Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Are our 'hands tied' on immigration?
Options
Comments
-
I'm willing to bet that the fall in wages was far greater for those low-skilled people who had to compete with the immigrants than it was for the middle-class people who didn't have to compete with lower-cost immigrants.
I would be very surprised if they weren't related.
Grand, you've a hunch about it. Back it up with something.0 -
Grand, you've a hunch about it. Back it up with something.
But what if I'm proved wrong? Won't I look a right feckin ejit?
Where can I find the kind of historical data on income in the US that might be able to back up my hunch? This video on youtube might be worth watching. This is where I first heard about the effects of immigration on black Americans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ0 -
ExactlyGrand, you've a hunch about it. Back it up with something.
Immigrants take/do the work that
A) there is not enough people to do
are beneath peoples "own standard"
You can get a Polish neurosurgeon to clean your house for a 10er an hour, as long as they do not have enough English grammar and vocab.
However once they are up there there is no way in hell that they are going to take less money than their irish counterparts.
Actually the low educated polish that would stick to cleaning toilets will not evenb stick to low wages once they know the language. Competition is one for them, better a low salary than no salary. Biut for most here hit would be a "stepping stone" to something better: Learn the language and then do what you studied for.
There is such a thing as minimum wage, and since the poles are legal here, very very few would be cleaning toilets for less than that, and yes thats tough on the opportunists who think they can get 15 an hour to scrub bowls.
As a American CEO once said in a meeting (overheard) when would we pay that lot (us) when we get the same and better skill in India for less than a third of the cost.0 -
-
I'm willing to bet that the fall in wages was far greater for those low-skilled people who had to compete with the immigrants than it was for the middle-class people who didn't have to compete with lower-cost immigrants.
What fall in wages?
Manufacturing Industries - Average weekly earnings of industrial workers in each year (€)
|1998|1999|2000|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006
Adult Males|428.82|453.04|477.73|512.38|538.38|564.9|588.92|609.91|624.45
Adult Females|285.36|298.17|324.72|347.32|365.18|393.78|406.83|430.23|451.12
Source: CSO.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Actually, there is presently an over-supply of rental properties in this country, with over 266,000 homes lying idle, as of December last year.As well as that, as David McWilliams has pointed out, a fall in immigration will lead to a fall in rent prices which will benefit Irish workers further.
Absolutely; the reason inflation was so high in this country was because so many people were living way beyond their means. According to the Indo, the average person in this country has debts of €9,600 (source).As inflation in Ireland has been up near the highest in the EU (despite having lower than average labour costs and higher than average immigration), maybe we should do something about getting inflation under control?
I think a balance between the two is optimal; nobody wants either inflation or unemployment spiralling out of control.Is an increase in inflation really worse than an increase in unemployment?
Seven.How many recently unemployed Irish people will be unable to find a job this year and the next year because of the competition from immigrants?
Oh sorry; that was rhetorical, wasn't it. Sorry.
How sure are you? I think most people in this country would accept that prices were getting out of control (in the property market, in particular) and this was not sustainable.I'm sure if you were to offer them the choice most of those unemployed people would rather have a job.
I'm not sure I understand your logic; you are advocating restrictions on immigration to reduce competition in the labour market, increase wages and therefore, increase inflation. Where does the stability come from in this scenario?Even if meant an increase in inflation, in the long-term prices would stabilise and wages would then begin to rise in line with any further inflation.
WHAT? Everything was just peachy up to then, was it?It was only from the mid 1960s onwards when they decided to throw open the borders that things started to go downhill for the black people.
Why do you make the assumption that all immigrants are unskilled workers seeking to "undercut" the natives?Is Irish labour not cheaper than British labour? If it isn't, it only strengthens my argument that Britain would not have all that much to gain by imposing restrictions on Irish labour as the Irish are not as likely to undercut British workers.
I don’t know – if there isn’t, then it’s likely that many will head elsewhere in search of work. Migration is largely self-regulating; people go where the jobs are. That’s the benefit of having free movement of workers within the EU; people will move from areas of labour surplus to areas of labour shortage.Will there will be enough jobs created this year to make up for the ones that are lost as well as the jobs needed for the extra 30,000 immigrants?
Many did – according to Wikipedia, there are an estimated 70,000 Irish people in Germany and France; sure aren’t there Irish pubs all over the feckin’ place?!?Why didn't large numbers of Irish people avail of that opportunity back in the 1980s?
Hmm, yeah… I wonder why that could be :rolleyes:.Far more Irish people emigrated to America, a country that does have restrictions, than emigrated to France or Germany, countries that had no restrictions.
That is a ridiculous generalisation. Of the people I know, it is mostly the Irish rather than the non-Irish who are planning to leave the country in the near future. Few of them have to, but many of them want to (myself included).In the first case, the Irish worker is doing something that he would not otherwise want to do. In the second case the Polish worker is doing something that he would have always intended to do.
So it’s a good thing when foreigners emigrate, but it’s a bad thing when Irish people emigrate. Right….I think it's a very good thing when there's a shortage of jobs and the people that are leaving are foreign immigrants. It eases the competition for the available jobs. It's a very bad thing when there's a shortage of jobs and the people emigrating are Irish people.
I’m starting to think you’re argument has little to do with economics.
Ok, I’ll tell my wife when I go home.Yeah right! I'd like to see you telling the English that they don't have enough immigrants! Go on, just try it!
You didn’t answer my question; what makes the level of immigration in the UK the “correct” level that we should aim for?
…combined with an influx of Britons over the last 10 years or so. According to the 2006 census, there were 271,781 British-born people in Ireland. This was up from 98,920 in 1996. There are also significant numbers from developed countries such as Germany (11,797) and the US (25,181).Not really. Most of the growth in the non-national population has only occured in the last 3 or 4 years since we opened our borders to the East Europeans….
What would that be? Let me guess; the same as that in the UK, right? What makes that a reasonable level?And will the decline be enough to bring our immigration back to a level that most people would consider reasonable?
And what have they predicted for the following years?The ESRI have predicted that immigration will be as high as 40,000 next year.
I’m not sure what you mean by that (in bold), but anyway…If we have twice as many immigrants as our nearest neighbour during the worst year of a recession what can we expect when the economy picks up again?
As I have already pointed out, it has been predicted (by the ESRI, I believe) that net emigration will occur in the not-too-distant future.
And why did they do that, do you think?The reason we have had high levels of immigration over the last few years was because of a decision made by our government to open our borders to hundreds of millions of low-wage Eastern Europeans.
Eh, yes. Yes they have. Do you not agree?And have things changed drastically since then?
I don’t know; that would depend on the level of economic growth (both here and elsewhere in the EU) and the number of jobs being created, wouldn’t it?Is there any reason to believe that immigration will continue to fall even after the economy recovers?
Estimated by who?Although it's not the official figure contained in the census, the number of Polish is estimated at 200,000.
No, I don’t think WE would be at all. You might be, but WE would certainly not be.If any country in the EU ever experiences mass immigration of Irish people on the scale that we've experienced it over the last few years then I think we would be very understanding and we would respect their decision to try to reduce the number of people entering their country.
Besides, such a scenario would mean that the situation in Ireland had taken a drastic turn for the worse.
Which would be offset by the high inflation resulting from ever-increasing wages.Low-wage workers benefit by having higher-than-minimum wages.
That would contravene EU law.If the reason for throwing open our labour market at the time was because we had a labour shortage would it not make sense to reverse that decision now that things have changed?
Not necessary; as I have already said, large numbers of the unemployed will most likely emigrate to find jobs elsewhere.We don't have enough jobs for both the immigrants and for our own unemployed so wouldn't it be worth reconsidering our open-borders policy now that we're in a recession?
What time was this? When we joined the EU?How come we didn't hear much about those labour needs back at the time the decision was made to lift the restrictions?
No; that’s precisely what he said was a matter for another discussion.They needed the labour because they needed to build all those houses?0 -
Immigartion is out of control. Open boarders has been the biggest disaster for this country since the Brits came here hundreds of years ago. We should pull out of the EU and take back our independence before its too late.
