Advocates of limited immigration accused of being racist.

airsofter1234

I am an advocate of limiting the amount of inward migration from non-EU countries and I feel that the EU members should be able to limit the number of economic migrants entering the member state. I am not going to discuss why this is never going to happen because this is not what I want to discuss in this thread, but why some people find it right to call me a racist. Every time I debate the topic with people they say it is racist to limit immigration. What has happened to society, that everything is now so politically correct, and the definition of racism has blurred. Saying anything is now racist and frowned upon.
What arguments do any of you have when talking to these people, to try and explain to them how it is not racist and that they are wrong?

Skrynesaver

I am an ardent anti-racist and believe economic migration should be capped with qualification and that legitimate asylum should be granted through a fair and efficeint mechanism. I have yet to have anyone who's opinion I value call me racist, either you spend too much time talking to the "religious" anti-facist groupings, (ie. those too young to have considered their opinion's ramifications fully), or you may express your opinions in such a way that people may consider your motives to be other than colour bllind.

johnnyskeleton

Who exactly is calling you a racist?

Besides, you haven't said anything controversial because there are already restraints on non-eea nationals entering the state. The position you advocate is the legal position as it stands, expressed in the vaguest terms.

So essentially you want to know why people call you a racist for having a moderate view on immigration law. I think the real questions are whether anyone actually says this to you, if they do, is it actually because of your stated view on immigration law and if what you say is true, why do you care what some internet troll says so much that you start a tread on it?

Unless I misunderstand you and you propose exchanging our merits based considerations system of granting/ refusing permission to non-eea nationals and replacing it with a quota system. But that's not racist it's just a lazy alternative to what we have now

VeryOwl

airsofter1234 wrote: »

Every time I debate the topic with people they say it is racist to limit immigration.

When you simplify immigration restriction down to it, it's basically saying "no you don't have a right to live here because you weren't born in ________, or aren't _________". When you're making a distinction on the basis of where someone was born, something that can't be controlled, it's understandable that people might hold the opinion that it's racist, even if you qualify it with legitimate concerns to do with the capacity of public services etc.

What has happened to society, that everything is now so politically correct, and the definition of racism has blurred. Saying anything is now racist and frowned upon.

Not really. It's more that things that used to be okay to say, are now, correctly called out for being what they are. Does anyone really want to go back to before so-called 'political correctness' anyway?

Nodin

airsofter1234 wrote: »

I am an advocate of limiting the amount of inward migration from non-EU countries and I feel that the EU members should be able to limit the number of economic migrants entering the member state...........

Non-EU countries are already limited. There would have to be treaty re-negotiations to limit numbers between EU states. Neither position is nessecarily racist.

nesf

VeryOwl wrote: »

When you simplify immigration restriction down to it, it's basically saying "no you don't have a right to live here because you weren't born in ________, or aren't _________". When you're making a distinction on the basis of where someone was born, something that can't be controlled, it's understandable that people might hold the opinion that it's racist, even if you qualify it with legitimate concerns to do with the capacity of public services etc.

But the above isn't even remotely racist. He could be as opposed to Irish-Americans immigrating as anyone else with that position. The problem is the loudest immigration restriction voices tend to be arguing from a racist position but want to put a pretty face on it, so the result is this being thought of anyone proposing anything but the lightest restrictions.

It's the same with people advocating left or right politics being labeled socialists or conservatives/libertarians etc.

sillyoulfool

Proposing caps on economic migrants from outside the EU is not racist.
I have no issue with such caps so long as those caps are applied fairly.
I think the people who call you racist need to educate themselves a little.

airsofter1234

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Who exactly is calling you a racist?...... I think the real questions are whether anyone actually says this to you, if they do, is it actually because of your stated view on immigration law and if what you say is true, why do you care what some internet troll says so much that you start a tread on it?

The people saying this are fellow students, so as you know yourself most students would be quite liberal leaning.

Nodin wrote: »

Non-EU countries are already limited. There would have to be treaty re-negotiations to limit numbers between EU states. Neither position is nessecarily racist.

Yes i understand that treaty change would be required and that the Germans told the UK recently that they did you want to change anything for the moment. But that is not the topic of the thread whether or not it is feasible, but rather why some people find it racist to believe in limiting immigration for economic reasons.

