President Higgins criticises Direct Provision

conorh91

Lockstep wrote: »

Yes it is. You said that allowing them to work would be an incentive for illegal immigration then said this was the reason DP was implemented

No.

i said that allowing them to work in an incentive for that undesired immigration. Or to borrow the Minister's language, a "pull factor".

But when I said that is why we instituted DP in the first place, I was referring to the "pull factor", which was made up of various incentives. If that wasn't clear, I have now clarified it twice.

Have you noticed that the discussion has completely broken down?

You're refusing to accept clarifications of admittedly hazy language, you're asking for sources on things that are merely opinion. In my view you don't even have a reason to dispute some of the things I am saying, like whether work or benefits was a bigger factor. Who cares which was a bigger factor? What turns on that? Nobody wants to read this pedantic shít so the thread dies.

Job done.

Lockstep

conorh91 wrote: »

No.

i said that allowing them to work in an incentive for that undesired immigration. Or to borrow the Minister's language, a "pull factor".

But when I said that is why we instituted DP in the first place, I was referring to the "pull factor", which was made up of various incentives. If that wasn't clear, I have now clarified it twice.

Once again
Unfortunately, I'm not telepathic. It's one thing to clarify. It's another to try and claim that your post meant something different to what was clearly stated and should be read as such.
I'm fairly baffled as to how your post can be inferred any other way

conorh91 wrote: »

You're refusing to accept clarifications of admittedly hazy language, you're asking for sources on things that are merely opinion. In my view you don't even have a reason to dispute some of the things I am saying, like whether work or benefits was a bigger factor. Who cares which was a bigger factor? What turns on that? Nobody wants to read this pedantic shít so the thread dies.

Job done.

Your 'clarifications' amount to backtracking and arguing others should be capable of
If you want to retract your post, grand. Otherwise, say what you mean and don't try and switch the goalposts and pretend others should be somehow capable of understanding your post in a different way to how it was written.

Likewise, if you want to give your opinion, fair enough but don't put your opinion forward as fact and get shirty when clarification is asked.

RandomName2

Lockstep wrote: »

Once again
Unfortunately, I'm not telepathic. It's one thing to clarify. It's another to try and claim that your post meant something different to what was clearly stated and should be read as such.
I'm fairly baffled as to how your post can be inferred any other way


Your 'clarifications' amount to backtracking and arguing others should be capable of
If you want to retract your post, grand. Otherwise, say what you mean and don't try and switch the goalposts and pretend others should be somehow capable of understanding your post in a different way to how it was written.

Likewise, if you want to give your opinion, fair enough but don't put your opinion forward as fact and get shirty when clarification is asked.

You are personally trying to defend the position that capacity to work (or really, monetary incentives) is not a migratory incentive (or at least that evidence would have to be shown to prove such). This is annoyingly obvious as an example of willful lunacy.

While your claim that applicants simply being here longer does not make it any more likely that they have any greater legally entitlement to stay is, on the face of it correct, in practice this is not necessarily the case. The potential to marry, have offspring and in short "settle down" is increased the longer that someone is resident - and natural enough; who would willingly put their life on hold? These aspects may not have any direct bearing on their legal entitlement to stay (except where marriage and offspring are with a naturalised partner) but they are almost certainly entertained to a certain extent in appeals; and again, why wouldn't it? If someone has had children here, who are a number of years old at the turn of the upteenth appeal, it would seem unjust to uproot them at that point, as its not their fault the system is bonkers.

Your "solution" is to let vastly more asylum seekers come here than do at present, and have virtually all the rights of a citizen as soon as they arrive. That is a frankly bizarre position.

conorh91

Lockstep wrote: »

If you want to retract your post, grand.

I don't. You have been given a clarification on every point you wanted, except one single point that had already been stated to be merely an anecdote, and on which there are probably no statistics.

You are now apparently refusing to accept clarification on a point on which absolutely nothing turns anyway, i.e. whether liberal work regime or a liberal benefits regime is a bigger incentive for an influx. Who cares? They are both incentives. I believe both were relevant to the origins of direct provision. Even if you disagree, where are you going with this pointless tangent?

This is the online version of filibustering.

Well done. You killed the thread.

Lockstep

conorh91 wrote: »

I don't. You have been given a clarification on every point you wanted, except one single point that had already been stated to be merely an anecdote, and on which there are probably no statistics.

