50 Million Africans -EU

RandomName2

OP is lousy (because of the details).

The argument that you can be anti immigration but not racist is (apparently) torn to shreds (see OB's last post, amongst others) by the idea that this is merely a disingenuous attempt to legitimise arguments against immigration.

I.e. if you are anti-immigration you are racist.

And racism is bad.

Thus, immigration is good

Not only is there a 'racism card' but there is a 'You are just calling yourself non-racist' card.

In fact, if you want to discuss the matter, you are racist (as discussing implies that you are questioning it, that you are therefore skeptical as to its merits).

I am not entirely sure what the merits of immigration are, as they seem to be divorced from economic concerns. Immigration can be both good for the economy, or bad for the economy, depending upon various conditions.

But the discussion... sorry, erm... reasons for immigration are rarely put in economic terms - instead there are, to be kind, various broad concepts concerning multi-ethnicity, openness, inclusiveness, progression and harmonization which are bandied about.

Europe has had plenty of experience of ethnic minorities. Even little ol' Ireland has. That is why Ireland has never experienced any form of social, political or military unrest concerning these ethnic minorities :rolleyes:

You can retort that there is a difference between plantation and immigration. There is - one is given the political backing, and the other is given erm... political backing. Okay, one is colonial, and the other is not. That much is true (wherein natives can be forcibly removed and their land taken from them during colonial adventures, which will not happen in passive immigration). However, the end results concerning social unrest tend to remain the same, unless some incredible achievement concerning assimilation is obtained. Whether or not assimilation is successful is largely dependent upon the numbers of immigrants one is talking about (ratio of immigrant to native).

Of course, many proponents of immigration do not believe in assimilation. Maybe to believe in assimilation will be soon considered racist.

Mind you, if you want to solve the world's ills by having citizens from the third world move to the first world you are on a losing wicket from the start.

This thread should probably be in the politics section.

KindOfIrish

All this post is a blatant racism and ignorance in the subject.:mad:
What 50 m. you are talking about? The most populated by Africans in EU are UK and France. In France they are just 2 m. with 70% of them born in France and are Nationals of France so max. 0.5 m. are immigrants. In UK Africans about 1 m. Have of them British africans.
Stop postin bullsh..t. Go discuss soccer!

meditraitor

KindOfIrish wrote: »

All this post is a blatant racism and ignorance in the subject.:mad:
What 50 m. you are talking about? The most populated by Africans in EU are UK and France. In France they are just 2 m. with 70% of them born in France and are Nationals of France so max. 0.5 m. are immigrants. In UK Africans about 1 m. Have of them British africans.
Stop postin bullsh..t. Go discuss soccer!

Read the thread, it helps

meglome

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Definitely not with the likes of you involved. Anyone who dares question mass immigration is branded a racist or xenophbic. Interesting that you don't level that accusation at every other country in the world who controls immigration? I wonder why that is?

I have no interest in getting into a bitching session about this. I said in my post I believe that immigration should be controlled. However I completely disagree with the idea immigration is automatically a bad thing. On the whole Ireland has been improved by immigration. Oh we might have changed our tune now that we have an unemployment problem, but it's not so long ago we didn't mind those pesky immigrants doing all our crappy jobs.

I think some of the comments are xenophobic or even possibly racist as it seems that African immigration is a bigger problem to some people than people from say Poland (who actually make up the majority of our immigrants).

I don't think being interested in controls on immigration makes you xenophobic or racist however given some of the comments I can't help but feel they are exactly that.

PaulieD wrote: »

Its not being turned towards Africans. I have shown that Nigerians are overwhelmingly reliant on social welfare.

-62% of them were unemployed during the boom years.
-Nearly 50% of them are in receipt of rent allowance.
-The abuse of our asylum system.

I thought we'd established that they are not allowed to work?

Don't get me wrong I don't love the Nigerian way. Another African guys told me once... "Bah Nigerians, One hand on the bible the other hand on your wallet". And there's certainly some truth in that. But if I'm going to blame someone I'll blame our rubbish government for running a rubbish system.

PaulieD wrote: »

Now, before you start labelling anyone who brings the issue up as a racist, heres one to ponder over your cafe latte this brisk November morn. Nearly 1 in 250 Mauritian citizens are resident in the Irish state. Thats a pretty staggering figure, yet you never hear anyone complain about Mauritians. They are African too. There are three Mauritian families in receipt of rent allowance. A whole three. Compare that to the 3,024 Nigerian families in receipt of rent allowance.

