36,000 Jobs lost yet mass imigration contines

Rb

Is everyone on the dole required to appear once a week now or...?

Degsy

Rb wrote: »

Is everyone on the dole required to appear once a week now or...?

Yes.
And from now on they have to participate in a dance-off.
People to finish last get thier dole cut.
A fair enough system if you ask me.

djpbarry

Tha Gopher wrote: »

The Brits should not have allowed us to move to their country unchecked.

Why? According to a survey conducted for Channel 4 in 2006, Irish nationals in the UK are less likely to be unemployed than their British counterparts, work longer weeks and earn more per annum (and therefore pay more income tax):

http://www.channel4.com/news/dispatches_pdfs/dispatches_immigrants.pdf

green123 wrote: »

nearly all start out as asylum seekers surely ?
how else can they come here ?

:rolleyes: Yes, all Africans are asylum seekers. They couldn’t possibly have been granted work permits because none of them have any skills or qualifications, do they?

green123 wrote: »

well of all the africans that i know, and again we are talking plenty, almost none could have been headhunted because most of them are working in unskilled jobs at minimium wage.

So you know a few Africans who are unskilled, therefore all Africans are unskilled? Taking Nigerian nationals as an example, of those who have completed their education, 41% have a third-level qualification – that’s substantially higher than Irish nationals (29%). I’m taking those figures from reports compiled from the last census:

http://www.cso.ie/census

green123 wrote: »

how is it possible for so many to go back on holidays, while so many others are coming in the other direction claiming asylum ?

You are aware that Africa is not one big homogenous region, aren’t you? Some regions are perfectly safe, others are not.

Degsy

djpbarry wrote: »

http://www.cso.ie/census
You are aware that Africa is not one big homogenous region, aren’t you? Some regions are perfectly safe, others are not.

And according to the WHO and the Department of Justice Nigeria is a safe country,therefore those who claim to be fleeing persecution are lying.

djpbarry

Degsy wrote: »

And according to the WHO and the Department of Justice Nigeria is a safe country...

Amnesty International might have something to say about that.

Degsy wrote: »

...therefore those who claim to be fleeing persecution are lying.

The US is a relatively safe country, isn't it? So the 654 American refugees living in Canada and Germany (according to UNHCR, 2005) are obviously liars too, aren't they?

Degsy

djpbarry wrote: »

Amnesty International might have something to say about that.
The US is a relatively safe country, isn't it? So the 654 American refugees living in Canada and Germany (according to UNHCR, 2005) are obviously liars too, aren't they?

654 people?
My GOD!!
Thats a HUGE number,especially when the US has a population of somewhere in the region of 300,000,000.
There's probably more people in the USA with two heads than that figure!

djpbarry

Degsy wrote: »

654 people?
My GOD!!
Thats a HUGE number,especially when the US has a population of somewhere in the region of 300,000,000.

That's not really the point, is it? If it's possible for people from "The Land of the Free" to be recognised as refugees, then surely it's possible for people from a country with a questionable human rights record, such as Nigeria, to be recognised as refugees?

markesmith

Isn't it funny how any anti-immigration posts always have poor spelling/grammar? I mean you're Irish, you speak English, learn the damn language!

Anyway, OP, you seem to want a right-wing demagogue in power in this country, yet you're heading off to Australia soon. What's the deal? You want us Irish to be ruled with an iron fist?

asdasd

Isn't it funny how any anti-immigration posts always have poor spelling/grammar? I mean you're Irish, you speak English, learn the damn language!

Not true, of course. There are pleny of well argued, and well written "anti-immigration" posts on this thread ( actually we are not really anti-immigration but opposed to the level at the moment, and during a recession).

There are no well argued posts from the opposite side on here: it comes down to bad argumentation - attack the poster, attack the spelling, or just say the R word.

Take you. You have no argument. Or to put it plainly. Your first sentence - an attack on grammar - is not a substantive argument against the argument even were it true, and the second is an ad hominem on the OP's hypocrisy which is not a substantive argument against his views even were it true that he is hypocritical

markesmith

asdasd wrote: »

Take you. You have no argument.