You should come to Ireland some time. You'll like it. The weather isn't great, but even now the economy is pretty good, you'll find it easy to get a well-paid job, and by and large the natives are friendly and welcoming. You'll find that having good English-language skills isn't even required, even though it's the first language (they have another language too, though it's not required and only a small minority speak it as a first language. You don't need to know about it.). The cost of living is quite high due to it being an island and having somewhat limited competition in the economy; the main retailers are all British-owned, allowing them to undercut Irish retail outlets through volume, but they're still considered to be overcharging.
If you're in an EU country, you can just come over visit without any visa requirements. Just make sure you have enough money for your trip, you'd be surprised at the high cost of sampling our life here!
Best of all, it's a highly representative democracy, with a complex system of proportional representation which allows even the smallest groups to be represented politically - and even with this system, you'll find almost no xenophobic, right-wing tendencies in the Irish parliament! That's right, Ireland is a fully independent, democratic state, where all views are given representation. Every political and economic alliance that Ireland makes is debated and voted on, directly and indirectly by it's population; everyone gets a say!
Oh, sorry Kev, that's not the Ireland you'd like to live in, is it?0 -
No;)0
-
nesf wrote:Perhaps figure that one out before you start stating anything like it's a fact?
Where did I claim it as a fact? I referred to something I read in David McWilliams' book where he mentioned that the decline in income among black Americans was linked to the liberalising of America's immigration policy in the mid 1960'sScofflaw wrote:Manufacturing Industries - Average weekly earnings of industrial workers in each year (€)
Mass immigration only began in 2005 with the enlargement of the EU and so their influence on wage rates is not likely to show up in a chart which only goes up as far as 2006. If the figures for 2007 were included we might get a better idea. And I wouldn't expect them to show a fall year on year either. Wages will always show an increase to keep in line with inflation. If you look at the increase in the wage rates in that chart you'll see that they match inflation
http://www.rte.ie/business/economyataglance/inflation.html
Regarding the impact of immigration in keeping wages lower than they normally would be, this article by David McWilliams is worth reading
http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2008/04/27/irelands-immigration-party-needs-to-draw-up-a-guest-list
"This is because immigrants, by expanding the labour force, drive the price of houses or rents higher than they would be had the immigrants not arrived. They also drive workers’ wages lower than they would have been had the immigrants not been competing in the jobs market."Another honest admission in an article by a liberal British journalist
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-bnp-votes-are-a-cry-of-white-workingclass-anguish-821139.html
"It’s simply a fact that if you significantly increase the supply of cheap labour, the hourly rate for it comes down: that’s why wages for builders and waitresses and cleaners have barely budged for ten years now. For people on the lowest wages, immigration does depress their wages, and it is wrong to deny this, or wave it away as unimportant."0 -
djpbarry wrote:Actually, there is presently an over-supply of rental properties in this country, with over 266,000 homes lying idle, as of December last year.
So how do you propose we go about freeing up those rental properties?djpbarry wrote:Absolutely; the reason inflation was so high in this country was because so many people were living way beyond their means.
And why were people living beyond their means? Was it not partly due to the availability of cheap credit that led to all that reckless spending?
If we were an independent country outside the eurozone we would be able to set our own interest rates and we'd be able to control inflation. As we're in the EU though we have no choice but to let the ECB set the interest rates that work best for the bigger countries.djpbarry wrote:I'm not sure I understand your logic; you are advocating restrictions on immigration to reduce competition in the labour market, increase wages and therefore, increase inflation.
I'm not advocating that we increase inflation. I'm not even arguing that we increase wages. Wage increases should still be linked mainly to inflation and productivity.
I'm mainly arguing that in a time of recession we'd be much better off if we didn't have so many low-wage immigrants in the country competing with our boys for a shrinking number of available jobs. The issue is not so much to do with wage levels as it is with the possession of the jobs themselves.djpbarry wrote:Where does the stability come from in this scenario?
I didn't say it would produce price stability. Any increase in living costs caused by higher wages will be temporary (similar to the introduction of the minimum wage a few years ago) and so eventually the prices stabilise in line with people's ability to pay.djpbarry wrote:Why do you make the assumption that all immigrants are unskilled workers seeking to "undercut" the natives?
I didn't say they 'seek' to undercut Irish workers.djpbarry wrote:I don’t know – if there isn’t, then it’s likely that many will head elsewhere in search of work. Migration is largely self-regulating
Migration is self-regulating? What about all the Asian immigrants in northern England who immigrated there at a time of booming industry? Did they all just move elsewhere when the supply of jobs dried up? What about all the Turks in Germany. Most of them moved to Germany at a time when their economy was booming and there a massive labour shortage. When the German economy slowed down did they all just move elsewhere?djpbarry wrote:That’s the benefit of having free movement of workers within the EU; people will move from areas of labour surplus to areas of labour shortage.
Really, so which EU countries with labour shortages will all the Polish immigrants move to now that the jobs are disappearing? Sweden and Britain are the only two other countries without restrictions on them and I don't know if either of them have any major labour shortages.
Although, wait, I forgot, you're talking about Irish people. There aren't any restrictions on us so we can move wherever we want in Europe. So we're the people who will move to make way for the immigrants.djpbarry wrote:Many did – according to Wikipedia, there are an estimated 70,000 Irish people in Germany and France; sure aren’t there Irish pubs all over the feckin’ place?!?
How many of those 70,000 people are low-wage workers who had to move because they couldn't find a job in Ireland?djpbarry wrote:Hmm, yeah… I wonder why that could be.
Well it's clearly not because they're in the EU.djpbarry wrote:That is a ridiculous generalisation.
It's a ridiculous generalisation to say that Irish people would rather not emigrate to find work?djpbarry wrote:So it’s a good thing when foreigners emigrate, but it’s a bad thing when Irish people emigrate.
Exactlydjpbarry wrote:I’m starting to think you’re argument has little to do with economics.
I don't see immigration as an economic issue. I see it more as a political and cultural issue. I'm far more concerned about the impact that large-scale immigration will have on our culture and our identity as a nation than I am about it's economic impact.
In saying that though I think it's obvious that there is a strong economic case why restricting access to our labour market would help our workers, particularly now that we're in a recession and there aren't enough jobs to go around.djpbarry wrote:Ok, I’ll tell my wife when I go home.
What did she say when you told her? Does she have family living over in England? Can you ask her to ring them up and ask them as well?djpbarry wrote:what makes the level of immigration in the UK the “correct” level that we should aim for?
It doesn't make it the correct level. I wouldn't be too happy about having as many as Britain is getting either. It would be a massive improvement on what we're getting now though
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6968904.stm
If I was to ask you what is the correct number of children that a married couple should have what would you say? Would you not say that it's a decision that needs to be made by the people who will have to live with those children and that it's not the kind of thing that should be imposed upon them without their consent? Some people might want twelve children while others might only want one. That's a lifestyle choice that they themselves should be allowed to make and we should respect that decision.
The same principle should apply when working out the correct number of immigrants to allow into our country. The correct amount is the amount decided upon by the people who will have to live in the same country as those immigrants. We don't know the exact number that people want to allow in each year but I think there are strong indications that whatever the figure, it is lower than the current level.djpbarry wrote:And what have they predicted for the following years?
I don't know. What have they predicted for the following years?djpbarry wrote:As I have already pointed out, it has been predicted (by the ESRI, I believe) that net emigration will occur in the not-too-distant future.
They predicted it will occur next year but they don't know for sure how many of the people will be foreign and how many will be Irish. And the net decrease of 20,000 next year will not be enough to make up for the increase of 30,000 this year. There's still a net increase of 10,000 people over the two years 2008 and 2009.djpbarry wrote:And why did they do that, do you think?
Mainly because they weren't expecting the numbers to be so high. If you remember back at the the time of the Nice Treaty referendum, politicians were telling us that we had nothing to fear and that we shouldn't expect any more than a few thousand people at the most. Anyone who suggested otherwise was accused of scare-mongering.