Wasn't the word African used over and over in this thread?

PaulieD wrote: »

Why the hell are Nigerians flying half way across the globe to claim asylum in Ireland. Ireland receives the second largest number of Nigerian asylum seekers in europe. Why? 99.4% of them are refused, why are they still here?

I don't know. Why don't we ask our government.

PaulieD

marco_polo wrote: »

What needs to be pointed out to both you and Kevin Myers is that not working != unemployed (Ask any housewife or student)

Right, so they are all housewifes and students, even though nearly half of all Nigerians in the Irish state are in receipt of rent allowance. This figure does not include asylum seekers, who are not entitled to rent allowance as they already have their accomodation subsidised.

marco_polo wrote: »

Also, since the Irish government does not generally go around issuing work permits and PPSN numbers to failed assylum seekers. The myth that the population increases are due to these remaining on can be put to bed.

The number of failed asylum seekers does not correlate with the number of deportations. In actual fact, deportations have decreased steadily each year. They are not returning home, either voluntarily or forcibly.

marco_polo wrote: »

The 9,522 PPSNs granted to Nigerians nationals in the years 2003-2006 corrosponds quite nicely to the increase in residents from 8,969 to 16,300 between the 2002 census and the 2006 census.

Theres only 16,300 Nigerians here? So 12,096 out of 16,300 Nigerians are in receipt of rent allowance?:eek:

PaulieD

meglome wrote: »

I thought we'd established that they are not allowed to work?

Then why are 12,096 Nigerians in receipt of rent allowance? Asylum seekers do not qualify for rent allowance.So we can give that myth a cup of hot chocolate, a nice water bottle and put it to bed.

meglome wrote: »

Don't get me wrong I don't love the Nigerian way. Another African guys told me once... "Bah Nigerians, One hand on the bible the other hand on your wallet". And there's certainly some truth in that. But if I'm going to blame someone I'll blame our rubbish government for running a rubbish system.

I am a strong believer in individual responsibility. If I went to Nigeria and claimed a tribe from Kildare wanted to hack my daughters genitalia up, just to get hooked up to their welfare system, it would by my fault for making up fairytales. Not the Nigerian governments.

meglome wrote: »

I don't know. Why don't we ask our government.

Is that a pig I see flying......

djpbarry

PaulieD wrote: »

Right, so they are all housewifes and students...

You have reason to believe that they are not? According to the last census, quite a large number (16%) of Nigerian nationals were students.

PaulieD wrote: »

The number of failed asylum seekers does not correlate with the number of deportations. In actual fact, deportations have decreased steadily each year. They are not returning home, either voluntarily or forcibly.

If I leave Ireland tomorrow of my own free will, do I register as a deportation statistic?

PaulieD wrote: »

Then why are 12,096 Nigerians in receipt of rent allowance?

I’m not sure where that figure comes from, but since when was it wrong to apply for (and subsequently receive) rent allowance? If I were eligible to receive rent allowance, I’d have applied for it by now (and I’m sure you would have too).

PaulieD

djpbarry wrote: »

You have reason to believe that they are not? According to the last census, quite a large number (16%) of Nigerian nationals were students.

Third level students or primary and secondary school students?

djpbarry wrote: »

If I leave Ireland tomorrow of my own free will, do I register as a deportation statistic?

Nope.

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not sure where that figure comes from, but since when was it wrong to apply for (and subsequently receive) rent allowance? If I were eligible to receive rent allowance, I’d have applied for it by now (and I’m sure you would have too).

The number of Nigerian households in receipt of rent allowance is 3,024. Lets say the average household consists of two adults and two children, that means 12,096 Nigerians are reliant on rent allowance.

marco_polo

PaulieD wrote: »

Right, so they are all housewifes and students, even though nearly half of all Nigerians in the Irish state are in receipt of rent allowance. This figure does not include asylum seekers, who are not entitled to rent allowance as they already have their accomodation subsidised.

I am just pointing out that you imaginary 62% unemployed figure is a complete falsehood. I have no objection to anyone

The number of failed asylum seekers does not correlate with the number of deportations. In actual fact, deportations have decreased steadily each year. They are not returning home, either voluntarily or forcibly.

Have you any figures on how many failed asylum seekers have been allocated a PPSN number? I have a feeling that the number is pretty close to zero. To gain a PPSN number you need to be granted a work permit by the state.

The myth that the bulk of entrants are asylum seekers has been busted completely.

Theres only 16,300 Nigerians here? So 12,096 out of 16,300 Nigerians are in receipt of rent allowance?:eek:

Clearly I am to take it that you haven't actually read any of the 2006 census reports that you love to quote.

marco_polo

PaulieD wrote: »

T
The number of Nigerian households in receipt of rent allowance is 3,024. Lets say the average household consists of two adults and two children, that means 12,096 Nigerians are reliant on rent allowance.

I didn't realise that you were just making up your own statistics.

In fact also in the census you have't bothered to read there were 7,997 individuals living as part of an Irish/Nigerian couple who also have children as opposed to 872 nigerian only couples with children so your 'calculation' is meaningless to the point of laughable.

It also suggest that they are integrating quite well into society dosn't it?

PaulieD

marco_polo wrote: »

Have you any figures on how many failed asylum seekers have been allocated a PPSN number? I have a feeling that the number is pretty close to zero. To gain a PPSN number you need to be granted a work permit by the state.

The myth that the bulk of entrants are asylum seekers has been busted completely.

Only 512 Nigerians have been issued with work permits.

http://www.entemp.ie/labour/workpermits/statistics.htm

PaulieD

marco_polo wrote: »

In fact also in the census you have't bothered to read there were 7,997 individuals living as part of an Irish/Nigerian couple who also have children as opposed to 872 nigerian only couples with children so your 'calculation' is meaningless to the point of laughable.

It also suggest that they are integrating quite well into society dosn't it?

A large chunk of that 7,997 figure is probably Nigerians who obtained Irish citizenship.

K-9

PaulieD wrote: »

Right, so they are all housewifes and students, even though nearly half of all Nigerians in the Irish state are in receipt of rent allowance. This figure does not include asylum seekers, who are not entitled to rent allowance as they already have their accomodation subsidised.

PaulieD wrote: »

Third level students or primary and secondary school students?



Nope.



The number of Nigerian households in receipt of rent allowance is 3,024. Lets say the average household consists of two adults and two children, that means 12,096 Nigerians are reliant on rent allowance.

I'm confused now!

In one post you seem to be questioning they aren't all housewives and students, in the next you seem to be saying they mostly are housewives, students and children.

PaulieD

marco_polo wrote: »

Have you any figures on how many failed asylum seekers have been allocated a PPSN number? I have a feeling that the number is pretty close to zero. To gain a PPSN number you need to be granted a work permit by the state.

You couldnt be more wrong.

Between 2000-2008 22,224 Nigerians obtained a PPS number.

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Topics/PPSN/Pages/ppsn_all_2008.aspx

Betweem 2000-2008 350 Nigerians obtained a work permit. Since the start of the work permit scheme, 512 were issued to Nigerians.(See my previous link)

You are spouting nonsense. In the years 2000 to 2008 21,874 Nigerians obtained PPS numbers without having a work permit.

marco_polo wrote: »

The myth that the bulk of entrants are asylum seekers has been busted completely.

It most certainly has not.

PaulieD

K-9 wrote: »

I'm confused now!

In one post you seem to be questioning they aren't all housewives and students, in the next you seem to be saying they mostly are housewives, students and children.

No need to be. The 62% figure of unemployed consists of Nigerian adults. The children do not come into the equation.

southsiderosie

I would not assume that all immigrants will stay; in Germany rates of return were quite high in the 1970s for a number of groups (with Turks having the lowest rate).
Link: http://www.ecomod.net/conferences/middle_east_2005/middle_east_2005_papers/Kirdar.pdf

This was true in the US case as well; in the first great wave of Italian migration to the US in the turn of the last century, half of those who migrated went home again (and this was before the time of direct flights!).

That said, it is silly for governments to assume that immigration can help solve the question of an aging population. But it is easier for them to do nothing about migration that it is for them to tell public sector employees that they cannot retire when they are 50 and draw 30 years of pension benefits.