Nah, that's not true. I'm also opposed to too much immigration, and I agree that we need to take a commonsense approach to it.

But I just think that people saying that "foreynurs taykin our jobs n den steeling rent allowunce" kind of cheapens and degrades the argument, and makes the poster look bad.

Sorry for treading on your toes mate.

CiaranC

asdasd wrote: »

The rant of "xenophobia" is ruling class horse****.

So all working class people oppose the right of working class people to work wherever they want do they?

markesmith

Should we blame the people who choose to utilise these loopholes to make life better for themselves and their families?

Or should we blame the incompetent bloody fools who manage this system?

I say the latter.

djpbarry

asdasd wrote: »

There are pleny of well argued, and well written "anti-immigration" posts on this thread ( actually we are not really anti-immigration but opposed to the level at the moment, and during a recession).

Might I ask what this "current level" is that you are referring to? Because in December, the ESRI forecast net emigration of 50,000 in 2009 (inward migration of 25,000). We have not seen migration figures like those in this country for at least 20 years (if ever).

K-9

djpbarry wrote: »

Might I ask what this "current level" is that you are referring to? Because in December, the ESRI forecast net emigration of 50,000 in 2009 (inward migration of 25,000). We have not seen migration figures like those in this country for at least 20 years (if ever).

I do find it strange when people moan about immigration in times of emigration.

Degsy

djpbarry wrote: »

That's not really the point, is it? If it's possible for people from "The Land of the Free" to be recognised as refugees, then surely it's possible for people from a country with a questionable human rights record, such as Nigeria, to be recognised as refugees?

The land of the free has over 2 million people in prison.

We have a system to weed out bogus refugees in case you hadnt noticed,and 98% of them appear to be bogus.

asdasd

We have not seen migration figures like those in this country for at least 20 years (if ever).

Any immigration in a recession is odd, is it not? Obviously there are people will skillz who we need if we do not have it internally, but the OP mentioned 8K a month. If that figure is false, or exaggerated, then we have no problem.

If not, we do.

I dont buy the immigration will totally cease naturally argument, nor do I think the ESRI - which has hardly been accurate to date on anything - is correct with their figures. Where would the 50K go to? Is Australia going to take them all? Or argentina?

This is not the Eighties where Ireland is recession bound on it's own ( actually we had on year of recession, but far too many of slow growth) and everybody else had massive demand for labour. Some construction workers may go to the UK to work on the Olympics, I dont know. Nor is it certain that all immigrants will leave, if conditions deteriorate further in Eastern Europe ( check out Latvia).

asdasd

So all working class people oppose the right of working class people to work wherever they want do they?

I'd be surprised if anyone who actually has to compete for work would agree with the right of other workers to compete with them, unrestrictedly, and from anywhere in the world. This would be demanding your impoverishment. Which is dumb. That said, when ideologies are laced with moralism ( IT IS RACIST TO CARE ABOUT YOUR JOB) some might. And the protected classes control the media, and will display any attempts by workers as xenophobia. Good example by the BBC recently.

The 10 o'clock news bulletin on Monday night carried a voiceover by the BBC's political editor, Nick Robinson, who said : "Beneath the anger, ministers fear, lies straightforward xenophobia." Viewers then heard a worker tell a BBC reporter: "These Portuguese and Eyeties – we can't work alongside of them."

But when the same interview with the same worker was shown on Newsnight later that night, he was quoted more fully, changing the meaning of his words.

Viewers heard the worker state: "These Portuguese and eyeties – we can't work alongside of them: we're segregated from them. They're coming in full companies."

The Tristrams, needless to say, are not competing for jobs with immigrants, in general.

djpbarry

Degsy wrote: »

The land of the free has over 2 million people in prison.

Eh, ok .

Degsy wrote: »

We have a system to weed out bogus refugees in case you hadnt noticed,and 98% of them appear to be bogus.