If your point remains hammering on that "I said X but you should have known I meant Y" then there's not much I can do. Clarification doesn't mean retroactively claiming your posts meant something different.

conorh91 wrote: »

You are now apparently refusing to accept clarification on a point on which absolutely nothing turns anyway, i.e. whether liberal work regime or a liberal benefits regime is a bigger incentive for an influx. Who cares? They are both incentives. I believe both were relevant to the origins of direct provision. Even if you disagree, where are you going with this pointless tangent?

Not all incentives are the same. Being allowed to drive while waiting for your asylum claim to be processed is an incentive. Being able to access social welfare and enjoy a relatively high standard of living without doing any work is another. Are they comparable? No.
Likewise, being able to look for work is hardly going to be as attractive as knowing you're entitled to social welfare which offers a better standard of living than working in some other countries. Especially when the previous ability to work was heavily constrained. You are entitled to your opinion but when it's a silly opinion, be prepared to have it challenged.

RandomName2 wrote: »

You are personally trying to defend the position that capacity to work (or really, monetary incentives) is not a migratory incentive (or at least that evidence would have to be shown to prove such). This is annoyingly obvious as an example of willful lunacy.

I've zero issue with allowing people to work in this country if they're willing and able to do so, unless they pose a security risk.

RandomName2 wrote: »

While your claim that applicants simply being here longer does not make it any more likely that they have any greater legally entitlement to stay is, on the face of it correct, in practice this is not necessarily the case. The potential to marry, have offspring and in short "settle down" is increased the longer that someone is resident - and natural enough; who would willingly put their life on hold? These aspects may not have any direct bearing on their legal entitlement to stay (except where marriage and offspring are with a naturalised partner) but they are almost certainly entertained to a certain extent in appeals; and again, why wouldn't it? If someone has had children here, who are a number of years old at the turn of the upteenth appeal, it would seem unjust to uproot them at that point, as its not their fault the system is bonkers.

If they marry an Irish person, then sound. If they've had kids here but have no other reason to stay then that's their own issue.
A similar approach is taken to student visas: they're allowed come here and even work part time but there is no right to remain or right of residency.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Your "solution" is to let vastly more asylum seekers come here than do at present, and have virtually all the rights of a citizen as soon as they arrive. That is a frankly bizarre position.

You think allowing someone to work in Ireland means they "virtually all the rights a citizen has"?
Bizarre.
Non-citizens also can't vote, get third level fees, access social welfare, enjoy free movement throughout the EU or access a pension. But hey, if they're allowed work, it's practically the same thing, right?

conorh91

Lockstep wrote: »

If your point remains hammering on that "I said X but you should have known I meant Y" then there's not much I can do.

I clarified what I said and accepted that it was ambiguous.

Having clarified my admittedly ambiguous wording, still you try to insist that I meant something other, i.e. that the availability welfare benefits is not a strong incentive to economic migration.

Benefits was a strong incentive relative to the UK.
Work permission was a strong incentive relative to the UK.

I cannot be more clear on that.

Likewise, being able to look for work is hardly going to be as attractive as knowing you're entitled to social welfare

What the Hell is the point of trying to give one incentive a slight advantage over another? Why should anyone get into this ridiculous filibuster? Maybe work availability:welfare has a 60:40 ratio of the incentives… maybe it's 50:50; maybe it's 40:60…. who the hell actually cares? Where are you going with this, what's your point here?

They are both incentives

RandomName2

Lockstep wrote: »

I've zero issue with allowing people to work in this country if they're willing and able to do so, unless they pose a security risk.

So an unlimited number of people can come here for an undefined amount of time to work in unspecified sectors. Positions like that confound rational discussion.

Lockstep wrote: »

If they've had kids here but have no other reason to stay then that's their own issue.

I don't believe that is the case, but I would have to look into it further.

Lockstep wrote: »

You think allowing someone to work in Ireland means they "virtually all the rights a citizen has"?
Bizarre.

Oh no.. it's my contention that that is probably your position: that applicants should be given virtually all the rights of a citizen.

Lockstep wrote: »

Non-citizens also can't vote, get third level fees, access social welfare, enjoy free movement throughout the EU or access a pension. But hey, if they're allowed work, it's practically the same thing, right?

Well you don't have to be a citizen to get third level free fees, social welfare (in terms of.. let's say healthcare or direct provision), or pension provision so I'd suggest that your understanding of the area to be somewhat hazy. As a caveat, non-citizens are able to vote, albeit only in limited areas.

