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
Immigration.
Options
Comments
-
KINGVictor wrote: »I do not intend to quote you out of context,but it is false to say Ireland is new to immigration...to non caucasians ..yes..but we have historically had italians,germans immigrate to Ireland and if you consider Paul McGrath an Immigrant or Black despite the fact his mother was Irish...well that explains a lot.
Let us assume that Immigration "is new to the Irish"...what are you going to say to the world...give us 60 years to get used to immigration and maybe perharps we would start treating them with some decency and fairness...this is 2009...no one has patience for such daft excuses.Immigration is new to Ireland supposedly but we have been Immigrants ourselves to a lot of countries so it is not entirely foreign to us ....we can adequately utilize our experiences to determine the best way to deal with immigration....such as and tolerance,understanding,wisdom,empathy fairness.
I am not getting into an argument on the ethnicity of Paul McGrath. I dont consider him to be anything other than one of the greatest footballing talents this country has ever produced. I was merely making a point, one you seem to have missed.
The numbers of Italians and Germans who came here were relatively small in comparison to the large scale immigration we have experienced in recent years. The fact that they were white did make it easier. Its true so there is no point in avoiding the point. Immigration is easier for Irish people to accept if those immigrants are white. Its racist and wrong but it s true.
The rest of the world has no moral high ground to take on this issue. Every country has racism in some form or another and you dont have to look far to find it.
We do have a history of emigration, but most of those people have not returned to live here so how we can benefit from the knowledge they may of gained???
Tolerance,understanding,wisdom,empathy fairness work both ways. What about adapting to new surroundings and embracing the culture of the society you choose to live in?? Irish people kept their own identities when they left but they didnt force other societies to fit in with their beliefs.0 -
Taxipete29 wrote: »I am not getting into an argument on the ethnicity of Paul McGrath. I dont consider him to be anything other than one of the greatest footballing talents this country has ever produced. I was merely making a point, one you seem to have missed.
The numbers of Italians and Germans who came here were relatively small in comparison to the large scale immigration we have experienced in recent years. The fact that they were white did make it easier. Its true so there is no point in avoiding the point. Immigration is easier for Irish people to accept if those immigrants are white. Its racist and wrong but it s true.
The rest of the world has no moral high ground to take on this issue. Every country has racism in some form or another and you dont have to look far to find it.
We do have a history of emigration, but most of those people have not returned to live here so how we can benefit from the knowledge they may of gained???
Tolerance,understanding,wisdom,empathy fairness work both ways. What about adapting to new surroundings and embracing the culture of the society you choose to live in?? Irish people kept their own identities when they left but they didnt force other societies to fit in with their beliefs.
Very true, America forces people into accepting their economic beliefs and socisl ones when they move here, European liberals don't.0 -
Mixing of different genes is good for the species up to a point(Africa has more genetic diversity than anywhere on earth), but not to a point when all so called 'caucasian' genes in a minority are wiped out. I wouldn't really agree that it's to do with colonialism. After all although those relationships were based on self-interest of the colonizing countries, there was noble intent of a mutually beneficial strategy, ie they would get more economic benefits and stabilise more with European influence, and to be absolutely frank, they did. They've gotten worse off since they became independent.
It's got nothing to do with eugenicists because they never acted upon their beliefs and never had any power.
Oh wait, it was everything to do with Eugenics. Though it was used more as an excuse for their acts but that was the reason they almost wiped out the native americans and native australians so that their superior white race could have a new land to survive. To expand Britain according to as "God would have liked it" by fighting the "devil" which were the indigenous people of the new world.
This was the case with America and Australia (and South Africa and Zimbabwe to an extent) which were new lands where they managed to wipe out the natives and set their own society.
And then in Australia especially Eugenics was big where the only way to preserve the natives was to breed with them and send their kids to live in the church before they get a chance to be brought up as a native.
In the other countries, where there were pre-existing societies like India, Indonesia, Latin America, much of Africa, they just drained those countries of their wealth and left them to rot after they were done.
