Immigration- A Proper Debate

Dontico

Wicknight wrote:

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.

i agree with you. the government, as funed by our taxes, shouldnt pay more religious schools or any religious organisation. allow religious fanatics fund thier own schools, be they muslim or christian.

Tea drinker

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?

I understand that is a cornerstone of the current policy? Not all nationalities are granted access?

Sleepy wrote:

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.

If you were married with kids, lived in a small country town, lost your job to an economic migrant it may be more than inconvenient to move your kids from school to another area, find the money to buy a house in e.g. Dublin for twice the money you got from selling the old house.
Independant of nationalities, does it seem unfair?
I agree if it's a young single person, they have no need to be on the dole.

Sleepy wrote:

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?

Sleepy, We can't help everyone. The whole point of the discussion is to struggle to find the limits of what we can do, or cope with. And health care? You better have Health insurance... and keep well!

Tea drinker

Tea drinker wrote:

I understand that is a cornerstone of the current policy? Not all nationalities are granted access?

Thats irrelevant to an access debate on fellow E.U member states though.They will and should gain access based on the agreed negotiated position for their access by the original member states.

If you were married with kids, lived in a small country town, lost your job to an economic migrant it may be more than inconvenient to move your kids from school to another area, find the money to buy a house in e.g. Dublin for twice the money you got from selling the old house.
Independant of nationalities, does it seem unfair?
I agree if it's a young single person, they have no need to be on the dole.

Given our unemployment rate,our re training and the recorded relatively high older participation rates that must be as rare as hens teeth.
For a tutorial on the spuriousness of your worries have a read here .

Sleepy, We can't help everyone. The whole point of the discussion is to struggle to find the limits of what we can do, or cope with.

Well I don't think that was the OP's reasons for this thread

And health care? You better have Health insurance... and keep well!

Why? What has the bad management of the health service got to do with immigration? Is there an abnormally high percentage of immigrants working in health care management and doing a shoddy job?

Victor

Wicknight wrote:

A "big portion" of what are working in the black economy? Romanians?

Actually most of the Romanians that had been in Ireland up to 2004 were displaced by other migrant workers. I imagine most that are left are in the construction industry.

sceptre wrote:

If present trends continue, the Sugababes will be entirely caucasian by 2013.

And legal.

walrusgumble

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

sorry that was badly drafted by me,

i meant schools where it is mostly irish born kids attending them, eg in rural areas. my mate was from huddersfield and came here when he was about 13. his youngest sister had to learn irish in her primary school as irish was a core subject. (she has recently moved back to barnsley and will never need it now, by the way i fin it unfair that she had to learn irish)

i refered to dublin, because due to the size of the place and people of all nationalities, it can cater better for children of all backgrounds. i cant imagine a family who have lived in their country of origin so many generations come to ireland, and bang be expected to drop their culture completely, they should not be expected to, differnces between cultures in ireland should be promoted and enriched. anyway school is only one way of intergration. activities like sport, work and other social dos might have all types of people coming together for one main cause. which regard to your children, tea drinker made some good points about what children are like now and i am sure they are no different to any kid of the generation x period

of course your children are intergrated. they have a connection to this state (and good luck to ye i hope ye find the place well) i had only given on example, where i was rebutting the idea that this nation will loose its irishness (whatever that means) in years to come, any way tea drinker hit the nail on the head on what he said.

Zambia

Wicknight wrote:

Then you are talking about illegal immigration.

No I am not I said i dont approve of illegal immigration , then put forward some steps to prevent it. The whole post was not on illegal immigration.

Wicknight wrote:

Immigration into the Republic of Ireland is controlled.

Yes it is and very badly

Wicknight wrote:

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?

Once again bit blinkered here , if legal immigration is structured and correct it lessens illegal immigration.

Wicknight wrote:

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.

If people are entering the country illegally then obivously immigration is not controlled. The state should know these people are here as they should not pass border controls if they are not here legally. My pionts covered increased airport / port presence.

Wicknight wrote:

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.

Sorry my bad I should have mentioned the hiring of illegal immigrants or hiring of anyone for less pay. Should be made illegal and enforced strictly (I am aware its illegal).

Wicknight wrote:

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?

They would be stopped at an airport or port and there piont of entry would be obivous. If border checks where in place this is not an issue.