Unless of course the politicians did expect the numbers to as high as they turned out to be, in which case they were lying when they claimed otherwise. I prefer not to entertain the thought of Irish politicians being as mendacious as though lying bastards over in Brussels though.0 -
Advertisement
-
How many of those 70,000 people are low-wage workers who had to move because they couldn't find a job in Ireland?
Pretty much every person I've heard of emigrating in the last 5-10 years did so for a job that doesn't exist here. They haven't been displaced by immigrants, they've simply gone to where the jobs are. Granted, it's a skewed sample because I don't think any of them could be fairly categorised as "low wage" workers but it's probably fair to say that there's a decent proportion of that 70,000 who are there by choice, not necessity.I prefer not to entertain the thought of Irish politicians being as mendacious as though lying bastards over in Brussels though.
You're joking right?0 -
IRLConor wrote:Pretty much every person I've heard of emigrating in the last 5-10 years did so for a job that doesn't exist here. They haven't been displaced by immigrants, they've simply gone to where the jobs are. Granted, it's a skewed sample because I don't think any of them could be fairly categorised as "low wage" workers but it's probably fair to say that there's a decent proportion of that 70,000 who are there by choice, not necessity.
That's my point. We don't have a tradition of people emigrating to the contintent in search of jobs when the going gets tough. Irish people are much more likely to move to other English speaking countries even if those countries have restrictions. That's why it's unrealistic to expect thousands of unemployed Irish people to jump on a plane and look for work in other EU countries apart from Britain.IRLConor wrote:You're joking right?
Me? Joke?
Deadly serious old boy! Deadly serious!0 -
Where did I claim it as a fact? I referred to something I read in David McWilliams' book where he mentioned that the decline in income among black Americans was linked to the liberalising of America's immigration policy in the mid 1960'sBlack Americans average income and standard of living increased steadily between the 1920s and the 1960 due to stricter immigration laws in America that protected them from cheaper foreign competition. It was only from the mid 1960s onwards when they decided to throw open the borders that things started to go downhill for the black people. The low-skilled jobs that they would normally have filled were instead taken by the low-cost Mexicans.
You're claiming that there's a definite link between liberalising America's immigration policy and a decrease in the standard of living of Black Americans. That's stating something as a fact. I'm really not sure how it could be interpreted in any other way from your phrasing.0 -
nesf wrote:You're claiming that there's a definite link between liberalising America's immigration policy and a decrease in the standard of living of Black Americans.
What are you talking about? I never said there was a definite link between the two. I was only repeating something I read in the Generation Game. I indicated the origin of the claim and then merely wrote the substance of that claim in the following paragraph. What's wrong with that?nesf wrote:That's stating something as a fact.
I don't think I've restated the claim any differently than it was originally stated in the Generation Game.0 -
That's my point. We don't have a tradition of people emigrating to the contintent in search of jobs when the going gets tough. Irish people are much more likely to move to other English speaking countries even if those countries have restrictions. That's why it's unrealistic to expect thousands of unemployed Irish people to jump on a plane and look for work in other EU countries apart from Britain.
Probably 25% of the people I know who are now living abroad are doing so in non-English-speaking EU countries. About 70% are in London. The remaining 5% are pretty much in the US and Australia.Me? Joke?
Deadly serious old boy! Deadly serious!
I find it extremely hard to believe that anyone could trust an Irish politician over another politician elsewhere.
Aside from Berlusconi I don't know of any EU leader with more clouds over his/her head than Bertie had, and that's just one position within our government.0 -
Restating something you've read somewhere, without indicating that it's a quote and that you disagree with it, is taken to mean that it's a view you're expressing.I indicated the origin of the claim and then merely wrote the substance of that claim in the following paragraph. What's wrong with that?
You're now trying to distance yourself from that view, but equivocally, so that you can later deny that you disagree with it.
Basically you're trolling. If you're not interested in a serious discussion, don't bother contributing.0 -
IRLConor wrote:Probably 25% of the people I know who are now living abroad are doing so in non-English-speaking EU countries. About 70% are in London. The remaining 5% are pretty much in the US and Australia.
Yes, but when did those people emigrate and what were their reasons for emigrating? If they left within the last 5 or 6 years then it's unlikely they were were emigrating to find work they couldn't find here.
The kind of people who emigrate when an economy is doing well are different from the kind of people who emigrate when an economy is in a recession. When the economy is doing well most of the emigrants are people who choose to work in another country. They're usually the kind of people who already speak the language of the country they're moving to. When the economy is in recession however most of the people emigrating are people who wouldn't otherwise choose to move.0 -
Yes, but when did those people emigrate and what were their reasons for emigrating? If they left within the last 5 or 6 years then it's unlikely they were were emigrating to find work they couldn't find here.
They left in the last 5-10 years to get jobs that don't exist here or where the jobs here pay well below what you can get abroad.The kind of people who emigrate when an economy is doing well are different from the kind of people who emigrate when an economy is in a recession. When the economy is doing well most of the emigrants are people who choose to work in another country. They're usually the kind of people who already speak the language of the country they're moving to. When the economy is in recession however most of the people emigrating are people who wouldn't otherwise choose to move.
I can think of one person who have left out of a pure choice. The rest of them did so because they could either get a job which doesn't exist here or because they could get paid way more in another country.
None of the people I know who went to non-English-speaking countries could speak more than a few phrases in the local language.0 -
-
What are you talking about? I never said there was a definite link between the two. I was only repeating something I read in the Generation Game. I indicated the origin of the claim and then merely wrote the substance of that claim in the following paragraph. What's wrong with that?
I don't think I've restated the claim any differently than it was originally stated in the Generation Game.
You didn't indicate that it was a direct quote and didn't offer any analysis or any support for it. If you don't indicate it's merely a quote from someone else, it will be interpreted by other people as your view and you stating something as a fact and people will ask you to back it up. If you want something to just be a quote and not interpreted as your view, indicate it as such and even then you should offer some analysis or even just a reason why you agree or disagree with the author of the quote.0 -
Advertisement
-
You didn't indicate that it was a direct quote and didn't offer any analysis or any support for it. If you don't indicate it's merely a quote from someone else, it will be interpreted by other people as your view and you stating something as a fact and people will ask you to back it up. If you want something to just be a quote and not interpreted as your view, indicate it as such and even then you should offer some analysis or even just a reason why you agree or disagree with the author of the quote.
Old Mac has learned his lesson. It won't happen again. I was wrong to repeat something I read in a book and try to pass it off as a fact.
I should have thought more carefully about whether there was any evidence to back it up.
You can therefore treat that comment about the link between mass immigration and the decline in black Americans' standard of living as being completely unsubstantiated. There is absolutely no evidence to support such a link. Not only that, but it's now obvious from what you wrote in a previous post that there are other more factors that better explain the reason for the fall in their standard of living over the last few decades.0 -
Not only that, but it's now obvious from what you wrote in a previous post that there are other more factors that better explain the reason for the fall in their standard of living over the last few decades.
No, not at all. It's just that you need to account for those other factors before you can talk about immigration as being the cause of the fall in living standards for Black Americans. It's very easy in economics to find correlations between things but economies aren't static backgrounds so a lot of the time where there's these correlations where no real link exists.0 -
I’m not sure what you mean?So how do you propose we go about freeing up those rental properties?
But people would still be crap at managing their finances.If we were an independent country outside the eurozone we would be able to set our own interest rates and we'd be able to control inflation.
And therein lies the problem with your argument; you seem to think that Irish people are more entitled than non-Irish people to any available jobs.I'm mainly arguing that in a time of recession we'd be much better off if we didn't have so many low-wage immigrants in the country competing with our boys for a shrinking number of available jobs.
Imagine (if you’re not already) that you are an employer; would you hire an Irish person ahead of a non-Irish person for a position, even if the non-Irish person was more qualified, had more experience and had better references? If you would, then I dare say your business is not going to do terribly well, as you would be sacrificing productivity and efficiency for nationalism. Furthermore, if every employer was to adopt an Irish-first policy, this would not be at all good for economic growth, seeing as how better candidates are being turned away.
