Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

Nodin

Martial9 wrote: »

If our unemployment rate rose by 10% tomorrow, you would know all about it. Non EU citizens have a vastly higher unemployment rate than the natives. It is nearly double the native unemployment rate at 21.5%. Did you even read the damn link?

As for why I posted it, somebody asked for it.

10% overall is not a vast difference.

'entry level' jobs are often the first to go during difficult economic times -

"In 2013, the unemployment rate of non-EU citizens was 21.5 %, the highest unemployment rate by far. This group also suffered from the largest increase in unemployment over the last three years (figure 2.1)."

You seem to be targeting this at those coming via the med, but non-EU citizens covers a multitude and the overall article refers to Migrants, which they precisely define thusly - Migration refers to the number of migrants, people changing their residence to or from a given area (usually a country) during a given time period (usually one year).

They define those seeking to move permanently separately as immigrants. It looks to me you're clutching at straws.

gobsh!te

Nodin wrote: »

It looks to me you're clutching at straws.

Yes, someone is definitely clutching at straws :rolleyes:

Nodin

gobsh!te wrote: »

Yes, someone is definitely clutching at straws :rolleyes:

Do please say who and explain how, if you would.

gallag

Nodin wrote: »

Do please say who and explain how, if you would.

Sure that ucl report (paid for by the EU) you guys love to link to, to show how much immigrants have contributed to the economy actually shows that non EU immigrants have cost the UK 118billion pounds, I can't imagine we would be closing hospitals and suffering crowded school classes if we had an extra 118 billion to play with! Even eastern European immigrants have been a net loss to the UK.

Nodin

gallag wrote: »

Sure that ucl report (paid for by the EU) you guys love to link to, to show how much immigrants have contributed to the economy actually shows that non EU immigrants have cost the UK 118billion pounds, I can't imagine we would be closing hospitals and suffering crowded school classes if we had an extra 118 billion to play with! Even eastern European immigrants have been a net loss to the UK.

We were referring to the report above......

macraignil

gallag wrote: »

Sure that ucl report (paid for by the EU) you guys love to link to, to show how much immigrants have contributed to the economy actually shows that non EU immigrants have cost the UK 118billion pounds, I can't imagine we would be closing hospitals and suffering crowded school classes if we had an extra 118 billion to play with! Even eastern European immigrants have been a net loss to the UK.

Can you be more specific about what "ucl report" gives a net figure to the pound for the cost of immigrants to the UK?

When the EU is supposedly printing Euros in some sort of "quantative easing", why do we not simply use these new euros to pay for improved integration and access to employment for migrants and other marginalised groups in society rather than buying bank bonds? (Not sure would this question be better in the economics section.)

Martial9

Nodin wrote: »

10% overall is not a vast difference.

Our unemployment rate was a few points above that and it was a catastrophe! The non EU unemployment rate throughout the EU is 21.5% and you think this is no big deal and that I am 'clutching at straws'?

You have to be on the wind up.

Nodin

Martial9 wrote: »

Our unemployment rate was a few points above that and it was a catastrophe! The non EU unemployment rate throughout the EU is 21.5% and you think this is no big deal and that I am 'clutching at straws'?

You have to be on the wind up.

You aren't using like on like comparisons. Add to that that 10% higher unemployment among migrants (which, given the definition supplied by the report, would not be asylum seekers) would not lead to a 10% hike in unemployment rates overall......

weisses

Would landlords/authorities evict Irish tenants to make room for immigrants ? Like in Germany

Because it's cheaper apperantly

http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article146825325/Fuer-Fluechtlinge-gekuendigt-Das-war-wie-ein-Tritt.html

gobsh!te

weisses wrote: »

Would landlords/authorities evict Irish tenants to make room for immigrants ? Like in Germany

Because it's cheaper apperantly

http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article146825325/Fuer-Fluechtlinge-gekuendigt-Das-war-wie-ein-Tritt.html

Can't see this happening in Ireland. I don't think we self loath(like Sweden) of have any shame about our past and being Irish(like Germany).

We have more in common in some ways with Eastern European countries who were up until recently oppressed by a foreign power.

In this context, nationalism is not taboo and thankfully this means we are less likely to be taken advantage of or called racists for having some pride in our own nation.

From all of this, it is harder to create policies such as they have in Sweden and Germany(where opposition to these polices are put down as being racist) as there can be a genuine debate and well, as stated...the number and figures show that mass immigration has not been good for the native population.

Nodin

gobsh!te wrote: »

Can't see this happening in Ireland. I don't think we self loath(like Sweden) of have any shame about our past and being Irish(like Germany).

We have more in common in some ways with Eastern European countries who were up until recently oppressed by a foreign power.

In this context, nationalism is not taboo and thankfully this means we are less likely to be taken advantage of or called racists for having some pride in our own nation.
...............