VeryOwl

nesf wrote: »

But the above isn't even remotely racist. He could be as opposed to Irish-Americans immigrating as anyone else with that position. The problem is the loudest immigration restriction voices tend to be arguing from a racist position but want to put a pretty face on it, so the result is this being thought of anyone proposing anything but the lightest restrictions.

It's the same with people advocating left or right politics being labeled socialists or conservatives/libertarians etc.

I didn't say it was necessarily racist, I said it was understandable that some people might see it that way. Again, we're dealing with making a distinction based on where someone is born and affording them different rights/opportunities. For the record, I personally don't think it's racist to have concerns about immigration levels based on economics, on the strain it puts on public services etc.

I would prefer however to see solutions though that work towards creating opportunities for everyone, and freer borders, than caps. I do agree with you that the loudest 'anti-immigration' voices you hear tend to be uninformed, and as a result allow those with legitimate concerns to be painted in a bad light, but you could say the same happens to 'pro-immigration' side too. People who are broadly in favour of more relaxed restrictions are often made out to want to destroy countries' culture, don't care about communities, aren't pragmatic (who seriously suggests letting everyone in at once), PC brigade etc.

Karl Stein

airsofter1234 wrote: »

I am an advocate of limiting the amount of inward migration from non-EU countries

Isn't everyone?

Nodin

airsofter1234 wrote: »

.......... But that is not the topic of the thread whether or not it is feasible, but rather why some people find it racist to believe in limiting immigration for economic reasons.

You'd have to ask them, tbh.

airsofter1234

Nodin wrote: »

You'd have to ask them, tbh.

Haha don't worry I have tried that, all they say is ''it just is'', I even showed them the dictionary definition of the term racist

hatrickpatrick

I'm very pro immigration, but those who are anti-immigration are no more racist than those who criticize Israel or the Iraq war.

Such accusations are an absolute cop out designed to avoid real debate and discredit shame people away from the views they hold.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm very pro immigration, but those who are anti-immigration are no more racist than those who criticize Israel or the Iraq war.

Such accusations are an absolute cop out designed to avoid real debate and discredit shame people away from the views they hold.

Sometimes, yes. On the other hand, there's a very simple logic which says it can't always be the case:

1. racists and xenophobes exist

2. racists and xenophobes will as a rule be opposed to immigration

3. racists and xenophobes will be present in the public debate on immigration

4. ergo, some of those in the public debate who are opposed to immigration will be racists or xenophobes. One could go further and claim that they're likely to be particularly loud in such a debate, because it touches particularly on their interests.

One can neither claim that everyone who opposes immigration is a racist/xenophobe, nor claim that no-one is. As such, it's possible for anyone involved in the debate to a racist/xenophobe.

And that someone is a racist or xenophobe is not an ad hominem point in an immigration debate. A racist or xenophobe who opposes immigration does not do so on rational grounds but on irrational ones - but, outside Stormfront, it's unlikely that they will put forward their case on purely racist/xenophobic grounds. As such, they're likely to be putting forward a dishonest case, because what is important is not the objective merits of the argument they use, but the fact that their argument serves and masks their real intent. That, in turn, means that they're likely to conceal any parts of the evidence that conflict with their intent, and distort where necessary.

So I'm afraid that I would say it's important to be able to identify genuine racists and xenophobes in an immigration debate, just as it is to identify genuine anti-Semites in a debate on Israel. Otherwise we're all effectively having to pretend that such nasty things just don't happen, and people are never really like that, when it just isn't true.

I'm not saying it's easy to be sure who is or is not genuinely racist, and I'm certainly not saying the accusation isn't thrown around too liberally, but pretending it applies to no-one who is opposed to immigration is just as ludicrous as pretending it applies to everyone who is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

droidus

Wow, congratulations. Thats one of the most misguided and hateful things I've read in ages, and I read Reddit.

johnnyskeleton

Harold Weiss wrote: »

In a nutshell, these kind of people tackle issues with their emotions instead of logic.

What people? It is important to remember that this thread did not arise organically i.e.

johnnyskeleton: anyone who wants any sort of limitation on immigration is racist.
airsofter1234: no they are not, and here's why...
johnnyskeleton: yes they are, and here's why...
...ad nausem

Instead, the OP complained about an unspecified group of people making this allegation and then further elaborated that some of his fellow students have said this in passing. No one here has argued that immigration limits must be racist. So it is a completely one sided argument aimed at proving that an undefined and non-contributing group of people's views are incorrect.

In short, you are hitting a straw man.