Wicknight wrote:

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.

Legality is a matter of legislation and ethics are a piont of view. I never said it would be cheap , just because something is cheap does not make it the better option. However I knew this would be the bitterest pill in the solution and completly inderstand your position.

Wicknight wrote:

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.

You are taking pionts at random here whereas i wish you would look at the whole solution I passed in. If someone stole a car after going though the proposed Alsyum process.

I would like to piont out there would have to be a scheme to help these aslyum seekers after they are accepted.

Then yes they have abused a trust we have placed in them and will be sent back. If they cant stop themselves becoming a criminal for 3/5 years well then yes they will be returned as thats probaly why there own goverment wants to get them. I would possible consider letting them go somewhere else but they couldnt stay.

Wicknight wrote:

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

Nope they are all potential migrants just using different reasons for entry. Once there in each is equal.

Wicknight wrote:

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.

Once again just cause its hard you seem to be reluctant to even entertain it. I am sure if someone came from Darfur that would immediatly lend credence to their case.

Thanks for your feed back it did help , and I do realise this would not sit well with many folk.

Zambia

Oh and some articles to back up my immgrationnis not controlled comment

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1998/08/05/ihead.htm Look for Brian Carrolls Article

From 1997

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/index.php3?issue_id=3704

From today it states that there are 3000 Illegal immgrants on the loose at present , that is not controlled. IMO

Hotblack Desiato

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?

Why on earth not? Every other country in the world does it.
You or I can't immigrate into America or Australia as of right just because we feel like it.

No-one on this planet has any say in the family into which they are born either. Does that mean that you can't turn all-comers away from living in your house because that would be discriminatory?

The way I look at it is that Ireland is our collective house and collectively, through our government, we have the absolute right to decide who can enter that house. We accept that EU nationals generally have right of residence, and we accept refugees in accordance with our international commitments, but we certainly don't owe the world a living.

Hotblack Desiato

Zambia232 wrote:

From today it states that there are 3000 Illegal immgrants on the loose at present , that is not controlled. IMO

I'd be far more worried about the (far greater than 3000 no doubt) bail jumpers, violent career criminals, released sex offenders etc. etc. on the loose... The greatest threat to our society comes from within, but it's easier to blame outsiders isn't it?

Lennoxschips

I don't think Dubliners should be allowed to live in Cork unless they bring needed skills to the area.

Zombrex

Zambia232 wrote:

Once again bit blinkered here , if legal immigration is structured and correct it lessens illegal immigration.

Our legal immigration is structured. I'm not sure how you define "correct".

I'm also not seeing your point. How is clamping down on legal immigration going to decrease illegal immigration. Surely it will make it worse?

Zambia232 wrote:

If people are entering the country illegally then obivously immigration is not controlled.

That is like saying if someone is able to kill someone in Ireland obviously we have no controls against murder.

How ever you structure immigration into Ireland you will always have people who enter this country illegal. Aside from building a 10 foot wall around the entire border that is just a fact of life.

I am certain for policing the borders, I'm for border controls and passport verification centres at all ports and airports. But we already have these.

Zambia232 wrote:

The state should know these people are here as they should not pass border controls if they are not here legally.

If someone enters the country illegally they by definition they haven't passed legally through passport or border control. That is kinda the point.

Zambia232 wrote:

Sorry my bad I should have mentioned the hiring of illegal immigrants or hiring of anyone for less pay. Should be made illegal and enforced strictly (I am aware its illegal).

I wasn't aware it wasn't being enforced "strictly"

Zambia232 wrote:

They would be stopped at an airport or port and there piont of entry would be obivous.

And if they enter the country illegally...?

Zambia232 wrote:

If border checks where in place this is not an issue.

Border checks are in place. People get in. That, as they say, is just a fact of life. If people can smuggle themselves out of North Korea, or out of Soviet Russia, they can slip unnoticed into Ireland.

The idea that we can just stop all illegal immigration if we just try a little harder is not workable. We could spend billions in increases in border checkpoints, make all the legitmate travellers lives hell for a day or two, with detailed and intensive background checks of everyone who enters the country at all airports and ports, and people will still slip into the country. So you kinda wonder what the point is. We don't have serious problem at the moment with illegal immigrants sneaking into the country, so the costs would seem to far out way any benefits of any massive increase in border security.

