Immigration- A Proper Debate

Tea drinker

Wicknight wrote:

So ... is that you conceding that Turkey is a secular state then.

Mr Wicknight....
What has Turkeys secular status (or not) got to do with immigration to Ireland? So your saying immigrants can only come from secular societies?
Why is secular seen as a good thing? No comment regarding Human rights in turkey or is poor human rights a requirement too?
If you are pro secular say it, thats 100% fine with me! But how relevant is it???????

Wicknight wrote:

You don't know what "public opinion" is.

You know what the 10 or so people who are anti-immigration that you have talked to are saying. You could ask another 10 people who have no trouble with it. If you based "public opinion" on what the majority of Boards.ie Politics forum posters appear to be saying then the majority of the public are fine about immigration

Wicknight wrote:

Actually I am not anti immigration, nor are the 10 people I talked to!
I know as much as the vast majority of people about public opinion.
I don't need to conduct spot surveys to express an opinion here, or to repeat the general opinions expressed to me.

Again it seems that anyone who raises a question about immigration is pigeon holed as racist or anti immigration. It seems from the previous posts that some people have concerns about immigration, but are they anti immigration?

Zombrex

Gandalfisfat wrote:

I am sick and tires of the way this country is going.

And I would imagine that the mods of Boards.ie are sick and tired of people being banned and then re-registering over and over ..... :rolleyes:

Tea drinker

Gandalfisfat wrote:

Proove to me why Immmigrants are so good for Ireland. With Facts not just statements!

Hi, I know your just looking for a rise, but never mind!

Fact: Pretrained immigrants cost us nothing.
It cost a fortune to educate, provide hospital places, police etc all of us who are now contributing to the taxpayer.
The immigrants who are coming here have not cost us a penny to get them in a "ready to work" state.

Don't mix up:
Economic migrants
Welfare migrants
Asylum seekers.

Remember how many of us used to cod the british taxpayer out of welfare money! How many lads do you know that "missed the return flight" from US or OZ?

purple'n'gold

All illegal immigrants in this country should be rounded up and sent home, or to the EU country they arrived in first. And yes, all the illegal Irish in the USA should also be rounded up and sent home, they have no right to be there.

Zombrex

Tea drinker wrote:

Mr Wicknight....
What has Turkeys secular status (or not) got to do with immigration to Ireland?

A major argument being put forwards by posters here against immigration within the EU is that Muslim immigrants will be in a position to alter the Irish constitution to make Ireland an Islamic state.

It was pointed out that that was nonsense, that we would need millions of Muslims in the country who have citizen status and who actually want to change the constitution to be an Islamic state to have a 2/3 majority to change the constitution to allow this.

This was countered by the claim that this could all change if Turkey is allowed to join the EU. I don't understand how exactly, since non-Irish EU citizens cannot vote in constitutional referendums in Ireland, plus Turkey is a secular country so I don't see why Turkish Muslims would wish to turn Ireland into an Islamic state.

To be honest all this talk of an Islamic Ireland seems to be based on nothing more than illinformed concepts that all Muslims are fanatical Qur'an bashing fundamentalists. I would imagine most of posters here who made that argument probably believe Turkey is an Islamic state like Saudi Arabia, just because it contains Muslims.

Certain some Muslims are fanatical Qur'an bashing fundamentalists, and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Europe is something to keep a very close eye on (as yesterdays Dispatches demonstrates, but that is for another thread)

But the rather pie in the sky threat of an Irish Islamic state is certainly not a reason to remove the idea of free movement within the EU.

Tea drinker wrote:

Why is secular seen as a good thing?

Is that a serious question?

Tea drinker wrote:

No comment regarding Human rights in turkey or is poor human rights a requirement too?

I'm not quite sure what this point is supposed to referrer to...

Tea drinker wrote:

The problem is if the natives "feel" they have been done out of a job by a foreigner, it's still the foreigner that gets the blame? ... I'm telling you what people are saying to me!

Tea drinker wrote:

Actually I am not anti immigration, nor are the 10 people I talked to!

Confused

If these people are blaming immigrants how are they not anti-immigration?

Tea drinker wrote:

Again it seems that anyone who raises a question about immigration is pigeon holed as racist or anti immigration.