You did say prices would stabilise and you’ve just said it again, but it doesn’t make any sense. And what do you mean by stabilise anyway?I didn't say it would produce price stability. Any increase in living costs caused by higher wages will be temporary (similar to the introduction of the minimum wage a few years ago) and so eventually the prices stabilise in line with people's ability to pay.
If wages are constantly increasing due to the lack of available workers, then prices will increase with people’s ability to pay more (and increased costs). This will eventually lead to Ireland becoming totally uncompetitive in the global market. Where’s the stability?
You didn’t use that particular word, no. Nevertheless, you are ignoring the fact that many immigrants that have come to this country are very well educated.I didn't say they 'seek' to undercut Irish workers.
The UK did indeed experience net emigration in the 60’s and 70’s due to the poor economic performance of the country at the time.Migration is self-regulating? What about all the Asian immigrants in northern England who immigrated there at a time of booming industry? Did they all just move elsewhere when the supply of jobs dried up?
If Polish people wish to leave, they may well return home to their own country, where the economy is currently booming.Really, so which EU countries with labour shortages will all the Polish immigrants move to now that the jobs are disappearing?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/22/africa/poland.php
Suppose they all had degrees; would that not be worse from the perspective of the Irish economy?How many of those 70,000 people are low-wage workers who had to move because they couldn't find a job in Ireland?
It is foolish to assume that:It's a ridiculous generalisation to say that Irish people would rather not emigrate to find work?- All/most immigrants do not intend to settle in Ireland.
- All/most Irish people do not want to emigrate.
I'm far more concerned about the impact that large-scale immigration will have on our culture and our identity as a nation than I am about it's economic impact.
http://www.independent.ie/business/taxi-cab-research-shows-we-have-immigration-issues-1418336.htmlBrendan Keenan wrote:Initial research from the EU Commission shows that -- after the huge problem of people not understanding what they were being asked to vote upon -- the main reason for voting No was, "to protect Irish identity".
As one shrewd observer put it, "This is not about protecting Seamus Heaney or Riverdance. It's about foreign workers."
:rolleyes: I wasn’t serious...What did she say when you told her?
She is the daughter of two immigrants herself (Irish and Pakistani) and has (thankfully) been raised to judge people based on who they are, not on where they come from.
You think immigration policy should be based on the same principles as family planning? I simply do not have the time to point out the long list of flaws in that ridiculous analogy.The same principle should apply when working out the correct number of immigrants to allow into our country.
As for people “deciding” how many immigrants should be allowed enter the country; how do you propose that would work - national referendum?
This is so ludicrous it barely merits a response.I prefer not to entertain the thought of Irish politicians being as mendacious as though lying bastards over in Brussels though.
Plenty of people emigrate to find jobs that don’t even exist here.Yes, but when did those people emigrate and what were their reasons for emigrating? If they left within the last 5 or 6 years then it's unlikely they were were emigrating to find work they couldn't find here.
Can you back this claim up with something please?When the economy is doing well most of the emigrants are people who choose to work in another country. They're usually the kind of people who already speak the language of the country they're moving to.0 -
djpbarry wrote:And therein lies the problem with your argument; you seem to think that Irish people are more entitled than non-Irish people to any available jobs.
Yes, I do think they're more entitled to jobs in the Irish economy than non-Irish people. I think French people are more entitled to jobs in the French economy than non-French people and I think Argentinians are more entitled to jobs in the Argentinian economy than non-Argentinian people.
Where exactly is the problem with that argument?djpbarry wrote:Imagine (if you’re not already) that you are an employer; would you hire an Irish person ahead of a non-Irish person for a position, even if the non-Irish person was more qualified, had more experience and had better references?
If I was an employer my goal would be to maximise profits. To do that I would want to cut costs down to the absolute minimum. I would want to get the greatest amount of work out of my employees for the least amount of money. I wouldn't want any lip out of them either.djpbarry wrote:If you would, then I dare say your business is not going to do terribly well, as you would be sacrificing productivity and efficiency for nationalism.
Efficient and productive like the Germans and the Japanese? The Germans are getting only a fraction of the number of people we're getting each year and they seem to be managing alright.
The Japs have practically no immigration at all and they're probably the most nationalistic and the most productive people in the world. If there's one country in the world I would like to see Ireland modelled on it would be Japan. They've proven that ethnic nationalism works.djpbarry wrote:Furthermore, if every employer was to adopt an Irish-first policy, this would not be at all good for economic growth, seeing as how better candidates are being turned away.
And presumably the same would apply with an EU-first policy? The chances are that there far more highly qualified candidates for jobs outside of the EU than there are in it. Would you therefore support the removal of work restrictions on non-EU citizens? Do you think we should have a completely open market for jobs in this country, where anyone from anywhere in the world should be allowed to apply for any available job on equal terms with an EU citizen?djpbarry wrote:You did say prices would stabilise and you’ve just said it again, but it doesn’t make any sense.
But I didn't say it would produce price stability. Stability would arise eventually but I didn't say that it would arise as a result of restricting immigration.djpbarry wrote:And what do you mean by stabilise anyway?
I mean the absence of any sudden increase in prices.djpbarry wrote:If wages are constantly increasing due to the lack of available workers, then prices will increase with people’s ability to pay more (and increased costs). This will eventually lead to Ireland becoming totally uncompetitive in the global market. Where’s the stability?
Hold on a minute there now, you're getting ahead of yourself. You've made several assumptions there that can't go unchallenged.
First, you're assuming that if we restrict immigration that we'll have a shortage of workers. We're in a recession and so the problem is job shortage not labour shortage. We have plenty of people, we need to get rid of workers, not bring in more. And when the economy does pick up again in a few years we can have a work-permit system that should cover any job shortages that arise.
Second, you're assuming that wage increases will lead to inflation but of course it's not really inflation if both wages and prices rise together. They cancel each other out. Inflation is not really inflation when prices rise at the same rate as wages. If you can demonstrate that there will be an across-the-board increase in inflation that will be higher than the wage increases then we might have something to worry about.
And thirdly, you're assuming that increased wages will lead to Ireland becoming totally uncompetitive. Don't you think that's a bit of an exaggeration? Don't you think there's a difference between being less competitive and being totally uncompetitive?djpbarry wrote:The UK did indeed experience net emigration in the 60’s and 70’s due to the poor economic performance of the country at the time.
And who were the people emigrating?djpbarry wrote:If Polish people wish to leave, they may well return home to their own country, where the economy is currently booming.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/...ica/poland.php
What's the average wage in Poland compared with the average wage here?djpbarry wrote:Initial research from the EU Commission shows that -- after the huge problem of people not understanding what they were being asked to vote upon -- the main reason for voting No was, "to protect Irish identity".
As one shrewd observer put it, "This is not about protecting Seamus Heaney or Riverdance. It's about foreign workers."
http://www.independent.ie/business/t...s-1418336.html
I don't understand what point you're trying to make by linking to that article. If you read it you'll see that the the author is in agreement with me that the EUers should consider addressing Irish people's concerns over im if they want to try to change their minds about the Lisbon treaty. Even though he doesn't like the idea he at least concedes that it might be the lesser of two evils.
It's interesting as well that you try to link anti-immigration views with the ignorant, unenlightened no voters. Are you aware that most yes voters also want to see stricter restrictions on immigration? According to this, 52% of the people polled who voted yes to the Lisbon Treaty think there should be much stricter limits on immigration
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=IRELAND-qqqm=news-qqqid=33932-qqqx=1.asp
That's right, even a majority of the cosmopolitan, enlightened yes voters think that we need stricter limits on immigration. That puts you in a minority of a minority.djpbarry wrote:You think immigration policy should be based on the same principles as family planning?
I do. I believe in the principle of consent.djpbarry wrote:I simply do not have the time to point out the long list of flaws in that ridiculous analogy.