Shifting the goal posts again, eh? You have stated that any Nigerian national claiming asylum must be bogus, yet according to the UNHCR, there were over 22,000 Nigerians recognised as refugees worldwide in 2005 - are they all liars?

djpbarry

asdasd wrote: »

Any immigration in a recession is odd, is it not?

No, not really; I’d be very surprised if immigration dropped to zero!

asdasd wrote: »

Obviously there are people will skillz who we need if we do not have it internally, but the OP mentioned 8K a month. If that figure is false, or exaggerated, then we have no problem.

The 8k refers to the number of PPS numbers issued to non-Irish nationals in January, not the number of immigrants to Ireland in that time.

asdasd wrote: »

I dont buy the immigration will totally cease naturally argument…

Nobody has suggested that it will. What we can be reasonably sure of is that it will decline drastically – Ireland is not exactly an attractive destination right now.

asdasd wrote: »

…nor do I think the ESRI - which has hardly been accurate to date on anything - is correct with their figures. Where would the 50K go to?

I would imagine a large chunk would be foreign nationals returning home (I’m not saying all foreign nationals will leave), with quite a large number of skilled Irish nationals in the mix too. While the global economic outlook is pretty bleak at the moment, Ireland’s case is exceptional – our unemployment rate is soaring above the EU average.

HashSlinging

Whats the problem, we are going to need as much help as possible to get us out of this mess.

Polish for the DAIL FTW!!

Degsy

djpbarry wrote: »

Eh, ok .
Shifting the goal posts again, eh? You have stated that any Nigerian national claiming asylum must be bogus, yet according to the UNHCR, there were over 22,000 Nigerians recognised as refugees worldwide in 2005 - are they all liars?

22,000 out of a population of 140,000,000.
There are probably more people in nigeria with two heads than that.

BTW,2005 would've been before a lot of places started tightening up thier immigration policies and stopped believing bullshiit stories,so yes,a substantial amount of them would be liars,yes.

Chumpski

KerranJast wrote: »

There are jobs. Irish people are just too stuck up to take menial work. They'd rather sponge off the Dole and watch Ricki Lake than clean toliets.

Come on! That is a bit of a generalisation don't you think. There are plenty of people out there who are finding it difficult to find jobs due to qualifications, etc. By the way i don't agree with the OP.

Degsy

Chumpski wrote: »

There are plenty of people out there who are finding it difficult to find jobs due to qualifications, etc.

What does that mean?

I think there are a lot of people who wont seek work they now consider beneath them.
For example are the IT "professionals" as they see themselves going to seek in retail?

djpbarry

Degsy wrote: »

BTW,2005 would've been before a lot of places started tightening up thier immigration policies and stopped believing bullshiit stories,so yes,a substantial amount of them would be liars,yes.

:rolleyes: Indeed.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote:

Might I ask what this "current level" is that you are referring to? Because in December, the ESRI forecast net emigration of 50,000 in 2009 (inward migration of 25,000). We have not seen migration figures like those in this country for at least 20 years (if ever).

We're unlikely to see that figure this year either. 25,000 a year is just over 2,100 a month. We can see that the figure for January of this year could be as high as 8,000 people. Even if half of those arrived here in the previous months it's still very high when you consider that we're in the middle of a severe recession. If 4,000 a month continues for the other eleven months then we could see immigration reach 50,000 this year, double the number estimated by the ESRI. That's far too high in my opinion. With predictions that unemployment could reach 400,000 this year we simply don't have enough jobs to go around.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Degsy wrote: »

22,000 out of a population of 140,000,000.
There are probably more people in nigeria with two heads than that.

BTW,2005 would've been before a lot of places started tightening up thier immigration policies and stopped believing bullshiit stories,so yes,a substantial amount of them would be liars,yes.

Are you serious? Unfortunately, I know you are... How do you know that a substantial amount of them are liars? You are speculating again... stop it.

Degsy wrote: »

What does that mean?

I think there are a lot of people who wont seek work they now consider beneath them.
For example are the IT "professionals" as they see themselves going to seek in retail?

Wrong...