Harold Weiss wrote: »

They'll never fully understand or appreciate what it takes to provide their cozy lifestyle where they can use twitter and facebook, boards.ie complaining about how evil the white man is.

Can you point to a single post on boards.ie where someone complains about Qhow evil the white man is, other than a troll perhaps?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Freedom isn't free, it never has been and never will be. I get tired seeing all these hipsters talking about freedom like it exists in the real world.

It does not, it never has and never will because the majority of humans need to be controlled otherwise you'd have total chaos.

I don't agree. Freedom does exist, and the fact that there are limits on freedom doesn't mean that we are not free.

Harold Weiss wrote: »

]The truth is, our "freedom" depends on keeping the majority of other people in the world poor. It's something that many are aware of but would prefer not to acknowledge, it's an ugly truth we'd prefer to ignore.

Again, I don't agree. Sure, western people can enjoy a higher standard of life for cheaper because lots of goods and services are provided at a lower price elsewhere, but that doesn't mean that they have to. For example, if I want a €100 pair of runners, it doesn't make a difference to my ability to afford it whether it is made for €50 in the UK and there is €50 profit for the seller/distributor, or whether it is made for €5 in China and there is €95 profit.

In terms of food, we do import a lot of food but not to the extent of dependence on developing nations.

Harold Weiss wrote: »

I'll tell you what we should do with those hippie types, send them all to live in a developing country for a few months and live like the natives to get a taste of real freedom.

The "natives"? Easy there Cecil Rhodes! I guess this is proof of what Scofflaw was saying - just because not all commentary on immigration / global trade is racist, doesn't mean that occasionally the mask won't slip.

JohnMc1

airsofter1234 wrote: »

I am an advocate of limiting the amount of inward migration from non-EU countries and I feel that the EU members should be able to limit the number of economic migrants entering the member state. I am not going to discuss why this is never going to happen because this is not what I want to discuss in this thread, but why some people find it right to call me a racist. Every time I debate the topic with people they say it is racist to limit immigration. What has happened to society, that everything is now so politically correct, and the definition of racism has blurred. Saying anything is now racist and frowned upon.
What arguments do any of you have when talking to these people, to try and explain to them how it is not racist and that they are wrong?

The only reason they are calling you a racists is because they have no valid, logical way to defend current Open Borders policies.

Nodin

JohnMc1 wrote: »

The only reason they are calling you a racists is because they have no valid, logical way to defend current Open Borders policies.

...we have free movement within the EU. That's not "open borders".

droidus

JohnMc1 wrote: »

The only reason they are calling you a racists is because they have no valid, logical way to defend current Open Borders policies.

I suspect you dont know the meaning of the words 'logical', or 'valid'.

1) Europe DOES NOT have an open borders policy, or haven't you noticed those boatloads of desperate people drowning in the mediterranean?

2) Europe has an aging population with a low birth rate. We're about 20 years away from a demographic crisis on the scale of Japan. Only France and Ireland have birth rates high enough to maintain a stable population. Europe NEEDS immigrants.

3) The singular of 'racists', is 'racist'.

guyjohn

droidus wrote: »

I suspect you dont know the meaning of the words 'logical', or 'valid'.

1) Europe DOES NOT have an open borders policy, or haven't you noticed those boatloads of desperate people drowning in the mediterranean?

2) Europe has an aging population with a low birth rate. We're about 20 years away from a demographic crisis on the scale of Japan. Only France and Ireland have birth rates high enough to maintain a stable population. Europe NEEDS immigrants.

3) The singular of 'racists', is 'racist'.

Legal Immigrants required ! Others need not apply.

oscarBravo

guyjohn wrote: »

Legal Immigrants required ! Others need not apply.

How do you apply for illegal immigration?

guyjohn

oscarBravo wrote: »

How do you apply for illegal immigration?

I leave that you your imagination many examples exist .
MH370 with 2 passengers who had false passports presumed to be coming to Europe to claim Asylum.
The South East Asia route is acknowledged as being lax on passport control.

oscarBravo

guyjohn wrote: »

I leave that you your imagination many examples exist .

If examples exist, why do I have to imagine them?

Nodin

guyjohn wrote: »

I leave that you your imagination many examples exist .
MH370 with 2 passengers who had false passports presumed to be coming to Europe to claim Asylum.
The South East Asia route is acknowledged as being lax on passport control.

