Irish referendum on right to citizenship

Mena

asdasd wrote: »

No country grants citizenship when you turn up. In the US it takes petitioning for a green card ( if you dont have one), and then for citizenship. Although I have no idea why anyone would want US citizenship.

For a worker on a H1B that would take 3 years of working there, 5+ years for the Green card ( which can be refused if there is a downturn in the industry), and a few years for the citizenship.

Worst case, alright. I lived in the US, though not as a immigrant ( specifically a non-immigrant visa) and was refused the green card. I didnt care ( they company applies for me) but so it goes. Its a tough old world. If large countries control and protect their citizenship, so too should small historical countries.

You're totally missing the point again. All I am saying is I expect a speedy response, be it yes or no, not being dragged from pillar to post for 4 years for no good reason. Anyway, this is going totally off-topic, we should probably go back to the thread concerning this.

asdasd wrote: »

Mena's statistics dont take into account the time you have to live in a country before you apply for naturalization.

I don't see how that's relevant, but:

UK - Six Years

Canada - Three Years

Australia - Five Years

sovtek

asdasd wrote: »

If large countries control and protect their citizenship, so too should small historical countries.

I have yet to see anyone argue that countries have no right to control who gets citizenship. No one has said that you should get immediate citizenship. Do I actually need to point this out? Or is it just that you can't be bothered actually listening to what people are concerned about or is it just fine with you that the government does whatever it wants to foreignors?

cabinteelytom

It's an interesting discussion of State responsibilities; a proposal that our Irish State has a responsilility to encourage/enable Irish children to be brought up here (despite the Ryan report), including granting leave to remain to bereaved foreign-national parents- almost certainly the action which the Minister would take in the unhappy event- has merit.
But 'worry' about an Irish child being raised in a foreign culture seems a bit unenlightened. My logic: If the mother of an Irish-born child does not have four years residence in her own right, the child must be aged three or less. Children of this age are adaptable and take changes of domicile and vernacular language in their stride. There could also be benefits to the child of increased maternal self-confidence,( being at home in her own culture), and from having the support of mother's extended family. Worry should not be universal in these circumstances.

Irish nationals from Waterford, and other places, should be worried by this, which impacts directly and invariably upon their children's experiences and education:
[/QUOTE]Cost of teaching immigrants english exceeds 126 million. http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/cost-of-teaching-english-to-immigrants-exceeds-8364126m-1372313.htmlQUOTE]

126 million Euros a year! That's an indictment of how our Government has managed the recruitment of workers for our economy. There was no requirement to have the working language of the country! This is a terrible deal for the Irish taxpayer; currently paying more than 376 Euro per year for each foreign national in employment (total number minus 80,000 on live register) to provide extra English teaching in Schools. A subsidy, by the taxpayers to employers, who are the only people to gain an economic benefit.
126 million Euros pa could have improved the quality of schooling for all Irish children!

samsham

cabinteelytom wrote: »

It's an interesting discussion of State responsibilities; a proposal that our Irish State has a responsilility to encourage/enable Irish children to be brought up here (despite the Ryan report), including granting leave to remain to bereaved foreign-national parents- almost certainly the action which the Minister would take in the unhappy event- has merit.
But 'worry' about an Irish child being raised in a foreign culture seems a bit unenlightened. My logic: If the mother of an Irish-born child does not have four years residence in her own right, the child must be aged three or less. Children of this age are adaptable and take changes of domicile and vernacular language in their stride. There could also be benefits to the child of increased maternal self-confidence,( being at home in her own culture), and from having the support of mother's extended family. Worry should not be universal in these circumstances.

Irish nationals from Waterford, and other places, should be worried by this, which impacts directly and invariably upon their children's experiences and education:

Cost of teaching immigrants english exceeds 126 million. http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/cost-of-teaching-english-to-immigrants-exceeds-8364126m-1372313.htmlQUOTE]

Again a reference to Eastern European legal emigrants and the cost of teaching English. Were inviting Croatia to apply for EU entry next. With that will follow freedom of movement like other EU citizens. You see on one hand we are opening our doors to Eastern Europe. Then you expect me to understand our Governments emigration policy.

Nodin

cabinteelytom wrote: »

126 million Euros a year! That's an indictment of how our Government has
126 million Euros pa could have improved the quality of schooling for all Irish children!

I know where 7 Billion has been spent to shore up the decisions of a group of maybe 20 people....
http://www.angloirishbank.ie/

If you want to start complaining, start there, instead of money spent on education.

HollyB

cabinteelytom wrote: »

But 'worry' about an Irish child being raised in a foreign culture seems a bit unenlightened. My logic: If the mother of an Irish-born child does not have four years residence in her own right, the child must be aged three or less. Children of this age are adaptable and take changes of domicile and vernacular language in their stride. There could also be benefits to the child of increased maternal self-confidence,( being at home in her own culture), and from having the support of mother's extended family. Worry should not be universal in these circumstances.

In fairness, there can be different circumstances that might make the Irish child older - for example, if they lived in the UK with their parents until they were three, and then moved to Ireland, they might be six or seven, in school for a few years. A child might also have extended family in Ireland with whom they have close relationships, and who might also be providing a support network for the child and for the widowed non-Irish parent.

In some cases, the non-Irish parent might choose to leave Ireland with their child, either to return to their home country or to travel elsewhere, but in cases where the parent feels that it's in the best interests of their child to remain in Ireland, I think that they should be facilitated. If the Irish spouse dies and the widow/widower wants to stay in Ireland with their Irish child, I think that they should be given permanent residency if they have not been in Ireland long enough to qualify for citizenship and if, when they have resided in Ireland long enough to qualify, they choose to apply for citizenship, there should be a way of fast-tracking it so that they're not waiting around for years.

cabinteelytom wrote: »

126 million Euros a year! That's an indictment of how our Government has managed the recruitment of workers for our economy. There was no requirement to have the working language of the country! This is a terrible deal for the Irish taxpayer; currently paying more than 376 Euro per year for each foreign national in employment (total number minus 80,000 on live register) to provide extra English teaching in Schools. A subsidy, by the taxpayers to employers, who are the only people to gain an economic benefit.
126 million Euros pa could have improved the quality of schooling for all Irish children!

To be honest, I think that the government should never have been paying for English language support within the school - if you move to another country with your child, I think that it should be up to you to arrange and finance any additional language teaching your child needs, if he or she does not speak the language of the school. However, since they've been paying for it until now, there's bound to be resistance to the idea of withdrawing it.

opo

Nodin wrote: »

I know where 7 Billion has been spent to shore up the decisions of a group of maybe 20 people....
http://www.angloirishbank.ie/

If you want to start complaining, start there, instead of money spent on education.

When he has finished complaining about Anglo and the state of Uganda and the lack of world peace and the blandness of Tesco mayonaise or whatever other utterly non-related issue that takes your fancy....

Then, and perhaps only then, assuming he has sorted out those problems, do you think it would it be OK if he blames the Government for screwing up immigration (non) policy?

samsham

Originally Posted by cabinteelytom
But 'worry' about an Irish child being raised in a foreign culture seems a bit unenlightened. My logic: If the mother of an Irish-born child does not have four years residence in her own right, the child must be aged three or less. Children of this age are adaptable and take changes of domicile and vernacular language in their stride. There could also be benefits to the child of increased maternal self-confidence,( being at home in her own culture), and from having the support of mother's extended family. Worry should not be universal in these circumstances.

Your fantastic. easy known it's not your child. A child born in Ireland is culturally linked to Ireland. (Being at home in her own culture) How would the child even know another culture. What about her extended family here. Grandparents aunts Uncles and cousins. Perhaps you wouldn't worry, but I think no parent would disregard the child's rights just like you have just done. What about if this country is a basket case, destroyed in poverty. Still you just send an Irish citizen packing back to the slums of god knows where.

oscarBravo

cabinteelytom wrote: »

126 million Euros a year! That's an indictment of how our Government has managed the recruitment of workers for our economy.

The government has no role in the recruitment of workers, apart from public servants.

There was no requirement to have the working language of the country!

Presumably the ability of immigrants to speak English was sufficient for the jobs they were employed to do.

This is a terrible deal for the Irish taxpayer; currently paying more than 376 Euro per year for each foreign national in employment...

How much tax do you suppose each of those foreign nationals pays in a year?

PaulieD

Mena wrote: »

I'd be far more worried about retrospective laws being introduced than a tiny minority of babies that were granted citizenship as per the Irish constitution prior to the change.

It is undemocratic. 18,000 parents got leave to remain for one reason, giving birth on Irish soil . This was after Irish people voted against this. It is an outrage. Citizenship should be revoked and if they are a drain on the economy, ie unemployed, they should be deported.

We are a nation, not a charity. A bankrupt nation at that. Charity starts at home.

PaulieD

Nodin wrote: »

I know where 7 Billion has been spent to shore up the decisions of a group of maybe 20 people....
http://www.angloirishbank.ie/

If you want to start complaining, start there, instead of money spent on education.

The Irish state is not a charity, if you choose to come here, learn the language at your own expense, not the taxpayers.

PaulieD

sovtek wrote: »

FF bankrolling their buddies has nearly bankrupt this country. Paying me all my PRSI back and sending me home along with hundreds of thousands of other foreignors WILL bankrupt your country. Hell I'd almost do it just to see Brian Lenihan have a heart attack.

Where did anyone call for employed immigrants to be repatriated?

But seeing as you brought it up, prove that foreigners benefit the economy.


Sending 1.5 billion home per year. http://baltic-ireland.ie/2008/08/3024/

20% of dole claimants are foreign nationals. Thats 204 per person per week minimum.http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/snmhqlidkf/rss2/

Cost of teaching immigrants english exceeds 126 million per annum.http://www.independent.ie/education/...m-1372313.html

Massive welfare fraud committed by foreign nationals. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...791558637.html

90 million on child benefits for children not residing in the state per annumhttp://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer...story55787.asp

25% of jailed criminals are foreign nationals. It costs 100,000 euro per inmatehttp://breaking.tcm.ie/ireland/kfidkfojcwoj/

150 million being claimed in rent supplements per annum http://www.independent.ie/national-n...m-1446654.html

Most of the immigrants are used as cheap labour, therefore pay little tax as they are on minimum wage(or lower).http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...breaking70.htm

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2003/05/04/story348179869.asp 340 million per annum:eek:

http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2009/apr/26/deportation-bill-of-68m-over-past-five-years/ 68 million euro spent on deporting failed asylum seekers.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/low-paid-suffer-quietly-in-debate-on-immigrants-1475118.html More Irish on the dole due to displacement.

Now take into consideration the costs of educating foreign children, costs of healthcare, etc etc etc.

Prove they are a net benefit on the economy.

cabinteelytom

oscarBravo wrote: »

The government has no role in the recruitment of workers, apart from public servants.

There is not employment anarchy. The Government sets the regulations.
I want the public to be less tolerant of Government ineptitude; more an attitude of, 'We're the client. Fail us, and you get sacked.'

HollyB

PaulieD wrote: »

It is undemocratic. 18,000 parents got leave to remain for one reason, giving birth on Irish soil after. This was after Irish people voted against this. It is an outrage. Citizenship should be revoked and if they are a drain on the economy, ie unemployed, they should be deported.

The citizenship referendum did not apply retroactively - if a child was born an Irish citizen, they remained an Irish citizen, they didn't lose their citizenship even if, under the new rules, they would not have been entitled to it. Given the number of families affected, I'm not surprised that a scheme was devised to settle the question of the residency rights of the foreign parents living in Ireland with a child who was an Irish citizen.

However, I think that such a scheme should have been contingent on self-sufficiency, and that residency rights should have been granted on a temporary basis for a period of at least several years, becoming permanent if the parents were able to support themselves and their family for that period.

samsham

HollyB wrote: »

The citizenship referendum did not apply retroactively - if a child was born an Irish citizen, they remained an Irish citizen, they didn't lose their citizenship even if, under the new rules, they would not have been entitled to it. Given the number of families affected, I'm not surprised that a scheme was devised to settle the question of the residency rights of the foreign parents living in Ireland with a child who was an Irish citizen.

However, I think that such a scheme should have been contingent on self-sufficiency, and that residency rights should have been granted on a temporary basis for a period of at least several years, becoming permanent if the parents were able to support themselves and their family for that period.

Right and you also have no problem that its effects the legitimate rights of Irish born parents married to foreign spouses. Regardless as to where your parents are from. Being born an Irish national use to afford you the rights our forefathers bestowed on the family unit. Don't tell me they did not know what they were doing. One of them was an American citizen. listen most objections here are to Africans nationals. And like the homophobic that starts his argument by saying some of my friends are gay. Here is no different. Dress it up like you wan't. 400.000 foreigners here were finding jobs and paying tax in a time when 100,000 Irish people were on the dole claiming they could not find a job. In the same period FAS had a budget of 1 billion in a period of practically full employment. Yet here we see treads of 126 million spent on education as an excuse to send home working EU citizens. I lived in the UK in the 80's when the Irish were being blamed for screwing the welfare system, before this date the labour party wanted the Irish returned home. Even offered money to some to leave. Most people like me were not screwing the system, but never the less got part of the blame. Your arguements are nothing but racism, 100 romanian famalies were hunted from there homes in N Ireland because folks up there see a few families on the streets begging. Give me a break?

PaulieD

samsham wrote: »

Right and you also have no problem that its effects the legitimate rights of Irish born parents married to foreign spouses. Regardless as to where your parents are from. Being born an Irish national use to afford you the rights our forefathers bestowed on the family unit. Don't tell me they did not know what they were doing. One of them was an American citizen. listen most objections here are to Africans nationals. And like the homophobic that starts his argument by saying some of my friends are gay. Here is no different. Dress it up like you wan't. 400.000 foreigners here were finding jobs and paying tax in a time when 100,000 Irish people were on the dole claiming they could not find a job. In the same period FAS had a budget of 1 billion in a period of practically full employment. Yet here we see treads of 126 million spent on education as an excuse to send home working EU citizens. I lived in the UK in the 80's when the Irish were being blamed for screwing the welfare system, before this date the labour party wanted the Irish returned home. Even offered money to some to leave. Most people like me were not screwing the system, but never the less got part of the blame. Your arguements are nothing but racism, 100 romanian famalies were hunted from there homes in N Ireland because folks up there see a few families on the streets begging. Give me a break?

Yet again you throw around the race card. Yawn. If you think Ireland is such a racist place why not relocate to your wifes country of origin?

samsham

PaulieD wrote: »

Yet again you throw around the race card. Yawn. If you think Ireland is such a racist place why not relocate to your wifes country of origin?

WE ALREADY LIVED IN MY WIFE'S COUNTRY. I am simply stating what I am reading. Our current emigration policy is a response to Africans that were having children here. Not to the majority of our immigrants, who come from Europe. One one hand we open our doors to eastern European emigration and on the other kick it shut to everything African . What kind of emigration policy is that. Why wouldn't anyone think it's racist. How can it not be racist. Its a response to a particular race. What else does that make it?

oscarBravo

samsham, could you do me a favour and stop bolding entire posts? Thanks.

sovtek

oscarBravo wrote: »

The government has no role in the recruitment of workers, apart from public servants. Presumably the ability of immigrants to speak English was sufficient for the jobs they were employed to do. How much tax do you suppose each of those foreign nationals pays in a year?

My work permit per year (€1000) GNIB card (€150) and income tax ( a few grand a year) and PRSI.
I suppose I pay the same as anyone else in TV License, bin charges, VAT, taxes for flights including the new 10 yo yo tax (on average twice a year, once for holidays and once to go home) and any other stealth taxes I haven't thought of.
I have never taken the dole (and yes I did need it one time when I was unfairly dismissed) even though I am entitled to it because INIS refuses citizenship and LTR applications if you do because they consider that a "burden on the state" even though we ****ing earn it like everyone else.
I posted link for a study in the states that shows that immigrants pay far more into the state than they ever take. There is no reason to think Ireland is any different.

sovtek

PaulieD wrote: »

Yet again you throw around the race card. Yawn. If you think Ireland is such a racist place why not relocate to your wifes country of origin?

The sooner people that think such as yourself and the people in government that think the same realize that we aint goin anywhere the better!

SWL

sovtek wrote: »

My work permit per year (€1000) GNIB card (€150) and income tax ( a few grand a year) and PRSI.
I suppose I pay the same as anyone else in TV License, bin charges, VAT, taxes for flights including the new 10 yo yo tax (on average twice a year, once for holidays and once to go home) and any other stealth taxes I haven't thought of.
I have never taken the dole (and yes I did need it one time when I was unfairly dismissed) even though I am entitled to it because INIS refuses citizenship and LTR applications if you do because they consider that a "burden on the state" even though we ****ing earn it like everyone else.
I posted link for a study in the states that shows that immigrants pay far more into the state than they ever take. There is no reason to think Ireland is any different.

Any chance you could give us all a break from your ongoing percussion complex - we all pay the same taxes as you do, If you go to any developed country you pay for visa costs, you might not think its fair but there go that life, also self employed pay into the social welfare system, they can't claim any welfare. If you're not happy with the affairs of the country just move or give us a break from the ongoing martyrdom.

asdasd

I posted link for a study in the states that shows that immigrants pay far more into the state than they ever take. There is no reason to think Ireland is any different.

The real costs of immigration - and this includes immigration to the States - is the reduction in the cost of labour. That's a benefit to businesses. And a bust for workers. There is also upward pressure on rents and housing, and resource constraints.

It seems that the studies like the one you mentioned take into account the working immigrants cost and benefits to the State, and not the cost of dependants etc.

So this supposed win is a cost to workers. Imagine a worker in an area with controlled measured immigration, vs a worker in a area with uncontrolled immigration.

Worker A
Higher Wages
Lower Rent/Housing
Less congestion
Un-crowded Schools

Worker B
Lower Wages
Higher rent/housing
More congestion
Crowded schools with language problems.

This isnt an argument against immigration in total, just against lots of it.

asdasd

By the way a lot of the supposed benefits of immigration ( the effect on GDP growth) goes to the immigrants themselves. It is better to be in a country with a static population and growth rates of 2% a year, than a country wth a yearly 5% increase in it's workforce and a GDP growth of 6% a year. Lots of the latter part of the Irish boom was like that.

sovtek

SWL wrote: »

Any chance you could give us all a break from your ongoing percussion complex - we all pay the same taxes as you do, If you go to any developed country you pay for visa costs, you might not think its fair but there go that life, also self employed pay into the social welfare system, they can't claim any welfare. If you're not happy with the affairs of the country just move or give us a break from the ongoing martyrdom.

I think I'll keep complaining with whats wrong with this country and my own AND continue living here!
IN fact I pay more taxes than yourself as I pointed out already. I have every right to complain and stay here wether you like it or not.
If you want to compare Ireland with other developed countries others and myself have shown how Ireland is derelict when it comes to immigration matters compared to other developed countries.

sovtek

asdasd wrote: »

So this supposed win is a cost to workers. Imagine a worker in an area with controlled measured immigration, vs a worker in a area with uncontrolled immigration.

Where is this immigrant shangri-la with no controls?

asdasd

Where is this immigrant shangri-la with no controls?

Imagine. A thought experiment.

In the general case immigration - like inflation - is good up to a point, and bad thereafter.

SWL

sovtek wrote: »

I think I'll keep complaining with whats wrong with this country and my own AND continue living here!
IN fact I pay more taxes than yourself as I pointed out already. I have every right to complain and stay here wether you like it or not.
If you want to compare Ireland with other developed countries others and myself have shown how Ireland is derelict when it comes to immigration matters compared to other developed countries.

Firstly - you don't pay more taxes than myself not by a long way, I also have employed people how many have you employed? I come from a developed country and Ireland is not as derelict in its duties as you suggest, but you want everything done immediately. Also it individuals like you that stifle debate in Ireland about immigration issues, in Sweden fascist party are more popular than ever since WWII because every time someone didn't agree with an immigrant they were racist.

You took the decision to move here, so man up and take the good with the bad instead listing the cost of your visa at every opportunity.

PaulieD

sovtek wrote: »

The sooner people that think such as yourself and the people in government that think the same realize that we aint goin anywhere the better!

You are a guest in my country, remember it oh sanctimonious one. We survived as a nation before you graced our shores, I dare say we would survive without you. You choose to come here, if you dont like our immigration policy, which is one of the most liberal in europe, suck it up.

PaulieD

samsham wrote: »

WE ALREADY LIVED IN MY WIFE'S COUNTRY. I am simply stating what I am reading. Our current emigration policy is a response to Africans that were having children here. Not to the majority of our immigrants, who come from Europe. One one hand we open our doors to eastern European emigration and on the other kick it shut to everything African . What kind of emigration policy is that. Why wouldn't anyone think it's racist. How can it not be racist. Its a response to a particular race. What else does that make it?

Emigration policy? Whaaat?

I opposse free access to our labour market from eastern europe. A grave error on Brian Cowens part, his decision. Germany, europes largest economy, operates a work permit scheme. We should have done likewise.

If we had opened up our borders to Africans we woulod be swamped. We could not absorb the numbers immigrating here. It is not racist, it is common sense.

I was on your side, but you do not listen to reason. Just out of curiosity, when you were in correspondence with your TD, how many times did you use the race card? Maybe that is why nobody is bothered helping you. Just a thought.

oscarBravo

PaulieD wrote: »

You are a guest in my country, remember it oh sanctimonious one.

And you're a guest on this forum. I strongly recommend you familiarise yourself with the charter before posting again.

samsham

I was on your side, but you do not listen to reason. Just out of curiosity, when you were in correspondence with your TD, how many times did you use the race card? Maybe that is why nobody is bothered helping you. Just a thought.

I am Irish, how is it possible for me to use a race card. Like I keep saying and you keep agreeing Ireland's emigration policy is confusing. Its an open door to European countries and a shut door to African nationals. You know the economy of our fledgling state was held together by our emigrants in the USA and the UK sending money back to Ireland. looks like we maybe going back down the road and I am sure we will be only too happy to export our folks again to America and Australia. I like most people my age emigrated in the 80s and 90s. Thankfully other countries were a little more open minded than ours.

asdasd

hankfully other countries were a little more open minded than ours.

For the love of God. Irish people need(ed) visas and work permits to enter those countries

sovtek

SWL wrote: »

Firstly - you don't pay more taxes than myself not by a long way,

Yes I do. In addition to the taxes everyone pays I and my fellow non-EU'ers have to pay a GNIB card fee which is in essence an immigration tax.

I also have employed people how many have you employed?

What the??? and how is that relevant?

I come from a developed country and Ireland is not as derelict in its duties as you suggest, but you want everything done immediately.

Jesus Christ on a rubber crutch! How many times must it be said. I and my fellow immigrants have every right to be expect any application I make handled in a timely manner and in good faith. The fact that Ireland takes longer than everyone one else in the first world and refuses almost half of all
citizenship applicants proves you wrong wether you choose to accept it or not.

Also it individuals like you that stifle debate in Ireland about immigration issues, in Sweden fascist party are more popular than ever since WWII because every time someone didn't agree with an immigrant they were racist.

If it's anything like Ireland then its more likely because the government is pitting workers against foreignors to take attention from where the blame actually lies. Seems like you've been fished in as well.

You took the decision to move here, so man up and take the good with the bad instead listing the cost of your visa at every opportunity.

You might recall you are in a DISCUSSION FORUM.

sovtek

asdasd wrote: »

For the love of God. Irish people need(ed) visas and work permits to enter those countries

and obviously they bitched and moaned about it too otherwise your former Taoiseach wouldn't have been begging for Irish people in America to be able to do whatever they wanted irrespective of our immigration laws.

sovtek

asdasd wrote: »

The real costs of immigration - and this includes immigration to the States - is the reduction in the cost of labour. That's a benefit to businesses. And a bust for workers. There is also upward pressure on rents and housing, and resource constraints.

The main cause of reduction in labour costs is companies sending jobs offshore.
The pressure on rents and housing is more a cause of bad planning.

It seems that the studies like the one you mentioned take into account the working immigrants cost and benefits to the State, and not the cost of dependants etc.

Where do you get that from?

So this supposed win is a cost to workers. Imagine a worker in an area with controlled measured immigration, vs a worker in a area with uncontrolled immigration.

Worker A
Higher Wages
Lower Rent/Housing
Less congestion
Un-crowded Schools

Worker B
Lower Wages
Higher rent/housing
More congestion
Crowded schools with language problems.

This isnt an argument against immigration in total, just against lots of it.

To say that you would have to find a real example of open immigration (that doesn't exist) and controlled immigration (see last parenthesis)

samsham

asdasd wrote: »

For the love of God. Irish people need(ed) visas and work permits to enter those countries

If fact in the last half of the 20th century most people leaving these shores had no skills. Your visa was mainly subject to you having a few bob in your account and being able to sustain yourself in your host country for a short period of time. For the love of God the country beside you even while being bombed by IRA kept the flood-gates open. Gave unrestricted access without visa or permit even when it was not a EU requirement. It even continued when it was be fleeced by welfare cheats and on-the-run convicts from the republic.

johnathan woss

samsham wrote: »

If fact in the last half of the 20th century most people leaving these shores had no skills. Your visa was mainly subject to you having a few bob in your account and being able to sustain yourself in your host country for a short period of time. For the love of God the country beside you even while being bombed by IRA kept the flood-gates open. Gave unrestricted access without visa or permit even when it was not a EU requirement. It even continued when it was be fleeced by welfare cheats and on-the-run convicts from the republic.

The Irish have made a great contribution to Britain over the years and have integrated there thoroughly.
You will meet many English people who have Irish parents or grand-parents but who are TOTALLY English.

I think your personal position is making you bitter towards Irish people in general. That is regrettable but it certainly won't encourage anyone to look at your situation differently.
Bad cases make for bad laws.

samsham

johnathan woss wrote: »

The Irish have made a great contribution to Britain over the years and have integrated there thoroughly.
You will meet many English people who have Irish parents or grand-parents but who are TOTALLY English.

I think your personal position is making you bitter towards Irish people in general. That is regrettable but it certainly won't encourage anyone to look at your situation differently.
Bad cases make for bad laws.

Thank you, you just made my point for me. Immigration can be positive .I am certainly not bitter towards Irish people. That's just ridiculous, but I wont be told were a bunch af angels and its foreigners that are involved in illegality. just pointing out a time when we depended on the generosity of other countries. Unlike here where people who question are told, if they don't like it go home.

asdasd

If fact in the last half of the 20th century most people leaving these shores had no skills. Your visa was mainly subject to you having a few bob in your account and being able to sustain yourself in your host country for a short period of time. For the love of God the country beside you even while being bombed by IRA kept the flood-gates open. Gave unrestricted access without visa or permit even when it was not a EU requirement. It even continued when it was be fleeced by welfare cheats and on-the-run convicts from the republic.

Give over, Mate. The UK kept it's borders open for reasons to do with previous colonial era agreements.

The US has needed a working visa for Europeans since the 1960's. Australia, too. That is why there are Irish illegals in the US. They could not get a visa. In terms of legal immigration relative to population, Ireland has far less restrictions than either country. And both countries are "nations of immigrants", unlike European countries where that ideology is not a universally held idea.

Taoiseach wouldn't have been begging for Irish people in America to be able to do whatever they wanted irrespective of our immigration laws.

He was representing noone in that argument exscept, possibly, the relatives of the iilegals. I think they should leave. However that would mean that all American illegals should leave, Mexicans included.

Percentages matter by the way. The entire population of ireland could go to the US with less demographic impact than our opening up of borders to Eastern Europe, something we did at the time only with Sweden and the UK.

Germany and France are still out. I bet they keep borders closed at the end of 2010 if their economies are not the best. Even then, across Europe, centre right and far right parties crush the left in European elections, with immigration the major issue.

asdasd

The main cause of reduction in labour costs is companies sending jobs offshore.
The pressure on rents and housing is more a cause of bad planning.

Reduction in labour costs is caused by an increase in labour relative to it's demand, sicne labour is a commodity workers sell to employers. The less of it the better. Many jobs - like hospitality, construction etc. - cannot be outsourced.

Bad planning - planning is impossible with controls on who can come in. The "planning" itself cannot happen unless we know exactly how many immigrants would come in. When we opened the borders to Eastern Europe ( at the same time, as non-EU immigration clearly accelerate) the guess was that 3-4 thousand immigrants would come. That was off by a factor of 100. How exactly do local councillors plan for that?

To say that you would have to find a real example of open immigration (that doesn't exist) and controlled immigration (see last parenthesis)

No. I gave a general example. A nation of 4 million which opens it's borders to nations of 100 million with wages less than half the smaller nation's, is uncontrolled.

It would be as if the US has legal immigration from the entire world.

sovtek

johnathan woss wrote: »

The Irish have made a great contribution to Britain over the years and have integrated there thoroughly.
.

How is that different to immigrants to Ireland exactly?

samsham

sovtek wrote: »

How is that different to immigrants to Ireland exactly?

In fact there is very little difference, but reading here I am led to believe that even working emigrants are a burden on our economy. I just don't see how anyone can justify that comment. Just pointing our there are success stories too. In fact in the UK it would be hard to identify a foreigner. Just like most of Europe it is multi-cultural.

johnathan woss

It's clearly different.

We were essentially the same country for hundreds of years.
Same language.
Same culture.
Same values.
Same or similar religions.
Shared history.

samsham

johnathan woss wrote: »

It's clearly different.

We were essentially the same country for hundreds of years.
Same language.
Same culture.
Same values.
Same or similar religions.
Shared history.

WOW! That's a whole new debate. Essentially the UK and Ireland were the same country. Same religion, values and culture. Now that's some statement. Can't believe you really believe that. The British Empire crossed the globe. The UK is a land of many cultures values and languages. What ever about our shared history, as a people we are poles apart.

oscarBravo

johnathan woss wrote: »

It's clearly different.

We were essentially the same country for hundreds of years.
Same language.
Same culture.
Same values.
Same or similar religions.
Shared history.

So basically, immigration is OK as long as the immigrants are sufficiently similar to the existing population. Once they start to look, sound and act differently, immigration becomes a problem.

Am I allowed to use the x-word yet? Because that's pretty much a textbook definition of it.

samsham

oscarBravo wrote: »

So basically, immigration is OK as long as the immigrants are sufficiently similar to the existing population. Once they start to look, sound and act differently, immigration becomes a problem.

Am I allowed to use the x-word yet? Because that's pretty much a textbook definition of it.

pretty much what I have been saying here. It only became a problem when Africans started reaching these shores.

Nodin

johnathan woss wrote: »

It's clearly different.

We were essentially the same country for hundreds of years.
Same language.
Same culture.
Same values.
Same or similar religions.
Shared history.

Ahem.....

'Dey tuk r Jawbs (but itz ok coz theyz whiteyz like uz)'

Well, at least you just came out and said it, as oppossed to the 'nothing against them BUT...' brigade we get a lot of.

johnathan woss

samsham wrote: »

What ever about our shared history, as a people we are poles apart.

The Irish and Brits are poles apart ?

Really? How?

I've been in many places in England and never really felt like I was in another country.

We essentially have the same culture and way of life.

johnathan woss

oscarBravo wrote: »

, immigration is OK as long as the immigrants are sufficiently similar to the existing population.

Well it's easier for the immigrants to assimilate, obviously.

That's self-evident.


Do you think the role of immigration should be to fundamentally CHANGE the host country's culture ?

johnathan woss

Nodin wrote: »

Well, at least you just came out and said it, as oppossed to the 'nothing against them BUT...' brigade we get a lot of.

What have I "come out and said" ?
I've stated the obvious.