You don't have to list all of them. Can you briefly list two or three of the most obvious ones?djpbarry wrote:As for people “deciding” how many immigrants should be allowed enter the country; how do you propose that would work - national referendum?
If possible, yes. I think people would be more supportive of a second Lisbon Treaty referendum if it was announced that we were to have referendum on immigration on the same day. It would certainly increase voter turnout.0 -
I think it’s illogical, not to mention illegal; EU nationals are entitled to exactly the same employment rights in Ireland as Irish nationals.Yes, I do think they're more entitled to jobs in the Irish economy than non-Irish people. I think French people are more entitled to jobs in the French economy than non-French people and I think Argentinians are more entitled to jobs in the Argentinian economy than non-Argentinian people.
Where exactly is the problem with that argument?
Wow – sounds like fun.If I was an employer my goal would be to maximise profits. To do that I would want to cut costs down to the absolute minimum. I would want to get the greatest amount of work out of my employees for the least amount of money. I wouldn't want any lip out of them either.
I’ll take all that as a ‘no’ then, shall I?
Foreign-nationals in Germany number about 9% of the population – not far off the percentage in Ireland.Efficient and productive like the Germans and the Japanese? The Germans are getting only a fraction of the number of people we're getting each year and they seem to be managing alright.
First of all, there are significant populations of Koreans, Chinese, Filipinos, Brazilians, Peruvians and various other nationalities in Japan. Secondly, in 2007, the Japanese death rate (8.98 per 1,000) exceeded the birth rate (8.10 per 1,000), resulting in a small decline in the population. The birth rate had been declining for years, while the death rate has been increasing. If these trends continue, the population of Japan is set to plummet.The Japs have practically no immigration at all and they're probably the most nationalistic and the most productive people in the world. If there's one country in the world I would like to see Ireland modelled on it would be Japan. They've proven that ethnic nationalism works.
Based on what?The chances are that there far more highly qualified candidates for jobs outside of the EU than there are in it.
In a reciprocal arrangement, yes. For example, US citizens are free to work in the EU, so long as EU citizens are free to work in the US.Would you therefore support the removal of work restrictions on non-EU citizens?
HOW?Stability would arise eventually…
I was speaking generally, rather than referring to present economic conditions.First, you're assuming that if we restrict immigration that we'll have a shortage of workers. We're in a recession and so the problem is job shortage not labour shortage.
When did I say we need to “bring in more workers”?We have plenty of people, we need to get rid of workers, not bring in more.
And how would that system operate exactly?And when the economy does pick up again in a few years we can have a work-permit system that should cover any job shortages that arise.
Yes it is.Second, you're assuming that wage increases will lead to inflation but of course it's not really inflation if both wages and prices rise together.
Inflation: The rise in price of goods and services, or Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Ok, if you must be pedantic, LESS competitive. If the rate of inflation in Ireland is greater than, say, the rate of inflation in the EU, that will result in Ireland becoming less competitive than the EU.Don't you think that's a bit of an exaggeration? Don't you think there's a difference between being less competitive and being totally uncompetitive?
Frank, George, Harry, Mary, Lucy, Judy, Enid…And who were the people emigrating?
You’re missing the point; a job in Poland (or anywhere else for that matter) is better than no job here.What's the average wage in Poland compared with the average wage here?
It was the quote I was emphasising, rather than the article. This is in response to your claim that you are “far more concerned about the impact that large-scale immigration will have on our culture and our identity as a nation than I am about it's economic impact.”I don't understand what point you're trying to make by linking to that article.
I wasn’t trying to make any such link. I was merely using the quote to highlight the fact that people often use terms such as “protecting our identity” when they’re talking about keeping foreign workers out of the country; I don’t even know what “our identity” or “our culture” is.It's interesting as well that you try to link anti-immigration views with the ignorant, unenlightened no voters.
Well, considering 17% of all voters couldn’t even say whether the treaty was good or bad for Ireland, I think any opinions of the Irish electorate have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Besides, when ‘No’ voters were asked specifically why they voted ‘No’, just 1% cited immigration as their main concern (source).Are you aware that most yes voters also want to see stricter restrictions on immigration? According to this, 52% of the people polled who voted yes to the Lisbon Treaty think there should be much stricter limits on immigration
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=IRELAND-qqqm=news-qqqid=33932-qqqx=1.asp
You mean like when the people of Ireland “consented” to joining the EU (and all that it entails)?I do. I believe in the principle of consent.
How about the most obvious one; immigrants are not children? They don’t need you, me or anybody else to look after them.You don't have to list all of them. Can you briefly list two or three of the most obvious ones?
I don’t believe it is possible. Considering that economic conditions vary year-to-year (or even quarter-to-quarter), how often would one of these referenda be required? And what exactly would it entail?If possible, yes.
What would this “referendum on immigration” be asking the electorate, exactly?I think people would be more supportive of a second Lisbon Treaty referendum if it was announced that we were to have referendum on immigration on the same day. It would certainly increase voter turnout.0 -
djpbarry wrote:Foreign-nationals in Germany number about 9% of the population – not far off the percentage in Ireland.
The latest figures I've seen give a figure of between 12% and 14% for Ireland's non-national population. According to this article in the Guardian, there are academics in Dublin who think that it could be as high as 18%
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/04/ireland.immigration
Do you know as well how long it took for Germany's non-national population to reach 9%? Did it all happen within the space of a decade like it has here or did happen more slowly.
And what are the future predictions for the growth in Germany's non-national population? Looking at the differences in the migration levels between Germany and Ireland I don't think we need to worry about being overtaken by the Germans any time soon.
Republic of Ireland
Net migration rate: 11.4 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2006 Census)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_republic_of_ireland
Germany
Net migration rate: 0.49 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2007 est.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germanydjpbarry wrote:First of all, there are significant populations of Koreans, Chinese, Filipinos, Brazilians, Peruvians and various other nationalities in Japan.
The numbers are very low compared with Ireland. The non-national population in Japan is around 2.5 million. Out of a population of 127 million that's less than 2% of the entire population.
It doesn't look that that non-national population is set to rise massively anytime soon either
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan
Net migration rate:
0 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2006 est.)djpbarry wrote:Secondly, in 2007, the Japanese death rate (8.98 per 1,000) exceeded the birth rate (8.10 per 1,000), resulting in a small decline in the population. The birth rate had been declining for years, while the death rate has been increasing. If these trends continue, the population of Japan is set to plummet.
So?
Japan will still be a Japanese country in a hundred years from now, regardless of the size of it's population.djpbarry wrote:Based on what?
Based on the fact that the world's population is over 6 billion and the EU's population only makes up a small fraction of the total. Don't you think it's more likely that in an international labour market an employer is far more likely to find the best woman for the job outside of the EU?
Or maybe you believe that people in the EU are intellectually superior to the rest of the world's population and that it's therefore unnecessary to look beyond it's borders? You might be interested to know that east Asians actually have higher average IQs than the Europeans and they're far better workers than us as well.djpbarry wrote:In a reciprocal arrangement, yes.
So if the Chinese announced that they were removing all work restrictions on EU citizens you would be in favour of the EU lifting all work restrictions on the Chinese?djpbarry wrote:I was speaking generally, rather than referring to present economic conditions.
What about past economic conditions? Are you not suggesting that we continue with an immigration policy that was intended to provide for a labour shortage two or three years ago?
It goes back to a point I made earlier. Considering that the decision to open our labour market was made at a time when we did have labour shortages, wouldn't it make sense for us to reconsider that policy now that those conditions no longer apply?djpbarry wrote:When did I say we need to “bring in more workers”?
You support an immigration system that will see a net increase in our population of 30,000 workers during a year when the number of people out of work is expected to exceed 200,000. Even if there's a net reduction next year, that reduction won't be enough to make up for this years increase. We'll still see a net increase of 10,000 over the two years 2008 and 2009.djpbarry wrote:And how would that system operate exactly?
If an employer can't find a suitably qualified candidate in this country then she'll (nobody ever called old Mac a sexist) be able to apply for a work permit for a candidate from within the EU.djpbarry wrote:Yes it is.