I didn't say you were anti-immigration (your comments are far to contradictory for anyone to know what your position is). You stated that public opinion is shifting towards being anti-immigration. I said that since you appear to have nothing to back this up except people who have talked to then these are just the opinions of anti-immigration people you have talked to. You now claim that the people you talk to are not anti-immigration. So, if even the people you talk to are not anti-immigration, what do you base your theory that public opinion is shifting towards an anti-immigration stance.

Tea drinker wrote:

I don't need to conduct spot surveys to express an opinion here, or to repeat the general opinions expressed to me.

You don't, but you won't be taken seriously.

Tea drinker wrote:

It seems from the previous posts that some people have concerns about immigration, but are they anti immigration?

Some who has "concerns about immigration" is not anti-immigration. Some who has "concerns" about immigration and thinks that immigration should be reduced or heavily restricted because of these concerns is anti-immigration.

I have concerns about the rise of religious fundamentalism in Ireland (not just Muslim). I have concerns about racism and bigotry in Ireland that face immigrants here. I have concerns over the pressure put on our infrastructure because of increase of populations in our urban centres (this is caused by internal immigration as much as external immigration).

All these are legitmate concerns. But I don't think the correct or fair response to these concerns is to attempt to make the problems just go away by restricting immigration into the country, or restricting immigration of Irish people around the country.

If someone posted here that people from Mayo should not be allowed to travel to Dublin to live or work because it is making it too hard for Dublin people they would be laughed off this forum. That doesn't mean that people moving from the country to Dublin isn't causing problems in Dublin. It certainly is. But no one thinks that stopping country people moving up here is an option. The problems faced by increase internal migration have to be tackled head on.

I take the same position with regard to immigration of EU citizens into the country. It certainly causes problems, but the answer is to tackle these problems, not try and simply make them disappear.

I want the right to be able to travel to other EU countries to work or live if I wish. I like that right, I think it is a good right and if I ever need to I plan to avail of that right. By that it would be the height of hypocrisy for me to say that while I want that right I don't think my counter part in Poland or Romania should not have that right. That makes as much sense as me saying that I want the right to move to Mayo if I want to, but Mayo people should not be allowed to move to Dublin.

Zombrex

purplengold wrote:

All illegal immigrants in this country should be rounded up

How?

purple'n'gold

Wicknight wrote:

How?

It's amazing what the government/guards can do if the set their mind to it.

Hobbes

purplengold wrote:

It's amazing what the government/guards can do if the set their mind to it.

We are talking about immigrants.

Not illegal immigrants. I don't think you will find many people saying that we should allow illegal immigrants to stay.

Kindly stay on topic. thanks.

bonkey

purplengold wrote:

All illegal immigrants in this country should be rounded up and sent home, or to the EU country they arrived in first. And yes, all the illegal Irish in the USA should also be rounded up and sent home, they have no right to be there.

Illegal immigrants?

The "first EU country" notion you refer to applies to asylum seekers, not immigrants.

Trode

Wicknight wrote:

Some who has "concerns about immigration" is not anti-immigration. Some who has "concerns" about immigration and thinks that immigration should be reduced or heavily restricted because of these concerns is anti-immigration.

I don't think that's a fair or accurate statement to make. If someone sees a problem, and perceives that problem as being caused by an influx or over-abundance of something, it's entirely practical and logical that they'd first seek to reduce that influx. This doesn't mean they're against the thing in its entirety.

Wicknight wrote:

... I don't think the correct or fair response to these concerns is to attempt to make the problems just go away by restricting immigration into the country, or restricting immigration of Irish people around the country.

If someone posted here that people from Mayo should not be allowed to travel to Dublin to live or work because it is making it too hard for Dublin people they would be laughed off this forum. That doesn't mean that people moving from the country to Dublin isn't causing problems in Dublin. It certainly is. But no one thinks that stopping country people moving up here is an option. The problems faced by increase internal migration have to be tackled head on.

I take the same position with regard to immigration of EU citizens into the country. It certainly causes problems, but the answer is to tackle these problems, not try and simply make them disappear.

All true, but as above it's not necessairly a bad idea to reduce the impact of these problems until such time as they can be dealt with definitively. In regards to immigration in particular, yes we should have a better infrastructure, a more diverse economy, more liberal society, etc, but until we do, I can certainly see the argument in favour of reducing the strain on those elements to allow them to develope more robustly.

MrPudding

walrusgumble wrote:

i

first, if an immigrant sends their young n5 yr old child to a regular school (i notice there are schools for muslims, basicaly there are schools for children depending on their religion) wont they be required to learn irish like the rest of the irish children?