And so all of European wealth is plundered wealth.
And all this has little to do with this thread.
But just to prove that them people in the BNP are a bunch of ignorant dip****s stuck up their own asses.
If you don't want outsiders into your society, then you make sure you don't go into theirs either.
And the tables are turned. Soon Europe will be looking east towards Asia for help. We have ruined our economy while they have build theirs.
I'ld say in 10 years we'ld be immigrants in places like Singapore, Korea, Taiwan etc.
What about that aye?!0 -
Did you know if you take all the people in the world (which is around 8billion) and put them side by side, they'ld take up and area the size of the state of Texas...??johnathan woss wrote: »The pink elephant in the room here is that the world is over-populated.
Yup... That doesn't seem like a big area right?
And yes, it isn't. Cuz guess what?! The world isn't over populated!!
Its only we haven't managed to cope with the growth in population yet. Probably cuz we have become too lazy.0 -
af_thefragile wrote: »Did you know if you take all the people in the world (which is around 8billion) and put them side by side, they'ld take up and area the size of the state of Texas...??
Yup... That doesn't seem like a big area right?
And yes, it isn't. Cuz guess what?! The world isn't over populated!!
Its only we haven't managed to cope with the growth in population yet. Probably cuz we have become too lazy.
I think you will find its more to with resources than space.0 -
Advertisement
-
Taxipete29 wrote: »I think you will find its more to with resources than space.
And that we have too.
We've just become too lazy to utilize it.
Or we more likely, we don't wanna share it!!
Look at Hong Kong, Bejing, New York, Los Angeles.
How do they manage to survive???
Especially Hong Kong. Thats a tiny island with almost no resources with a population of over 7million. Over 6000 people living per square kilometer.
Monaco, which you could consider the richest country on earth, population density of over 16,000 people per square kilometer. How many people say Monaco is overpopulated???
They manage to do it. Why can't the rest of the world??
Stop complaining and learn to adjust!!0 -
af_thefragile wrote: »And that we have too.
We've just become too lazy to utilize it.
Or we more likely, we don't wanna share it!!
Look at Hong Kong, Bejing, New York, Los Angeles.
How do they manage to survive???
Especially Hong Kong. Thats a tiny island with almost no resources with a population of over 7million. Over 6000 people living per square kilometer.
Monaco, which you could consider the richest country on earth, population density of over 16,000 people per square kilometer. How many people say Monaco is overpopulated???
They manage to do it. Why can't the rest of the world??
Stop complaining and learn to adjust!!
How do YOU think New York survives ?
Could it have anything to do with the fact that the city imports almost ALL its food, electricity, water, oil, finished products, etc, etc, etc ???0 -
In fact, New York illustrates my point perfectly !0
-
af_thefragile wrote: »Oh wait, it was everything to do with Eugenics. Though it was used more as an excuse for their acts but that was the reason they almost wiped out the native americans and native australians so that their superior white race could have a new land to survive. To expand Britain according to as "God would have liked it" by fighting the "devil" which were the indigenous people of the new world.
This was the case with America and Australia (and South Africa and Zimbabwe to an extent) which were new lands where they managed to wipe out the natives and set their own society.
In the other countries, where there were pre-existing societies like India, Indonesia, Latin America, much of Africa, they just drained those countries of their wealth and left them to rot after they were done.
And so all of European wealth is plundered wealth.
But just to prove that them people in the BNP are a bunch of ignorant dip****s stuck up their own asses.
If you don't want outsiders into your society, then you make sure you don't go into theirs either.
!
Sorry but you are wrong. By the time people were wiping out indigenous people they were no longer British citizens. Actually the empuire wanted to bring British values and education and language to countries and engage in mutually benefical economic relationships with countries, arrogant you might say, overbearing you might say, but not quite as evil as people make out. To say that 'All of European wealth is plundered wealth' is nonsense.
