Immigration Laws

cruiserweight

THe other day I received a letter. It contained a pamphlet outlining how the Irish immigration laws are unjust and that more people should be allowed live and work in Ireland. It also contained a pretyped letter for me to sign and send to the Government.

However I also note that Ireland are the only EU country that are allowing full work privileges etc to the new EU member states from the start.

So I wonder are the laws currenlt in place currentle just or unjust? Are certain people just wanting slacker and slacker laws until finally is a situation where free movement of people among all countries would occur?Would this be a good thing?

Basically are our immigration laws tough enough, to tough or not tough enough?

Sparks

What was that expression we used to complain so much about? "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish"?

Klaus

Part of problem with single EU currency is for it to function across the community effectively it requires a free movement of both capital and labour.

The US is successful because labour moves from areas where there aren't jobs to areas where there are. Simply is a better use of resourses (although I hate the term refering to people), and everyone in the greater community is made better off, as these resources generate more wealth working than being unemployed.

Secondly, western europe is facing a crisis in the next 50 years or so with ageing populations and pension funds not large enough to cover them as they retire. While Ireland has a younger population than most of Europe, and such effects will be delayed, it will eventually be a problem here too. Allowing foreign workers into the country somewhat solves this problem, as it allows the working population to cover an increasing level of dependants.

There are of course problems with social changes reqiured to deal with ethnic minorities, including in periods of economic downturn when immigrants may be seen to be taking national jobs, but I think it's really necessary in the long run

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Sparks
What was that expression we used to complain so much about? "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish"?

That's called racism. Believe it or not, it has no relation to the development of intelligent, mature immigration laws in this or any country.

Sparks

Originally posted by ReefBreak
That's called racism. Believe it or not, it has no relation to the development of intelligent, mature immigration laws in this or any country.

Very, very true Reef. So, when do we see these intelligent, mature immigration laws? Because all I see right now is right-wing totalitarian measures that require a rather bigoted attitude to propose or accept...

ReefBreak

As someone who is pro-immigration, please, explain to me how our laws are "right-wing totalitarian measures that require a rather bigoted attitude to propose or accept..."

Nuttzz

How about a points based system like the one used in Oz? I think that would be a good idea, I am happy to be treated by African doctors, Philipino nurses but dont like paying for big issue selling immigrants, we have enough margainised irish people who need our support without importing more

Sparks

Originally posted by ReefBreak
As someone who is pro-immigration, please, explain to me how our laws are "right-wing totalitarian measures that require a rather bigoted attitude to propose or accept..."

I'm referring specifically to the biometric identification papers now required for all non-nationals. When McDowell starts talking about them, you can almost hear him as he bites back from saying "them durty foreigners"...

ReefBreak

And why are identification papers so bad? What should Ireland be any different from any other country in the EU?

dahamsta

Excellent, a poll in which I can vote All of the Above!

cruiserweight

If you go to any country you need id papers it is called a passport!

Klaus

biometrics means they can keep out the ones with bad genes, and then sell the info onto advertising agencies, evil capitalist government

mike65

Originally posted by dahamsta
Excellent, a poll in which I can vote All of the Above!

Just what I thought (well nearly!).

The issue to far to complex to be reduced to a boards poll. My positon, put simply is that I'm in favour of controlled immigration of skilled workers (and thier immediate families) and in favour of repatriating those who cannot prove a case to stay if seeking asylum.

Mike.

cruiserweight

I know that the issue is far more complex than a simple choice out of three. I was just curious as to what peoples opinions are in general and spark some debate on the issue to see what happens.

monument

Originally posted by mike65
My positon, put simply is that I'm in favour of controlled immigration of skilled workers (and thier immediate families) and in favour of repatriating those who cannot prove a case to stay if seeking asylum.

And that is nearly what I think - a controlled amount of non-skilled workers should also be allowed.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Klaus
biometrics means they can keep out the ones with bad genes

sigh.

MadsL

There is no policy that I can see. The decision on if you get to remain in the country is taken by a spotty 19 year old civil servant. My personal experience (my gf) of being refused 'permission to remain' despite having shown evidence of;

1. Professional qualifactions (Master's degree)
2. Ample funds
3. private heath insurance
4. A job offer after an extensive job search
5. Work permit application in process
6. Tax returns for the last 2 years
7. Long term rental residence
8. Plans to marry an EU citizen.

When asked what the appeals procedure was we were told 'oh, write to the minister'.

We asked what happens next? "Well, not a lot. If I were you I would just come in and out of the country every 3 months"

Two days later my gf's work permit was approved.

A complete joke.

LFCFan

I agree with allowing workers into the country. I don't agree with letting more and more leeches in to scrounge off the government. There's enough Irish scroungers as it is. I couldn't care less who comes in (as in race, creed or religion) as long as they are here to work. Like someone said above, there's no point allowing them in if all they are gonna do is sell the big issue and beg on the streets.

claidheamh

The whole immigration procedure is botched for many countries.
For the life of me I cannot figure it out. Can someone please explain? Professional folks have to test. Refugees are exempt?

Wouldn't this quickly be seen as an extraordinary burden on the government?

MadsL

At the risk of trolling...

In 1997 there were over 440 thousand Irish nationals living in the United Kingdom, more than the total of all the other European Union (EU) nationals living here.

Pot. Kettle.


http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/xsdataset.asp?vlnk=318&More=Y

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

pickarooney

Originally posted by claidheamh
The whole immigration procedure is botched for many countries.
For the life of me I cannot figure it out. Can someone please explain? Professional folks have to test. Refugees are exempt?

Wouldn't this quickly be seen as an extraordinary burden on the government?

Maybe professional folks left their country of origin on a whim, and could easily go about their business in another country, whereas refugees are just looking for somewhere to avoid being killed?

Victor

Originally posted by daveirl
I doubt very many of them are claiming asylum, therefore the vast majority would fall into the workers category

I'm sure quite a few will fall into the scrounging / unemployed / alcoholic / junkie categories.

Redleslie

Originally posted by Victor
I'm sure quite a few will fall into the scrounging / unemployed / alcoholic / junkie categories.

Quite a few criminals and bombers too.

We should only take refugees who are educated to an excellent standard and have fluent English. Shoot the rest. It's cheaper than kicking them out and if they're genuine, they're going to get killed when they arrive home anyway. So it's a humanitarian gesture. No jews and definitely no muslims allowed.

Meh

Originally posted by Redleslie
We should only take refugees who are educated to an excellent standard and have fluent English.

I haven't seen anyone argue that in this thread -- remember that immigration and asylum are separate issues, and that not all immigrants are asylum-seekers (despite what you read in the tabloids :rolleyes:).

Back on topic, I'd like to see Ireland use a system like the one in Canada -- where you get a certain number of points for education, language skills, work experience etc. and if you reach the pass mark you can get a work visa.

mike65

Originally posted by Redleslie
We should only take refugees who are educated to an excellent standard and have fluent English. Shoot the rest. It's cheaper than kicking them out and if they're genuine, they're going to get killed when they arrive home anyway. So it's a humanitarian gesture. No jews and definitely no muslims allowed.

I love a good and proper troll!

Mike.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ixoy

I'm also going to veto a points based system. Also regular check ups. If you come here and, after six months, have done nothing and not tried to secure employment - then you should be sent packing. Given the ever increasing tax burden on the middle class of Ireland, I don't think we can afford the luxury of cossetting those who have no interest in contributing. Other than that it has to be a merit based system.

claidheamh

Originally posted by pickarooney
Maybe professional folks left their country of origin on a whim, and could easily go about their business in another country, whereas refugees are just looking for somewhere to avoid being killed?

Understandable; However, I would think the majority of refugees arrive due to lesser physical/mental hardship, as opposed to the possibility of being killed outright by their home government. I do not see professional folks leaving their country of origin on whims. Young people who are specialized, but lack experience, salary requirements, etc., are, IMO alienated, and I think these are the people that a country should be targeting.

Targeting you might ask? If immigrants are accepted, and they are, why not at least attempt to recruit to assist the status quo?

I spoke to a friend who thinks national governments should recruit/advertize. Her scenario: A country lacks professionals in a certain field(s) where advancement is needed. The country might want to offer incentives to foreigners who otherwise might not be allowed immigration. Idealy it sounds good to me, but I don't know how practical it would be to implement.

or...

How about lifting restrictions? Would benefit come to the country who accepts all immigrants? As a tax-payer, would you rather see immigrants who came over because, "they can," as well as, "they have nowhere else?" I think the burden might outweigh the benefit.

Would more affluent immigrants threaten the job market of citizens, or would they boost the economy?

I do not support either ideas, and I'm sure there are many more I'd love to hear.

sovtek

I think there shouldn't be restrictions on immigration.
This idea is relatively new in the history of humans. It's human nature to migrate to where the grass is greener.
It might even help to curb repression by governments.
It's amazing that it's ok for our money and jobs to move anywhere they want...but not us.