My kids go to the French school here in Dublin. Religion is an "optional Extra" which is taught in an extracuricular fashion.

Irish is also an optional extra.

Does this mean my kids aren't integrating?

MrP

Zombrex

Trode wrote:

I don't think that's a fair or accurate statement to make. If someone sees a problem, and perceives that problem as being caused by an influx or over-abundance of something, it's entirely practical and logical that they'd first seek to reduce that influx.

Why is it "entirely practical and logical" that they do this?

In 1998 when I was doing my Leaving Cert it was quite difficult to get into Computer/IT courses, due to an increase in population doing the leaving cert, and the desire to do IT related courses because of the Dot.com boom

The "solution" to this problem was to increase the number of places available for people finishing school. I'm not sure anyone entertained the idea that we should just stop letting some people do these courses, say the population of Cork. That wasn't an option because simply not letting people from Cork enter computer courses would not have been fair, despite the fact that it would have worked to reduce the number of applicants and as such reduce the points required to do the course.

Likewise, simply not letting people from the country move to Dublin will help the housing problem here. Less migration into the capital from other parts of the country will lessen demand for houses, lowering prices, as well as lowering rent. But that isn't an option. You cannot stop people from Mayo or Sligo or Galway or Cork moving to Dublin and buying property, or renting apartments or houses.

Simply restricting the number of people from doing something to make it easier for others to do it is not always a reasonable option. The EU has a principle of free movement of labour, a principle that we have enjoyed for many years. It is neither fair nor practical to simply not allow other countries to avail of the same right.

Trode wrote:

In regards to immigration in particular, yes we should have a better infrastructure, a more diverse economy, more liberal society, etc, but until we do, I can certainly see the argument in favour of reducing the strain on those elements to allow them to develope more robustly.

That is the chicken and the egg argument. We can't have immigrants coming here because it causes racism. When we aren't racist any more then we can have immigrants. We can't have immigrants coming here because we don't have the systems to deal with them properly. When we impliment the proper systems then we can have immigrants coming here ... etc etc

The point that is missed is that these things will never get impliemented until they need to be implimented. They won't happen in a vacuum.

Change forces change.

Tea drinker

This is a really touch subject MrP..... but you did post a question here and I suppose I will take a chance to answer it.

MrPudding wrote:

My kids go to the French school here in Dublin. Religion is an "optional Extra" which is taught in an extracuricular fashion.

Irish is also an optional extra.

Does this mean my kids aren't integrating?

MrP

If they know how to rob a beemer they'll be fine! Or if you are in Dublin 4 they have to know how to drive it to the rugby pitch....

Seriously though do your kids have any irish pals? do they watch some TV in english? And have their face stuck in video games a few hours a week?
If so then they have pals, and very likely plenty in common with them.
They don't have to be the same as Irish kids...... just to have something to enjoy together..... the same as kids everywhere.

I don't think any Irish person would expect them to learn Irish. When are they going to use it? Maybe joining the gaurds, or acting as an interpreter?
Another way of looking at it is: Irish kids may like the quirkiness of your kids and they will be super popular.

Vive la difference
Very best wishes to you and your family.

Sesshoumaru

Wicknight wrote:

Turkey is a secular state, who's secular nature is enshrined in its constitution, just like us. If the Muslims in Turkey have not voted in an Islamic state over there why are we worrying about them flooding into Ireland to all some how become citizens and vote Ireland into an Islamic state.

The army is the guarantor of the secular state in Turkey. No one would even propose such a vote in Turkey as you can be sure the army would have something to say about it.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193316914&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

InFront

As an immigration thread which should be discussing the merits of immigration for our country (Ireland), there is a silly diffusion of focus onto issues like 'is turkey secular' ("of course theyre not, a Turk shot the pope") etc. I can only assume such instances of diversion are simly avoiding the immigration debate where facts override (apparent) xenophobia every time.
The anti-immigrationists that I've seen post here have no real substance in their points, suggesting that immigration needs to end or be curbed despite evidence to the contrary. Some of the opinions, like Ireland becoming Muslim by way of immigration would be comical, were it not so obvious that some posters actually subscribe to these beliefs.

Secondly, the term 'Muslim' has been mentioned far too many times. We import nationalities, not Qur'ans. There is a huge diversity of philosophical opinion with regard to Islam within Muslim states. You pick 100 Malaysian Muslims from the RCSI and then pick 100 Saudi and Pakistani Muslims from the RCSI, and you will find very different politics.
So can this be about politics a bit more than Islam? Islam is not a nationality to be imported or exported.