Look at the depression, the two world wars, and the horrors Europeans had to recover from. We bounced back pretty damn quick economically. We did not drain those countries and leave them to rot, as I say the economics wer based on self interest but mutually beneficial, and they have gotten worse since we left. As for the outsiders point, well multiculturalism is a western idea. There are not to many Islamic or African countries that embrace multiculturalism, Africa and the west-indies have black on white racism, hell even the far-east has racial supremacists in significant numbers who want to maintain their racial purity. I just don't like when people try and demonise the white man as responsible for all the worlds ills and racism. How do you explain far-eastern wealth anyway? That's not plundered from Africa.
Slavery is another one, Africans were using other Africans as slaves and still do before white people ever did, India has the caste system etc etc.0 -
af_thefragile wrote: »And that we have too.
We've just become too lazy to utilize it.
Or we more likely, we don't wanna share it!!
Look at Hong Kong, Bejing, New York, Los Angeles.
How do they manage to survive???
Especially Hong Kong. Thats a tiny island with almost no resources with a population of over 7million. Over 6000 people living per square kilometer.
Monaco, which you could consider the richest country on earth, population density of over 16,000 people per square kilometer. How many people say Monaco is overpopulated???
They manage to do it. Why can't the rest of the world??
Stop complaining and learn to adjust!!
Its not about sharing. Nobody in the places you listed shares. They trade. They are wealthy cities and if your are poor you get left behind.0 -
Advertisement
-
^And if you can study and get a degree, there are enough businesses in those countries for you to get a job and not get left behind!!johnathan woss wrote: »How do YOU think New York survives ?
Could it have anything to do with the fact that the city imports almost ALL its food, electricity, water, oil, finished products, etc, etc, etc ???
And there still is enough resources around to feed everyone on the planet.
Look at the amount of uncultivated lands around the world.
Socialism is putting farmers out of business.
There are ways to fuel the planet, produce enough food and resources for every single person on the planet.
But we won't do that. Cuz we don't have the money.
But isn't money nothing but just worthless pieces of paper?!!0 -
af_thefragile wrote: »^And if you can study and get a degree, there are enough businesses in those countries for you to get a job and not get left behind!!
And there still is enough resources around to feed everyone on the planet.
Look at the amount of uncultivated lands around the world.
Socialism is putting farmers out of business.
There are ways to fuel the planet, produce enough food and resources for every single person on the planet.
But we won't do that. Cuz we don't have the money.
But isn't money nothing but just worthless pieces of paper?!!
You say that socialism is putting farmers out of business and then you talk about socialist ideals such as feeding everyone. I think your confused
How do you study and get a degree if you have no money for college??0 -
Sorry but you are wrong. By the time people were wiping out indigenous people they were no longer British citizens. Actually the empuire wanted to bring British values and education and language to countries and engage in mutually benefical economic relationships with countries, arrogant you might say, overbearing you might say, but not quite as evil as people make out. To say that 'All of European wealth is plundered wealth' is nonsense.
Look at the depression, the two world wars, and the horrors Europeans had to recover from. We bounced back pretty damn quick economically. We did not drain those countries and leave them to rot, as I say the economics wer based on self interest but mutually beneficial, and they have gotten worse since we left. As for the outsiders point, well multiculturalism is a western idea. There are not to many Islamic or African countries that embrace multiculturalism, Africa and the west-indies have black on white racism, hell even the far-east has racial supremacists in significant numbers who want to maintain their racial purity. I just don't like when people try and demonise the white man as responsible for all the worlds ills and racism. How do you explain far-eastern wealth anyway? That's not plundered from Africa.
Slavery is another one, Africans were using other Africans as slaves and still do before white people ever did, India has the caste system etc etc.
But where did Britain get its wealth from??
Don't say it wasn't from the diamond mines in South Africa and Silk Production of India.
Europe was gripped in the dark ages before the age of colonialism.