I'm not seeing the connection with the OP.....you might perhaps expand a bit?

gobsh!te

Nodin wrote: »

I'm not seeing the connection with the OP.....you might perhaps expand a bit?

Again you don't see the point?


They don't allow a full debate on mass immigration from Islamic countries in many Western countries. Anyone that questions it gets called a racist for example, Geert Wilders and the Sweden Democrats.

This is not the case in the Eastern European countries.....

you really don't see the point I am making?

Nodin

gobsh!te wrote: »

Again you don't see the point?


They don't allow a full debate on mass immigration from Islamic countries in many Western countries. Anyone that questions it gets called a racist for example, Geert Wilders and the Sweden Democrats.

This is not the case in the Eastern European countries.....

you really don't see the point I am making?

I was referring to the "pride in our nation" thing. I have no idea why such a thing would be linked to rejecting refugees.

rgossip30

The majority of the population want a limit on asylum seekers something the government seems to ignore.
The now 5000 Syrians to come over 2 years, free accommodation ,welfare will cost the tax payer.

Nodin

rgossip30 wrote: »

The majority of the population want a limit on asylum seekers something the government seems to ignore.
The now 5000 Syrians to come over 2 years, free accommodation ,welfare will cost the tax payer.

We receive EU funding towards the cost of resettling these people. Secondly they will not be on "welfare" forever.

You've a source for the claim that a majority want a limit on Asylum seekers?

gobsh!te

Nodin wrote: »

I was referring to the "pride in our nation" thing. I have no idea why such a thing would be linked to rejecting refugees.

I suggest you watch the debate between Swedish and Danish representatives for and against Islamic immigration which was held recently.

To use Germany as an example....in 2006 when Germany held the World Cup lots of Germans said it was a rare time when they felt ok with large numbers showing their support of the country. They still feel guilt over WW2.

I don't know what makes the Swedes so self loathing. However, countries that don't have an issue with being proud of whatever nation they are from.....they don't have the guilt say the Germans have and thus don't feel the need to bring in large numbers of poor Muslims for example to show the world they not like their grandparents.....or something like that.

If a German says no to Muslim immigration they can get called a Nazi.
If we say no, we won't

Wurzelbert

gobsh!te wrote: »

I suggest you watch the debate between Swedish and Danish representatives for and against Islamic immigration which was held recently.

To use Germany as an example....in 2006 when Germany held the World Cup lots of Germans said it was a rare time when they felt ok with large numbers showing their support of the country. They still feel guilt over WW2.

I don't know what makes the Swedes so self loathing. However, countries that don't have an issue with being proud of whatever nation they are from.....they don't have the guilt say the Germans have and thus don't feel the need to bring in large numbers of poor Muslims for example to show the world they not like their grandparents.....or something like that.

If a German says no to Muslim immigration they can get called a Nazi.
If we say no, we won't

do you have a link to that swedish and danish debate? as for germany, the thing with ww2 guilt and self-hatred is that it is something being kept going and perpetually all-dominant by the left in close coordination with the holocaust industry and its subsidiaries, and the asylum industry may well be run by the same interest groups behind the scenes…and whatever happened to the swedes and some others is completely beyond me…and as you said, any self-respecting people will and should have a right say when enough is enough…

jackofalltrades

Nodin wrote: »

We receive EU funding towards the cost of resettling these people.

Resettling is just a small part of the overall cost.
Is the EU offering any long term supports?

Secondly they will not be on "welfare" forever.

Did the poster say they would be?
And how can you make that claim?
Are you saying that there will be no people with disabilities or people who will be indefintelty unemployed in the group of refugees/asylum seekers that we are accepting?

Nodin

gobsh!te wrote: »

I suggest(..............)get called a Nazi.
If we say no, we won't

That all comes across as vague guff to be honest. Again, I'm not seeing how this nonsense relates to Irelands response to the crisis, strange assertions regards being called Nazis not withstanding.

Nodin

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Resettling is just a small part of the overall cost.
Is the EU offering any long term supports? ?

No idea.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Did the poster say they would be?

That seemed to be the implication.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

And how can you make that claim?
Are you saying that there will be no people with disabilities or people who will be indefintelty unemployed in the group of refugees/asylum seekers that we are accepting?

There may well be some with disabilities, now you mention it. Are you saying we should refuse to take the disabled?

jackofalltrades

Nodin wrote: »

That seemed to be the implication.

Here's what he said, "welfare will cost the tax payer".
Nowhere is it implied that they will be on welfare forever.

There may well be some with disabilities, now you mention it. Are you saying we should refuse to take the disabled?

I'm not even going to dignify that pathetic strawman with a response.

Nodin

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Here's what he said, "welfare will cost the tax payer".
Nowhere is it implied that they will be on welfare forever..

It seems rather an open ended statement to me. However the poster might clarify at some stage.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I'm not even going to dignify that pathetic strawman with a response.