K-9

O'Morris wrote: »

We're unlikely to see that figure this year either. 25,000 a year is just over 2,100 a month. We can see that the figure for January of this year could be as high as 8,000 people. Even if half of those arrived here in the previous months it's still very high when you consider that we're in the middle of a severe recession. If 4,000 a month continues for the other eleven months then we could see immigration reach 50,000 this year, double the number estimated by the ESRI. That's far too high in my opinion. With predictions that unemployment could reach 400,000 this year we simply don't have enough jobs to go around.

It has been pointed out repeatedly that they can't claim welfare until they are here 2 years and immigrants are losing jobs left, right and centre.

Degsy

Martin Clever Tonic wrote: »

Are you serious? Unfortunately, I know you are... How do you know that a substantial amount of them are liars? You are speculating again... stop it.



Wrong...

Well according to stats published by the Dept of justice 98% are indeed bogus.
Would that statistic not apply globally too?

So I'm wrong that people arent applying for jobs they see as "beneath them"?

Funny,i've heard of loads.

O'Morris

K-9 wrote:

It has been pointed out repeatedly that they can't claim welfare until they are here 2 years

They're still able to compete for the available jobs with people here alright though and that extra competition is making it much more difficult for people on the dole to get back into employment.

K-9 wrote:

and immigrants are losing jobs left, right and centre.

Including many immigrants who have been here for over 2 years and who are entitled to receive welfare?

Chumpski

Degsy wrote: »

What does that mean?

I think there are a lot of people who wont seek work they now consider beneath them.
For example are the IT "professionals" as they see themselves going to seek in retail?

No doubt there are people like that. You won't find any argument from me that there isn't. I was pointing out that there are also genuine people on the dole looking for work but can't find any due to qualifications and are not sitting at home watching Rikki Lake but are doing there best to get work.

There are alot of people yeah, maybe... But tarring the everybody on the dole with the same brush isn't very fair now is it?

K-9

O'Morris wrote: »

They're still able to compete for the available jobs with people here alright though and that extra competition is making it much more difficult for people on the dole to get back into employment.

If they can't get SW or jobs.......................................

O'Morris wrote:

Including many immigrants who have been here for over 2 years and who are entitled to receive welfare?

I'd assume so. Many are emigrating too.

Degsy

Chumpski wrote: »

There are alot of people yeah, maybe... But tarring the everybody on the dole with the same brush isn't very fair now is it?

Thats not waht i was doing.
There are still plenty of jobs out there,just some people might not like having to apply for them.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

We can see that the figure for January of this year could be as high as 8,000 people.

Once again, the 8k figure refers to the number of non-Irish nationals who applied for PPS numbers in January, not the number of new arrivals. It’s not very accurate to attempt to derive one from the other, as the number of PPS numbers issued is usually far higher than the number of immigrants received in a given period.

Degsy wrote: »

Well according to stats published by the Dept of justice 98% are indeed bogus.
Would that statistic not apply globally too?

Shifting the goalposts yet again. Who exactly is it that you are accusing of being liars? Refugees? Immigrants? Asylum seekers? Failed asylum seekers? All Nigerian nationals? Which is it?

Mena

Degsy wrote: »

Thats not waht i was doing.
There are still plenty of jobs out there,just some people might not like having to apply for them.

Problem is, all you get in response then is "Sorry, you're overqualified".

Degsy

djpbarry wrote: »

Shifting the goalposts yet again. Who exactly is it that you are accusing of being liars? Refugees? Immigrants? Asylum seekers? Failed asylum seekers? All Nigerian nationals? Which is it?

Whats the problem with youand goalposts?
Also trying to skew things..i was very specific when i was refering to NIGERIAN ASYLUM SEEKERS.

I like your stat about the 600 american asylum cases throughout the world..it lends you no end of creedence!:rolleyes:

javaboy

Degsy wrote: »

I like your stat about the 600 american asylum cases throughout the world..it lends you no end of creedence!:rolleyes:

The point was that just because the WHO say a country is safe, it doesn't necessarily mean that there can be no genuine asylum seekers from that country. It was a fairly simple point I thought.

pcardin

Mena wrote: »

Problem is, all you get in response then is "Sorry, you're overqualified".