Lockstep

conorh91 wrote: »

I clarified what I said and accepted that it was ambiguous.

Having clarified my admittedly ambiguous wording, still you try to insist that I meant something other, i.e. that the availability welfare benefits is not a strong incentive to economic migration.

Benefits was a strong incentive relative to the UK.
Work permission was a strong incentive relative to the UK.

I cannot be more clear on that.

Right, fine. You've backtracked on your post so I'll just work with it.
Now, what's your evidence that work permission was a "strong incentive" to the UK? In all the sources you've provided, they've highlighted welfare was the key problem with no mention of work.

conorh91 wrote: »

What the Hell is the point of trying to give one incentive a slight advantage over another? Why should anyone get into this ridiculous filibuster? Maybe work availability:welfare has a 60:40 ratio of the incentives… maybe it's 50:50; maybe it's 40:60…. who the hell actually cares?

They are both incentives

Yes, and not all incentives are the same. DP is an incentive compared to being left to starve on your own. Giving them equal access to social welfare would be an incentive greater still. Surely then, we should abolish DP as it's an incentive: asylum seekers will know they won't starve if they come here.

Who the hell cares? Well, anyone who'se trying to have a reasonable debate on the issue. It's fairly ridiculous to treat all incentives as of equal weight.

conorh91 wrote: »

Where are you going with this, what's your point here?

My point? That not all incentives are equal. Not sure why you're getting so shirty about this.

Lockstep

RandomName2 wrote: »

So an unlimited number of people can come here for an undefined amount of time to work in unspecified sectors. Positions like that confound rational discussion.

Actually, it's not.
Open borders would greatly increase global GDP
Likewise,

Milton Friedman wrote:

“From an economic point of view, unlimited immigration, but limiting access for a decade or so to welfare and similar benefits would be ideal.”

Likewise, Migrants give back to new communities (often more so than natives)
If you can point out why this is a bad idea, be my guest.

RandomName2 wrote: »

I don't believe that is the case, but I would have to look into it further.

Go for it.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh no.. it's my contention that that is probably your position: that applicants should be given virtually all the rights of a citizen.

So even though I haven't said anything about what asylum seekers should be able to access (aside from working), you're criticising me for what is "probably" my position?
This is getting bizarre when you're accusing me for stuff I haven't even said.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well you don't have to be a citizen to get third level free fees, social welfare (in terms of.. let's say healthcare or direct provision), or pension provision so I'd suggest that your understanding of the area to be somewhat hazy. As a caveat, non-citizens are able to vote, albeit only in limited areas.

You said "the rights of a citizen". Access to these for non-citizens is heavily restrained and not a right.
*For non-citizens to access free third level fees, they either have to be granted asylum or leave to remain (or be a family member of a citizen/asylum seeker) and have been living here for the previous few years.
*Social welfare: By social welfare, I meant social insurance payments. Fair enough, I assumed you'd know I meant this but maybe I wasn't clear enough.
*Pensions: Non-citizens don't have a right to pensions
*The only elections non-citizens can vote in is local elections.
So yeah, these aren't rights for non-citizens.

RandomName2

Lockstep wrote: »

Actually, it's not.
Open borders would greatly increase global GDP

Okay... I'll bite.

"Removing borders from a country will allow more people in - people who will want to earn money. This means there can be more jobs, as there is a larger workforce. This means more GDP, everybody wins!"

This was a loony position adopted to some degree by Fianna Fail (like the "debts will never be called in so there's no need for fiscal oversight in lending" loony position). A workforce doesn't create jobs by itself - certainly not an unskilled one. If it did, then Mali would have the economy of South Korea.

So leaving aside the grossly negative societal impact that having more people than can be naturalised would inevitably bring, the economic grounds for such an argument are fundamentally unsound.

Don't really know how much further I have to go into this. How far do you have to go with someone who says the Earth is flat? Look out the window: look out to the horizon. Do you see the curvature of the Earth? Well then, you are wrong.

But here's another: so you have a huge amount of people come to a first world country (speculative employment seekers) but - oh no! There isn't enough work for all the new, mostly low skilled migrants! Who'da thunk it? (We only have an.... 11.4% unemployment rate )

So what? We let these people who can't find work starve? Is that what you're advocating? Surely not someone like yourself! Unless the state were to deport them or bar them entry to begin with... but that would go against the whole idea of open borders. I dunno... what else? I mean, the state could support these people I suppose...