Why did you mention those with disabilities then? In truth it never occurred to me, but seeing as the subject has been raised, you might explain your position.

Lockstep

gobsh!te wrote: »

Can't see this happening in Ireland. I don't think we self loath(like Sweden)

Sweden's liberal approach to immigration is due to self-loathing? Please expand on this!

micosoft

Interesting article from the NTTimes on Germany repatriating economic migrants. It would appear that Germany is efficient on both ends - responding to the Humanitarian Crisis but also addressing failed Asylum seekers with a fast track (3 hours to consider their application from certain countries) process which will result in deportation. We've a lot to learn from how the Germans have effectively and humanely dealt with this crisis. Both by meeting their obligations, moral and legal, for refugees; and addressing the need to efficiently process those that migrate for economic reasons and use the asylum process. Key quote is:

“This is not about bad vs. good refugees; everybody gets their rightful procedure,” Mr. Daubner said. “But we need to speed up the process to free up resources for those who need them most. The easiest way to do that is to differentiate by country of origin.”

I think both sides of the polarized debate in Ireland could learn from this approach.

foggy_lad

micosoft wrote: »

Interesting article from the NTTimes on Germany repatriating economic migrants. It would appear that Germany is efficient on both ends - responding to the Humanitarian Crisis but also addressing failed Asylum seekers with a fast track (3 hours to consider their application from certain countries) process which will result in deportation. We've a lot to learn from how the Germans have effectively and humanely dealt with this crisis. Both by meeting their obligations, moral and legal, for refugees; and addressing the need to efficiently process those that migrate for economic reasons and use the asylum process. Key quote is:

I think both sides of the polarized debate in Ireland could learn from this approach.

That is just one small centre! are there any figures for the number of failed asylum applications as a percentage of the numbers questioned at the centre(bearing in mind this centre is specifically for those with feck all chance of being granted asylum) or how many have been deported on plane or however they are doing it?

gobsh!te

Wurzelbert wrote: »

do you have a link to that swedish and danish debate?

Lockstep

micosoft wrote: »

Interesting article from the NTTimes on Germany repatriating economic migrants. It would appear that Germany is efficient on both ends - responding to the Humanitarian Crisis but also addressing failed Asylum seekers with a fast track (3 hours to consider their application from certain countries) process which will result in deportation. We've a lot to learn from how the Germans have effectively and humanely dealt with this crisis. Both by meeting their obligations, moral and legal, for refugees; and addressing the need to efficiently process those that migrate for economic reasons and use the asylum process. Key quote is:

I think both sides of the polarized debate in Ireland could learn from this approach.

Agreed, this is a much fairer system rather ensuring a speedy approach is taken and avoids them falling into legal limbo like they do here (which is compounded by the fact that we don't allow our asylum seekers to work, a system which no other EU country except Lithuania adopts)

Interestingly, Germany is also trying to open immigration channels for migrants to move to Germany legally. Nice one Germany, killing two birds with one stone there.

rgossip30

Nodin wrote: »

We receive EU funding towards the cost of resettling these people. Secondly they will not be on "welfare" forever.

You've a source for the claim that a majority want a limit on Asylum seekers?

Yes I have2 sources .

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll-majority-against-taking-in-fleeing-migrants-1.2217564


You got a source that the EU will fund the resettlement of these asylum seekers and the amount !!

There is an EU rule that countries cannot pick skilled and educated asylum seekers but must take those allocated . This will mean that many coming here do not have the language and skills for employment .

rgossip30

Lockstep wrote: »

Agreed, this is a much fairer system rather ensuring a speedy approach is taken and avoids them falling into legal limbo like they do here (which is compounded by the fact that we don't allow our asylum seekers to work, a system which no other EU country except Lithuania adopts)

Interestingly, Germany is also trying to open immigration channels for migrants to move to Germany legally. Nice one Germany, killing two birds with one stone there.

When it has been shown time and time again that 90% are bogus why should they be allowed to work.

RDM_83 again

Lockstep wrote: »

Agreed, this is a much fairer system rather ensuring a speedy approach is taken and avoids them falling into legal limbo like they do here (which is compounded by the fact that we don't allow our asylum seekers to work, a system which no other EU country except Lithuania adopts)

Interestingly, Germany is also trying to open immigration channels for migrants to move to Germany legally. Nice one Germany, killing two birds with one stone there.

Is the legal limbo people find themselves in the Irish goverments doing? I was under the impression that the initial assesment actually occurs quiet quickly and its the numerous assesments (and our high rejection rate makes sense if you consider our geographic location even with the oft quoted Regulations).

On the wider point there is something that has nagged at me about the German thing, there is still very high levels of Youth unemployment in other EU states whats preventing recruitment for German jobs in these countries.
Secondly the German demographic issue isn't a sudden thing, if its a pressing problem why did Germany initially opt out of the free movement of workers for the accession states when they joined ?