Finally, to co-sign on the earlier post about "mixed" Irish-Nigerian families, according to the CSO: "There are more females than males and over half of Nigerians are married. Four out of five Nigerians lived in private households with Irish people. These were predominately in family-type households in which the children in these families were of Irish nationality."
Link: http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/population/non-irish/pages23-43.pdf

djpbarry

PaulieD wrote: »

Third level students or primary and secondary school students?

Full-time education, so I’m guessing that means both second and third-level.

PaulieD wrote: »

Nope.

So if a failed asylum seeker leaves the country voluntarily, then they don’t become a deportation statistic, do they?

PaulieD wrote: »

The number of Nigerian households in receipt of rent allowance is 3,024. Lets say the average household consists of two adults and two children, that means 12,096 Nigerians are reliant on rent allowance.

Why stop there? Let’s say the average household consists of a Nigerian couple and all of their friends and relatives (including those that live in Nigeria).

PaulieD wrote: »

No need to be. The 62% figure of unemployed consists of Nigerian adults. The children do not come into the equation.

If the 62% figure that you are spouting is based on the 2006 census reports, then it refers to all Nigerian nationals over the age of 15 (which includes children).

PaulieD

djpbarry wrote: »

Why stop there? Let’s say the average household consists of a Nigerian couple and all of their friends and relatives (including those that live in Nigeria).

You are being silly now.

K-9

PaulieD wrote: »

No need to be. The 62% figure of unemployed consists of Nigerian adults. The children do not come into the equation.

Why not count them as unemployed too? Sure you count them as in receipt of Rent Allowance. Use the same basis for both cases, otherwise you are sensationalising.

Near 50% of our citizens must be getting Rent Allowance/Mortgage Interest Relief based on your measurements.

Mrmoe

meglome wrote: »

However I completely disagree with the idea immigration is automatically a bad thing. On the whole Ireland has been improved by immigration. Oh we might have changed our tune now that we have an unemployment problem, but it's not so long ago we didn't mind those pesky immigrants doing all our crappy jobs.

Isn't that the root problem of immigration? It is usually a short term fix to a problem without any thought to the long term effects. You have clearly given an example here where immigration does not work. That is why people object.

K-9

Mrmoe wrote: »

Isn't that the root problem of immigration? It is usually a short term fix to a problem without any thought to the long term effects. You have clearly given an example here where immigration does not work. That is why people object.

I think alot of it is the same people who had a problem with immigration in the first place getting louder and louder and others are far more willing to listen now.

Many see immigrants as not equal or less deserving. Might be a throwback to when we where immigrants.

Immigrants claiming SW was always a problem with some, pre recession days. Now it's a bigger problem for them in recessionary times.

I suspect that if this was 20 years ago and the same rules applied in other countries, many would have an opposite opinion of emigrants!

djpbarry

PaulieD wrote: »

You are being silly now.

You started it.

According to the last census, about 80% of Nigerian nationals co-habited with Irish people.

djpbarry

Mrmoe wrote: »

Isn't that the root problem of immigration? It is usually a short term fix to a problem without any thought to the long term effects. You have clearly given an example here where immigration does not work.

With specific reference to Ireland, in what way has immigration "not worked"?

Personally, I think it's a bit daft to consider immigration in isolation. The question should not be "has immigration been good for Ireland?", but rather "has the free movement of people been good for the EU?". I'm not sure there are too many people who would answer 'no' to the latter.

realismpol

all part of the agenda folks to dilute national identities so that there will be less resistance against the proposed changes that are going to come into effect once we are all under a one world government.

See if you destroy national indentities and boundaries people won't care so much about their own countries and what is been forced down their necks they'll just be happy to live and get benefits off governments there. They will be greatful to the governments in fact.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote:

With specific reference to Ireland, in what way has immigration "not worked"?

Immigration is not working because it's not serving the needs of our economy. The influx of tens of thousands of jobseekers at a time when we have hundreds of thousands of people out of work is making it much more difficult for us to reduce the numbers of people on the dole and that is making it more difficult for us to reduce the size of our deficit.

If immigration was working you wouldn't see opinion polls showing that the majority of Irish people want to see less of it.

djpbarry wrote:

Personally, I think it's a bit daft to consider immigration in isolation. The question should not be "has immigration been good for Ireland?"