...bit confused here. These were, I believe, two Iranians coming to seek asylum. That's not immigration, and I am fairly sure Iran is a country with a regime quite oppressive of certain minorities.

sarumite

VeryOwl wrote: »

When you simplify immigration restriction down to it, it's basically saying "no you don't have a right to live here because you weren't born in ________, or aren't _________". When you're making a distinction on the basis of where someone was born, something that can't be controlled, it's understandable that people might hold the opinion that it's racist, even if you qualify it with legitimate concerns to do with the capacity of public services etc.

Every country in then world does that. I currently cannot get a passport from any other country except Ireland because I was not born in said country. They have effectively said "no you don't have a right to a passport from here because you weren't born in ________, or aren't _______"

guyjohn

Nodin wrote: »

...bit confused here. These were, I believe, two Iranians coming to seek asylum. That's not immigration, and I am fairly sure Iran is a country with a regime quite oppressive of certain minorities.

The mystery still surrounds the two Iranians on MH370
I still cannot get around how to travel with a false passport which is illegal and be exonerated.

Nodin

guyjohn wrote: »

The mystery still surrounds the two Iranians on MH370
I still cannot get around how to travel with a false passport which is illegal and be exonerated.

.........let's see. People are running from a repressive regime. They want as far away as possible. They use false documentation to do this.

Fairly straightforward.

guyjohn

Nodin wrote: »

.........let's see. People are running from a repressive regime. They want as far away as possible. They use false documentation to do this.

Fairly straightforward.

I take it you agree with the use of illegal stolen passports for Asylum seekers .I wonder does this extend to the use for hijacking and other criminal activity.
There are countries surrounding Iran with refugee camps. The UNHCR has camps in Iran for Afghan refugees.

Nodin

guyjohn wrote: »

I take it you agree with the use of illegal stolen passports for Asylum seekers .I wonder does this extend to the use for hijacking and other criminal activity. .

That would depend what they were fleeing.

guyjohn wrote: »

There are countries surrounding Iran with refugee camps. The UNHCR has camps in Iran for Afghan refugees.

You've some point.....?

Dannyboy83

I think Irish people advocate 'limited immigration' not due to racism or xenophobia, but as a consequence of the failure to reform other areas, such as Social Welfare.

But we could have a zero immigration policy and yet the taxpayer will still be fleeced.

I don't think we can circumvent these reforms (or not for long anyway).

Nodin

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I think Irish people advocate 'limited immigration' not due to racism or xenophobia, but as a consequence of the failure to reform other areas, such as Social Welfare.

.........

Sorry - could you explain that please?

Dannyboy83

Nodin wrote: »

Sorry - could you explain that please?

A real life anecdote, a friend of mine, she is non-native, she works hard, and is trying to get into further education. Pays her own way. Can't qualify for a medical card or any of that.

Her brother, also non-native as you would guess, doesn't have a job (he quit).
Nor does his wife (redundancy a few years ago with a big lump sum).
His entire family are paid for by social welfare.
He could work if he wanted to. (frequently offered jobs)
They have medical cards, welfare, rent allowance, the works.
He is in some type of further education (didn't pay for it).
They blew their lump sum and are now in the queue waiting for social housing. (had another child specifically to increase their chances)
They're exploiting the social welfare system.
This infuriates/embarrasses her.

She is an advocate of 'limited' or 'controlled' migration, despite being a non-native herself.
Racism/Xenophobia do not enter the equation.


A lot of other nations have a problem with foreigners, just for being foreign, regardless of wheter they are net contributors or not.
"Johnny Foreigner" as they say in the UK.
That's actual xenophobia or racism.

In Ireland, people actually tend to be quite welcoming of foreigners, find it a novelty even.
The problems with foreigners, in my experience, seem to kick in where there is a competition for (quite limited) resources, e.g. school places


Social Welfare reform has been promised time and time again.
It doesn't appear to have happened (although I believe there are some changes in the pipe line - I haven't kept up).

Since the Social Welfare dilemma cannot be reformed, some people (including non-native residents themselves) want to solve the problem by circumventing it through 'limited migration'.

Nodin

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

A real life anecdote, a friend of mine, she is non-native, she works hard, and is trying to get into further education. Pays her own way. Can't qualify for a medical card or any of that.