I don't demonise the white man. I demonise the imperialist regime for the world's ills and causing the great divide between the 1st world and the 3rd world.
India was one of the wealthiest nation in the world before Britain took over it. Why did India became the 3rd world country when Britain left? What happened to the country with one of the wealthiest kingdom and abundant natural resources?
You can't say colonialism didn't contribute to the divide between 1st world and 3rd world. Cuz before colonialism Europe was in the dark ages while Arab, India, Chinese and African kingdoms where thriving.
And what makes you say Islamic and African countries aren't multicultural?
Check out Dubai and Bahrain. Islamic and multicultural.
Malaysia is another multicultural Islamic country.
About Africa, well, its probably not multicultural cuz maybe for the fact that no one wants to go and live there?!
Though there's South Africa which is pretty multicultural.0 -
Taxipete29 wrote: »You say that socialism is putting farmers out of business and then you talk about socialist ideals such as feeding everyone. I think your confused
How do you study and get a degree if you have no money for college??
Feeding everyone is not a socialist idea.
Also I didn't the the government should. I said the government could if it wanted to but it wont.
No i'm not confused. You wanna discuss socialism, i'll do it in another thread cuz this one is about immigration, i think...
And maybe you could take a loan?
You could get a summer job and save up for the fees?
How do students pay for their college in countries where education isn't free?!0 -
af_thefragile wrote: »
And there still is enough resources around to feed everyone on the planet.
Look at the amount of uncultivated lands around the world.
Socialism is putting farmers out of business.
There are ways to fuel the planet, produce enough food and resources for every single person on the planet.
But we won't do that. Cuz we don't have the money.
But isn't money nothing but just worthless pieces of paper?!!
Have you any idea how much nitrogen fertiliser (usually gas based), potassium, phosphorous, pesticides (usually oil based) and water is needed annually to feed nearly 7 billion people (and growing) ???
What is this magical fuel you speak of ?
Be honest, to yourself and other posters, you have done no reading on this subject at all.0 -
af_thefragile wrote: »But where did Britain get its wealth from??
Don't say it wasn't from the diamond mines in South Africa and Silk Production of India.
Europe was gripped in the dark ages before the age of colonialism.
I don't demonise the white man. I demonise the imperialist regime for the world's ills and causing the great divide between the 1st world and the 3rd world.
India was one of the wealthiest nation in the world before Britain took over it. Why did India became the 3rd world country when Britain left? What happened to the country with one of the wealthiest kingdom and abundant natural resources?
You can't say colonialism didn't contribute to the divide between 1st world and 3rd world. Cuz before colonialism Europe was in the dark ages while Arab, India, Chinese and African kingdoms where thriving.
And what makes you say Islamic and African countries aren't multicultural?
Check out Dubai and Bahrain. Islamic and multicultural.
Malaysia is another multicultural Islamic country.
About Africa, well, its probably not multicultural cuz maybe for the fact that no one wants to go and live there?!
Though there's South Africa which is pretty multicultural.
Huh? India and China are thriving now. When did colionalism take place, can you provide me with stats? I'd hardly say that the era of Newton, Einstein, Gauss, Greek Philosphers and democracy, roman empire, industrial revolotion etc was the dark ages. I think Arabs were doing well, but what makes you say we were in the drak ages whilst China/Africa/India was thriving? Can you find me any sources on that?Yes there was a time when Egyptians and moors etc were pretty advanced compared to Europe relative to todays terms, but its an exagerration to say we were in the dark ages whilst they were far ahead. I'd hardly say that the era of Newton, Einstein, Gauss, Greek Philosphers and democracy, roman empire, industrial revolotion etc was the dark ages. South Africa is not multicultural and there has been huge two-way racism there. But besides, Islamic countries are in no sense multicultural, many are theocracies or at least have state religions and no religious freedom. Much of the far east has racial supremacists who don't want black people in their countries.