Why shouldn't the question be about whether immigration has been good for Ireland? Do you not have anything positive to say about immigration itself? Is it your view that immigration is a negative but that it's just the price we have to pay for membership of the common market?

djpbarry wrote:

"has the free movement of people been good for the EU?". I'm not sure there are too many people who would answer 'no' to the latter.

I would. I think our government made the wrong decision when they threw open our labour market to the millions of low-wage east-Europeans at a time when most other European countries decided to do otherwise. I don't think you'll find many Germans or Austrians complaining about how they've been denied the joys of free movement from eastern Europe.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

The influx of tens of thousands of jobseekers at a time when we have hundreds of thousands of people out of work is making it much more difficult for us to reduce the numbers of people on the dole and that is making it more difficult for us to reduce the size of our deficit.

You’ve been trotting that line out for months (years?) now without substantiating it in any way. I find it extremely hard to believe that jobseekers’ tasks are being made that much more difficult by the presence of new arrivals to our shores. Besides, it makes perfect economic sense to me to provide employers with the largest possible pool of potential recruits (which also provides an attraction for potential new businesses in this country). It would also make a lot of economic sense for people who are currently out of work to be thinking about how to make themselves as attractive as possible to prospective employers (I’m aware of several who are, which is heartening to see), rather than blaming the immigrants for taking all the jobs. Furthermore, immigrants to Ireland have tended to have, on average, more qualifications than the natives – another economic bonus.

O'Morris wrote: »

If immigration was working you wouldn't see opinion polls showing that the majority of Irish people want to see less of it.

If tens of thousands of people take to the streets to protest against the proposed widening of the income tax net, does that mean that taxation doesn’t work?

O'Morris wrote: »

Why shouldn't the question be about whether immigration has been good for Ireland?

It can if you want, but it makes far more sense to me to consider migration as a whole, rather than immigration in isolation. It’s analogous to questioning whether freely importing goods from other EU nations has benefited Ireland – a bit pointless without considering exports too.

O'Morris wrote: »

I think our government made the wrong decision when they threw open our labour market to the millions of low-wage east-Europeans at a time when most other European countries decided to do otherwise.

I don’t, but that’s not the point. The point I was making was whether or not the free movement of people to/from Poland, Czech Republic, Slovenia, etc. has benefitted the EU as a whole.

Mrmoe

K-9 wrote: »

I think alot of it is the same people who had a problem with immigration in the first place getting louder and louder and others are far more willing to listen now.

Many see immigrants as not equal or less deserving. Might be a throwback to when we where immigrants.

Immigrants claiming SW was always a problem with some, pre recession days. Now it's a bigger problem for them in recessionary times.

I suspect that if this was 20 years ago and the same rules applied in other countries, many would have an opposite opinion of emigrants!

Immigrants by their very nature should not be equal. They do not have the same automatic rights as a citizen. I believe people who want to come here should earn it and be of benefit to the country. We have no obligation to them otherwise. If they come here and benefit the country they should be rewarded. This is the type of immigration that I want to see. It should be ease for people to move around but only for those that contribute something to their host country.

It is valid to say that we needed a high influx of immigrants approximately 10 years ago up until a few years ago. We got exactly what we wanted. However, now the immigration of the past is becoming a strain and what is to be done about it? This is why immigration should be strictly controlled. Immigration is without a doubt good for a country at certain times but we should not feel morally obligated that we have to allow it when it affects us negatively.

djpbarry

Mrmoe wrote: »

It is valid to say that we needed a high influx of immigrants approximately 10 years ago up until a few years ago. We got exactly what we wanted. However, now the immigration of the past is becoming a strain...

How so?

southsiderosie

Mrmoe wrote: »

Immigrants by their very nature should not be equal. They do not have the same automatic rights as a citizen. I believe people who want to come here should earn it and be of benefit to the country. We have no obligation to them otherwise. If they come here and benefit the country they should be rewarded. This is the type of immigration that I want to see. It should be ease for people to move around but only for those that contribute something to their host country.

You have clear obligations to them in so far as they are EU citizens, which the bulk of the post-2004 immigrants are.

PaulieD

southsiderosie wrote: »

You have clear obligations to them in so far as they are EU citizens, which the bulk of the post-2004 immigrants are.

What obligations?