Tea drinker wrote:

Muslim kids won't mix with ours. Isn't the the whole point that we integrate immigrants from any group?

What do you mean by this? There is no Muslim secondary school in this country. If a Muslim boy does not mix he is either not going to school or he is not going to school.
Even if there were a Muslim secondary school (and I hope there will be soon) this does not mean that there would be no mixing. Sure, Muslim boys would have more Muslim friends, but that is to be encouraged. I fail to see what you're getting at, or why you are trying to turn this into a debate about Islam.
Besides, if nothing else, you cannot refuse somebody entry to Ireland because of their faith.

I have no idea if the Muslim schools teach Irish to the kids or not.

You do. It is taught. Some students (IF they are children who came here beyond an age where they would be too far behind their classmates to learn it) become exempt because of DoE policy, (the same as any other immigrants).

In fact I don't care, as English will be of far more use to them, and they will already have to learn Arabic, and perhaps another foreign language.

Agaian with the Islam... look Muslims dont "have to learn" anything in this country apart from what they do in the primary school of their parents choice, and English, Irish and Maths after that.

It is not compulsory to learn Arabic anywhere in this country.

The problem is if the natives "feel" they have been done out of a job by a foreigner, it's still the foreigner that gets the blame? That's awful, but that's what CAN happen. It's not right, but it's already happening! And the economy is doing fine! I don't need a web page to back this up I'm telling you what people are saying to me!

As long as you realise statistics don't actually back your friends' argument up.

Nobody is going to stop immigration because some unemployable guy thinks foreigners are stealing his jobs. Maybe he should emigrate?

Just in relation to the rest of the EU (France, Spain, germany, etc.) opening up to workers from Eastern Europe, does anybody know what the timeline is? I read in the paper recently it was happening this month?

Hobbes

InFront wrote:

I can only assume such instances of diversion are simly avoiding the immigration debate where facts override (apparent) xenophobia every time.

You noticing that too?

Lennoxschips

You do. It is taught. Some students (IF they are children who came here beyond an age where they would be too far behind their classmates to learn it) become exempt because of DoE policy, (the same as any other immigrants).

Even Irish citizens can be exempted too. I have a DoE certificate at home exempting me from Irish classes as I had spent more than five years of my childhood outside of Ireland.

Tea drinker

InFront wrote:

The anti-immigrationists that I've seen post here have no real substance in their points, suggesting that immigration needs to end or be curbed despite evidence to the contrary.

First thing I am not Anti immigration.
Regarding curbs, what evidence to the contrary?
Do you propose no restrictions at all to enter Ireland? What about having no passports to pass immigration? I don't think immigration needs to end (now) I am merely suggesting it be managed. The population of Ireland increased by 600,000 over the past 10 years or so. Not all immigrants of course.
Hypothetical question, if our population was 50 million, would you support another 50 million immigrants? How many more? Would you ever put a line in the sand and say ok no more?

InFront wrote:

What do you mean by this? There is no Muslim secondary school in this country. If a Muslim boy does not mix he is either not going to school or he is not going to school.
Even if there were a Muslim secondary school (and I hope there will be soon) this does not mean that there would be no mixing. Sure, Muslim boys would have more Muslim friends, but that is to be encouraged. I fail to see what you're getting at, or why you are trying to turn this into a debate about Islam.

I think there are some problems intergrating muslims into societies abroad. I just don't want to see the same thing here. I would like to see shared schools, you prefer segragation, that's your opinion. Have you any evidence that attending separate schools is advisable?

InFront wrote:

You do. It is taught. Some students (IF they are children who came here beyond an age where they would be too far behind their classmates to learn it) become exempt because of DoE policy, (the same as any other immigrants).

I do? Nice one you can read minds. I thought Irish was no longer compulsory for leaving cert? I know for sure there are ways to get out of it.

InFront wrote:

As long as you realise statistics don't actually back your friends' argument up.

I'm becoming convinced preparation of those statistics would be seen as anti immigration. I've heard Poles are great workers. Do I need some statistics to back that statement up too?

InFront wrote:

Nobody is going to stop immigration because some unemployable guy thinks foreigners are stealing his jobs. Maybe he should emigrate?