Her brother, also non-native as you would guess, doesn't have a job (he quit).
Nor does his wife (redundancy a few years ago with a big lump sum).
His entire family are paid for by social welfare.
He could work if he wanted to. (frequently offered jobs)
They have medical cards, welfare, rent allowance, the works.
He is in some type of further education (didn't pay for it).
They blew their lump sum and are now in the queue waiting for social housing. (had another child specifically to increase their chances)
They're exploiting the social welfare system.
This infuriates/embarrasses her.

She is an advocate of 'limited' or 'controlled' migration, despite being a non-native herself.
Racism/Xenophobia do not enter the equation..

So the answer to my question is an anecdote.....and still doesn't really explain the link between "uncontrolled immigration" (which I presume refers to the EU free movement area) and social welfare.

Dannyboy83

Nodin wrote: »

You've some point.....?

Nodin wrote: »

So the answer to my question is an anecdote.....

Sorry, could you drop the condescending attitude?
It's tedious.
Thanks.

and still doesn't really explain the link between "uncontrolled immigration" (which I presume refers to the EU free movement area) and social welfare.

Why would it only apply to the 'EU Free Movement' area?

Nodin

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

...........................................................


Why would it only apply to the 'EU Free Movement' area?

Because theres no uncontrolled movement other than that, therefore.....

Dannyboy83

Nodin wrote: »

Because theres no uncontrolled movement other than that, therefore.....

Don't the 30,000 undocumented migrants in Ireland count as an uncontrolled movement?

The Immigrant Council of Ireland wants Minister for Social Protection Joan Burton to outline safeguards against racial profiling in crackdown on welfare fraud.

A Georgian national bought false identification documents from an Eastern European leaving Cork and he used the papers to make a fraudulent claim for more than €18,000 in social welfare in Cork.

Tbh, I can't really understand the point you're trying to make any more than you seem unable to understand the point I'm trying to make?
Crossed wires perhaps.

Could you explain what your position is?

Anyway, the link between uncontrolled migration and a generous social welfare system is known as the Welfare magnet hypothesis.

And apparently "Irish welfare benefits for intra-EU migrants are amongst the highest in the EU in the areas of jobseekers allowance, healthcare, old-age pensions, and child benefit. "

And it seems that welfare benefits are less likely to be utilized by immigrants than the native population - which was why I said the taxpayer will continue to be fleeced, even if there is a zero immigration policy.


But the point I was initially getting at, is that Irish people don't hate foreigners for being foreign, they hate them for coming here and competing for the limited resources - which the government refuse to reform.

Nodin

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Don't the 30,000 undocumented migrants in Ireland count as an uncontrolled movement?
.

...that figure is an estimate and no, its illegal movement.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Could you explain what your position is?.

...with regards to....?

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

And apparently "Irish welfare benefits for intra-EU migrants are amongst the highest in the EU in the areas of jobseekers allowance, healthcare, old-age pensions, and child benefit. "
.

....we have a high cost of living.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

But the point I was initially getting at, is that Irish people don't hate foreigners for being foreign, they hate them for coming here and competing for the limited resources - which the government refuse to reform.

I'm an irish person, and don't believe that the immigrants from Europe come here for welfare benefits. Secondly and more importantly, as has been stated countless times in numerous threads, you cannot arrive and claim here.

Categorising that article as the government refusing to reform is rather bizarre, in light of the existing regulations. You are aware of the requirements to claim, I trust?

Dannyboy83

Nodin wrote: »

...that figure is an estimate and no, its illegal movement.

The corollary being that social welfare fraud committed by this group also doesn't count ?

I don't understand your reasoning here at all.

I think illegal immigrants benefiting from the social welfare system infuriates people more than any other group - and is a far bigger driver in support of the controlled migration debate.
And, crucially, also the biggest misconception of racism.

...with regards to....?

...with regards to the OP's point...?

I don't think Irish people are racist, I believe there are more complex reasons why people generally advocate limited migration policies, with excessive social welfare rates being one of the main drivers.

I'm presuming you think like Bernadette McAliskey, that Irish people are just becoming more racist ?

....we have a high cost of living.

Indeed we do.
& a welfare trap: A STRING of welfare traps that are stopping people taking up work have been identified in a damning government report.


So going back to my original point, when people who are working for minimum wage cannot afford to go the doctor, see those who do not work with their medical cards, I don't think they decide to hate all Black people or Polish people.

But they do become frustrated by what they consider lavish social welfare.

I'm an irish person, and don't believe that the immigrants from Europe come here for welfare benefits.

Nor do I.
In my previous post I wrote: "that welfare benefits are less likely to be utilized by immigrants than the native population"

Secondly and more importantly, as has been stated countless times in numerous threads, you cannot arrive and claim here.

I never said you could, I've too much personal experience in the area to make that claim

Categorising that article as the government refusing to reform is rather bizarre, in light of the existing regulations. You are aware of the requirements to claim, I trust?

As above.

Sorry I can see why my last link would have confused you there, but you're focusing on the requirement to claim (which has also been an issue until recently)

But I'm more specifically talking about reforming the rate of social welfare, the length of time people can stay on it and the welfare trap.

Nodin

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The corollary being that social welfare fraud committed by this group also doesn't count ?

I don't understand your reasoning here at all.

I think illegal immigrants benefiting from the social welfare system infuriates people more than any other group - and is a far bigger driver in support of the controlled migration debate.
And, crucially, also the biggest misconception of racism.
.

.....there's no real figures on regard to the number of illegals, let alone whether or not they indulge in welfare fraud.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

...with regards to the OP's point...?.

From page 1
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89340618&postcount=5

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I don't think Irish people are racist, I believe there are more complex reasons why people generally advocate limited migration policies, with excessive social welfare rates being one of the main drivers....?.

I doubt that welfare rates are one of the main drivers, given that the number of unemployed in the state.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I'm presuming you think like Bernadette McAliskey, that Irish people are just becoming more racist ?....

Ireland could - in theory - only become more racist as there were essentially only tiny numbers of persons of foreign origin here for most of our modern history. However theres no data to back Ms McAliskeys notion. No anti-immigration party or candidate has ever retained their deposit, or gained a seat on elected body.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

So going back to my original point, when people who are working for minimum wage cannot afford to go the doctor, see those who do not work with their medical cards, I don't think they decide to hate all Black people or Polish people.

But they do become frustrated by what they consider lavish social welfare.
....

....that it's "lavish" is a matter of opinion. That "they" become "frustrated" is a matter of opinion. Generally when I do find somebody complaining, I'm faced with anecdotes, rather than hard facts.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

As above.

Sorry I can see why my last link would have confused you there, but you're focusing on the requirement to claim (which has also been an issue until recently)

But I'm more specifically talking about reforming the rate of social welfare, the length of time people can stay on it and the welfare trap.

....your gripe seems to be more with the entire benefits system rather than immigration. As somebody who remembers a time when one could be legally working and earning less than the dole, I'd suggest there was always a welfare trap of some kind or other.

Leftist

as an irish immigrant in a foreign state, I am not even that opposed to restrictions or measurements controlling migration from outside the EU.

obviously as long as it's not race related and if it's for the sake of tackling a specific problem caused by mass migration.

but they don't cause any strain on the state whatsoever in ireland.

any problems due to social welfare or unemployment are caused by irish people. The horrific FF government that sucked the blood out of the state when we were fat. We needed immigrant workers then. You can't just say we don't need you anymore, go home. If oz/uk or north america did that to legal irish emigrants, we'd all be screaming blue murder.

what i really cannot understand though, is how anyone can seriously spend their time worrying about emigration into ireland. they are making a problem just to feel superior and give themselves an excuse for their own failures.

This isn't a specifically irish thing, it's been happening with fools through out the history of mankind. Stupid people who have extremely narrow horizons always find different people to blame for their woes.

Dannyboy83

Nodin wrote: »

.....there's no real figures on regard to the number of illegals, let alone whether or not they indulge in welfare fraud.

Public perception isn't really shaped by graphs and charts.

The social phenomenon known as public perception can be seen as the difference between an absolute truth based on facts and a virtual truth shaped by popular opinion, media coverage and/or reputation.


The 'Magda' case was a good demonstration of that.

I doubt that welfare rates are one of the main drivers, given that the number of unemployed in the state.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/racism-fears-rise-as-jobless-increase-26545354.html
Figures to be released this week are likely to show that the number of immigrants on the Live Register will exceed 80,000 for the first time or 20 per cent of the total unemployed, the Sunday Independent has learned.

In the dramatically changed economic situation, fears in political circles that immigrants may be subjected to yet more serious discrimination, or even racism, are now being discussed by policy makers. Those fears are grounded in authoritative research referred to recently by the ESRI.

Declaring his intention to "put the issue on the agenda", Mr Barrett told a policy conference on April 30 last that there was a "link" between what he said were "labour market outcomes for immigrants" and the "attitudes of natives".

....that it's "lavish" is a matter of opinion.

