Latest figures on immigration from CSO

MadsL

We don't want people who don't consider themselves Irish

I want a majority in this country that sees itself as Irish. With 6% saying they are "not Irish" ( and this was a question on identity in the Census not a legalistic one), I don't want a sitaution where a majority say that.

Absolute bollocks!

The question on the census was a question enforced by law as to the place of birth and nationality of the person...read the whole form and notes as to the purpose of the questions here ...NOWHERE is a question asked about if a person feels Irish, feels that they integrate well, or have an preference for the colour green...


This is the third time you have insinuated that someone born outside of Ireland is somehow a threat because they answered 'not-Irish' on the census form. Would you prefer that they should lie???

Mods, once again AG2004 is making slimy allegations...harder slap on the wrist please..

MadsL

AG - your garbage point by point.


Until the year 2011 when all restrictions by Western EU members on immigration from the Eastern members must end, I would feel that we should impose similar restrictions such that the numbers allowed in should be based on a Government assessment of the extent of labour-shortages for that year.
Yes, lets plan our economy one year at a time. Duh.


We should tailor immigration-policy to the needs of the Irish economy, in a context that does not encourage competition for jobs between the immigrants and Irish workers in parts of industry where labour-shortages do not exist.
Let's allow wages to continue to rise until there is no longer ANY competitive advantage in locating business in Ireland (maybe we can just slash corporation tax to 0%)

We all know that poor pay by Irish standards is a fortune by Polish standards. If such protections are not there to prevent too much competition from cheap labour, then racial tensions will grow and we don't want that.

2+2=5. Your assumption that racial tensions will grow is illogical, but underlies your own attitudes.

Actually minimum wage here provides for a salary of about 14,000 euros, but average monthly expenditures on rent, fuel, food etc are so high as to negate any sense that Poles working here could earn 'a fortune'. 9000 euros and a better standard of living in Poland doesn't seem to bad now. Czech and Hungarians are even better off.

Excessively liberal immigration policies caused the rise of the Far-Right in Austria, France, Denmark, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands. I would limit all immigration by people from the Eastern EU and asylum-seekers to 15,000 per annum combined.

Good Plan, let's follow it up with "Excessively liberal attitudes to homosexuality have caused the rise of queer-bashing in the UK, France, USA blah blah. Let's make it illegal again.

uh oh, "limit asylum-seekers" - when do we announce our withdrawal from the UN?

The more Irish immigrants who return home the better for preserving our national-identity. We don't want people who don't consider themselves Irish and have no regard for the goal of a United Ireland that is held so dear to Irish people to become the majority and make that dream unattainable.

Yes, lets invite all 70 million "home", then we can have a good craic in the pub as the island sinks! Then you will have great material for complaining about 'blow-ins' and overcrowded hospitals.

"the goal of a United Ireland that is held so dear to Irish people"...hate to burst your bubble but I would guess that majority of the Irish really don't give a fúck about a united ireland if it came to absorbing the massive unemployment and security costs of the North...

I have no worries about immigration from the original EU-15. Being rich countries themselves, we are not likely to see a flood of them coming here to reside on a permanent basis. But you see, in a way, EU-15 citizens have little incentive to gain Irish citizenship, since they already have EU citizenship including freedom of movement throughout the EU. Eastern European EU citizens are different though because we are the only country in the EU apart from Britain allowing freedom for the Easterners to travel here. That means that Eastern immigration to the Western EU will only be completely free where Britain and Ireland are the destinations (until at least 2011). Naturally then, far more will come here than would have had the entire EU been a freedom of movement zone. 24,000 came here in three months since enlargement. If this trend continues then 100,000 will have come here every 12 months.

You have already been shown the falacy of the 100,000 a year argument. Stop it.

MadsL

I personally feel that this is unsustainable in the long-term, and unacceptable the Irish people, especially since the figure doesn't even include people being given work-permits and asylum-seekers. Some of these asylum-seekers work illegally even while being in receipt of SW payments and free housing. By free housing I mean the "reception-centres" or whatever their called including Mosney.

And no Irish person would EVER work whilst being on the dole. :rolleyes:
I see that you have finally admitted that there never were any free houses being given away. Well done. After being called a liar, offered a donation to charity, threaten with a ban, you just came out and said it three months later. Are you going now to shock us all by admitting you were wrong?



How should we treat the possibility of long-term residents seeking naturalisation? Should we limit their chances to become citizens? If so...how many should we allow.

Hello. This was dealt with in the Citizenship-referendum campaign. The children get citizenship if the parents were here for 3 years before the birth.

Hello. Try answering the question. As you fail to do below.

With the parents, I would again tailor this to Irish needs, economic, health-service and other matters of employment. When the 15,000 figure for total immigration by Eastern European and work-permits and asylum-seekers is reached I would say stop for that year. So if more would-be asylum-seekers want to come to Ireland they know they should try to get a work-permit instead of swindling the taxpayer with lies about fleeing persecution in Bulgaria

When your 15,000 figure is reached, how will you explain to the Irish company that has been searching 2 years for a suitably qualified bio-chemist prepared to live in Galway, and finally persuade a brilliant American/Czech/Australian to come work for them, that the permits have 'run out'.


"swindling the taxpayer with lies about fleeing persecution in Bulgaria "

"I had to leave Sofia"
"Why, was she preggers?" - Adam & Paul

More racist claptrap.

When the government finally gets round to enacting this "ultra-urgent" constitutional change and putting the associated legal framework around it, how should they legislate for the cases of citizenship that you have platituded away in the past saying that it was "probably to be legislated for". How do we legislate for these, and still keep control of the numbers.

Thankfully Dail Eireann will regain its power to legislate on Citizenship and had it not, we would not be able to legislate for such hard cases. This question is kindof complex. The Government should probably sign treaties with some of the countries of origin to work out a solution to avoid stateless-children problems developing. As some countries don't allow hereditary citizenship, and as some of their citizenship laws are quite complicated (e.g. China) I cannot prescribe one solution that would address all of those situations. But the gist of a solution would be for China and other countries to agree to hereditary citizenship. If they don't want children to become starteless they'll sign it. Alternatively, the children returning home with their parents could apply for naturalisation and maybe get citizenship of their oarent's country that way.

My sides hurt... You have no clue do you?

Quote:
So come on...tell us how it should be done. Broad strokes are enough, but numbers are what matter. YOu keep talking about ensuring a majority...so does that mean that you want a line drawn somewhere around 40% "foreign blood" - that we should allow up to (say) 2 to 2.5 million of them in? Or should it be less? Cap at 1.5 mill? 1 million? 500 thousand?

I want a majority in this country that sees itself as Irish. With 6% saying they are "not Irish" ( and this was a question on identity in the Census not a legalistic one), I don't want a sitaution where a majority say that. Naturally you and I consider ourselves Irish. The implications of a "non-Irish" majority are clear. It would destroy any chances of a United Ireland as the foreigners would probably vote against it because they don't understand they whole issue and probably do not care. There is NO way I would agree to let millions come here! That is totally unacceptable to the Irish people in my firm belief!

Really, I wonder why so many Irish chose to move to the UK where they live beside West Indians, Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, Bangladeshis etc...
Oddly, they identify themselves as Irish on UK census forms. They must not be integrating.

"as the foreigners would probably vote against it because they don't understand they whole issue and probably do not care."

Yes, foreigners are stupid. Let's not give them the vote. :eek:

Where would the cash come from to build all the hospitals, schools etc. that would be needed to cope with the inevitable infrastructural pressure such numbers would cause? Not to mention the incredible SW bill! And the cost of building even more roads to cope with even worse traffic-jams than we already have.

I work, pay tax. You work, pay tax. 10,000 of us pay tax. 100,000 of us pay tax....see where this is going. Maybe you should try Economics for Dummies.

Now you see? unlimited immigration isn't such a heaven after all is it? It can actually cause problems can't it? Or am I racist for saying this?

No, you are a racist because you cannot see how your views create an us and them situation based on racial origins. You are a racist because you feel threatened and spread lies about other races. You are a racist because you cannot see beyond where a person comes from.

Should I pretend that letting in millions is fine and hunky dory with no negative consequences whatsoever? To do so would be to put political-correctness before all other considerations and that is reckless.

Who here has proposed unlimited immigration?

Quote:
Or is it jobs etc. you're worried about? So maybe it should only be, like, 10,000? Hey...in fact....while there are any unemployed in Ireland, we technically don't need any immigrants, as they'd be stealing our jobs. Maybe we should say, then, only as many as the job surplus at any given moment allows?

Bonkey I think I have answered this in my first paragraph of this post.

Yeah, right.

arcadegame2004

I am not a racist.

I work, pay tax. You work, pay tax. 10,000 of us pay tax. 100,000 of us pay tax....see where this is going. Maybe you should try Economics for Dummies.

Yes but these people tend to work in cheap-labour parts of the economy. As such the tax-yield would be insufficient compared to the cost of provided for the extra infrastructural capacity needed to provide for their needs and cope with the pressures more people inevitably bring to the Health-Service etc. Westerners - like returning Irish-emigrants - will not work for pittance and therefore generate the necessary yields. Thus, too many developing-world migrants might result in taxes having to be raised for the rest of us, in other to provide those revenues.

MadsL

"I am not a racist"

Yes but "these people" tend to work in cheap-labour parts of the economy.

QED
_____________


Also, where are your statistics for this?? They still pay tax. I also know many immigrants who earn well in excess of the national Irish average wage.

As such the tax-yield would be insufficient compared to the cost of provided for the extra infrastructural capacity needed to provide for their needs and cope with the pressures more people inevitably bring to the Health-Service etc. .

Yes, if you discount the comparitive advantage effect of growth in the economy. Money earned from company profits for example.

Westerners - like returning Irish-emigrants - will not work for pittance and therefore generate the necessary yields.

So who exactly will do the jobs that "Westerners" (people from Galway???) will not do, and yet still are a necessary part of the economy. These too add to the economy through tax, profit and stimulating further production (they have to eat, for example)

Thus, too many developing-world migrants might result in taxes having to be raised for the rest of us, in other to provide those revenues

Nonsense, what economics 'textbook' did you get that from??? Do you think the US would be encouraging immigration if it put strain on the economy, quite the reverse in fact.

Show me any economist that believes that immigration 'burdens' an economy.

Ask yourself this question;

Which would you prefer

1. Ireland of the 70s-late 80s. Almost total Irish monoculture but massive poverty and unemployment.

2. Ireland now, multicultural but at practically full employment and a thriving economy.

Only an idiot (or a racist) could choose #1.

arcadegame2004

Which would you prefer

1. Ireland of the 70s-late 80s. Almost total Irish monoculture but massive poverty and unemployment.

2. Ireland now, multicultural but at practically full employment and a thriving economy.

Japan is the 2nd largest economy in the world. It got there despite being culturally almost totally homogenous. I don't feel that mass-migration is necessary to achieve prosperity.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Until the year 2011 when all restrictions by Western EU members on immigration from the Eastern members must end, I would feel that we should impose similar restrictions such that the numbers allowed in should be based on a Government assessment of the extent of labour-shortages for that year.

So - what you're saying is that for non-EU nations, we should allow immigrants in if there is a job waiting for them?

Thats it? if we can supply 1,000,000 more jobs over the next 3 years, we should allow 1,000,000 workers and their families in? No other concerns? Not a single one like percentages of "non-Irish"? If I go through the rest of this post, I won't see a single other reason to restrict entry other than labour-shortages?

No, didn't think so.

We should tailor immigration-policy to the needs of the Irish economy,

I see. And what, praytell, is our current immigration policy for non-EU citizens, and why is it wrong?

We all know that poor pay by Irish standards is a fortune by Polish standards. If such protections are not there to prevent too much competition from cheap labour, then racial tensions will grow and we don't want that.

"Such protection" is called minimum wage, and we already have it.

Again, you seem to be saying that kicking out more foreigners (or stopping them getting in) is the solution to a problem caused purely and solely by our own lack of enforcement of existant legislature.

Not only that, but your steadfast opposition to allow market-forces to have an influence on salaries, instead pandering to the almost childlike belief that "higher salaries = better economy" is a joke. How are you going to stop the job moving to Poland, after you've stopped the Pole coming to the job in Ireland? Answer - you're not.

I would limit all immigration by people from the Eastern EU and asylum-seekers to 15,000 per annum combined.

What? Only a minute ago I thought you wanted to limit immigration to the job-requirement per year. Now immigration plus asylkum seekers should have a fixed cap?

So if we needed no labour, that would mean 15,000 asylum seekers per year could be let in? Or if we needed 30,000 people for job-vacancies, we'd have to find 15,000 asylum seekers to kick out first?

The more Irish immigrants who return home the better for preserving our national-identity.

What about an "Irish" person who was born in the US, to US parents, one of whom happened to have been Irish before their family emigrated when they were 3?

What if the Irish person married a black, and their offspring is now married to an Asian?

Are these Irish important to our national identity as well? If so, could you explain how?

We don't want people who don't consider themselves Irish

I sincerely hope this is either the royal plural, or an admittance of membership to some group or society who shares sich views.

and have no regard for the goal of a United Ireland that is held so dear to Irish people to become the majority and make that dream unattainable.

This isn't worthy of being dignified with a response.

24,000 came here in three months since enlargement.

No they didn't, and this has already been explained to you previously (by Victor I believe)

As I've asked before...who do you think you're fooling?

If this trend continues then 100,000 will have come here every 12 months.

More debunked numbers. In fact, for anyone to take your numbers seriously, they'd have to ignore the first post of this thread which shows that you're basically making this sh1t up.

Some of these asylum-seekers work illegally

Again, you're looking at our failure to enforce our existant laws and suggesting that the solution is not to fix said problem, but rather to kick out Poor Johnny Foreigner (cause Rich Johnny Foreigner seems to be ok in your books).

Hello. This was dealt with in the Citizenship-referendum campaign.

The referendum I saw said that there was proposed legislation that the government was under no obligation to pass in its current form. This legislation has not yet been implemented, so it was not dealt with in the referendum - there was just enough said to allow people like you claim it was dealt with.

The children get citizenship if the parents were here for 3 years before the birth.

Regardless of the nationality of the parents? Regardless of their economic background? Regardless of the fact that you repeatedly argue that the Chen ruling effectively means we can never afterwards get rid of those families?

Allowing 15,000 workers a year in could mean up to 15,000 children a year after 3 years for those people to get to stay? Thats far greater numbers than the current situation - and is generated using your own style of "lets ignore realism" calculations - and yet you propose it as a better solution?

Glad to see how much you've really thought this through.

With the parents, I would again tailor this to Irish needs, economic, health-service and other matters of employment. When the 15,000 figure for total immigration by Eastern European and work-permits and asylum-seekers is reached I would say stop for that year.

You would refuse someone citizenship, despite their having lived here for years, on the grounds that we had allowed out limit cheap labour in to the nation on work permits that year?

So if more would-be asylum-seekers want to come to Ireland they know they should try to get a work-permit instead of swindling the taxpayer with lies about fleeing persecution in Bulgaria :rolleyes:

You do realise that a functional asylum-claims-processing system would have the same net effect?

Thankfully Dail Eireann will regain its power to legislate on Citizenship and had it not, we would not be able to legislate for such hard cases.

a) So critical has it been that Dail Eireann regain this power that almost half a year after rushing through the referendum because they desperately needed to resolve this.....what exactly has been done?

b) As I've repeatedly pointed out, in the vast majority of these so-called "hard cases", the problem was the lack of enforcement of our existing legislation. The new legislation - should it ever arrive - will suffer (almost by definition) the same problems.

This question is kind of complex.

No, its not really. Its the basic underlying question that anyone who supported the referendum should be able to answer.

If you want legislation to limit some perceived problem, then you should be able to define what cases are problematic, and which are not, and how the law should be able to distinguish between those. (Alternately, you could answer that you don't care who gets shafted as long as the "problematic" cases don't get citizenship, but I doubt even you would say that).

Your "treaty" solution has SFA to do with legislation, and even less to do with the real world. Its not a solution that could come about in any sort of rapid timeframe (which belies the urgency - again - that we were repeatedly told this situation had), and - to be quite honest - pretty much dodges answering the question in the first place.

I want a majority in this country that sees itself as Irish.

With 6% saying they are "not Irish" ( and this was a question on identity in the Census not a legalistic one), I don't want a sitaution where a majority say that. Naturally you and I consider ourselves Irish

On the planet I live on, 94% is generally not seen as being remotely close to a number which is in danger of losing its majority.

Furrthermore, the question on the census was a legal one - as you well know and has been pointed out to you before.

Thirdly, while I consider myself Irish, I'm beginning to wonder whether or not you do - given your references to the fact that "the Irish people" want re-unification, and so on and so forth.

The implications of a "non-Irish" majority are clear.

No, they're not. They're fantastical speculation completely devoid of basis in reality - either in the possibility of the event occurring, the timescale over which the percentages would change, and the changing attitudes of both groups (oversimplying to Irish and Foreign because it seems to be how you like to do things) depending on any number of factors.

...

bonkey

...

Or am I racist for saying this?

Whether or not you are racist is not my concern at all, nor is it relevant to the discussion at hand. Your arguments, on the other hand......

Should I pretend that letting in millions is fine and hunky dory with no negative consequences whatsoever? To do so would be to put political-correctness before all other considerations and that is reckless.

And for the umpteenth time I will ask you to show me who has suggested this? Who has suggested that millions be allowed in? That an open-door policy be enacted in perpetuity?

I would also suggest that your "solution" with the annual limit of 15,000 a year would involve a requirement that genuine asylum cases be refused asylum on the grounds that we had already taken in as many immigrant workers as we needed that year, so sorry mate but you just have to go back home to Darfur (say) where they tried to kill you after they raped and murdered your wife and child.

You want to call allowing such people in "political correctness" or "reckless", thats your lookout, but I will never agree that we should refuse such people entry because we have already let our quota of Poor Johnny Foreigners in to make ourselves richer.

While a nation should not have to bankrupt itself in trying to help others, nor should it refuse much needed aid or refuge because its too busy getting richer instead......but thats a direct implication of your 15,000 a year limit.

jc

MadsL

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Japan is the 2nd largest economy in the world. .

It is also pretty fúcked. They are trying to halt deflation by 2006, the OECD thinks this is not possible. Public debt is also running at 161% of GDP with an ageing population no longer contributing.
source

It got there despite being culturally almost totally homogenous.

As of the end of 2000, 1.7 million foreign nationals were registered in Japan. They only got the vote in March of 2003 - is this what you are proposing?

Japan got to be prosperous on the back of the massive explosion in consumer and business electronics - what would you say this compares to in Ireland??

I cannot think of any areas of common ground that link Japan and Ireland, could you point one out??


Japan has also used migrant workers extensively in the past;
"Despite the widespread image that Japan, until recently, had hardly been touched by immigration, the country actually experienced sizable inflows of people from abroad in its modern history. About a century ago, Chinese immigrants, or "foreign workers," were forming their own communities in major port cities. After imperial Japan's colonization of Korea in 1910, migration flows between Japan and the Korean peninsula grew quickly, although they were defined as internal rather than international migration. The Korean population in Japan increased further as conscripted laborers were brought over during the last years of the colonial empire, and reached approximately two million in 1945. Thereafter, over half a million Koreans and much smaller numbers of the Taiwanese and mainland Chinese eventually remained. "
source

MadsL

Oh, and you didn't answer the question.

Would you prefer the economic depression of the 70s as it had a higher ethnic purity?

Redleslie2

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Japan is the 2nd largest economy in the world.

Maybe we should have lots more Japanese people migrating to here then.

Zombrex

arcadegame2004 wrote:

We all know that poor pay by Irish standards is a fortune by Polish standards.

Not if they have to live here.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

If such protections are not there to prevent too much competition from cheap labour, then racial tensions will grow and we don't want that.

Sigh :rolleyes

Arcade would you kindly stop using the "we should stop immigration because it causes racism argument" ... it is a ridiculous arguement to support your statement. It is like a Nazi saying we should ship to jews out of German to stop the rise of hate-crimes.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Excessively liberal immigration policies caused the rise of the Far-Right in Austria, France, Denmark, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

Racism and hatred caused the rise of the Far-Right. Again your argument is like blaming the Jews for the raise of the Nazi

arcadegame2004 wrote:

We don't want people who don't consider themselves Irish and have no regard for the goal of a United Ireland that is held so dear to Irish people to become the majority and make that dream unattainable.

Are you actually typing these words. Who the hell is "we?" I don't give a flying f**k if the guy living next door doesn't want a United Ireland, be he from Ballsbridge or Nigeria. I also don't care if he thinks he is from Mars and hopes to return there some day.

Why do you care if other people consider themselves "Irish" What does that even mean to you?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I personally feel that this is unsustainable in the long-term, and unacceptable the Irish people, especially since the figure doesn't even include people being given work-permits and asylum-seekers.

If it is "unsustainable" then they won't come will they. Has an Irish person ever immigrated to a country where they couldn't get a job??

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Some of these asylum-seekers work illegally even while being in receipt of SW payments and free housing. By free housing I mean the "reception-centres" or whatever their called including Mosney

And? What is your point, when you say statements like this? I know a hundred Irish people who claim education grands for their kids who don't actually need them. Would you say we should ban college kids?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Naturally you and I consider ourselves Irish.

I don't consider you to be Irish.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The implications of a "non-Irish" majority are clear. It would destroy any chances of a United Ireland as the foreigners would probably vote against it because they don't understand they whole issue and probably do not care.

Are you serious? Hate to brake it to you Arcade the the majority of "Irish" people would proabbly vote against "it"

arcadegame2004 wrote:

There is NO way I would agree to let millions come here! That is totally unacceptable to the Irish people in my firm belief! Where would the cash come from to build all the hospitals, schools etc. that would be needed to cope with the inevitable infrastructural pressure such numbers would cause?

From the billions of extra euros from the taxes of all the people working here. If we had a million extra workers in this country the government would have hit pay dirt. We could actually have a proper infrastructure.

Oh thats right all these dirty foreigners are just here to claim unemployment benefit :rolleyes:

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Not to mention the incredible SW bill! And the cost of building even more roads to cope with even worse traffic-jams than we already have. Now you see? unlimited immigration isn't such a heaven after all is it?

We would have to build more roads? Is that the best you can come up with.

Zombrex

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Japan is the 2nd largest economy in the world. It got there despite being culturally almost totally homogenous. I don't feel that mass-migration is necessary to achieve prosperity.

Oh you just open yourself up for it don't you.

Arcade what is the 1st largest economy in the world?

i'll give you a hint ...

"Give me your tired. your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free"

arcadegame2004

bonkey wrote:

...
I would also suggest that your "solution" with the annual limit of 15,000 a year would involve a requirement that genuine asylum cases be refused asylum on the grounds that we had already taken in as many immigrant workers as we needed that year, so sorry mate but you just have to go back home to Darfur (say) where they tried to kill you after they raped and murdered your wife and child.

The rules should say that an asylum-seeker can only be considered genuine if Ireland was the first EU state they applied in. I do not consider someone who claims asylum in multiple EU states to be genuine refugees. whatever the legalistic minutia that the asylum-lawyers love so much.

bonkey wrote:

...You want to call allowing such people in "political correctness" or "reckless", thats your lookout, but I will never agree that we should refuse such people entry because we have already let our quota of Poor Johnny Foreigners in to make ourselves richer.

Entitled to your opinion and I to mine. What about the additional pressure immigrants will have on our Health-Service (because we all get sick sometime in life), especially when you consider the widespread STD's and othe diseases that many asylum-seekers coming here have. I posted a source on this a LONG time ago during the Citizenship referendum. Why can't they stay in the first EU state they entered and claim asylum there? The language barrier argument doesn't explain why someone who has claimed asylum in the UK then needs to come here. If they come here because their application has been rejected in the UK, then all I can say is "sorry, you've already been shown up for a fake refugee".

Obviously I would not return someone to Darfur. They could be returned instead to the first EU state they entered.

If not all of the asylum-procedures I refer to are not enshrined in EU law yet, I ask the powers that be to do it. I also state my support for the initiative of a number of EU states to create Asylum reception-centres outside of the EU, where asylum-seekers would stay while their applications are vetted. That helps avoid the situation of asylum-seekers trying to avoid deportation from the country they would otherwsie be claiming asylum in.