Okay. I think I'll stop there. I've given that nonsense enough time.

Lockstep wrote: »

Likewise, Migrants give back to new communities (often more so than natives)
If you can point out why this is a bad idea, be my guest.

But what happens if the migrants become natives? Well then, they'll have to move again so that they become migrants again, and thus a greater benefit to whatever society they are in! It will be a roundabout of migratory philanthropy!

Lockstep wrote: »

Go for it.

http://www.kodlyons.ie/index.php/news/single/high_court_finds_door_cannot_be_shut_to_father_of_irish_citizen_child_even

It is very difficult to deport anyone who has offspring in Ireland where the offspring have a right to reside. This is because parental separation is a significant concern in terms of potential impact of deportation on a family. Of course, children born here no longer gain automatic citizenship

Lockstep wrote: »

So even though I haven't said anything about what asylum seekers should be able to access (aside from working), you're criticising me for what is "probably" my position?
This is getting bizarre when you're accusing me for stuff I haven't even said.

Well you support open borders and you're whole thread of argument is that asylum seekers aren't treated well enough. Most of the time you are playing "cite that statement!" with connorh91, so I'm having to use some supposition to get to your main point.

Lockstep

RandomName2 wrote: »

Okay... I'll bite.

"Removing borders from a country will allow more people in - people who will want to earn money. This means there can be more jobs, as there is a larger workforce. This means more GDP, everybody wins!"

RandomName2 wrote: »

This was a loony position adopted to some degree by Fianna Fail (like the "debts will never be called in so there's no need for fiscal oversight in lending" loony position). A workforce doesn't create jobs by itself - certainly not an unskilled one.

No, the workforce doesn't create jobs. Innovators do.
And immigrants are more likely than natives to be entrepreneurs in both the US the UK and Ireland )the same report also notes that foreign nationals have higher levels of education, a higher level of labour participation

If it did, then Mali would have the economy of South Korea.

Yeah, let's leave aside the instability, violence and corruption in Mali.

RandomName2 wrote: »

So leaving aside the grossly negative societal impact that having more people than can be naturalised would inevitably bring, the economic grounds for such an argument are fundamentally unsound.

What "grossly negative societal impact"?
As I've demonstrated, the economic grounds favour open borders. If you can cite your claims, that'd be great.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Don't really know how much further I have to go into this. How far do you have to go with someone who says the Earth is flat? Look out the window: look out to the horizon. Do you see the curvature of the Earth? Well then, you are wrong.

Are you so arrogant that you think you compare your opinions to the shape of the earth?
Especially given open borders are supported by (among others) Milton Friedman, the Adam Smith Institute and Michael Clemens. If you disagree with me, that's grand but don't be so blinkered as to think your views are some sort of universal truth.

RandomName2 wrote: »

But here's another: so you have a huge amount of people come to a first world country (speculative employment seekers) but - oh no! There isn't enough work for all the new, mostly low skilled migrants! Who'da thunk it? (We only have an.... 11.4% unemployment rate )

You're assuming that immigrants are net consumers of employment and not creators.
As the Adam Smith Institute highlights, immigrants don't steal jobs. They create them
This is also highlighted above.

RandomName2 wrote: »

So what? We let these people who can't find work starve? Is that what you're advocating? Surely not someone like yourself! Unless the state were to deport them or bar them entry to begin with... but that would go against the whole idea of open borders. I dunno... what else? I mean, the state could support these people I suppose...

Well no. If you'd read my posts, you'd have seen that I suggested maintaining the DP system for non-citizens while allowing them to work in the meantime. They would have access to the minimum standards of keeping them alive while allowing them to work. They wouldn't have access to social welfare payments.

RandomName2 wrote: »

But what happens if the migrants become natives? Well then, they'll have to move again so that they become migrants again, and thus a greater benefit to whatever society they are in! It will be a roundabout of migratory philanthropy!

You mean if they become citizens? Yes, and if their kids want to emigrate, they can do so.

RandomName2 wrote: »

http://www.kodlyons.ie/index.php/news/single/high_court_finds_door_cannot_be_shut_to_father_of_irish_citizen_child_even

It is very difficult to deport anyone who has offspring in Ireland where the offspring have a right to reside. This is because parental separation is a significant concern in terms of potential impact of deportation on a family. Of course, children born here no longer gain automatic citizenship

That case involves a child who is an Irish citizen. We no longer have a jus soli approach to citizenship, it's not really relevent.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well you support open borders and you're whole thread of argument is that asylum seekers aren't treated well enough. Most of the time you are playing "cite that statement!" with connorh91, so I'm having to use some supposition to get to your main point.

So because I support open borders, I must want non-nationals to have "virtually the same rights" as nationals? Do you realise how non-sequiter that is?
Keep in mind I have relied on economic arguments in this thread rather than appealing to human kindness. If you can disprove them, that'd be great. Otherwise, I'm sorry for not being sorry that I'm not the Social Justice Warrior Boogeyman that I appear to be in your head.

RandomName2

Lockstep wrote: »

No, the workforce doesn't create jobs. Innovators do.
And immigrants are more likely than natives to be entrepreneurs in both the US the UK and Ireland )the same report also notes that foreign nationals have higher levels of education, a higher level of labour participation

Well seeing that would be based on specific work based visas to that end, that is hardly a surprise. What relevance has that to open borders? Zero? Close to zero? Hmm... let's split the difference: virtually zero.

Lockstep wrote: »

Yeah, let's leave aside the instability, violence and corruption in Mali.

There won't be any instability, violence or corruption soon in Mali. Got a good feeling that there will be an economic boom there, in fact, what with that latent workforce.

See? http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/03/14/the-malian-economy-holds-steady-in-the-face-of-crisis

Did I pick that article out of ten which said that the Mali economy was tanking? Nooooo....

Lockstep wrote: »

What "grossly negative societal impact"?
As I've demonstrated, the economic grounds favour open borders. If you can cite your claims, that'd be great.

Hah. No. You wouldn't get it because of your ideological predisposition. Don't worry about it. Besides which, the devil can quote scripture for his purpose. Just being able to cite... ahem... "sources" doesn't make you right. Particularly if you are a Sophist.

Lockstep wrote: »

Are you so arrogant that you think you compare your opinions to the shape of the earth?

Spherical opinions?

Lockstep wrote: »

Especially given open borders are supported by (among others) Milton Friedman, the Adam Smith Institute and Michael Clemens. If you disagree with me, that's grand but don't be so blinkered as to think your views are some sort of universal truth.

Oh not Michael Clemens! If I was just battling the wit of Lockstep alone, then I may have a chance, but with names as lofty as Michael Clemens being chucked around, my puny opinions about statehood, borders and governments; which in reality are just supporting the status quo since... well... the beginning of modern political thought... can not possibly compete.

Lockstep wrote: »

You're assuming that immigrants are net consumers of employment and not creators.
As the Adam Smith Institute highlights, immigrants don't steal jobs. They create them
This is also highlighted above.

Unskilled migrants create jobs. Right. That's what you're saying. You are basing your argument for open borders on the concept that unskilled workers create jobs. That is, that unskilled workers, with no capital, create companies and businesses.

Not that you are comparing like with like, because the UK does not exercise an open border policy. No country does, because if they had an economy to speak of it would soon collapse. Somalia *might* have an open border policy as it doesn't have enough of a government to maintain borders, mind you.

You know what can be useful? Picking and choosing the best migrants to fill holes in your workforce? Know what those things are called? Yup... you guessed it! Work visas! What has that to do with discussions about Direct Provision? Nothing!

Lockstep wrote: »

Well no. If you'd read my posts, you'd have seen that I suggested maintaining the DP system for non-citizens while allowing them to work in the meantime. They would have access to the minimum standards of keeping them alive while allowing them to work. They wouldn't have access to social welfare payments.

So if they aren't able to find work then they stay on DP I suppose, which is neither nice for the migrant, nor good for the state.

But hold on... if it is an open border state... then there would be no particular end for DP. These would not be refugees claiming asylum; they'd have a right to be here because of the open border policy. This would probably be the worst possible system imaginable to put in place.

Lockstep wrote: »

That case involves a child who is an Irish citizen. We no longer have a jus soli approach to citizenship, it's not really relevent.

As I mentioned. But currently any migrant having a child with anyone here who has right to reside will give a fairly watertight case for their residence.

Lockstep wrote: »

So because I support open borders, I must want non-nationals to have "virtually the same rights" as nationals? Do you realise how non-sequiter that is?

Oh totally. I'm trying to cut to the chase however.

Lockstep

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well seeing that would be based on specific work based visas to that end, that is hardly a surprise. What relevance has that to open borders? Zero? Close to zero? Hmm... let's split the difference: virtually zero.

Right, so you've already disregarded the research showing the benefits to global wealth offered by open borders and are now trying to minimise the evidence showing the net benefits of migrants to host countries.

Grand, let's take an example of open borders: migration within the EEA. A recent UK study found that EEA nationals had a large net contribution to the UK.

RandomName2 wrote: »

There won't be any instability, violence or corruption soon in Mali. Got a good feeling that there will be an economic boom there, in fact, what with that latent workforce.

See? http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/03/14/the-malian-economy-holds-steady-in-the-face-of-crisis

Did I pick that article out of ten which said that the Mali economy was tanking? Nooooo....

So we've gone from

A workforce doesn't create jobs by itself - certainly not an unskilled one. If it did, then Mali would have the economy of South Korea.

to

There won't be any instability, violence or corruption soon in Mali. Got a good feeling that there will be an economic boom there, in fact, what with that latent workforce.

Not sure what your point is here

RandomName2 wrote: »

Hah. No. You wouldn't get it because of your ideological predisposition. Don't worry about it.

So your argument is now "I don't need to produce sources because you're so blinkered that there's no point"?
Irony!
Out of interest, what exactly is my "ideological predisposition"?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Besides which, the devil can quote scripture for his purpose.

Ah that old chestnut. Handy fallback when you can't find evidence to support your preformed opinions.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Just being able to cite... ahem... "sources" doesn't make you right. Particularly if you are a Sophist.

Yeah, curse empirical research, sources and evidence. What do I need those for when I have my opinions and bias! Screw it, let's start using hearsay and conjecture. Where would our research and development be without it!

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh not Michael Clemens! If I was just battling the wit of Lockstep alone, then I may have a chance, but with names as lofty as Michael Clemens being chucked around, my puny opinions about statehood, borders and governments; which in reality are just supporting the status quo since... well... the beginning of modern political thought... can not possibly compete.

If you haven't heard of Clemens, fair enough but if you want to have an argument on migration then I wouldn't be so flippant about his research.
He has a PhD in Economics from Harvard and heads Migration and Development and the CGD.
Feel free to provide evidence for your claims instead of relying on "But it's always been this way".

RandomName2 wrote: »

Unskilled migrants create jobs. Right. That's what you're saying. You are basing your argument for open borders on the concept that unskilled workers create jobs. That is, that unskilled workers, with no capital, create companies and businesses.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying migrants create jobs. Some are unskilled, some are skilled.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Not that you are comparing like with like, because the UK does not exercise an open border policy. No country does, because if they had an economy to speak of it would soon collapse. Somalia *might* have an open border policy as it doesn't have enough of a government to maintain borders, mind you.

Actually, the UK has an open border with Ireland and the rest of the EEA have open borders via the Schengen zone. And as highlighted above, EEA nationals make a large net contribution to the UK economy.

RandomName2 wrote: »

You know what can be useful? Picking and choosing the best migrants to fill holes in your workforce? Know what those things are called? Yup... you guessed it! Work visas! What has that to do with discussions about Direct Provision? Nothing!

Actually, it is relevant. You're clinging to the point that we can't allow asylum seekers to work as it would damage the economy (you're so adamant on this point that you compare it to believing the earth is round)
When sources are produced showing the benefits to open borders, you disregard them, despite them showing the benefits given to allowing asylum seekers to work.

RandomName2 wrote: »

So if they aren't able to find work then they stay on DP I suppose, which is neither nice for the migrant, nor good for the state.

Indeed, good incentive for the immigrant to find a job though, if the alternative is languishing in DP.

RandomName2 wrote: »

But hold on... if it is an open border state... then there would be no particular end for DP. These would not be refugees claiming asylum; they'd have a right to be here because of the open border policy. This would probably be the worst possible system imaginable to put in place.

Yup, they'd be able to come here and access the labour market but would be given minimal state assistance through DP. Which is what we currently have. Except without giving them the option to try and find find work and live independently.

RandomName2 wrote: »

As I mentioned. But currently any migrant having a child with anyone here who has right to reside will give a fairly watertight case for their residence.

How would the kid get a right to reside unless we drastically changed our citizenship laws and reinstated just soli

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh totally. I'm trying to cut to the chase however.

Would it not have been easier to simply ask me what I'm in favour of instead of automatically assuming something without any evidence whatsoever? Unless you're so ideological that you think "If he thinks X he MUST think Y"

RandomName2

Lockstep wrote: »

Right, so you've already disregarded the research showing the benefits to global wealth offered by open borders and are now trying to minimise the evidence showing the net benefits of migrants to host countries.

Such hypotheses are just that; hypotheses. Moreover original research has to be original. Whilst the method for backing up such suggestions has a rigor to it - the findings themselves don't actually have to be "true" (which is in this case a moot point anyway as a hypothesis by definition is not a proof). Your comparisons of the migrants you describe with the ones you propose have no correlation to one another, however.

Lockstep wrote: »

Grand, let's take an example of open borders: migration within the EEA. A recent UK study found that EEA nationals had a large net contribution to the UK.

You know what else has got open borders? The United States. It has open borders between all of its states. Confounds! How did I not think of this.

Are you being serious? The Shengen area itself has a border - and the EU is a government in itself which polices its borders. Membership of the EU requires a certain degree of economic competence on the part of prospective members or else you would have a few of the obvious problems that would be incurred by having no restrictions of movement on people from a vastly poorer country coming to a more prosperous one. The nearest example to this so far was the ascension of Poland (which is why Polish is now the second most common language in both the UK and Ireland). Yet, even with that, Poland was a relatively well educated country and even a relatively prosperous one (globally) at the time. You are not comparing like with like; and I can't but imagine that you are aware of that

Lockstep wrote: »

So we've gone from BAM
to BOOM

Irony. Do you speak it?

I was cherry-picking a source to back up a completely false assertion.

Lockstep wrote: »

Not sure what your point is here

Want another one?

In 9/11 The World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition, not hijacked planes!

Proof:
http://stj911.org/legge/debunkers.pdf
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Eastman_QuantEvidence.pdf
http://evolvethroughcrisis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/WTC_summary_of_evidence.pdf

And that is just a taste of the hundreds of well cited, researched documents I can provide to back up that claim.

Now, you may not have heard of Dr. Frank Legge, but who are you to dismiss his... huh... findings? The fact that the people who wrote these documents are screwballs isn't the point. The fact that their conspiracy theories make no sense is not the point. The point is that I can bamboozle with hyperlinks!

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst/upload/AE911Truth-NIST-Written-Submission12-18-07.pdf
http://www.bastison.net/WTC7/WTC7_Lies.pdf
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/tarpley_ch_6.pdf
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

I'm not even bothering to look at those documents at this point.

Because why use logic when you have links? I mean... "unbiased" empirical evidence.

Lockstep wrote: »

So your argument is now "I don't need to produce sources because you're so blinkered that there's no point"?

Pretty much. How many sources is enough? How much research is enough? If you say the earth is round; look out the window, and they produce three papers showing that the Earth is, in fact, flat, what do you say to them? I don't know. I don't think there is much that can be said to them. What... link them a couple of papers that assume, in passing, that the Earth is round? Is that really likely to change the mind of someone who has an insane position?

Lockstep wrote: »

How would the kid get a right to reside unless we drastically changed our citizenship laws and reinstated just soli

I advise you look more closely at it. As I said, the child of one parent with the right to reside is entitled to citizenship, thereby granting the other parent a right to reside.

Lockstep

Congrats on the most desperate straw-clutching I've ever seen in my entire time on this forum.

If you're argument boils down to "I don't need sources or evidence. I have my own opinions and that's all that matters" then there's really not much I can do here. This is the Politics forum, not theology.

If you're willing to debate this empirically rather than relying on a priori arguments then I'd be happy to continue this. Otherwise, there's not much point in trying to argue with someone to ideological that they disregard evidence and when presented with the work of Harvard economists, Nobel Economics winners and one of the world's premier think tanks, try to deflect by saying "But there's also evidence that 9/11 was an inside job" so I can disregard any evidence whatsoever".

RandomName2

Lockstep wrote: »

Congrats on the most desperate straw-clutching I've ever seen in my entire time on this forum.

If you're argument boils down to "I don't need sources or evidence. I have my own opinions and that's all that matters" then there's really not much I can do here. This is the Politics forum, not theology.

If you're willing to debate this empirically rather than relying on a priori arguments then I'd be happy to continue this. Otherwise, there's not much point in trying to argue with someone to ideological that they disregard evidence and when presented with the work of Harvard economists, Nobel Economics winners and one of the world's premier think tanks, try to deflect by saying "But there's also evidence that 9/11 was an inside job" so I can disregard any evidence whatsoever".

It seems you have no time for logic; which makes sense as your arguments are inherently illogical. Cherrypicking sources to back up nonsense is itself a nonsensical act. I have given your proposition concerning the removal of borders a decent enough airing - the only way you were able to counter was by getting two or three individuals who shared your conviction, who had a particular stake in advocating such. Your evidence concerning economic merits, such that it is, is flimsy. You do not have any consensus to defend your argument (naturally). While the latter point is not itself indicative of truth or falsehood in itself, it is nevertheless not without some significance.

While admittedly making unsubstantiated points is a more common sin in online fora than this... citation based wookie argument, I don't honestly know where you got the idea that you could argue without logic - but I suggest for the good of the forum that you stop. Like connorh91, I'm bowing out.

At least something like Fluffthedog's campaign against dairy produce, "backed up" as it is by evidence from a number of "well respected" medical doctors is amusing. And at least Fluffthedog ain't an admin of the nutrition & diet forum!

Lockstep

Honestly, it's like arguing with a religious fundamentalist who is so blinkered that no matter how many times their views are disproven, they still cling to it, banging on pots and shouting about "you and your pesky facts cannot disprove my beliefs". Everyone thinks their beliefs are rational and logical. It's up to you to demonstrate why this is.

Using your "logic", this forum would grind to a halt. Every argument and point, no matter how well-made, could be immediately discounted.
"Whaddya mean you have all these sources showing that if we nationalise all industry, the economy would collapse? So what? There's sources showing 9/11 was an inside job. You just need to use 'logic' and not rely on evidence."

If you can provide any evidence or sources for your "logic" (which in this case seems to be point blank refusing to engage with studies by universities, think tanks and Nobel prize winning economists) then I eagerly await your return to the debate. Otherwise, I'll take it as your roundabout way of admitting that
you can't find anything to source your pre-formed opinions and leave it at that.

Lockstep

RandomName2 wrote: »

but I suggest for the good of the forum that you stop.

At least something like Fluffthedog's campaign against dairy produce, "backed up" as it is by evidence from a number of "well respected" medical doctors is amusing. And at least Fluffthedog ain't an admin of the nutrition & diet forum!

If you have a problem with my moderation, then take it to Feedback. Read the Charter.

conorh91

Lockstep wrote: »

Right, fine. You've backtracked on your post so I'll just work with it.
Now, what's your evidence that work permission was a "strong incentive" to the UK?

Firstly, spare us the martyrdom. Frankly, the thread would benefit if you gave it a rest here.

Secondly, I did not say that work permission was a strong incentive "to the UK". Extending to asylum seekers permission to work was, however, considered a strong incentive to relocate to Ireland, relative to the UK, around the time that the UK changed their system. Evidence for the perception of work as a pull-factor can be found in the reported words of the then-Minister for Justice, some of which I have already posted, more of wihich I now link to below

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail1999030300032?opendocument

Mr. Howlin: [...] Work permits for non-EU nationals currently operate on an administrative basis under the Aliens Act. I understood the new proposal was to put the work permit system on a statutory basis for the first time and to allow asylum seekers who had been in the State for six months the right to work, pending the determination of their application to stay in the State.

[941] The benefits of the scheme were outlined at the time by the Tánaiste and by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs. They identified the skills shortages in our economy, the potential to augment the skills base of the country and the social benefits that would accrue. However, rejecting that call on the same day, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was quoted in The Irish Times of the 9 January as stating that the State already attracted a disproportionate number of asylum seekers because of what he called the generous regime applied to them. The Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, was further quoted on the same day as saying that giving a right to work would simply create another pull factor, which would put further pressure on the asylum processing system and continue to delay recognition for genuine refugees in need of protection.

Lockstep wrote: »

It's fairly ridiculous to treat all incentives as of equal weight.

My point? That not all incentives are equal.

Nobody is saying they are equal

Sweet Jesus are you even reading these posts?

The question I asked you was this: what does it matter whether work is slightly more of a pull factor than welfare? They are both considered incentives. Where are you going with this pointless tangent? Everybody is entertaining your filibustering postathon here, and the point you're making is being increasingly muddied by your artless opposition to the irrelevant non-controversial side-issues.

Lockstep wrote: »

.
*Pensions: Non-citizens don't have a right to pensions

Source?

The only elections non-citizens can vote in is local elections.

Source?

rgossip30

There is not much point to continue.