That's a funny rationale. Is that why the immigrants are coming here, because they are unemployable at home?
Why should he emigrate? Not everybody lives in a metropolis where there is a huge selection of jobs available, they prefer to remain in their local community. Are you suggesting all irish unemployed leave to make way for immigrants? Your statements (by your own standards) qualify as anti Irish. You are forgetting that many people of 40+ will not be as attractive to an employer as an 18 yo immigrant. Maybe it's difficult to get a job in that case. Some employers may take advantage of the influx of new labour to dish out poorer contracts etc. Ageism is a separate problem to this topic, but is there a connection???

Zombrex

Considering that only a handful of Irish can actually speak Irish properly, or do so regularly, I never considered speaking Irish as an essential requirement of being "Irish", nor do I think immigrants learning Irish is a necessary part of integration.

Of course it is hard not to smile at the story (urban legend?) of the Chinese student who spent a year learning to speak Irish before coming over here to study and finding to his bewilderment that no one could understand a word he said

Zombrex

Tea drinker wrote:

I don't think immigration needs to end (now) I am merely suggesting it be managed.

It is managed.

What you (appear) to be suggesting in your other posts is that it be restricted much more than it is being now. Which is why people (understandably) consider that you are anti-immigration.

Tea drinker wrote:

Hypothetical question, if our population was 50 million, would you support another 50 million immigrants? How many more? Would you ever put a line in the sand and say ok no more?

Questions like this are why these threads are closed :rolleyes:

Tea drinker wrote:

I would like to see shared schools, you prefer segragation, that's your opinion.

Tea you are kinda missing the point. It is enshrined in the Constitution that a parent has the right to send their child to a private religious school is they so wish, a right that Irish people have availed of since the formation of the state.

You cannot, legally nor ethically, force children of Muslim children to attend Christian or non-denominational schools if their parents do not wish them to. Particularly since Christian children are not forced to attend non-denominational schools, let alone schools of another faith.

Personally I think every public school should be completely non-denominational, while I accept that people have the right to set up private schools if they wish. But the idea of completely non-denominational public schools would never get passed the Christian Irish, let alone the Muslim Irish.

Tea drinker wrote:

I've heard Poles are great workers. Do I need some statistics to back that statement up too?

Yes, you do.

Tea drinker wrote:

Is that why the immigrants are coming here, because they are unemployable at home?

Yes, that is exactly the reason they are coming here, they cannot get a job at home. Why do you think they are coming here? The weather?

Tea drinker wrote:

Why should he emigrate?

Because he wants a job.

Tea drinker wrote:

Your statements (by your own standards) qualify as anti Irish. You are forgetting that many people of 40+ will not be as attractive to an employer as an 18 yo immigrant.

At the moment, with our record low unemployment figures, if you are 40+ Irish person and are less attractive to ever employer than an unskilled Polish/Chinese immigrant with bad English then you need to do something about your situation and the industry you are looking for work in. Simply having nothing to offer employerrs yet expecting that there will just always be a job for you is ridiculous in this day and age.

Trode

Wicknight wrote:

Why is it "entirely practical and logical" that they do this?

Sorry, I was speaking generally, not specifically about migration there. It's certainly not 'practical' to try and limit or curtail migration of any sort, but you have to admit it is 'logical' if you are of the belief that it causes problems.That doesn't mean it's good or right, and I'm not saying I agree with people who think that limitation is the solution, I'm saying it's not as unreasonable as you seem to suggest, and they don't always deserve to be lumped in with the "durty furriners" mentality.

Wicknight wrote:

In 1998 when I was doing my Leaving Cert it was quite difficult to get into Computer/IT courses, due to an increase in population doing the leaving cert, and the desire to do IT related courses because of the Dot.com boom

The "solution" to this problem was to increase the number of places available for people finishing school. I'm not sure anyone entertained the idea that we should just stop letting some people do these courses, say the population of Cork. That wasn't an option because simply not letting people from Cork enter computer courses would not have been fair, despite the fact that it would have worked to reduce the number of applicants and as such reduce the points required to do the course.

Simply restricting the number of people from doing something to make it easier for others to do it is not always a reasonable option. The EU has a principle of free movement of labour, a principle that we have enjoyed for many years. It is neither fair nor practical to simply not allow other countries to avail of the same right.

You're right, it is unfair and illogical to exclude people from opportunities based purely on geography. But at the same time it's implausible to accept everyone. The college example is an interesting choice because, while they can increase the amount of places for a given subject, and lower the points, they don't and can't take everyone who applies. Even when they increase the amount of places for a given subject, or introduce a new course, there is generally some requirements for entry.

Wicknight wrote:

That is the chicken and the egg argument. We can't have immigrants coming here because it causes racism. When we aren't racist any more then we can have immigrants. We can't have immigrants coming here because we don't have the systems to deal with them properly. When we impliment the proper systems then we can have immigrants coming here ... etc etc

The point that is missed is that these things will never get impliemented until they need to be implimented. They won't happen in a vacuum.

Change forces change.

That's not what I meant. Stopping all immigrants is as impossible as it is moronic, and I never suggested it. Of course these things won't appear without an impetus. But nor will they appear overnight. The need is already there in droves, and it's only getting bigger. If our system can't cope with our immigration level (and I'm not convinced that's the case, at least not yet), then throwing more stress at it on a sort of national 'sink or swim' policy doesn't strike me as the way to go.

Zombrex

Trode wrote:

But at the same time it's implausible to accept everyone.

We don't accept everyone, and not everyone wants to come here in the first place.

Trode wrote:

The college example is an interesting choice because, while they can increase the amount of places for a given subject, and lower the points, they don't and can't take everyone who applies. Even when they increase the amount of places for a given subject, or introduce a new course, there is generally some requirements for entry.

Yes, but that equally applied to EU immigrants. There are not enough homes, nor are there enough jobs, for 8 million EU citizens to come and live in Ireland from around Europe (a figure that is often touted around because it would give the immigrants, assuming the vote as one block, the ability to change the constitution). That means that won't happen. They won't have anywhere to live, and they won't have any jobs. They can be homeless and unemployed at home, they won't want to come here for that.

People seem to ignore the Market when discussing immigration, as if as many immigrants as we let in will actually come here.

Trode wrote:

If our system can't cope with our immigration level (and I'm not convinced that's the case, at least not yet), then throwing more stress at it on a sort of national 'sink or swim' policy doesn't strike me as the way to go.

You don't "throw more stress" at it. You fix the infrastructure problems. We should be doing that anyway, but having increased population means the problems are more obvious. It doesn't mean that these problems will actually be sorted out, this government seems particularly bad at tackling infrastructure problems.

Hobbes

Wicknight wrote:

It is managed.

What you (appear) to be suggesting in your other posts is that it be restricted much more than it is being now. Which is why people (understandably) consider that you are anti-immigration.

You beat me too it. Basically thats the crux teadrinker. It is managed already. Are you saying the current management of it is wrong? If so how?

Zambia

Firstly I would like to treat this as a immigration thread and not a migration thread. It is accepted at this piont that the 10 EU accesion states citzens can work here. I wish them well.

Immigration on the other hand I see as another issue. The entry of people into the state by any means not lawfull or by underhanded means I dont approve of. Several people have discussed the issues here but not actually put forward a solution. I will try to do that and you can all fire shots at it.

Immigration into the state is to be controlled , currently it is legislated but not controlled in practice.

Standard Immigration

1: I would like to see a pionts system introduced, if we have a skill shortage more pionts given for that skill.

2: I would like to see a full background check on each potential migrant under the above.

3: I would like to see these check not take and un due amount of time less than 1 year.

4: There should be a industry monitoring commision that changes these pionts values depending on market requirements.

5: Criminal acts may invalidate these residence permits

6: After 3 years these residents may apply for citizenship

Asylum (I see this as abused so it may seem heavy)

1: The Dublin convention should be adhered to. I Believe if we leglislate something its workability factor should be something we can do. Any entrant to the country should be direct. If they are unwilling to reveal there piont of EU Entry they should be returned to country of origin. This should be enforced by greater Airport/Port controls.

2: Applicants should be interned for a period of 6 months (on application) at most during which their case will be decided. There will be a limit of 2 Appeals each taking 3 months. If the dublin convention is followed the numbers should be manageable.

3: Once asylum is granted the entrant should be full residences right for a period of 5 years. And re-assessed at the end of these and given citzenship.

4: If any serious criminal infringements are discovered during the 5 years the entrant will be deported back to their country of origin. ( Felony /theft/rape/murder/manslaughter/fraud)

5: I would like to see a full background check on each potential migrant under the above. As would be expected.