While a nation should not have to bankrupt itself in trying to help others, nor should it refuse much needed aid or refuge because its too busy getting richer instead......but thats a direct implication of your 15,000 a year limit.

No I don't think it is. They have already gotten "much needed refuge" when they arrived in Spain or Italy, the first EU states most of them enter. They don't need to cross 6 or 7 national boundaries in the EU to get it. Doing that is just rooting around for the most generous system.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The rules should say that an asylum-seeker can only be considered genuine if Ireland was the first EU state they applied in. I do not consider someone who claims asylum in multiple EU states to be genuine refugees. whatever the legalistic minutia that the asylum-lawyers love so much.

Ah. I see.

So its actually "sod off back to Darfur to get killed, cause even if we have any spare slots in our 15,000 you coulda stopped somewhere else. Tough noogies on you my son for trying to get to an English-speaking country. Time to go home...oh and since you came here, you're no longer eligible to enter any other EU nation."

Entitled to your opinion and I to mine.

Oh most certainly. I'm just glad that mine doesn't involve kicking the innocent genuine cases because we couldn't be arsed trying to distinguish them from those who would abuse the system.

What about the additional pressure immigrants will have on our Health-Service (because we all get sick sometime in life),

The last time I checked, our health-care system was run on a budget with is generally funded through taxation of the working population. Economic migrants will be paying their way, and therefore will be contributing an equal share to the cost of the healthcare system, just like the rest of us.

Or when you said "immigrant" did you mean "false asylum seeker trying to rip off our system in their gazillions", or even "asylum seeker of indeterminate genuineness"?

especially when you consider the widespread STD's and othe diseases that many asylum-seekers coming here have.

So I was right then...when you said "immigrant", you meant "asylum seeker".

:rolleyes:

You are actually aware that they are two entirely seperate groups? Or is it just an inability / unwillingness to actually distinguish between them? I only ask because this isn't the first time you've done this.

Why can't they stay in the first EU state they entered and claim asylum there?

This question has been answered every time you've asked it previously. I couldn't be bothered wasting my time writing another response that you will continue to ignore, espectially if you're too lazy to go back and read the replies that you either never read previously, ignored, or have just forgotten.

The language barrier argument doesn't explain why someone who has claimed asylum in the UK then needs to come here. If they come here because their application has been rejected in the UK, then all I can say is "sorry, you've already been shown up for a fake refugee".

And have you any demographics of how many people have come here having been refused asyum in another EU nation and were subsequently granted it in Ireland? No other demographic is relevant to this point, because the numbers who come here to try it and get to abuse our system because we can't put a working system in place are not the issue. The problem there is our inability to enforce our existing legislation....as I've said countless times in the past.

Obviously I would not return someone to Darfur. They could be returned instead to the first EU state they entered.

And you determine this state how, exactly? And what if that state refuses to accept them from us, because they are not entering that state from outside the EU when we hand them over?

The end result, arcade, is that you realistically have two choices. Grant the people genuinely fleeing for their lives asylum, or send them home. Anything else is just a wishy-washy "wouldn't it be lovely if the world worked like this", but it doesn't. You can suggest we ship them to Spain, Italy, or whatever southern nation you like, but all those nations will do is refuse to accept them from Ireland, or send them home. It changes nothing, and leaves no third option over we giving them asylum, or we sending them home.

Oh - and before you start on about how the EU should pass laws requiring this sort of "handover" to be mandatory, consider that the net effect would be that a small handful of "border" nations (typically on the Med) would be the only nations to receive asylum seekers....and there's just no way they will agree to that.

AS a matter of interest...would you be amenable to an alternate solution (along the lines of that suggested by Blocher in Switzerland in the past week or two) which would be that a central European organisation would be set up which treated asylum-seeking in Europe as a single concern, and which then allocated asylum seekers to nations, based on their financial ability to sustain them? So no nation would be asked to take an unfair share...the richer countries take more, the poor countries take less. This would be the most balanced approach in theory....so before I tell you the type of numbers that would commit us to....would you accept it?

If not all of the asylum-procedures I refer to are not enshrined in EU law yet, I ask the powers that be to do it.

Dear France, Spain, and Italy....we would like you to agree to effectively take responsibility for an estimated 70% of all asylum seekers in Europe. Of the remaining 30%, we would like the majority to be given to the poor eastern nations, as they constitute the "other border" that people are crossing.

Meanwhile, Ireland, the UK, the Scandinavian countries, Germany, and the Benelux nations will reduce themselves to taking a handful each per year.

We feel this is the most equitable solution, so you should do it.

Sincerely yours,

those crazy Irish


Put it in an envelope, send it to the relevant heads of state, and I'm sure they'll agree straight away. I mean...who wouldn't agree to a shafting like that?

I also state my support for the initiative of a number of EU states to create Asylum reception-centres outside of the EU,

Where? In the already-overwhelmed refugee camps neighbouring the areas the asylum-seekers are trying to escape from?

That helps avoid the situation of asylum-seekers trying to avoid deportation from the country they would otherwsie be claiming asylum in.

ANd how long before you discover that....hold on....they've entered another nation to seek asylum.....so that nation should be responsible for them, and not the EU at all!

Wow! Complete freedom....unless the crisis happens to be in a nation which itself borders the EU.

Your "border transversal" line of discrimination is hopelessly flawed. Sorry - I can't put it plainer than that.

No I don't think it is.

Yes, it most certainly is. YOu want others to shoulder the burden. Why? To protect our resources from being strained (and **** the nation they all end up in, right). To protect our heritgage from being overrun (and **** the nation they all end up in, right).

You argue that you don't want the asylum seeker to be hard done by...just that you want someone else to pay the cost. So it most certainly is a case of "**** off, we're too busy getting rich to want to help you. Someone else can do it." You can dress that pigs ear up in as many ribbons as you like, but it still aint no silk purse, nor nothing other than a pigs ear.

jc

MadsL

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Entitled to your opinion and I to mine. .

Actually you are not if it falls under "The use of words, behaviour or the publication or distribution of material which is threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended, or are likely, to stir up hatred are prohibited under the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989. "

to which I quote...

What about the additional pressure immigrants will have on our Health-Service (because we all get sick sometime in life), especially when you consider the widespread STD's and other diseases that many asylum-seekers coming here have.

Firstly - which is it you have a problem with? Immigrants or Asylum seekers?
Get it straight and you might be taken seriously.

Secondly - since gay men certainly do have a higher incidence of STDs, and a lot more statistics have shown this http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2001/02/26/current/ipage_8.htm
than the opinings of a master of the maternity hospital - are you also somehow asking for restrictions on the number of gay men?? If not. why not?? Surely this scourge of STDs has to be rooted out?

monument

Victor wrote:

arcadegame2004 heres something to make your racial purity fuse blow - them Europeans have been having sex with each other for eons.

That's sick! We have to stop that sort of thing! :eek:


Analyses of what Irish people are doing this breeding – the very rich and the very poor – is exactly why we have maintain these two groups.

Furthermore, we have to increases the two groups. Yes, to save the Irish race, we have to.

We also have to stop these non-Irish people from getting in, and we have to stop our fine Irish people from breeding with them. God save Ireland! God save the Irish!

Oh, for fuck sake I’m going to get sick. But the question is does anyone here agree? Or am I phrasing it too bluntly for you?

GuanYin

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Entitled to your opinion and I to mine. What about the additional pressure immigrants will have on our Health-Service (because we all get sick sometime in life), especially when you consider the widespread STD's and othe diseases that many asylum-seekers coming here have. .

Are you a real racist or do you just not like the darkies?

The HEalth system is comprised of about 50% immigrant workers in care positions so thats one part of your arguement fallen flat.

Actually the demographic with the highest STI infection ration is Irish born males 24-30.

Please don't post made up tripe if you don't know what you're talking about (in other words, don't ever post on boards again).

Victor

bonkey wrote:

Meanwhile, Ireland, the UK, the Scandinavian countries, Germany, and the Benelux nations will reduce themselves to taking a handful each per year.

Please note that ethnic Lapps (it being wrong to call them Lapplanders) are often persecuted in Norway and may sneak across the vast Norwegian border into the EU. :rolleyes: