Seven out of 10 favour immigration restrictions

oscarBravo

PaulieD wrote: »

PPS numbers
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Topics/PPSN/Pages/ppsn_all_month09.aspx

That doesn't give any indication as to how many are staying.

PaulieD

oscarBravo wrote: »

That doesn't give any indication as to how many are staying.

80,000 on the dole does though.

Nodin

PaulieD wrote: »

80,000 on the dole does though.

Thats their stamps, not the dole.

PaulieD

Nodin wrote: »

Thats their stamps, not the dole.

Perhaps, perhaps not. The spouse or dependants of EU nationals working here are entitled to claim the dole.

djpbarry

oscarBravo wrote: »

PaulieD wrote: »

PPS numbers
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Topics/PPSN/Pages/ppsn_all_month09.aspx

That doesn't give any indication as to how many are staying.

Nor does it give any indication as to how many are new arrivals.

nayorleck114

You need to get your facts right!! The Total number of non irish born people who have moved to Ireland is the exact same number of Irish born people living in US, UK, Australia, Canada and other countries. We have not been swamped.

If all the Irish born emigrants who left Ireland (about 400,000) returned to Ireland in 1 year we would have a crisis. Most Polish people who I know are working, if they can't find work they go home to Poland, if they have worked here long enough to claim the dole they will, but they get bored not working and would prefer to be in their home country. Any new immagrants arriving in Ireland today either find work or return home as they are not entitled to benefits here if they have not worked.

Its not right to disgrimate non irish people who worked here on jobs the irish would not do!.

Hookey

bill_ashmount wrote: »

This is not true. You say that if someone is pro-EU, they are highly educated, pragmatic etc., somebody is anti-EU they are protesting about the recession. Makes no sense and is typical of the arrogance of Pro EU supporters.

BTW, if anyone wants a link to my signature image, I will happily send it on.

I never said anything about highly-educated, you inferred that. All the parties you mentioned are minorities, in most cases, small ones. Even the UKIP vote isn't a real reflection of how people will vote in a general election, the Brits often use EU elections as a means of protest, which is why the Greens have had an UK MEP but never managed to get any traction in the "real" elections.

There's a lot of disaffection with the mainstream parties in Europe at the moment, because they've generally made a pig's ear of the economy no matter what their political colour, but all of the mainstream parties across Europe are pro-EU to a greater or lesser degree (even the Tories in the UK don't want to quit, just reform), so guess what, a vote against the mainstream is a vote against the EU.

I'd be interested in what kind of country you think Ireland would be outside the EU?

devereaux17

Give it 5 years and Ireland will resemble what it was like before 1990's, thats my opinion.

Bandit12

devereaux17 wrote: »

Give it 5 years and Ireland will resemble what it was like before 1990's, thats my opinion.

5 years. I'd have said give it 2. The IMF will set us back as a country 20 odd years because of our gutless goverments lack of direction when it comes to making the hard choices.:mad:

Bandit12

PaulieD wrote: »

Will you stop.

The poll indicates that there is a strong desire to impose temporary restrictions on the Accession States. We have over 400,000 on the dole, 20% of which are foreign, and a further 40,0000 foreigners gaining PPS numbers this year. Do you think this is sustainable?

We should now impose a work permit system like Germany and Austria. We cannot provide employment for those already in the country never mind more immigrants.

Amen to that

O'Morris

oscarBravo wrote:

That doesn't give any indication as to how many are staying.

If gives a strong indication of the number of people entering the country though. Even if most of the immigrants can't find work and return home after a few months, a minority of them will find work and will remain here. The problem is the competition for jobs that this is creating at a time when we just don't have enough jobs for all the people that want to fill them. Not only do unemployed people now have to compete with thousands of other unemployed people for the available jobs, but they also have to compete with thousands of immigrants who are even more determined to get their hands on those jobs than our own unemployed. If we restricted immigration from eastern Europe, people on the dole would have more of a chance of getting back into employment and that would help reduce our welfare bill.

djpbarry wrote:

Nor does it give any indication as to how many are new arrivals.

If the non-nationals being issued with PPS numbers are not new arrivals then who are they?

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

Not only do unemployed people now have to compete with thousands of other unemployed people for the available jobs, but they also have to compete with thousands of immigrants who are even more determined to get their hands on those jobs than our own unemployed. If we restricted immigration from eastern Europe, people on the dole would have more of a chance of getting back into employment and that would help reduce our welfare bill.

So you want to cut out the competition in the labour market to protect the unemployed from superior candidates from abroad? I’m curious to know why immigrants are “more determined” to find work than unemployed people in this country? Surely the solution to that problem is to give the “less determined” a kick in the behind, rather than limiting the pool of talent available to prospective employers?

O'Morris wrote: »

If the non-nationals being issued with PPS numbers are not new arrivals then who are they?

I’ll answer that question with a question…

In the first five months of this year, 37,127 Irish nationals applied for PPS numbers – are they all new arrivals too?

Guessing over the make-up of these numbers is pointless. However, historically, there is a very large discrepancy between the number of PPS numbers issued to foreign nationals and the number of immigrants received over a given period of time. I’ve lost track how many times I’ve pointed this out to you at this stage.

MiniDriver

devereaux17 wrote: »

Give it 5 years and Ireland will resemble what it was like before 1890's, thats my opinion.

Fixed.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote:

So you want to cut out the competition in the labour market to protect the unemployed from superior candidates from abroad?

That's exactly what I want. I want us to focus on reducing unemployment and reducing the size of our welfare bill. To do that we need to make sure that people out of work are given a chance to get back into employment. With the size of the deficit our priority has to be in reducing government spending and borrowing, not on giving employers the luxury of having the most qualified and cheapest employees.

If we were to open our labour market to the entire world we'd never be able to reduce unemployment because there will always be people from other parts of the world who are more qualified and more willing to fill the available jobs.

djpbarry wrote:

I’m curious to know why immigrants are “more determined” to find work than unemployed people in this country?

Because the immigrants come from countries where the average wage is much lower than it is here and because they don't have the safety net of a generous social welfare system to fall back on if they don't find work.

djpbarry wrote:

Surely the solution to that problem is to give the “less determined” a kick in the behind, rather than limiting the pool of talent available to prospective employers?

Are you in favour of us lifting our restrictions on the Romanians and the Bulgarians and the Indians and the Chinese? By restricting access to people from those countries we're limiting the pool of available talent to prospective employers.

djpbarry wrote:

I’ll answer that question with a question…

In the first five months of this year, 37,127 Irish nationals applied for PPS numbers – are they all new arrivals too?

No, I think most of them are Irish babies.

djpbarry wrote:

However, historically, there is a very large discrepancy between the number of PPS numbers issued to foreign nationals and the number of immigrants received over a given period of time. I’ve lost track how many times I’ve pointed this out to you at this stage.

And for some reason I just can't get my head around it. I'm still of the view that PPS numbers give a strong indication of the number of immigrants entering the country. Maybe if you could give a more plausible explanation for why so many non-nationals are being issued with PPS numbers I might be more inclined to change my mind on this.

gurramok

djpbarry wrote: »

So you want to cut out the competition in the labour market to protect the unemployed from superior candidates from abroad? I’m curious to know why immigrants are “more determined” to find work than unemployed people in this country? Surely the solution to that problem is to give the “less determined” a kick in the behind, rather than limiting the pool of talent available to prospective employers?

That depends on which sector is short-staffed. Its the govts job to collate stats and judge which sectors need extra staff from abroad.

In the current climate, there are few sectors that need to source extra staff from abroad hence the govt has to balance reducing the welfare bill here by helping current unemployed residents get jobs rather than keep the free borders opened.

400,000+ looking for a job, that says that there are many qualified out there to fill the jobs currently before hiring from abroad, its just too big a pool of labour to ignore.
Its just logical sense on a sector by sector basis of course.

In the first five months of this year, 37,127 Irish nationals applied for PPS numbers – are they all new arrivals too?

Think they are 16-18yr olds on first entry to the workforce or just returning emigrants.

AlekSmart

Are you in favour of us lifting our restrictions on the Romanians and the Bulgarians and the Indians and the Chinese? By restricting access to people from those countries we're limiting the pool of available talent to prospective employers.

Crikey.....But before we begin to circle the wagons perhaps it`s worth asking how much commercial property is currently being bought at "distressed" rates by persons from the Indian sub-continent ?

Éire is changing,and perhaps more rapidly than many,politicians included,are prepared for.

I`m with O`Morris on this one anyway....

That's exactly what I want. I want us to focus on reducing unemployment and reducing the size of our welfare bill. To do that we need to make sure that people out of work are given a chance to get back into employment. With the size of the deficit our priority has to be in reducing government spending and borrowing, not on giving employers the luxury of having the most qualified and cheapest employees.

BULLSEYE !!!

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

With the size of the deficit our priority has to be in reducing government spending and borrowing, not on giving employers the luxury of having the most qualified and cheapest employees.

But this “luxury” is good for the economy in the long run. If an employer can fill a position with a better-qualified candidate, it stands to reason that their business will function better, which is better for the economy at large, no?

O'Morris wrote: »

If we were to open our labour market to the entire world we'd never be able to reduce unemployment because there will always be people from other parts of the world who are more qualified and more willing to fill the available jobs.

I’m not convinced that immigrants are “more willing”, but as for being more qualified, the obvious solution to that is to help the unemployed “up-skill”. Again, this would be better for the economy in the long-run.

O'Morris wrote: »

Because the immigrants come from countries where the average wage is much lower than it is here…

Not all of them do – we’ve already established that a sizeable chunk came from across the pond.

O'Morris wrote: »

Are you in favour of us lifting our restrictions on the Romanians and the Bulgarians and the Indians and the Chinese?

Only if they reciprocate.

O'Morris wrote: »

I'm still of the view that PPS numbers give a strong indication of the number of immigrants entering the country.

They don’t. I refer you to this document, which shows that, for example, approximately 25% of foreign nationals issued with PPS numbers from 2002-2007 never actually entered employment in this country. It also shows that only about 50% of all foreign nationals issued with PPS numbers from 2002-2007 were still in active employment in this country in 2007. Again, this has all been pointed out to you before but you still refuse to accept it.

bill_ashmount

Hookey wrote: »

All the parties you mentioned are minorities, in most cases, small ones. Even the UKIP vote isn't a real reflection of how people will vote in a general election,

I disagree, all the parties I mentioned have support varying from 10 - 25% This to me is not a small minority in political terms. PVV got over 17% in Holland, making them one of the biggest parties there.

UKIP stood on a platform of pulling the UK out of Europe, they became the second biggest party in the UK, this does not make them a fringe player. Bigger than the Labour party. They are the second biggest not a small minority as you seem to suggest.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote:

But this “luxury” is good for the economy in the long run.

And in the short-run we're fighting for our survival and trying to avoid going bankrupt. I don't think you fully grap how serious our problems are. We have 400,000 people out of work and to support them we'll need to spend and borrow billions of euros. Our priority in the short-term has to be in getting our finances under control. We need to reduce our welfare bill and to turn thousands of welfare recipients back into welfare contributors. We need to restrict immigration so that the competition for jobs is not as intense as it is now.

djpbarry wrote:

They don’t. I refer you to this document, which shows that, for example, approximately 25% of foreign nationals issued with PPS numbers from 2002-2007 never actually entered employment in this country. It also shows that only about 50% of all foreign nationals issued with PPS numbers from 2002-2007 were still in active employment in this country in 2007. Again, this has all been pointed out to you before but you still refuse to accept it.

But PPS numbers still give an indication of the number of people entering the country. Even if they return home again they're still coming here, applying for PPS numbers and then going out and competing for jobs with our people. You haven't yet shown that the PPS numbers aren't mostly being issued to new arrivals.

Hookey

bill_ashmount wrote: »

I disagree, all the parties I mentioned have support varying from 10 - 25% This to me is not a small minority in political terms. PVV got over 17% in Holland, making them one of the biggest parties there.

UKIP stood on a platform of pulling the UK out of Europe, they became the second biggest party in the UK, this does not make them a fringe player. Bigger than the Labour party. They are the second biggest not a small minority as you seem to suggest.

As I already said, UKIP are NOT the second largest party in the UK. They did well at the European elections - means nothing at a general election, where I'd be happy to bet with you now they won't take a single seat.

djpbarry

bill_ashmount wrote: »

UKIP stood on a platform of pulling the UK out of Europe, they became the second biggest party in the UK...

Hardly – they didn’t win a single seat in the Commons in the ’05 election. That puts them behind such political heavyweights as ‘Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern’ and ‘Respect – The Unity Coalition’.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

We need to reduce our welfare bill and to turn thousands of welfare recipients back into welfare contributors.

Agreed. So how are we going to do that? How will restricting immigration from other EU states assist us in implementing your plan of action?

O'Morris wrote: »

But PPS numbers still give an indication of the number of people entering the country.

There’s probably a rough correlation, but we don’t have enough data to test that theory.

O'Morris wrote: »

You haven't yet shown that the PPS numbers aren't mostly being issued to new arrivals.

That would be a form of argumentum ad ignorantiam; I have not demonstrated your claim to be false, therefore it is true.

My claim (repeated on several threads at this point) is that PPS numbers issued are not a reliable indicator of immigration over a given period of time and I have presented sufficient supporting evidence.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote:

Agreed. So how are we going to do that? How will restricting immigration from other EU states assist us in implementing your plan of action?

It will ease the competition for jobs and that will make it easier for people out of work to get back into employment. The fewer people there are out of work the fewer people we will have to support on the dole and that will help reduce the amount of money that we will have to spend and borrow. It's all economics when you think about it.

djpbarry wrote:

That would be a form of argumentum ad ignorantiam; I have not demonstrated your claim to be false, therefore it is true.

I will stick with what I believe to be the most plausible explanation until you can provide an alternative.

djpbarry wrote:

My claim (repeated on several threads at this point) is that PPS numbers issued are not a reliable indicator of immigration over a given period of time and I have presented sufficient supporting evidence.

And I have claimed that PPS numbers are a reliable indicator of the number of non-nationals entering our country. You haven't shown that most PPS numbers are not being issued to new arrivals and you haven't provided an alternative explanation.

Wheely

bill_ashmount wrote: »

I disagree, all the parties I mentioned have support varying from 10 - 25% This to me is not a small minority in political terms. PVV got over 17% in Holland, making them one of the biggest parties there.

UKIP stood on a platform of pulling the UK out of Europe, they became the second biggest party in the UK, this does not make them a fringe player. Bigger than the Labour party. They are the second biggest not a small minority as you seem to suggest.

Ummm i was asking you what you thought about the apparent lack of appetite for such a party here in Ireland! Any response?

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

It will ease the competition for jobs and that will make it easier for people out of work to get back into employment.

Which jobs are these now?

O'Morris wrote: »

And I have claimed that PPS numbers are a reliable indicator of the number of non-nationals entering our country.

But I thought the thrust of your argument concerns the number of foreign nationals entering the labour market? Which is it?

bill_ashmount

Wheely wrote: »

Ummm i was asking you what you thought about the apparent lack of appetite for such a party here in Ireland! Any response?

I have no idea. The same way I don't know how Fianna Fail keep getting elected.

The demise of the EU will come when bigger nations pull out not Ireland.

bill_ashmount

Hookey wrote: »

As I already said, UKIP are NOT the second largest party in the UK. They did well at the European elections - means nothing at a general election, where I'd be happy to bet with you now they won't take a single seat.

You said they are a minor party, I said they are not. I cannot find the previous post where you said what you claim above?

I'll take that bet.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote:

Which jobs are these now?

Any new jobs that come on the market.

djpbarry wrote:

But I thought the thrust of your argument concerns the number of foreign nationals entering the labour market? Which is it?

Entering the labour market. If someone applies for a PPS number it's because they want to be able to work here and so PPS numbers are a good indicator of the number of people entering our labour market. At least a hundred PPS numbers have been issued to non-nationals each day since the start of the year. It matches nicely the number of jobs that our economy is losing each day.
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1015162.shtml

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

Any new jobs that come on the market.

Which will be created by?

O'Morris wrote: »

Entering the labour market. If someone applies for a PPS number it's because they want to be able to work here…

Not necessarily; there’s a variety of reasons why someone might apply for a PPS number and, as was stated in a document I linked to earlier, approximately one quarter of foreign nationals who applied for PPS numbers from 2002-2007 never entered the labour market.

gurramok

If the Irish govt actually had valid statistics on how many foreign nationals are employed here, ye two wouldn't be guessing the numbers!!

It reminds me of the British govt's attempts last year to count how many immigrants are working in their country, they hadn't a clue!