Zambia232 wrote:

I never said it would be cheap , just because something is cheap does not make it the better option.

No, but because something is very expensive does make one question if it is worth it, particularly when the purpose is supposed to reduce the burden on tax payers.

Zambia232 wrote:

You are taking pionts at random here whereas i wish you would look at the whole solution I passed in.

Well I'm attempting to show that your "whole solution" is not workable, because of the specifics of the solution. Its all very well to say that if an asylum seeker commits a crime they should be deported. But you also have to look at how that would actually work and what that could mean.

Zambia232 wrote:

Then yes they have abused a trust we have placed in them and will be sent back.

But we can't send them back. That is the point. If they are accepted as refugee status sending them back isn't an option anymore, unless the situation that justified their refugee status changes. Stealing a car doesn't alter their refugee status. You don't just save the good people. You save everyone that needs saving. After that you deal with them under your legal system.

Zambia232 wrote:

If they cant stop themselves becoming a criminal for 3/5 years well then yes they will be returned as thats probaly why there own goverment wants to get them.

I'm not quite sure you understand why someone is given asylum. We don't grant refugee status to people because they are fleeing a legitimate criminal investigation in their home country. If their home country was capable of conducting legitimate criminal investigation they probably would not even be considered for refugee status. One of the requirements of granting asylum is that there is no working or independent police force in the home country that can protect the person from what ever oppression they face.

Zambia232 wrote:

Nope they are all potential migrants just using different reasons for entry. Once there in each is equal.

Equal in what way?

Zambia232 wrote:

Once again just cause its hard you seem to be reluctant to even entertain it.

I don't think it is hard, I think it is impossible. If police or legal records don't exist in the area the person is fleeing from then it is impossible to run a criminal background check on them. Then what do you do? Do you not let in people who you cannot verify their criminal history (if any)? That would most likely mean you turn away those who are actually in most need of asylum, who are fleeing either oppressive governments who do not keep non-bias criminal records, or those fleeing war torn areas where such records probably don't exist any more.

Zambia232 wrote:

I am sure if someone came from Darfur that would immediatly lend credence to their case.

Are you saying Darfur won't produce criminals such as car thefts?

If the goal is to determine if someone is in need of asylum then you don't need a detailed criminal background check, you just need to know the circumstances of the area they are fleeing.

If the goal is to only grant asylum to those with no criminal history, and as such criminal background checks are required, then that becomes an impossible task because such records probably don't exist in the area they are coming from. So you run the risk of turning away legitimate refugees because you cannot verify that they don't have criminal backgrounds.

Zombrex

Zambia232 wrote:

From today it states that there are 3000 Illegal immgrants on the loose at present , that is not controlled. IMO

WHat do you mean "from today"? That article is dated 2001?

Also it states that the Gardi believe that the majority of the 3000 asylum seekers have left the country.

Zambia

ninja900 wrote:

I'd be far more worried about the (far greater than 3000 no doubt) bail jumpers, violent career criminals, released sex offenders etc. etc. on the loose... The greatest threat to our society comes from within, but it's easier to blame outsiders isn't it?

I never blamed any crime on new migrants I just mentioned the expected result if they comitted then. This is a off the cuff remark.

If there are more than 3000 of such irish nationals on the loose , then they should be rounded up and imprisoned.

Zambia

Wicknight wrote:

WHat do you mean "from today"? That article is dated 2001?

Also it states that the Gardi believe that the majority of the 3000 asylum seekers have left the country.

I stand corrected there I will try and get a more accurate figure this evening.

Hobbes

Lennoxschips wrote:

I don't think Dubliners should be allowed to live in Cork unless they bring needed skills to the area.

We could claim asylum!

Sleepy

ninja900 wrote:

Why on earth not? Every other country in the world does it.
You or I can't immigrate into America or Australia as of right just because we feel like it.

No-one on this planet has any say in the family into which they are born either. Does that mean that you can't turn all-comers away from living in your house because that would be discriminatory?

The way I look at it is that Ireland is our collective house and collectively, through our government, we have the absolute right to decide who can enter that house. We accept that EU nationals generally have right of residence, and we accept refugees in accordance with our international commitments, but we certainly don't owe the world a living.

Well, the way I see it is that the Earth is our collective house. As it stands, we have a small minority living in en-suite double bedrooms whilst the vast majority live in the coal shed.

We in the west have a collective responsibility to those in the second and third worlds whose resources we have consumed, whose countries we have destabilised. Sure England, Portugal, France et all colonised countries however that doesn't leave us blameless, we had no problems drinking coffee that had been harvested by children in the third world until very recently. We still seemingly have no problem wearing trainers produced in sweatshops in the third world.

We in the "first world" (Ireland, America, the UK etc.) owe our fellow human beings equality and yes, we're going to have to suffer to provide it to them.

Zambia

Sleepy wrote:

Well, the way I see it is that the Earth is our collective house. As it stands, we have a small minority living in en-suite double bedrooms whilst the vast majority live in the coal shed.

We in the west have a collective responsibility to those in the second and third worlds whose resources we have consumed, whose countries we have destabilised. Sure England, Portugal, France et all colonised countries however that doesn't leave us blameless, we had no problems drinking coffee that had been harvested by children in the third world until very recently. We still seemingly have no problem wearing trainers produced in sweatshops in the third world.

We in the "first world" (Ireland, America, the UK etc.) owe our fellow human beings equality and yes, we're going to have to suffer to provide it to them.

I commend your view Sleepy. However I would ask you to try and get residence in an african country for example. Just let me know how you get on. However the answer to this problem is to upgrade the coal shed to a our standard. Which is another topic Would you agree the whole world cannot live in Europe / australia and america?

purple'n'gold

Well, the way I see it is that the Earth is our collective house. As it stands, we have a small minority living in en-suite double bedrooms whilst the vast majority live in the coal shed.

We in the west have a collective responsibility to those in the second and third worlds whose resources we have consumed, whose countries we have destabilised. Sure England, Portugal, France et all colonised countries however that doesn't leave us blameless, we had no problems drinking coffee that had been harvested by children in the third world until very recently. We still seemingly have no problem wearing trainers produced in sweatshops in the third world.

We in the "first world" (Ireland, America, the UK etc.) owe our fellow human beings equality and yes, we're going to have to suffer to provide it to them.


I think you are speaking with your tongue firmly in your cheek, just to see what reaction you will get. But let’s pretend you are serious. We, the Irish nation don’t owe anybody anything. Many hundreds of thousands of Irish people had to emigrate to other parts of the world in order to survive. We didn’t go with our cap in our hand looking for hand outs, we went to work. We were not always welcomed, but we just got on with it and worked our way to the top of the pile.
Never mind this nonsense about coffee and trainers etc. we don’t owe anyone in the third world anything. We give, charitably, but that’s our decision. We don’t have to do it. Let the British, French et.al look after them, they are responsible for them because of their colonial past, we are not. People from the EU and legal immigrants are of course welcome here, as in every other European country. The rest ,who have no business here should be deported or better still never allowed to land in the first place.

Sleepy

Zambia232 and purple'n'gold, let me ask you both a question:

Why do you deserve a comfortable, safe, healthy, comparatively rich life as a result of your luck in the lottery of where you were born?

I'll frankly be stunned if you can answer that in any other fashion than 'I don't'.

Zambia232, I think you're largely on my way of thinking: we need to upgrade the coalshed. However, to continue the analogy, in order to upgrade the coalshed, the people in the comfortable double rooms are going to have to sacrifice the en-suite.

The world's problems will not be solved by closed markets or border controls. To level the playing field we have to move away from protectionism and embrace a global open market. Yes, this will lead to hardship in the first world. People will lose their jobs, lives may even be lost as flagging economies mean health services go unfunded but in a matter of two or three generations we would have an equal world where everyone would have a decent standard of living.

Of course, I'm not naieve enough to think this will actually happen. We're simply to greedy to give up our SUV's and patios so that other's may be fed.

shoegirl

Lennoxschips wrote:

I don't think Dubliners should be allowed to live in Cork unless they bring needed skills to the area.

I've been waiting for somebody to come out with this kind of preposterous notion. It is logical though: if you truly believe that people not from an area shouldn't be allowed to live there, then it makes logical sense to regionalise it. I suppose people from Cork city shouldn't be allowed live in Midleton or Fermoy either, Lennoxchips?

Of course to follow this to the logical conclusion I would suggest that Dublin council's immediately expell all non-Dublin born residents. Oops that would probably halve the population almost immediately.

Having said that counties like Cork suffered horrendous depopulation in the 1950s and 1960s - does it not make sense that rural counties are repopulated to replace the lost generations?

Hotblack Desiato

Sleepy wrote:

Why do you deserve a comfortable, safe, healthy, comparatively rich life as a result of your luck in the lottery of where you were born?

We all have participated in the lottery of where we were born.
In Ireland you could be born to a multimillionaire, or to a family on the breadline in a council b&b who had to give the child benefit book to the moneylenders.
Sure, you're less likely to die of starvation here than in the third world, but your prospects in life and life expectancy are still very much shaped by what circumstances you're born into.

What's the answer? Communist utopia? Not going to happen.

So why do I deserve a relatively comfortable life compared to some people in Ireland? Because my parents worked hard to do their best to provide for their family and I worked hard in school and college (which they could barely afford, no free fees then) to give myself the best chance in life I could.

Handouts alone simply aren't the answer whether here or in the third world, people have the responsibility not to have more kids than they can realistically provide for. It's harsh but it's a fact of life. Another harsh fact of life is that many third world countries would be doing ok were it not for civil wars, wars with their equally poor neighbours, tin-pot dictators fattening their Swiss bank accounts. Throwing money at those problems only makes them worse.

Zambia

True but its the quest for the en -suite that drives us all forward. If we dont keep driving forward in the west then the third world stagnates as well.

I would go on about solutions to third world issues but they make my proposed solution to Immigration look like disneyworld. Not to mention of topic

Examples would include , military intervention , international fraud commisions...

I stand by my border controls. If there not getting in then we are sorted.

Sleepy

ninja900 wrote:

We all have participated in the lottery of where we were born.
In Ireland you could be born to a multimillionaire, or to a family on the breadline in a council b&b who had to give the child benefit book to the moneylenders.
Sure, you're less likely to die of starvation here than in the third world, but your prospects in life and life expectancy are still very much shaped by what circumstances you're born into.

What's the answer? Communist utopia? Not going to happen.

A level playing field which would exist in a matter of two to three generations after the elimination of all border controls and trade restrictions imho.

So why do I deserve a relatively comfortable life compared to some people in Ireland?

That wasn't my question.

Handouts alone simply aren't the answer whether here or in the third world, people have the responsibility not to have more kids than they can realistically provide for. It's harsh but it's a fact of life. Another harsh fact of life is that many third world countries would be doing ok were it not for civil wars, wars with their equally poor neighbours, tin-pot dictators fattening their Swiss bank accounts. Throwing money at those problems only makes them worse.

It's not about handouts. It's about removing the unfair trading practices and selfish protectionism that keeps those countries poor, their tin-pot dictators in power and their people so uneducated that they play the odds with the child mortality rate.

Zambia232 wrote:

I stand by my border controls. If there not getting in then we are sorted.

Sure, we're sorted. While they're dying.

Zambia

Sleepy wrote:

Sure, we're sorted. While they're dying.

Once there is a level playing field as you said I would certainly lower the border control. As the fears I have over immigration would than not be an issue I however would expect them to lower theres as well. They are dying due to a lot of the issues Ninja said. I would much rather we addressed them than squabling how many we pick from the coal shed to sleep in the corner of the en-suite. As I said before they dont really want us over there.

Tea drinker

Zambia, thanks for your post some time back outlining a skeleton framework. Brave, good post. ok thats enough suckin.

I would like to add one thing:
An Economic migrant cannot displace the Job of an Irish citizen.
A period of 3 months must elapse post cessation.
Exceptions would exist in the case of death, illness or retirement

I feel it adds a little protection to people from "Hosted offshoring" without overly inconveniencing the employer.
The old ferry debacle is a possible case in point

Of course if extra staff are needed and cannot be filled by Irish citizens they can be recruited immediately. (providing of course they fulfil your other requirments)
In the event of possible abuse referral to a court with legal powers (rather than labour court) is available to Gov and employees.
I don't know about the 3 months.... longer? shorter?

Tea drinker

Sleepy wrote:

A level playing field which would exist in a matter of two to three generations after the elimination of all border controls and trade restrictions imho.

Sleepy, your not by any chance quoting the teachings of Surak?
Anyway, your offering the interim 3 generations, what?
World peace and stabilty? We're human, not superhuman. Well some of us are sub human (CelebBB). I just don't think we could make "borderless begining" work now.

Sleepy wrote:

It's not about handouts. It's about removing the unfair trading practices and selfish protectionism that keeps those countries poor, their tin-pot dictators in power and their people so uneducated that they play the odds with the child mortality rate.

Are you talking about western corruption of these goverments for military or Economic gain? What makes you think these forces will allow change?
Off topic?

Sleepy wrote:

Sure, we're sorted. While they're dying.

Why don't you sell your house and donate the money to charity? Or is their limits to your generosity? would that be excluded because it's a handout? It wouldn't help much BTW.

RedPlanet

It sounds like some people may be trying to suggest restricting entry of people into the country.
But that would be madness.
How does one tell the difference between an economic migrant and a tourist?
Both are bringing currency from their country and spending it here (upon arrival).
Instead of beefing up our borders and immigration and customs controls, why not lean on (put pressure) on the source of the problem?
Greedy business owners whom would turf out their irish staff to hire foreign workers.
There are fewer of them then there are people entering the country.
It's ridiculous to blame people for migrating to try and improve their lot in life.

sovtek

RedPlanet wrote:

There are fewer of them then there are people entering the country.
It's ridiculous to blame people for migrating to try and improve their lot in life.

I totally agree with this sentiment. Like all other animals we go where the grass is greener. It's un natural to put up borders and keep us from migrating.
Open immigration is the only way to go. This paradigm of nations/states is relatively new to the human species and doesn't work the way it's going.
Why is capital not confined to borders but people are? Horse ****!

Sleepy

Tea drinker wrote:

Sleepy, your not by any chance quoting the teachings of Surak?
Anyway, your offering the interim 3 generations, what?

Surak? Googled it and found a Star Trek character?

Opening all borders to trade, services, movement of people and capital offers only hardship to the first world which is why it won't happen. It would however, imho, be the first step to a united world, better use of our planet's natural resources, less wars and a world where everyone could have an equal starting point (in terms of education, access to healthcare etc) from which point the main determining factors of one's success in life would be hard work and talent.

Of course, I think the majority of people are too greedy, too stupid and generally just such ****tards that we'll never do any of this. Unfortunately, people will guard their own little self interests preferring to build a big metal needle on a street than allow a couple of refugees into their country to benefit from the same advantages that they've had handed to them.

Honestly, this whole thread reminds me of the South Park episode that was on last night... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobacks

Zambia

RedPlanet wrote:

It sounds like some people may be trying to suggest restricting entry of people into the country.
But that would be madness.
How does one tell the difference between an economic migrant and a tourist?

There are fewer of them then there are people entering the country.
It's ridiculous to blame people for migrating to try and improve their lot in life.

Hi borders will be beefed up in the sense that lorries will be searched throughly, Brief immigration checks will be made on all flights, etc. If you enter the country as a tourist you have a tourist visa. If you require one. These people will not be hindered , if you arrive at a port and declare you have no visa you will be turned around. if you had a tourist visa then overstay you will be on record as where you arrived from and returned there. In a way this system in already in place in ireland. There is a manpower issue in doing it.

I personnally am behind people moving here under my propased scheme they just have to go through a process , to determine there skills are needed. What I dont want is a non - skilled person in Turkey(just an example) thinking they have a great future in Ireland only to get here and there be no work for him. As everyone has claimed we have enough eejits here as opposed to importing in more. Sept 2005 I was attacked by three romanians at a AIB Banklink in Dublin over a skimming device. can anyone tell me what vissa they where in the state under cause I cant. They where Romanian dont even try and debate that with me.

I have low regard for anyone whose living involves the theft of others property regardless of race, creed or colour. Should anyone who engages in such activities be as a guest of the state then they should be removed, i personnally couldnt care if they had a vat of boiling oil with there name on it back in their country of orgin.

If a skilled person from Romania(or anywhere) wishs to immigrate here I will support them as long as there previous experience adds value to our community. If they are here under some wish wash loophole then I dont see the piont you can lay on you ar*e in one part of the world as well as another.