Vehicles ( This has come up so I will address it)

1: Vehicles operating in Ireland must pass a standard NCT after being in country for over 2 months.

2: Insurance cover must be equivilant to Irish compensation levels.

3: Drivers must apply for an Irish or hold a valid licence from a recognised Foreign Body.


I am willing accept critics of the above however please try and come up with something other than refering to or own inefficent courts /department of foreign affirs etc . In short they should be doing their job.

InFront

Tea drinker wrote:

Do you propose no restrictions at all to enter Ireland?

Of course not, I've never met anyone (or heard of anyone) who proposes such a ridiculous thing. My point is simply this: Apart from some absolutely dire staffing problems with regard to immigration services in Ireland, immigration is working by and large pretty well as it is.
That is to say, our economy is benefitting with the current policy. This evidence was produced a few pages ago, I think it's gotten to the stage where people have stopped refusing to accept that.

So if it isn't broken, why fix it?

Have you any evidence that attending separate schools is advisable?

Muslim schools try to foster the faith within their largely "western" communities where religion is not a major player. It is the same for any religious school and parents have the exact same motives in sending their son to the Clonskeagh National School (Muslim) as others have in sending theirs to a C.B.S.

I thought Irish was no longer compulsory for leaving cert? I know for sure there are ways to get out of it.

Irish is compulsory for the leaving cert. And as I said, some more recent immigrants, or Irish children who have been out of the country, do manage to gain exemptions... and like Wicknight I don't see the relevance.

Your statements (by your own standards) qualify as anti Irish.

I don't see why I should be anti-myself, I'm not some sort of nutter, what have I said that is anti Irish?

One thing I do agree on is that it is healthy to have a certain degree of scepticism about economic policy. People do have genuine concerns about immigration. It is best that those concerns be addressed head on, be they social or economic, or dare I say it, religious.
Nobody is in favour of an open-door system here, but we think the current model works. Can anybody point out with proof (from an anti immigration standpoint) where the current policy does not work?

Sleepy

No-one on this planet has had any say in the state in which they were born. Why then should we discriminate against anyone on that basis?

If an able-bodied person in Ireland hasn't got a job in our current economy, it's because they don't want one or feel that what's on offer is below them / too inconvenient to get to / in an area they don't like / some other nonsense reason. Why should we refuse to help a fellow human being we haven't helped before over someone our society has provided with an education, health care (however bad the Irish health system is, it's better than nothing) and possibly money for food/clothing/housing purely on the basis of something as vague and meaningless as nationality?

Zambia

Sleepy wrote:

No-one on this planet has had any say in the state in which they were born. Why then should we discriminate against anyone on that basis?

If an able-bodied person in Ireland hasn't got a job in our current economy, it's because they don't want one or feel that what's on offer is below them / too inconvenient to get to / in an area they don't like / some other nonsense reason. Why should we refuse to help a fellow human being we haven't helped before over someone our society has provided with an education, health care (however bad the Irish health system is, it's better than nothing) and possibly money for food/clothing/housing purely on the basis of something as vague and meaningless as nationality?

I assume you are talking of taking all comers, If this was the case in short we could not afford it. However nice it would be to think we could.

Hobbes

Zambia232 wrote:

...

Good post and some interesting points.

3: I would like to see these check not take and un due amount of time less than 1 year.

The issue I can see with this is if you are looking for specialised skilled staff as quickly as possible. Such an instance could delay the employees entry into the country for more then a year. It could end up promoting illegal immigrants to fill positions.

4: There should be a industry monitoring commision that changes these pionts values depending on market requirements.

As I understand it we already have something like this in place. Work visas normally have a list of jobs most required and your more likely to get a work visa if you fill that job.

A list is here...
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/employment/starting-work-and-changing-job/migrant-workers/work_visas_authorise/?searchterm=work%20visa

5: Criminal acts may invalidate these residence permits

It does already depending on the crime.

6: After 3 years these residents may apply for citizenship

The 5-7 years is fine tbh. I am not sure why shortening it would improve matters.

Asylum (I see this as abused so it may seem heavy)

Somewhat of a seperate subject. I will say this though in a number of cases what you suggest would not be viable. For example background checks in a lot of cases would be hard to carry out as their own home country would be hostile to them.

Also some of the stuff you listed in relation to crimes already gets you deported (or jailed).

Vehicles ( This has come up so I will address it)

This is a totally separate issue again. A better solution would be to open up to the EU more so have an EU license/NCT/insurance. It would work out cheaper for us (IMHO).

Zombrex

Zambia232 wrote:

Immigration on the other hand I see as another issue. The entry of people into the state by any means not lawfull or by underhanded means I dont approve of.

Then you are talking about illegal immigration.

Zambia232 wrote:

Immigration into the state is to be controlled , currently it is legislated but not controlled in practice.

Immigration into the Republic of Ireland is controlled.

Zambia232 wrote:

1: I would like to see a pionts system introduced, if we have a skill shortage more pionts given for that skill.
...
6: After 3 years these residents may apply for citizenship

I'm not sure why are you listing things that could only possibly work on legal immigrants if your main grip is with illegal immigrants?

If someone has entered the country here illegal then a points system, or a background check, are largely irrelievent since by definition the State doesn't know the person is actually here.

So I'm really not following your point. We already have a system set up for immigration from outside the EU, where employers have to prove they cannot find an Irish or EU person to fill the position they are looking for. But none of that matter if they choose to hire illegal immigrants that the State does not know are living and working in Ireland.

Zambia232 wrote:

If they are unwilling to reveal there piont of EU Entry they should be returned to country of origin.

That is a bit unworkable. What if they tell you their point of entry to the EU was Ireland? Since both asylum seekers telling the truth, and those lying to stay in Ireland will give the exact same answer I'm not sure how that would work.

Or is it just Catch 22, you just deport anyone who says Ireland, and anyone who doesn't say Ireland?

Zambia232 wrote:

Applicants should be interned for a period of 6 months (on application) at most during which their case will be decided.

Aside from the fact that imprisioning someone for no crime is illegal and unethical, that idea is also largely unworkable. The cost of maintaining interment camps for asylum seekers would far far outway any negative cost to the State by having them living free.

I certain agree that tracking of asylum seekers is a necessary part of the system, so they don't disappear into the population. But internment camps is far too costly, never mind immoral, system to propose as a solution.

Zambia232 wrote:

4: If any serious criminal infringements are discovered during the 5 years the entrant will be deported back to their country of origin. ( Felony /theft/rape/murder/manslaughter/fraud)

Again, that isn't workable. If they get passed the asylum system then they have genuine fear of harm in their home country. That means the punishment that they face by being deported is illegal under Irish law. We cannot deport people as punishment if we know that the punishment they will face is in contray to our legal system. For example if someone steals a car we cannot sentence them to death by having them deported to a country that we have reasonable grounds to believe they will execute them.

Zambia232 wrote:

5: I would like to see a full background check on each potential migrant under the above. As would be expected.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "potential migrant". Do you mean asylum seeker?

If so background checks on asylum seekers are very difficult as the person is often fleeing an area of war or oppressive government, where records either untrustworthy or non-existent. By definition if a person is seeking asylum from a country that has a fair organised police or legal system then they won't get asylum access anyway. Its not like you can just ring up the local police station in Darfur and as for the police file on a person you have sitting in front of you.

Zambia

Hobbes wrote:

Good post and some interesting points.



The issue I can see with this is if you are looking for specialised skilled staff as quickly as possible. Such an instance could delay the employees entry into the country for more then a year. It could end up promoting illegal immigrants to fill positions.

As I understand it we already have something like this in place. Work visas normally have a list of jobs most required and your more likely to get a work visa if you fill that job.

Agreed however it would be the task of the commisson to predict these shortfalls , any old fool could look at jobs.ie all day ??

Once again happy they are there

Hobbes wrote:

The 5-7 years is fine tbh. I am not sure why shortening it would improve matters.

The longer wait to process has its rewards

Hobbes wrote:

Somewhat of a seperate subject. I will say this though in a number of cases what you suggest would not be viable. For example background checks in a lot of cases would be hard to carry out as their own home country would be hostile to them.

Agreed however I would have a pionts system here too , we would have to come up with a way of doing so the lack of evidence that someone is not being persecuted should not be a green light for entrance.

Hobbes wrote:

Also some of the stuff you listed in relation to crimes already gets you deported (or jailed).

We have all seen cases where the defendant has been let go. Only to re-offend I cant say lest I am held Liable.

Hobbes wrote:

This is a totally separate issue again. A better solution would be to open up to the EU more so have an EU license/NCT/insurance. It would work out cheaper for us (IMHO).

Excellent idea it would stop these "Free / uninsured car comments" Granted I am not saying they dont exist