The phrase "Better off on benefits" springs to mind

Generally when I do find somebody complaining, I'm faced with anecdotes, rather than hard facts.

It's a notoriously difficult area to collect accurate facts on.

It's called The Social Desirability bias

....your gripe seems to be more with the entire benefits system rather than immigration.

LOL, that's the point I'm trying to make!:D

But Hartz IV won't be implemented here any time soon, so controlled migration might be viewed by the public as one solution, yet people making that argument are seen as racist.

As somebody who remembers a time when one could be legally working and earning less than the dole, I'd suggest there was always a welfare trap of some kind or other.

Anybody alive at the present moment can remember such a time, and yes, you're probably right to an extent.

guyjohn

Nodin wrote: »

Sorry - could you explain that please?

Looks like a good reason to me for controlled immigration unless you want free loaders and chancers to move to Ireland .
There are still large numbers of immigrants coming here that exceed emigration.
Unfortunately the people of this country have no say in immigration .The politicians are afraid to speak out for fear of being called racist.

Nodin

guyjohn wrote: »

Looks like a good reason to me for controlled immigration unless you want free loaders and chancers to move to Ireland .
.

You can't arrive and claim.

guyjohn wrote: »

There are still large numbers of immigrants coming here that exceed emigration..

?

guyjohn wrote: »

Unfortunately the people of this country have no say in immigration .The politicians are afraid to speak out for fear of being called racist.

The people have voted very consistently for Europe over the years. No candidate on an anti-immigration platform has ever kept their deposit. No such candidate has ever been elected, on a national level, or even locally.

guyjohn

Nodin wrote: »

You can't arrive and claim.



?


The people have voted very consistently for Europe over the years. No candidate on an anti-immigration platform has ever kept their deposit. No such candidate has ever been elected, on a national level, or even locally.

There are still immigrants coming here that are non EU. An example is family reunification then they can claim welfare.
The mistakes of the past open door are still there Irish born baby loophole.

comongethappy

guyjohn wrote: »

There are still immigrants coming here that are non EU. An example is family reunification then they can claim welfare.
The mistakes of the past open door are still there Irish born baby loophole.

What is your solution?

Nodin

guyjohn wrote: »

There are still immigrants coming here that are non EU..

So?

guyjohn wrote: »

An example is family reunification then they can claim welfare.
The mistakes of the past open door are still there Irish born baby loophole.

There is no open door. That loophole was closed years ago.

guyjohn

New PPS numbers issued for 2014 and 2013 see welfare.ie .
The Romanians may not be coming to the UK but to Ireland !! 2014 highest after the UK and rising.
The top 5 PPS number applications in 2013, Uk I suspect these have a non EU or EU origin , after Poland ,Brazil , Romania and Spain.

alastair

guyjohn wrote: »

New PPS numbers issued for 2014 and 2013 see welfare.ie .
The Romanians may not be coming to the UK but to Ireland !! 2014 highest after the UK and rising.
The top 5 in 2013 Uk I suspect these have a foreign background ,Poland ,Brazil , Romania and Spain.

Should we lock up our children on the basis of your suspicions? The top 5 'what' in the UK? Immigrants? Aren't they typically from a eh, foreign background?

guyjohn

alastair wrote: »

Should we lock up our children on the basis of your suspicions? The top 5 'what' in the UK? Immigrants? Aren't they typically from a eh, foreign background?

To explain to you those coming here from the UK I suspect many were not born there .
The welfare is better here. There is a proposal in the latest Immigration bill to address this.
Lock up our children , well you can lock up yours if you want .

alastair

guyjohn wrote: »

To explain to you those coming here from the UK I suspect many were not born there .

You 'suspect' that do you? Well, that's a bit strange, because the PPS breakdown isn't based on country of application, but on nationality. I supposed there might be some UK nationals applying for PPS numbers who were not born in the UK, but they're certainly UK nationals when they applied for a PPS number (not Romanians, Spaniards, Brazilians, or whatever nationalities you're getting agitated about in a completely non-racist fashion).

Nodin

guyjohn wrote: »

New PPS numbers issued for 2014 and 2013 see welfare.ie .
...............

What about them?

guyjohn wrote:

To explain to you those coming here from the UK I suspect many were not born
there .
The welfare is better here. There is a proposal in the latest
Immigration bill to address this.

What "immigration bill"?

For not the first time - You Cannot Arrive And Claim.