... or in most of cases you are not geting any response at all...

djpbarry

Degsy wrote: »

...i was very specific when i was refering to NIGERIAN ASYLUM SEEKERS.

Well then, we can disregard this post, in which you claimed a substantial number of the 22,000 Nigerian refugees in the world (as of 2005) are liars, seeing as how it's actually asylum seekers that you are referring to.

Degsy wrote: »

I like your stat about the 600 american asylum cases throughout the world...

American refugees actually, not asylum seekers. The relevant document from the UNHCR is attached if you wish to verify.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote: »

Once again, the 8k figure refers to the number of non-Irish nationals who applied for PPS numbers in January, not the number of new arrivals. It’s not very accurate to attempt to derive one from the other, as the number of PPS numbers issued is usually far higher than the number of immigrants received in a given period.

I think we both know that that 8k figure is mostly made up of people who are newly arrived in the country. Even if it isn't though we can still see how this year's figure compares to last year's figure to get an idea of trends.

The total number of PPS numbers issued in the month of January last year was 24,086
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Topics/PPSN/Pages/ppsn_all_month08.aspx

The figure for this year was 17532. Lower than last year but hardly a sign of a massive fall in numbers either. Even though we're in the middle of a recession we're still seeing huge numbers of non-nationals applying to work here.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

I think we both know that that 8k figure is mostly made up of people who are newly arrived in the country.

It's possible, but we don't know for sure. But it's irrelevant, because over the last number of years (2002-2007), the number of PPS numbers issued to non-Irish nationals (756,781) has drastically exceeded the recorded number of immigrants received in that time (approximately 440,000).

O'Morris wrote: »

The total number of PPS numbers issued in the month of January last year was 24,086
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Topics/PPSN/Pages/ppsn_all_month08.aspx

The figure for this year was 17532. Lower than last year but hardly a sign of a massive fall in numbers either.

Actually, if we exclude Irish nationals from those figures, that represents a drop of over 40% - I would say that's pretty significant, wouldn't you? If we compare to Jan '07, the drop is even larger again: approximately 57%.

Tha Gopher

djpbarry wrote: »

Why? According to a survey conducted for Channel 4 in 2006, Irish nationals in the UK are less likely to be unemployed than their British counterparts, work longer weeks and earn more per annum (and therefore pay more income tax):

What in the name of god that does that prove? What exactly does that have to do with England in the 80s?

Are you honestly saying that every Irishman in England in the 80s was working a job that none of the people on the dole wanted?

djpbarry

Tha Gopher wrote: »

What in the name of god that does that prove?

It doesn't "prove" anything. It does however provide evidence that the Irish contribution to British economic wellbeing has been substantial, i.e. Irish migration has, in general, been good for Britain.

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Are you honestly saying that every Irishman in England in the 80s was working a job that none of the people on the dole wanted?

Eh, no?

K-9

djpbarry wrote: »

It doesn't "prove" anything. It does however provide evidence that the Irish contribution to British economic wellbeing has been substantial, i.e. Irish migration has, in general, been good for Britain.

Deathly silence.

billy the squid

If you really believe that the issuing of PPS numbers is an indication of the number of foreign nationals coming here to sign on the dole then you are an idiot.

You need a PPS number in order to work here too, it is used for claiming tax and paying tax.

You have to be working here two years before you can gat any welfare, and even at that you are claiming what was once known as stamps, which is their own money.

So could the xenophobes please fcuk off back under their rocks.

javaboy

Tone it down billy

snubbleste

According to the latest unemployment figures 327,681 are signing-on in January, of which:

• 263,527 are Irish
• 35,826 are EU accession states
• 14,807 are UK
• 10,050 are other nationalities
• 3,651 are EU15

Non-Irish nationals represented 19.6% of all persons on the Live Register in January 2009.
Estimates from the Quarterly National Household Survey for June to August 2008 show that non-Irish nationals represented an estimated 16.1% of all persons in the labour force aged between 17 and 65 years (the relevant age range for the Live Register).

Guy:Incognito

The thread may have moved on , I havnt looked at it in a few days and only workign my way through now.

diverdriver wrote: »

Simple answer: They can't. A genuine asylum seeker wouldn't. A false asylum seeker would have to explain where they went but in any case they would be stopped at the airport on the way back here.

I think there's a common misconception here that all Africans are asylum seekers. That's not true. Most Africans you see are here quite legally. As such they have every right to go home on holidays. This I think is also how the myth came about that asylum seekers are given cars. People would see an African driving a car, assume that they were asylum seekers, put two and two together and made three.

The other thing to remember is that once granted asylum, people can come and go as they please. I had a friend who fled Croatia during the war and got asylum here. He eventually went back when things had settled. But he brought a gun with him just in case.

See the problem with these "misconceptions" is when they are coming from and being openly laughed about by the "asylum seekers". One of the lads I work with (I know him all my life, we are related through marriage, so not just some guy I met in work) has a house thats rented to one such woman, through the social welfare. She has no issue with claiming the €1150 a month rent as well as whatever other "income" she can get. She was only too proud to announce to him last month that she got her new car and he has to come outside to have a look (08 Mazda 5).

Where can I sign up to have a mortgage paid for so I can buy a new car?

His last tennant had no issue tellign him he has been all aorund Europe for 7 years before settling on Ireland. He went home for holidays, and laughed about the social having bought him a car (an old corrolla but a free car nonetheless).

Thats one guys experience with the only 2 tennants he's had since buying the house, he must be extremely lucky to have happened upon these two?

The problem start arrising when "common misconceptions" arent misconceptions at all.

K-9

snubbleste wrote: »

According to the latest unemployment figures 327,681 are signing-on in January, of which:

• 263,527 are Irish
• 35,826 are EU accession states
• 14,807 are UK
• 10,050 are other nationalities
• 3,651 are EU15

Non-Irish nationals represented 19.6% of all persons on the Live Register in January 2009.
Estimates from the Quarterly National Household Survey for June to August 2008 show that non-Irish nationals represented an estimated 16.1% of all persons in the labour force aged between 17 and 65 years (the relevant age range for the Live Register).

Send the Brits home.

What did they ever do for us?

meathstevie

trailerparkboy wrote: »

Freedom of movement? I think not my friend , Ireland the u.k and sweden were the only 3 countries that allowed freedom of movement of labour, the other 12 european countries didnt allow it. So dont be telling me about free movement of labour in the E.U, when we were the most affected by this policy and the other 13 excluded the freedom of labour.

Freedom of movement dates from the Maastricht Treaty, which was 1992 fyi, the countries you are refering to are the ones who didn't impose restrictions on freedom of movement after the most recent EU enlargement which by my reckoning was well after 1992.

djpbarry

Stekelly wrote: »

See the problem with these "misconceptions" is when they are coming from and being openly laughed about by the "asylum seekers". One of the lads I work with (I know him all my life, we are related through marriage, so not just some guy I met in work) has a house thats rented to one such woman, through the social welfare. She has no issue with claiming the €1150 a month rent as well as whatever other "income" she can get. She was only too proud to announce to him last month that she got her new car and he has to come outside to have a look (08 Mazda 5).

Where can I sign up to have a mortgage paid for so I can buy a new car?

I’m curious to here the answer to this myself. I’m equally curious to know how an asylum seeker, who is paid a whopping €19 per week, can afford a brand new car?

Stekelly wrote: »

His last tennant had no issue tellign him he has been all aorund Europe for 7 years before settling on Ireland.

How does that make him an asylum seeker?

Stekelly wrote: »

He went home for holidays, and laughed about the social having bought him a car (an old corrolla but a free car nonetheless).

Who do I talk to about getting my free car? My wife’s non-Irish, so I’m guessing I qualify?

Stekelly wrote: »

The problem start arrising when "common misconceptions" arent misconceptions at all.

No, the problems start when people start believing everything they read on an internet forum.