Inflation: The rise in price of goods and services, or Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Yes, in the strict sense of the word inflation is about rising prices. However, when both prices and wages rise at the same rate relative to each other, the effect of the price inflation is cancelled out.djpbarry wrote:If the rate of inflation in Ireland is greater than, say, the rate of inflation in the EU, that will result in Ireland becoming less competitive than the EU.
So would you agree then that Ireland's high rate of inflation over the last few years was not good for our competitiveness?
http://www.rte.ie/business/economyataglance/inflation.html
Maybe we would have been better off out of the eurozone so that we could set our own interest rates and thereby help to reduce that inflation. Wouldn't it help make us more competitive?djpbarry wrote:Frank, George, Harry, Mary, Lucy, Judy, Enid…
All sound like English names to medjpbarry wrote:You’re missing the point; a job in Poland (or anywhere else for that matter) is better than no job here.
Unless they're entitled to receive welfare, and as many of them have been here for at least two years many of them are entitled to welfare payments.
Do you have any good explanation for why all those Poles on the dole didn't return home when they lost their jobs? Could it be because being on the dole here pays better than having a job in Poland?djpbarry wrote:I wasn’t trying to make any such link.
Yes you were. And if you weren't, you explicity made the link in another post below.djpbarry wrote:I was merely using the quote to highlight the fact that people often use terms such as “protecting our identity” when they’re talking about keeping foreign workers out of the country;
That's the first time I've seen anyone claiming that anti-immigration people are actually motivated by economics rather than emotion. It's usually the other way around.
I can assure you old boy, my problem with immigration is emotional and not economic. Even if mass immigration led to the creation of far more than jobs than it took, I would still be agin it.djpbarry wrote:I don’t even know what “our identity” or “our culture” is.
It's hard to define because it's something we've taken for granted for so long. I don't know what "my health" is but I have a vague idea and I know I'll miss it when it's gone. It's the same with Irish identity and Irish culture. I don't know what exactly it is but I know I'll miss it when it's gone. Just as people only really start to value their hair when the start to lose it, so too we'll only really start to value our culture as we start to lose it.djpbarry wrote:Well, considering 17% of all voters couldn’t even say whether the treaty was good or bad for Ireland, I think any opinions of the Irish electorate have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Oh come on now, isn't that argument beginning to sound a bit desperate. As I've pointed out, it wasn't just the ignorant, uneducated no voters who said there should be stricter limits on immigration. 52% of the yes voters also agreed with the statement. I don't think you believe that most yes voters are as bigoted or uninformed as the other side.
And anyway, the poll on immigration had nothing to do with the contents of the Lisbon Treaty. It was separate to the treaty. The only link to it was the people polled were broken down according to how they voted on the treaty.djpbarry wrote:Besides, when ‘No’ voters were asked specifically why they voted ‘No’, just 1% cited immigration as their main concern (source).
That's because the Lisbon Treaty did not deal specifically with immigration.djpbarry wrote:You mean like when the people of Ireland “consented” to joining the EU (and all that it entails)?
Actually the people of Ireland didn't consent to joining the EU. The entity we joined in 1973 was called the EEC and I don't think there was a referendum back then either so I don't know if it would be correct to say the people consented to joining it.djpbarry wrote:How about the most obvious one; immigrants are not children? They don’t need you, me or anybody else to look after them.
Alright, that's one flaw in the analogy. The principle of consent is still sound though. It has universal approval when applied to the future constitutional status of the six-counties. What's wrong with applying it to the future demographic status of the island as a whole?djpbarry wrote:how often would one of these referenda be required?
Whenever there are strong indications (such as opinion polls, demonstrations outside Leinster House, letters to the Times etc.) that people have changed there minds about the numbers. I can't see that happening very often, once every two or three decades at the most.djpbarry wrote:What would this “referendum on immigration” be asking the electorate, exactly?
It would be the same as the poll conducted on those Lisbon Treaty voters. There would be two options and there would be a list of sub-options if they vote to impose stricter limits.Would you like to see the government impose stricter limits on immigration to reduce the number of immigrants entering the country?
1. No
2. Yes
[If you voted yes to the question can you answer this question as well]
What would you consider to be an acceptable level of immigration for Irelanda. None, we have too many here already. We don't need any more
b. A tenth of the current level (7-10,000 people a year)
c. Quarter of the current level (15-20,000 people a year)
d. Half of the current level (35-45,000 a year)
e. Slightly less than the current level0 -
Key word there; ‘could’. But anyway, as I’ve already said, it’s totally irrelevant to me – I’d say at least half of the people who live in my building are non-Irish and I couldn’t care less.According to this article in the Guardian, there are academics in Dublin who think that it could be as high as 18%
But if it’s population drops by such a large amount then the country is obviously going to suffer economically. Personally though, I don’t see this happening. There may be an increase in the birth rate, but I suspect there will be an increase in immigration to Japan, because given the choice between nationalism/ethnic purity and prosperity, the vast majority of people will choose the latter.Japan will still be a Japanese country in a hundred years from now, regardless of the size of it's population.
Possibly, yes; what do you think?Don't you think it's more likely that in an international labour market an employer is far more likely to find the best woman for the job outside of the EU?
Sure; did you not just say yourself that they have (on average) a higher IQ than the average European? They’re “far better workers” too, no?So if the Chinese announced that they were removing all work restrictions on EU citizens you would be in favour of the EU lifting all work restrictions on the Chinese?
The “immigration policy” you are referring to is the free movement of people throughout the EU? If memory serves, we signed up to this in 1973, not two or three years ago.What about past economic conditions? Are you not suggesting that we continue with an immigration policy that was intended to provide for a labour shortage two or three years ago?
Besides, the “policy” you are referring to applies to the whole EU (apart from some short-term exemptions, which I disagree with by the way), not just to Ireland. This has been of benefit to Irish people in the past and will be of benefit to us in the future.
That’s a prediction; let’s not take it as fact. But anyway, you cannot expect migration to follow economic growth exactly – there is bound to be a lag. If someone decides to move to another country, it is unlikely they will make such a decision impulsively. It is far more likely that they will plan this move months, or possibly even years in advance. If their preparations to move are at an advanced stage, they are unlikely to change their plans because economic growth is not what it was when their plans were originally made.You support an immigration system that will see a net increase in our population of 30,000 workers during a year when the number of people out of work is expected to exceed 200,000. Even if there's a net reduction next year, that reduction won't be enough to make up for this years increase. We'll still see a net increase of 10,000 over the two years 2008 and 2009.
A rather brief overview, I must say. Would foreign nationals be permitted to enter Ireland without work permits with a view to finding employment, or would it be necessary for them to secure employment before relocating to Ireland? In other words, would the employer be looking at home or abroad for these foreign nationals requiring permits?If an employer can't find a suitably qualified candidate in this country then she'll (nobody ever called old Mac a sexist) be able to apply for a work permit for a candidate from within the EU.
Aren’t you contradicting yourself here? On one hand you advocate keeping Ireland outside the Eurozone so we can control our own interest rates (which is no guarantee of low inflation), while at the same time you admit that a labour shortage will most likely result in rising wages and hence, inflation. You can’t have it both ways.…when both prices and wages rise at the same rate relative to each other, the effect of the price inflation is cancelled out.
…
Maybe we would have been better off out of the eurozone so that we could set our own interest rates and thereby help to reduce that inflation. Wouldn't it help make us more competitive?
Which Poles are these?Do you have any good explanation for why all those Poles on the dole didn't return home when they lost their jobs?
So why are you attempting to argue against it on an economic basis? Are you essentially admitting now that there are no economic grounds on which to halt immigration?That's the first time I've seen anyone claiming that anti-immigration people are actually motivated by economics rather than emotion.
…
I can assure you old boy, my problem with immigration is emotional and not economic.
So you don’t have a clue? That’s what I thought, but thanks for the wishy-washy bull**** all the same.It's the same with Irish identity and Irish culture. I don't know what exactly it is but I know I'll miss it when it's gone.
Bigoted? Maybe not. Ignorant? Probably.As I've pointed out, it wasn't just the ignorant, uneducated no voters who said there should be stricter limits on immigration. 52% of the yes voters also agreed with the statement. I don't think you believe that most yes voters are as bigoted or uninformed as the other side.
You’ll note that I said “all voters”, not just those who voted ‘No’.
“On 10 May 1972, 70 % of Irish voters went to the polls to vote on the ratification of the Treaty of Accession. The result of the referendum was no surprise: 81 % of the Irish supported entry into the European Economic Community (EEC), the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom) and the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).”Actually the people of Ireland didn't consent to joining the EU. The entity we joined in 1973 was called the EEC and I don't think there was a referendum back then either so I don't know if it would be correct to say the people consented to joining it.
http://www.ena.lu?lang=2&doc=6103
By consenting to join the EU, and consenting to the structural changes of the organisation since our accession, we have consented to the free movement of people within the EU – simple as that.The principle of consent is still sound though. It has universal approval when applied to the future constitutional status of the six-counties. What's wrong with applying it to the future demographic status of the island as a whole?
Your proposal for a referendum on migration whenever it is deemed necessary (by whom?) is simply not practical, because using your logic of “consent”, this principle should be extended to all other policy areas, e.g. health, trade, education, policing, etc. What’s the point in electing representatives if they don’t have the power to make decisions on our behalf?
If this was ever to occur, the government would most likely take action without the need for a referendum. Seeing as how there are no demonstrations outside Leinster House at present (although admittedly, I did not walk down Kildare St today), I see little need for such a referendum (ignoring the impracticalities of such an approach).Whenever there are strong indications (such as opinion polls, demonstrations outside Leinster House, letters to the Times etc.) that people have changed there minds about the numbers.
So suppose 90% of people voted for ‘e’ – what then? Suppose 90% of people vote for ‘a’, but the government is planning to open several new hospitals and there is a requirement for a large number of non-Irish doctors and nurses? Suppose opinion is evenly divided between ‘a’ and ‘d’? Suppose opinion is evenly divided among all five options?a. None, we have too many here already. We don't need any more
b. A tenth of the current level (7-10,000 people a year)
c. Quarter of the current level (15-20,000 people a year)
d. Half of the current level (35-45,000 a year)
e. Slightly less than the current level0 -
djpbarry wrote:Key word there; ‘could’.
Yes, 'could' is the key word. The non-national population 'could' be as high as 18% of the total.
And if it isn't 18% now it's only a matter of time before it will be 18%. Another 5 or 6 years should get us there. I don't want to see that happen and so that's why I want us to restrict immigration. I'm not the only one who thinks that way either.djpbarry wrote:But anyway, as I’ve already said, it’s totally irrelevant to me – I’d say at least half of the people who live in my building are non-Irish and I couldn’t care less.
I'm glad to hear that. So it wouldn't bother you then if we had an immigration policy that resulted in 98% of the population being made up of indigenous Irish people? As it's totally irrelevant to you where people come from I'm sure it won't make any difference to you if most the people you live among are native to the soil?djpbarry wrote:There may be an increase in the birth rate, but I suspect there will be an increase in immigration to Japan, because given the choice between nationalism/ethnic purity and prosperity, the vast majority of people will choose the latter.
The Japs are a proud and patriotic people. They will never let themselves be displaced in their own country. And they would never sacrifice ethnic purity for prosperity. They've proven that it's possible to have both.
And damn it old horse, we'll prove it too! [Old Mac bangs table with fist]djpbarry wrote:Possibly, yes; what do you think?
I think possibly yes as well.djpbarry wrote:Sure; did you not just say yourself that they have (on average) a higher IQ than the average European? They’re “far better workers” too, no?
Exactly and they would be prepared to work for far less than us as well. If they were in a position to compete with Irish people on a level playing field they'd flatten us.djpbarry wrote:The “immigration policy” you are referring to is the free movement of people throughout the EU?
Yes it is. I want to see the law changed to bring that free movement to an end. If we were only getting as many EUers as we were getting back in the 1970s and 1980s then it wouldn't be a problem but if 'free movement' means continuing with the 'free movement' we've seen over the last three years then I vote to bring it to an end.djpbarry wrote:If memory serves, we signed up to this in 1973, not two or three years ago.
We didn't sign up to it in 1973. The free movement of people we signed up to was the free movement of people within the 9 member EEC. I'm not sure if free movement of people was a leading principle of the EEC at the time either. I think the EEC was not much more than a customs union when we signed up to it.djpbarry wrote:Would foreign nationals be permitted to enter Ireland without work permits with a view to finding employment, or would it be necessary for them to secure employment before relocating to Ireland?
They would have to secure employment before moving to Ireland.djpbarry wrote:On one hand you advocate keeping Ireland outside the Eurozone so we can control our own interest rates (which is no guarantee of low inflation)
Raising interest-rates is not a guarantee of low inflation but it is a recognised method of controlling it. Why else did the European Central Bank raise them last week if not in response to the higher than average inflation across the EU? Ireland has had above average inflation over the last few years and that has negatively impacted on our competitiveness. If we weren't in the eurozone we would have been able to take the necessary action to try to control it.
I think we should return to the gold standard.djpbarry wrote:while at the same time you admit that a labour shortage will most likely result in rising wages and hence, inflation.
Again, you're making some unjustified assumptions. First, you're assuming that restricting immigration will lead to a labour shortage and secondly you're assuming that it will lead to inflation.djpbarry wrote:You can’t have it both ways.
Why can't we have it both ways? The increase in inflation caused by higher wages could be balanced by our central bank adjusting interest rates to keep the general level of inflation under control.djpbarry wrote:Which Poles are these?
The Doles on the pole. I read an atricle last week, I'm not sure if it was in the Independent or the Times or on the RTE News site, that said that there are now around 13,000 eastern Europeans on the dole. I haven't been able to find the link to it so you can treat it as unsubstantiated until I do. I just wanted to throw it out there.djpbarry wrote:So why are you attempting to argue against it on an economic basis?
Well I don't think I'd be able to change your mind if I was to argue on an emotional, patriotic basis now would I?djpbarry wrote:Are you essentially admitting now that there are no economic grounds on which to halt immigration?
No, I've explicitly said that there is a strong economic case for restricting immigration. Restricting immigration will take some of the pressure off our infrastruce and our schools, hospitals and prisons. It will also lead to a better deal for the Irish working woman because they won't have to compete for jobs with low-cost east Europeans. It could also lead to a fall in rent prices.djpbarry wrote:That’s a prediction; let’s not take it as fact.
Alright then, let's not take it as fact. Lets not take is as fact either when you say that there will be a net reduction in immigration in the near future because that's just a prediction as well.djpbarry wrote:So you don’t have a clue? That’s what I thought, but thanks for the wishy-washy bull**** all the same.
I didn't say I don't have a clue. I was just trying to say that I wouldn't be able to give an exact definition, the same way I wouldn't be able to give an exact definition of what my health is either. For me, Irish culture is the culture of the indigenous Irish people. If the entire indigenous Irish population started speaking Mandarin Chinese that would be enough to make mandarin Chinese part of Irish culture.djpbarry wrote:Bigoted? Maybe not.
So why are 52% of them in favour of having stricter limits on immigration? There could hardly be any economic reason for them holding that view so that only leaves bigotry and xenophobia as the only other possible motives.djpbarry wrote:Ignorant? Probably.
So what are they ignorant of?djpbarry wrote:“On 10 May 1972, 70 % of Irish voters went to the polls to vote on the ratification of the Treaty of Accession. The result of the referendum was no surprise: 81 % of the Irish supported entry into the European Economic Community (EEC), the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom) and the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).”
http://www.ena.lu?lang=2&doc=6103
Alright then, so there was a referendum back in 1972. I wasn't aware of that. Still, the setup back in 1973 was different from what we have now. The EEC we joined back then was made up of just 9 members in total and all the other countries were richer than us as well so we didn't need to worry about large numbers of workers arriving here.djpbarry wrote:By consenting to join the EU, and consenting to the structural changes of the organisation since our accession, we have consented to the free movement of people within the EU – simple as that.
But isn't it possible that people might have changed their minds about the free movement of people? Like a married woman who is unhappy in her marriage and who wants to withdraw the consent that she originally gave, isn't it possible that people in Europe might be unhappy about the current arrangements and might want to withdraw the consent they originally gave? People change over time. The experiences of the last few years in Ireland just show the dangers of allowing free-movement to tens of millions of low-wage east Europeans. It's not just Irish people either who are concerned about this. I can imagine the Germans and the French will not be too happy that the restrictions they imposed will be coming to an end soon.djpbarry wrote:Your proposal for a referendum on migration whenever it is deemed necessary (by whom?) is simply not practical, because using your logic of “consent”, this principle should be extended to all other policy areas, e.g. health, trade, education, policing, etc.
Immigration is different. Those other policy areas can be discussed openly by our politicians. Immigration can't be discussed openly because of the pressure politicians are under to tow the PC line.djpbarry wrote:What’s the point in electing representatives if they don’t have the power to make decisions on our behalf?
But the elected representatives refuse to discuss immigration and so we can't rely on them to make decisions in the best interests of the Irish people. They can happily discuss health and education and policing but when it comes to immigration they're mute. It might just be because they're the most liberal and enlightened people in the world and that they genuinely do believe that we have nothing to worry about but I think it's far more likely that they share the concerns of most Irish people but that they're afraid to speak out about it because they know how damaging it would be for their careers if they did say anything. The only way we can force them to take action on it is through a secret ballot where the silent majority in this country can let their views be known.djpbarry wrote:I see little need for such a referendum
Why not? Is it because everyone knows what the result will be and that it would therefore be a waste of time? Do you think the government should just go ahead and act on the basis of the most recent opinion polls?djpbarry wrote:So suppose 90% of people voted for ‘e’ – what then?
Then the government would be obligated to adopt an immigration policy that led to a slight reduction of the number of people entering the country. It wouldn't be as open-ended as I worded it above. It's not going to happen anyway, most people will vote for either a or b. I only included e in the list for purposes of balance.djpbarry wrote:Suppose 90% of people vote for ‘a’, but the government is planning to open several new hospitals and there is a requirement for a large number of non-Irish doctors and nurses?
Well then the government would just have to come up with other arrangements. A reduction in immigration would ease the demand for those hospital services anyway and so there wouldn't be as urgent a need for the new hospitals. It will all work out alright in the end.djpbarry wrote:Suppose opinion is evenly divided between ‘a’ and ‘d’? Suppose opinion is evenly divided among all five options?
It won't be, trust me. If the above options were put to the people, most people would vote for either a or b.0 -
That all depends on birth rates and net migration rates, doesn’t it?And if it isn't 18% now it's only a matter of time before it will be 18%. Another 5 or 6 years should get us there.
That would still depend on the nature of the immigration policy; the fact that a certain Irish-born percentage of the population results from a particular policy does not make it inherently good or bad.So it wouldn't bother you then if we had an immigration policy that resulted in 98% of the population being made up of indigenous Irish people?
No they have not – that’s precisely the point. Their population is on the verge of collapse. Without a fairly drastic increase in the birth rate, immigration is the only way they’re going to prevent this from happening. If their population does plummet, their economy (and their lifestyle) is, quite simply, ****ed.The Japs are a proud and patriotic people. They will never let themselves be displaced in their own country. And they would never sacrifice ethnic purity for prosperity. They've proven that it's possible to have both.
Article 39 of the Treaty Establishing the European Communities (signed March 25, 1957):I'm not sure if free movement of people was a leading principle of the EEC at the time either. I think the EEC was not much more than a customs union when we signed up to it.
“1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community.
2. Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
3. It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:
(a) to accept offers of employment actually made;
(b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;
(c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action;
(d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in implementing regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.”
Is that not totally impractical for both employers and employees?They would have to secure employment before moving to Ireland.
We can’t “try” to control it now? Why not?If we weren't in the eurozone we would have been able to take the necessary action to try to control it.
I think this is a reasonable assumption. Developed nations tend to have low birth rates and without immigration, the population would tend to decline e.g. Japan. This will obviously lead to a reduction in the size of the labour force.First, you're assuming that restricting immigration will lead to a labour shortage…
You admitted as much, did you not (see below)?…and secondly you're assuming that it will lead to inflation.
Hang on now; you're saying high wages will result in an increase in inflation? But the Central Bank will control this increase? That doesn't make any sense; either inflation increases or it doesn't.Why can't we have it both ways? The increase in inflation caused by higher wages could be balanced by our central bank adjusting interest rates to keep the general level of inflation under control.
I will.I read an atricle last week, I'm not sure if it was in the Independent or the Times or on the RTE News site, that said that there are now around 13,000 eastern Europeans on the dole. I haven't been able to find the link to it so you can treat it as unsubstantiated until I do.
Could you outline what you mean by “pressure”? I’m particularly interested in this “pressure” on our prisons that you speak of.Restricting immigration will take some of the pressure off our infrastruce and our schools, hospitals and prisons.
Ah yes, the poor little Irish woman – she needs all the help she can get, can’t she? Can’t be sending good, strong, Polish workers into the same labour market as her – that’s just not fair, is it? [/SARCASM]It will also lead to a better deal for the Irish working woman because they won't have to compete for jobs with low-cost east Europeans.
Rent prices are already falling, probably because there is an oversupply of properties on the market.It could also lead to a fall in rent prices.
Eh, isn’t that the same prediction (ESRI research)?Lets not take is as fact either when you say that there will be a net reduction in immigration in the near future because that's just a prediction as well.
Define “indigenous Irish people”.For me, Irish culture is the culture of the indigenous Irish people.
Fair enough – you said it. However, as I already said, the views of any electorate should be taken with a pinch of salt.So why are 52% of them in favour of having stricter limits on immigration? There could hardly be any economic reason for them holding that view so that only leaves bigotry and xenophobia as the only other possible motives.
Ah, come on now. It has been pointed out numerous times on this forum that the majority of people did not understand the Lisbon Treaty on June 12th.So what are they ignorant of?
But other countries did, the UK in particular (from an Irish perspective). I'm sure it also occured to people at the time that migration to Ireland from other EU states would be a possibility at some point in the future.The EEC we joined back then was made up of just 9 members in total and all the other countries were richer than us as well so we didn't need to worry about large numbers of workers arriving here.
It is certainly possible, but we can’t sign an international treaty and then decide that we want some bits of it changed to suit us.But isn't it possible that people might have changed their minds about the free movement of people?
Could you please outline some of these dangers?The experiences of the last few years in Ireland just show the dangers of allowing free-movement to tens of millions of low-wage east Europeans.
Have you ever questioned a TD on the subject? Why don’t you outline your proposals and send them to your local TD?Those other policy areas can be discussed openly by our politicians. Immigration can't be discussed openly because of the pressure politicians are under to tow the PC line … the elected representatives refuse to discuss immigration and so we can't rely on them to make decisions in the best interests of the Irish people.
If so many people share their concerns, as you claim, then why would it be so damaging for them to say what they think? Could it be that they don’t feel the same as you? If so many people feel as you do, then why did these guys do so badly in the last election?…I think it's far more likely that they share the concerns of most Irish people but that they're afraid to speak out about it because they know how damaging it would be for their careers if they did say anything.
It would be a waste of time because the electorate changes its mind depending on what the Daily Mail, Sky News, Declan Ganley, etc. tells them.Why not? Is it because everyone knows what the result will be and that it would therefore be a waste of time?
Such as?Well then the government would just have to come up with other arrangements.
Define “most”. What sort of majority would be required for one particular option to be implemented? What if there is no clear majority?It won't be, trust me. If the above options were put to the people, most people would vote for either a or b.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think this has gone round in circles enough times.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement