even though I am critical of a lot of our societies failings,at least in the main I am dealing with my own people! Those with whom I have mutual inheritance and loyalty.

England is a pressure cooker society, where I would not live if you paid me millions. Lets try and keep Irelands unique identity somewhat intact. Our quality of life due to not being swamped by
strangers and a lack of overcrowding has made us a target for immigrants many claiming to be political refugees.

Your thread is interesting and dangerous.

Paddy20.

M. Ferguson

Paddy, in response to your first post,

Absolutely not, we are not caring for our current population enough i.e. the Hospital beds disaster, high unemployment figures, a housing crisis of mammoth proportions whereby even locals are being forced too live outside their home communities etc, etc, and emigration figures are back too almost the disgraceful figures of the fifties?.

Yes, it’s true that there are main strains on Irish life at present. But if you scrutinise the recent experiences from a range of countries you’ll find that many of the problems here are prevalent across the globe. With the budget crisis across many American states the healthcare cutbacks there make Ireland’s woes resemble a storm in a teacup. Yet, the American immigration programme has not been curtailed as a result. Irish unemployment at 4.7% is actually one of the lowest in the OECD. The UK’s stands at 5.5%, the US’ over 6%, France’s over 9% and Germany’s more than 10%. Indeed, I believe only Australia’s level of unemployment is lower. Furthermore, Ireland’s employment rate has actually continually grown throughout the present slow down. So, things are not as bad in reality as, for example, they’re often claimed to be in a hype driven media that views stories of doom and gloom with exaggerated doses of pessimism as the only way to sustain profit margins!

The housing crisis is in part the product of a long period of economic expansion. Something that for all the strains it generates Ireland would be worse off for without. It’s true that if the economy hadn’t performed as well over the past fifteen years house prices would not have been driven up as much by virtually full employment and rising wages. But would you trade the housing shortage in for the double-digit unemployment and some of the lowest salaries in the western world that Ireland was saddled with in the 1980s. Again, if you cast your eye abroad to other nations that have experienced a similar lengthy expansion and you’ll find housing crises of similar proportions. Owning a house has become unattainable for many low paid workers in southern England – the under supply of new properties there makes Ireland’s planning system look like a well oiled machine. Study several of Gordon Brown’s speeches last year for his complaints concerning the local authority attitudes to much needed homes – hence John Prescott's intervention to build several 100,000 homes in the SE. Australian house price inflation has gone through the roof. With their system of property taxes linked to value estimates many have been straddled with huge debts. The shortage of homes in California and New York – a crisis whose routes stretch back to the implementation of the rent control scheme in WW2 - have been problems legislators have struggled with for well over a decade now. With the 90s boom and an influx of pensioners from northern Europe the rise in Spanish house prices has far surpassed Ireland’s. The only countries in the rich world not struggling with demands for new homes are those who have had a decade of low or stuttering growth. Countries such as Germany, but would you want its double-digit unemployment or the sluggish wage growth it experienced over the past decade. Moreover, Germans haven’t benefited from the huge increase in asset wealth enjoyed by Irish homeowners.

I’m not sure I fully apprehend your point on living outside home communities. Surely where ever you live is your home? We can’t all expect to be able to reside in the community in which we grew up all our lives. It’s a common occurrence throughout the world to move to where you can find work.

Are the emigration figures really back to 1950 levels? That would be a strange development with one of, if not, the lowest unemployment rate in the EU. Where could these people emigrate? Australia? It’s about the only country they could move to, what with it having possibly the sole unemployment rate that’s below Ireland’s.

I believe we should get our own house in order, before allowing wholesale immigration. Which most people know is simply not a viable proposition

Paddy, the sentiments you express are undoubtedly akin to those probably uttered many times before, in many other nations. They expose a very understandable feeling. ‘How can we take any more? We’ve got our own to look after; we couldn’t possibly accommodate an influx of foreigners!’ But despite the strains all societies are placed under, with determination and foresight – and sometimes lacking even these – many nations have increased their populations substantially. Do Americans, Canadians and Australians amongst others not experience similar problems and difficulties to Irish people? Do they possess innate organisational skills we lack?

Following on from this issue of accommodating new arrivals, there’d be no question of them enjoying a free ride. A key requisite of gaining a permit would be a work placement. Immigrants would be expected to pay their own way, as indeed they are now. The increased tax revenues from the resulting enlarged workforce would largely finance the extra services they’d require. And, as many would arrive in their 20s/30s the state would avoid having to fund one of the most expensive periods of a person’s life – pregnancy, birth, childcare, schooling and higher education. To gain entry through finding a job they’d have to have already received an education/the required training. So, none of the educational costs the government expends on the native population. Furthermore, as studies in nations with pro-immigrant policies demonstrate, immigrants often spur on economic growth creating even more employment opportunities, far from stealing indigenous jobs. Think of a small company that could land a contract if only it had an extra employee with certain skills. If they can’t find such a person in the existing population the contract goes elsewhere. But, what if they could locate someone with the requisite skills abroad. By moving to Ireland, that person would allow the business to secure the contract and take on even more employees as a result. Often coming from a poorer part of the world, immigrants often have a superior work ethic to that which comes from growing up in a much wealthier western society. Such a drive – often entrepreneurial – can be harnessed to boost levels of productivity leading to higher growth again, leading to even more new job opportunities. Evidence suggests the recent US boom was aided greatly by high levels of immigration.

Victor

Originally posted by Paddy20
Our quality of life due to not being swamped by
strangers and a lack of overcrowding has made us a target for immigrants many claiming to be political refugees.

Yeah! Keep out them Cavan people!

sceptre

Originally posted by M. Ferguson
I find many European films (with subtitles I hasten to add) enjoyable and of an excellent standard. But I only have access to them on Channel 4 and the BBC.

RTE have been showing a few continental-Europe movies late at the weekend lately. None this weekend but they average about one every two weeks. TG4 are doing the same (La Reine Margot was on only about two weeks ago)

Originally posted by paddy20
In a Country where the average English born citizen deeply resents the unbearably overcrowded mixed society which has practically stolen their identity from right under their noses has made living in England a no no, for most

Can't have made living there a no-no for many (or "most") English people - they're hardly emigrating to some foreign almost all-white country in droves. The river Tiber, er, Thames isn't exactly covered in blood. England (as opposed to GB or the UK) has something of an identity crisis for its own citizens at the moment, which in particular has little to do with immigration. The Scottish, Welsh and Irish have identities. The English never had need of one until the last fifty years.

Has this already turned into a "black people are all very well but NIMBY" topic?

Paddy20

sceptre,

Quote; " Has this turned into a " black people are all very well but NIMBY topic ?" end quote.

You can not be serious. I have not read any anti - Black remarks on this thread!. I regard your insinuation as insulting if not deliberate FLAMING* and I believe you should retract it.

Paddy20

sceptre

Originally posted by Paddy20
I regard your insinuation as insulting if not deliberate FLAMING*

Nope and nope. There isn't even an accusation in there.

and I believe you should retract it.

Good for you.

No.

And I won't do it if you demand* it either. Get over it.

If you're really aggrieved by whatever it is you're aggrieved by, report this or take it to the Admin board. I'm not interested in getting involved in a flamewar. If you think I've insulted you above, it's in your imagination. If you think I've insulted anyone else they can take it up with me in a nice manner themselves.

Back on topic anyone?

Victor

Originally posted by M. Ferguson
Victor, I don't follow your post. Do you think higher levels of immigration or your viewpoint is unsustainable?

Will respond over the weekend.

bizmark

No

5%- 10% of the population being none irish is anuff for any country.And it should be actively kept at that level

i,d hate to see ireland turn into something like america where whole area,s of citys are off limit,s to those that built it in the first place

mike65

Originally posted by bizmark
No

i,d hate to see ireland turn into something like america where whole area,s of citys are off limit,s to those that built it in the first place

You mean the previous influx of immigrants....?

Mike

Victor

Originally posted by bizmark
i,d hate to see ireland turn into something like america where whole area,s of citys are off limit,s to those that built it in the first place

You mean the way "gated communities" exist in the suburbs, occupied by white people, built by non-white people.

Paddy20

Now, you see what happens when someone introduces the ugly racist, particularly Anti - Black card on too a thread, without due cause.

Paddy20.

bizmark

smart ass replys i love em lol
ya ya i know your right

but you understand what i mean ?

5-10% is a fair number of people to let into the country in my view

bizmark

QUOTE]Now, you see what happens when someone introduces the ugly racist, particularly Anti - Black card on too a thread, without due cause.[/QUOTE]

i dont see anyone doing that paddy

Cant anyone post their view,s with out "racist" being brought up :rolleyes:

M. Ferguson

Paddy again,

I do not know if you ever actually lived in the UK Mainland?. I did and believe me I did not find the overcrowding, the race riots, the multitude of cultures, segregating themselves in their own conclaves too help them feel at home.

I have. Certainly, parts of Britain are overcrowded, but many parts aren’t. You could say the same of any nation, Ireland included – life in Dublin is much more cramped than in Mayo. Regardless of how densely or sparsely populated a nation is, you will always have places with density levels far in excess of the national average, and many far below. However, in my view population increase would be pegged at a sustainable level. As I mentioned earlier, a substantial enlargement in Ireland’s population would only accumulate a long way into the future. So, ever attaining England’s level of population density would be more than a century away and possibly never achieved. Obviously, Ireland would still be a democracy – enabling it to alter and significantly restrict the immigration flow at its choosing. Furthermore, England’s not as overcrowded as is often claimed. Japan, for example accommodates its population of almost 130 million in smaller area than the UK due to the mountainous topography of about 80% of its landmass! There are also many benefits to a higher population density: more efficient allocation of services such as healthcare provision, broadband roll-out etc. But I never claimed that such a policy would come without any downsides. My belief is that for all the cons they are outweighed by the pros. However, this thread highlights the need for a political and public debate on the matter so that all the possible ramifications are fully understood before deciding on such a policy move.

As for the race riots, their occurrence demonstrates the need for much more effective attempts to integrate immigrants properly. However, focusing on them exclusively is surely a bit unfair. There are many examples of excellent race relations across the water – many parts of London and the Notting Hill carnival for example. Again, England contains segregated but also fully integrated areas. The former is surely a failing of attempts by the host society to integrate/adapt and not a reason to eschew immigration. On top of this, self-imposed segregation is often a rite of passage for new immigrant communities. This allows them to work with those they know and build networks to further their group’s well being. Later generations – having benefited from this secure base – then move out into wider society integrating with ease having grown up in and fully grasping indigenous culture. This also happened to Irish immigrants to the US, England etc. Yet their descendants are all now fully established in their new nations.

In a Country where the average English born citizen deeply resents the unbearably overcrowded mixed society which has practically stolen their identity from right under their noses has made living in England a no no, for most.

I just couldn’t agree Paddy. I didn’t find England unbearably overcrowded and mixed. Surely, that’s an entirely subjective opinion. This introduces another concept in the process of accepting immigrants. To you, coming from a very homogenous, mono-cultural society, the mainland UK may very well seem alien and even frightening. It’s an entirely understandable reaction. But Ireland would not assume Britain’s or America’s status overnight. Far from it, the evolution to such a society would occur over a number of generations. This would allow people time to adapt and most importantly future Irish generations would grow up in a plural society. Unlike our generation, they’d find nothing shocking about diversity – it would be all they’d ever know!

I don’t agree that immigrants have stolen England’s identity. It has simply moulded to take onboard the new comers. This point really delves into whether you’re a cultural evolutionist or absolutist. Can a nation/society’s culture ever change over time or is it forever routed in stone? I’d say the former is the case. Just look back through time, our identity has been constantly changing – disposing of attitudes/prevailing mindsets from one age to the next, while our understanding of ourselves and the way in which we live has taken on new forms. Take me for example: I can speak some French, prefer Thai food, like hiphop, watch American films more than any other, am an atheist, drive a car and live with my girlfriend while having no desire to get married anytime soon. I’m Irish, was born and brought up in Ireland and yet the things that constitute my culture bare no resemblance whatsoever to the prevailing norms of just half a century ago. Yet my ancestors have been here for centuries – it didn’t take an influx of immigrants to cause such far reaching changes to the way we live and think over the past 50 years.

I’d fully expect Ireland’s culture and identity to continue to change and evolve with the passage of time, regardless of whether immigrants arrive or not. Furthermore, if civic institutions can be considered part of a people’s identity, then despite us both living in Ireland my identity differs somewhat from yours as you live under one government with its own departments, bodies etc. and I under another.

I don’t know many people who think living in England’s a no no. Moreover, I’ve never sensed such a climate of unbearable urge to leave from the many articles I’ve read on the country.

,at least in the main I am dealing with my own people! Those with whom I have mutual inheritance and loyalty.

I’m unsure of what you mean by your own people. Could you elaborate? Surely, you’re not implying that if you had to deal with a doctor whose parents had emigrated from India you’d feel uneasy? I may have misinterpreted your point; maybe you could clarify if my understanding’s correct?

On the matter of mutual inheritance, is that not something left to relatives in a will? I, personally, am really only loyal to my friends, relatives and loved ones. Beyond them any relationships with other people are usually professional. As for strangers I have no particular feelings towards them, but I’d feel a sense of duty to help anyone in distress – regardless of their ancestry or where they’re from. As for loyalty, it’s not an emotion that comes to mind with people I don’t know. I just don’t understand your comments! How do they relate to increased levels of immigration?

Lets try and keep Irelands unique identity somewhat intact. Our quality of life due to not being swamped by
strangers and a lack of overcrowding has made us a target for immigrants many claiming to be political refugees.

As I’ve commented earlier, Ireland’s identity is likely to continue to evolve as it’s done forever, regardless of immigration levels. So, maintaining its current unique status will be quite difficult if not impossible. How, for example, do you intend to counter the fall off in mass attendance; increasing secularisation or the declining average family size? I don’t believe increased immigration would lead to Ireland being swamped or overcrowded. I don’t think new arrivals would have an adverse impact on Ireland’s quality of life. If anything the reverse would surely be much more likely. Culturally, the nation would become more diverse and interesting – more Thai restaurants for people like me! In the long run, Ireland would have more influence in the EU, its opinion carrying greater weight due to its larger economy. Surely, this would give it a greater chance of winning a better deal for its people thus improving their quality of life.

As for strangers, I’m surrounded by 100s of 1000s of them in Northern Ireland. I suppose you could say I’m swamped by them. Do you, on the other hand, know everyone in the Republic?

Your thread is interesting and dangerous.

That’s a bit unfair Paddy. Interesting possibly, but surely not dangerous. It’s only a string of ideas and thoughts so far. I can’t see what harm an open, amicable discussion can have.

Paddy20

M. Ferguson,

Right, I have read your response in detail and now have [I think] a better under standing of where you are coming from, so to speak.

Up to now I have been replying off the cuff i.e. without first giving perhaps due consideration to your ideas/ amicable discussion.

Therefore, before I reply again to your thread, which I consider too be worthy of more serious contemplation of its contents and possibilities. I will get the old reliable pen and paper out in order too write a more comprehensible concise summing up of my beliefs and my views on what is or would be the right path for the Irish Nation and its people to follow in relation to the somewhat complex issues raised by your thread.

You have asked me if I might clarify a number of remarks. I will of course attemt to answer you. However, I do have a feeling my next post on this thread could end up being a bit lengthy!.

All the best.

Paddy20.

johnKarma

Originally posted by M. Ferguson
So, it would appear that the only way to maintain or increase economic and cultural independence – as well as influence - in an ever ‘smaller’ world is an increasing population relative to your international peers. As Irish birth rates continue to fall off the ostensible solution would be higher levels of immigration. After all, forcing women to have more children would rightly be unacceptable in a free society!

Great post. You have some interesting ideas. However on at least one front your argument is internally contradictory. Is it not ironic that in order to maintain our "cultural independence" and stem the effect of "foreign cultural influence" on "Irish" culture, you are proposing that we import foreigners in their droves?! TBH, I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by doing this. Wouldn't this bring about the same result, just by a different route?


At the risk of straying slightly off-topic..

Personally I see culture as a fluid thing. I don't worry about the supposedly deleterious effect that American/UK mass culture is having on Ireland. Throughout history, I think you will find that "cultured" elites have always decried the "base" culture of the masses - in Hamlet Shakespeare berated the fickle public for falling for the latest fads- at that time it was troupes of child actors. The same is true today: the whipping boy du jour is cultural metamorphosis via Hollywood. Is it any better or worse if it comes via Rosslare Harbour? Is it any better or worse if our culture is altered by Nigerians or East Europeans rather than by the US and the UK?

Since migration is just another agent/consequence of globalisation- I guess your post begs the question of the relevance of "Irishness" and "cultural independence" in a globalised world.

I'm not against allowing immigration for economic reasons or moral reasons (asylum seekers, etc) - but I'm not convinced by this cultural argument.

Anyway.. proceed to rip me to shreds.

Turnip

By all means try to lure skilled and unskilled EU citizens here to work. But we should avoid bringing in yet more non-EU people.

Our welfare state system cannot carry on as is. It rewards idleness and penalises the industrious.

Overhaul the tax system. Award more tax breaks and extra holidays for couples if their combined income is above a certain level. The current exemption limits are woefully inadequate and should be raised significantly.

Make serious social welfare cuts or else we'll just carry on subsidising the breeding of more and more rat people to rob us, attack us and destroy every attempt to make the city a more pleasant place to live in.

M. Ferguson

Mike,

Not sure if agree completly with the proposistion as in apart it seems to be based on a pissing contest with England.

Hi. This wasn’t my intention at all. Indeed, I fail to see how you deduced this underlying strand of reasoning from my posts. Yes, there are comparisons with England but they were in many ways arbitrarily chosen. Where analysis of England is useful in an Irish context is due to its close proximity, influence and shared history. It’s a country that Ireland has many similarities to – possibly more than with any other! Given that it has a considerably larger and more diverse population it provides one of the best matrixes on which to estimate the effects population growth and immigration might have on Ireland. On top of this, it’s the country we in Ireland probably know more about than any other. I’m sure many forum members have been to or lived in it.

However I really dont see the need to boost the population with more than what one might call "natural" growth rates, as has been pointed out the infrastructure as things stand is woeful and given our leaders propensity for screwing up grand plans (see Nat Dev Plan, Spatial Stategy etc)

The problem is: what are natural growth rates? All nations have experienced so many different rates of population increase throughout the past, and coped with them to varying degrees of success, that it’s difficult to put a figure on an ideal. The current fall off in the Irish birth rate could be considered a fairly natural occurrence. In a society freer than any existing previously with greater levels of equality and wealth than ever before women’s decisions to have fewer and even no children might be seen as entirely reasonable. The problem is that it’s not sustainable, resulting in an older and older population. Sustainability really is the key – what level of growth could Ireland accommodate before becoming too stretched. I believe that Ireland’s annual growth rate averaged 0.7% in the late 90s. This was considerably below the US average of about 1%. Indeed, America has maintained this level since the late 60s. Further back from this it gradually came down from higher in the 1 – 2% range. But at all times the US coped with this increase and yet just think of the number of crises the US has faced in employment, wars, and political problems/dilemmas etc. To reiterate a previous post, Ireland’s present difficulties really aren’t that unique. Furthermore, its politicians aren’t necessarily any more inept or flawed than those in other nations – many of which have sustained substantial immigration programmes. What inhibited sustained economic growth since WW2 was less political mismanagement and more factors beyond the nation’s control – lack of access to large tariff free market, resources etc.

For example, if Ireland’s growth rate increased to average 2% annually, the following would ensue:

2003 3,900,000(approx.)
2013 4,680,000
2023 5,616,000
2033 6,739,200
2043 8,087,040
2053 9,704,448
2063 11,645,338
2073 13,974,405
2083 16,769,286
2093 20,123,143
2103 24,147,772

2% per annum may seem on the high side but Australia achieved a similar increase from 4 to 20 million in 50 years instead of 90!

M. Ferguson

Hi Dathi1,

Then introduce a system that allows people to apply and come here legally to work and live. A steady increase in population might be desirable through natural population growth and small amount of immigrants. We don't want another Fiji in the north west Atlantic.

Yes, considerable alterations to the current immigration process would be in order if more than a trickle of people were allowed to relocate here. A green card system similar to that used by the US and Australia would be much fairer. Based on points, it rewards qualities such as educational skills. A substantial increase in work placement permits would also be beneficial. In all a variety of measures would be required to provide a flexible system extensive enough to meet demand fairly. At the moment, for example, those who gain work permits cannot bring their families with them. This is probably to ensure a lower burden on the state. However, in turn for a better future - and employment prospects - immigrants and their dependants could agree to forgo certain benefits offered by the welfare system. This was an idea raised recently in the Sunday Business Post and might quell indigenous claims of foreign ‘free loaders’. After all, given the opportunity to escape the clutches of the poorer parts of the globe, new comers could hardly claim exploitation if they received lower pay/fewer benefits. Just think of the life their children would have compared to that possible in their previous abode!

I’m not sure I fully grasp the Fiji point. Is that in reference to the animosity between the indigenous and ethnically Indian population? I don’t think this problem would emerge in Ireland, as amongst many reasons this is a rich country whereas Fiji is relatively impoverished in comparison. Furthermore, I believe the Indians were never really welcomed by the native peoples as they arrived while control of the island was in British hands. Fiji had most likely never debated the issue thoroughly, if at all, as I’m proposing should happen here. Irish people must understand the implications fully and support such a process for it to be successful. Without such acquiescence the breakdown in societal tensions evident in Fiji might well develop.

M. Ferguson

Hi Sand,

yet harbour dreams of a similarly utopian Ireland.

Although my posts may convey a sense of idealism in truth my views are grounded in reality. I don’t for a moment envisage a future Irish utopia, whether that’s with immigrants or not. Integrating new arrivals would be by no means easy, exposing Irish society to never before experienced stresses and strains. There’d no doubt be growing pains and some failures in community relations along the way. It would certainly be a challenge. But one that would be worth taking – others have made a success of it. It wouldn’t produce a utopia but give Ireland greater independence and influence in a future world where such qualities may very well matter a great deal more than they do now. Invoking the adage there’s strength in numbers, surely a realist would accept the need to place the nation on a stronger footing decades hence despite the difficulties an increasing population might cause. I think a hallmark of realism is assuming responsibility for future generations: attempting to provide them with the soundest future possible.

A large population is grand but Ireland doesnt have the infrastructure and the costs of building it would be huge. A large population does not mean economic prosperity and neither does it mean a larger say at any table.

Australia and the US didn’t have the infrastructure their current populations demand in 1950. That didn’t stop them opening their doors to large levels of immigration. A substantial increase in the numbers living here wouldn’t happen over night. There’d be many decades to plan ahead and put the increased infrastructure requirements in place. That’s why if ever an aggressive population growth strategy was adopted it would have to be done with full understanding and not simply drifted into. Another thing to realise is that immigrants would pay their way. So as the population increased, so would tax revenues. Moreover, with their often greater work ethic and much needed skills immigrants could spawn even greater prosperity, further adding to the sums government could expend on things such as roads, airports etc. After all, Irish immigrants to the US got jobs and paid their taxes – why should arrivals here be any different.

A large population may not mean economic prosperity but neither does a small one. Circumstances might change or the government might blow it either way. What a large population can provide is a bigger domestic market: you can never be sure of how EU tariff arrangements will develop over the coming century – will the pan European organisation remain in existence? Companies would also see their costs base reduced through greater efficiencies and economies of scale. A pertinent case in point is the current state of the Irish insurance market. With a greater population the larger market would provide space for more competitors. The ensuing competition would see a lowering of premiums to levels approaching those in more populous nations. Increased competition in many areas would see greater downward pressure on long term inflation rates. So, I believe a larger population could bring many economic benefits with it. It would surely also mean a greater say in international discussions. This is particularly relevant in the EU as the direction of recent treaties points to a situation where influence in the union will be more closely tied to economic/population weight. If such a scenario were to take shape small nations will be the biggest losers.

You note cultural reasons for building a large population to ward of the spectre of foreign influences - and yet mass immigration such as you propose would work far greater and more permament changes to Irish cultural identity.

In many ways, this is an acceptance of reality: a compromise with the inevitable. I’m not a cultural absolutist – cultures evolve with time and embrace new influences. But in any age a nation should have some sense of its own identity. Some might say that increasing immigration as a means to preserve a cultural identity is a contradiction. However, I can’t agree and looking elsewhere soon shows such a claim to be entirely specious. Take the US, despite its ever-changing demographics resulting in a melting pot of cultural ingredients there has always been a definable idea of Americanism. Its culture has evolved with new arrivals but has always remained distinctively American. Irish immigrants brought their own individual input as did their Japanese counterparts. But neither group simply became Irish or Japanese people living in another land – no matter how much some would like to think! Instead, for all their differences to those already there they became very much American. Irish-Americans may maintain some cultural aspects of their heritage but they’re still very different from Australians of Irish descent or us of course!

Likewise, new arrivals will cause Irish culture to evolve and broaden. Irish identity will become loser – out with the freckles and ginger hair for everyone – and more fluid but it will still be there. It’s something that’s constantly moulding to new times anyway. Why someone might ask, is this change that absorption of other cultures would induce necessary to bolster the Irish self-image? Because, I’m convinced, maintaining such a small population will see that identity increasingly diminished in a more integrated world. On top of this, without the cultural output a larger population might enable, others will forever be able to impose long outdated cultural imprints on us. Just think, if the US had remained a backwater from the 19th century onwards. We’d still have images of a land full of cowboys and indians in mind! It’s a trade off between the eventual cultural irrelevance of a non entity or the dynamism and vitality of an admittedly more plural heterogeneous culture of a larger nation. But one that is still Irish all the same, forever providing a strong identity.

Irelands population will grow or fall as circumstances dictate - leave the social engineering and grand dreams for the megalomaniacs.

It’s my contention that circumstances will increasingly dictate the need for a larger population. I don’t think you have to be a megalomaniac to dream, but this argument isn’t based on any sort of naïve idealism. It’s an attempt to face up to the stark choice of either continued or increasing irrelevance – economic and cultural – or doing something about it. A larger population would bring real benefits and of course some drawbacks. This isn’t a policy aimed primarily at creating a multicultural utopia, although such societal harmony would be welcome and indeed necessary. Essentially it’s about long term self-preservation.

As for social engineering, this description would most suit a very different policy – that of keeping immigrants out. Attempting to maintain the myth of a homogenous people with cultural absolutes in the face of pressure or a need to adapt is more akin to the policies of the Boer during the apartheid regime in South Africa.