Europe did have dictators but democracy and the rule of law was operating there before the other places you mention, could be wrong but thats my inkling.0 -
johnathan woss wrote: »Have you any idea how much nitrogen fertiliser (usually gas based), potassium, phosphorous, pesticides (usually oil based) and water is needed annually to feed nearly 7 billion people (and growing) ???
What is this magical fuel you speak of ?
Be honest, to yourself and other posters, you have done no reading on this subject at all.
No, do you?
Actually I kinda do. And i also do know that there is enough resources in the planet to grow crops to feed these 7 billion people and growing. Due to scientific advances we have managed to grow crops more efficiently with lesser resources. But that is expensive and takes money. Money only rich people have.
Although i do believe population will reach a plateau at around 10 billion.
Oh and what do you suggest should be done to solve this population problem?? I'ld like to hear your answer on that.
From where I can see there's only two things you can do. Reduce population or adjust to it. I see you say we can't adjust. So I'ld like to know what's your policy on reduction.
Fuel...
Herd of this fancy stuff called Uranium 235?
Also wind, solar, wave and geothermal energies have a long way to go...
I'ld like to know how much more you know about this subject than me?0 -
Huh? India and China are thriving now. When did colionalism take place, can you provide me with stats? I'd hardly say that the era of Newton, Einstein, Gauss, Greek Philosphers and democracy, roman empire, industrial revolotion etc was the dark ages. I think Arabs were doing well, but what makes you say we were in the drak ages whilst China/Africa/India was thriving? Can you find me any sources on that?Yes there was a time when Egyptians and moors etc were pretty advanced compared to Europe relative to todays terms, but its an exagerration to say we were in the dark ages whilst they were far ahead. I'd hardly say that the era of Newton, Einstein, Gauss, Greek Philosphers and democracy, roman empire, industrial revolotion etc was the dark ages. South Africa is not multicultural and there has been huge two-way racism there. But besides, Islamic countries are in no sense multicultural, many are theocracies or at least have state religions and no religious freedom. Much of the far east has racial supremacists who don't want black people in their countries.
Europe did have dictators but democracy and the rule of law was operating there before the other places you mention, could be wrong but thats my inkling.
Colonialism started around the 15th-16th century. Before that Europe was going through what historians like to call the dark ages, while the Arab, African and Indian kingdoms where thriving. I don't need to give your sources. Look up history for the Ottoman Empire, Mughal Empire, Songhai Empire... Which were thriving at the same time as the Dark Ages.
The industrial revolution took place during the colonial period. And you made huge jumps there between Greek philosophers and Einstein...
India is still considered 3rd world. China is in the newly industrialised country.
How would you describe multiculturalism??
I'ld say Dubai and Bahrain are pretty multicultural.
You'll find people from all over the world living there pretty happily. What makes you say they have no religious freedom? In Dubai christians live just as happily as muslims.
Even in Malaysia there are people from many different demographics living there.
All Islamic countries.
And isn't Ireland a Catholic country? If you look at it most European countries are pretty christian. How would you call that for multiculturalism?
Supremacists in far-east who don't want black people? I'm not much aware of that. If thats the case, then that is wrong I much say and I condemn those people.
Loads of black people in Arab countries though.
And democracy is a pretty new thing to Europe.
The first properly democratic country to be formed was USA. Which was built on libertarian principles of people like Thomas Paine.
Even in the 20th century Europe was under socialist turmoil. There was Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Churchill in UK.
Now Europe is heading back towards socialism. Along with USA thanks to Obama.0 -
One thing that really annoys me is an employer whingeing about how he\she had to get a 100% foreign workforce because the Irish are so 'unreliable'.
I've heard it on the radio more than I'm comfortable with.. and unfortunately had it said to my face along with about 6 other workers at the mouth of a docking bay at 8am on a Monday morning.. that kind of sly reverse descrimination on the part of employers has been the most tedious thing to have to listen to these past few years.
A gombeen mantra repeated to devalue and corral people, especially in the services sector, where companies are trying to penny pinch to perfection, at the expense of any grace or humanity.0 -
johnathan woss wrote: »Have you any idea how much nitrogen fertiliser (usually gas based), potassium, phosphorous, pesticides (usually oil based) and water is needed annually to feed nearly 7 billion people (and growing) ???
What is this magical fuel you speak of ?
Have you heard of things like hydroponics and GMO's, magic beans? Have you heard how much food gets thrown away into bins? It's not that it can't be produced, huge surplus is produced at huge subsidy in many places.0 -
Advertisement
-
According to this site, around 36,000 non-Irish people applied for PPS numbers in the first 5 months of the year. That's an average of 7,000 a month or 220 a day. If it continues at this rate for the rest of the year we could see over 80,000 foreigners applying for PPS numbers this year. That would be equivalent to Britain taking in 800 thousand in one year. That's a massive number for a country with so few jobs and so many people out of work. We can't go at this level for much longer. Something needs to be done about it soon.
If you look at the article you linked to, you'll see that the figure of 140,000 PPS numbers just covered the first ten months of last year. If you divide 140,000 by ten you'll get 14,000 people a month. If people were coming here at a rate of 14,000 people a month for the first ten months, and assuming it continued at the same rate for the last two months, that would have meant an extra 28,000 added to the total. Add 28,000 to 40,000 and you get 68,000 which is over 1.5% of the total population. Multiple that by ten and it works out at 15 immigrants per 1000 people in the population.
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2002/08/18/story187011628.asp
190,000 PPS number applications in 2007, 140,000 in the 1st 10 months of 2008 and you're predicting 80,000 for 2009. Can you see a trend here?
Given the economy fall of a cliff in May 2008, 2,000 jobs are being lost per week with virtually no job creation - realistically how many of those 80,000 will be able to find work. They won't be able to claim benefits, the cost of living here is far higher then the countries they have come from, whatever savings they would bring with them wouldn't last long - how many of those 80,000 will still be in the country by the end of the year?
100,000 left last year, I can see absolutley no reason why this figure shouldn't dramatically increase this year. Hence more non-nationals will leave the country than enter in 2009. I really can't see what you are so concerned about.0 -
How long do payments last for?
A year, if you've made 260 payments. You're really only claiming back money you've paid in. You don't seem well up on this.Sizzler wrote:The sad indictment of immigration in Ireland is the people that came to work did and the ones that didnt were bankrolled by you and me, the taxpayer.
As they aren't entitled to claim what was the dole, they can only claim what I've outlined above, which would require them to be working for a considerable period. Therefore its likely you're talking nonsense. If you want to know who we're really bankrolling, take a look at the Banks.Affable wrote:Actually the empuire wanted to bring British values and education and language to countries and engage in mutually benefical economic relationships with countries,
No, they wanted to use the subjugated nations and areas resources to their own benefit. Thus they cultivated differences within societies, and co-opted elites to govern in their stead.
I fail to see what this 'white mans burden' crap has to do with immigration, save some form of unsubtle racist shite talk, to be honest.Af the fragile wrote:ow Europe is heading back towards socialism. Along with USA thanks to Obama.
Obama is not a 'socialist'. If you want to discuss it, start a thread.0 -
Just because somebody does not have any qualifications (I presume that’s what you mean by skills?), it does not mean that they cannot make a valuable economic contribution (and vice versa).
There are plenty of unskilled workers in Ireland, ye do not need to import more, the non EU nationals who usually have specific skill skills that are often needed, it made harder for them to get permits, yet unskilled workers are here by the boat load. I have never met a polish doctor, engineer etc (no doubt they exist however given the size of the polish immigration it does surprise me)0 -
to any immigrants reading this
you have the right to vote in local elections today
bring your green card and any other id
(provided you got a voting card in mail)0 -
deadhead13 wrote: »190,000 PPS number applications in 2007, 140,000 in the 1st 10 months of 2008 and you're predicting 80,000 for 2009. Can you see a trend here?
Given the economy fall of a cliff in May 2008, 2,000 jobs are being lost per week with virtually no job creation - realistically how many of those 80,000 will be able to find work. They won't be able to claim benefits, the cost of living here is far higher then the countries they have come from, whatever savings they would bring with them wouldn't last long - how many of those 80,000 will still be in the country by the end of the year?
100,000 left last year, I can see absolutley no reason why this figure shouldn't dramatically increase this year. Hence more non-nationals will leave the country than enter in 2009. I really can't see what you are so concerned about.
You are only considering the immigration of EU nationals. What about non eu migrants?? There is no evidence to suggest they will ever leave once they have arrived and we simply do not have the resources to take care of these people0 -
Julianna Jolly Thesaurus wrote: »of that 30,000 odd there's 7000 odd polish people. Of all of them, a great deal could have been fellas working on sites here for years getting cash in hand. One cannot say that all those are new arrivals. I certainly doubt even half are.
Cash in hand on building sites does not exist, revenue makes regular inspection and union officials seek to inspect sites also. Rates are agreed with the CIF and government and are always paid; in fact the immigrant population have doe very well out of construction in Ireland0 -
Taxipete29 wrote: »You are only considering the immigration of EU nationals. What about non eu migrants?? There is no evidence to suggest they will ever leave once they have arrived and we simply do not have the resources to take care of these people
If they pay tax and PRSI then we do in fact "have the resources to take care of these people" and are obliged to do so.0 -
Taxipete29 wrote: »You are only considering the immigration of EU nationals. What about non eu migrants?? There is no evidence to suggest they will ever leave once they have arrived and we simply do not have the resources to take care of these people
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/noneu-workers-face-tough-rules-in-permit-clampdown-1710140.html0 -
I think you need to re-read the question. You claimed that many people currently see Ireland as an attractive destination. I’m asking you how many of these people are EU nationals?You can count as well as me. Half are eastern europeans.
Luck has nothing to do with it. The fact is that pretty much anyone can come to this country and make a valuable contribution, regardless of whether they have qualifications or not. Let me put it like this; only about 25% of the population in this country (aged 16 or over) has a third-level qualification. Are the other 75% stuck performing “menial work”? Most of my family members do not have third-level qualifications (many don’t even have a leaving cert). But none of them are employed in what I would describe as “menial work”.Nope, they can go into education and find their potential, or get really lucky, get on in a job they are good at and excel.
I think you might need to check your facts there.Common Travel Area. Its a reciprocal agreement. Unlike eastern european immigration…
You have a better estimate?Seriously man, do you think there are only 63,000 Polish in the country?
It’s agreed at government level that the census has drastically underestimated the number of foreign nationals in Ireland? Interesting. Perhaps you could provide a source that illustrates this fact?Ive no clue how many are in the country but it is agreed by many government ministers, agencies, and bodies that its at least three rimes that number.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think this subject is more suited to the Popular Science forum.And how else do you explain the quite clear divide-
West>/=Far East>India>Africa
The further removed the genetic stock of the population from Africa, the more successful that country.
Based on?johnathan woss wrote: »The pink elephant in the room here is that the world is over-populated.
Ireland is currently not over-populated...
Did you report the employer in question?One thing that really annoys me is an employer whingeing about how he\she had to get a 100% foreign workforce because the Irish are so 'unreliable'.
I've heard it on the radio more than I'm comfortable with.. and unfortunately had it said to my face along with about 6 other workers at the mouth of a docking bay at 8am on a Monday morning...
:rolleyes: More about the “unskilled workers” who are apparently commodities to be bought and sold.There are plenty of unskilled workers in Ireland, ye do not need to import more…
You’re obviously not looking very hard. Polish people in Ireland are about as likely to hold a third-level qualification as Irish people are.I have never met a polish doctor, engineer etc (no doubt they exist however given the size of the polish immigration it does surprise me)0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement