Mass immigration will ruin our countryside

Pure tashte

123shooter wrote: »

And quality of life high.

The Netherlands has a very high population density and also very high quality of life, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

123shooter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

is it? the dutch, belgians, germans and the swiss have a much higher population density yet dont seem to be suffering on the quality of life metric. are you suggesting that there is some link between quality of life and population density?

Most certainly in a western country. And being as you quote other countries.....other countries suffer from a lot of serious crime from immigrants but that is another topic but yet another reason which drives the native population away from areas (towns) possibly into the countryside?

123shooter

Pure tashte wrote: »

The Netherlands has a very high population density and also very high quality of life, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

But back on topic.......the low population adds to the high standard of life in Ireland.

ohnonotgmail

123shooter wrote: »

But back on topic.......the low population adds to the high standard of life in Ireland.

and you base that assertion on what exactly? a low density country has a high quality of life. high density countries also have a high quality of life yet you think this can be ignored because it doesnt fit your theory. i sense an agenda.

123shooter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and you base that assertion on what exactly? a low density country has a high quality of life. high density countries also have a high quality of life yet you think this can be ignored because it doesnt fit your theory. i sense an agenda.

On the basis that the standard of life is high in IRELAND and I didn't bring up other countries or who has a better standard of life than Ireland..........you or others did and is off topic.

As regards low population adding to quality of life in IRELAND......well you have more room so traffic density on the whole is low.......bigger houses in general..bla bla bla.

123shooter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i sense an agenda.

What agenda?...........please tell what am I being accused of now?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Glenster

You couldn't pay immigrants to live in the countryside.

Even those refugees were basically rioting because they were kept in places like Ballina and Killarney. These are people coming from ISIS territory.

No-one who doesn't have to is settling down in Newbridge/Ashbourne/Wicklow Town.

ohnonotgmail

Glenster wrote: »

You couldn't pay immigrants to live in the countryside.

Even those refugees were basically rioting because they were kept in places like Ballina and Killarney. These are people coming from ISIS territory.

No-one who doesn't have to is settling down in Newbridge/Ashbourne/Wicklow Town.

yeah they all want to live in dublin which has the highest population density in the country. how very odd.

Glenster

123shooter wrote: »

On the basis that the standard of life is high in IRELAND and I didn't bring up other countries or who has a better standard of life than Ireland..........you or others did and is off topic.

As regards low population adding to quality of life in IRELAND......well you have more room so traffic density on the whole is low.......bigger houses in general..bla bla bla.

So absolutely no logical reason then.

By your reasoning Siberia must be a paradise.

123shooter

Glenster wrote: »

So absolutely no logical reason then.

By your reasoning Siberia must be a paradise.

I gave two but then if you like sitting in traffic taking an hour to travel 4 miles in to a large town as I used to do then if that what turns you on go for it.

ohnonotgmail

123shooter wrote: »

On the basis that the standard of life is high in IRELAND and I didn't bring up other countries or who has a better standard of life than Ireland..........you or others did and is off topic.

As regards low population adding to quality of life in IRELAND......well you have more room so traffic density on the whole is low.......bigger houses in general..bla bla bla.

bigger houses in the middle of nowhere with little or no public transport. what a utopia.

123shooter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

bigger houses in the middle of nowhere with little or no public transport. what a utopia.

And sitting in a box listening to your neighbours on both sides living like rats, everywhere covered in rubbish and graffiti and public transport dirty or dangerous due to crime...........I suppose its swings and roundabouts but if thats what you personally like then go for it.

And I didn't say living in the middle of no where you just did. In towns Irelands homes are on the whole larger than the UK's for instance.

The_Pretender

123shooter wrote: »

Before I post this I have to state I am not against immigrants.

I see no problem with immigrants as long as they comply and adhere to the rules/regulations/laws of the country they go to.

BUT..... In all my years I have never seen an explanation as to why a country like the UK or in this instance Ireland requires immigrants in the numbers they come.


So why do we suddenly need mass immigration never before seen in history?

Because we are seeing the average lifespan accelerate like never before seen in history, with individual productivity not corresponding. The number of taxpayers to pensioners is falling rapidly, meanwhile there has only been marginal increases in the age of retirement. We need more young people to work and pay tax and essentially keep the economy moving as our population ages.

ohnonotgmail

123shooter wrote: »

And sitting in a box listening to your neighbours on both sides living like rats, everywhere covered in rubbish and graffiti and public transport dirty or dangerous due to crime...........I suppose its swings and roundabouts but if thats what you personally like then go for it.

And I didn't say living in the middle of no where you just did. In towns Irelands homes are on the whole larger than the UK's for instance.

but yet oddly more people want to live in high density areas than low density ones. if what you said was true there would be an exodus of people from the cities into the countryside. but there isnt.

123shooter

The_Pretender wrote: »

Because we are seeing the average lifespan accelerate like never before seen in history, with individual productivity not corresponding. The number of taxpayers to pensioners is falling rapidly, meanwhile there has only been marginal increases in the age of retirement. We need more young people to work and pay tax and essentially keep the economy moving as our population ages.

It's an old one........it's pure junk...........it's been disproved.

It was first bought up due to the baby boomers (1945-1964) in the mid-late 80's when they were all tax payers and countries were awash with revenue. Now those baby boomers are retiring and should have large private and state pensions but various governments have robbed them and these same people were told they would be retiring at 55 which never came true and couldnt.

Being as the large peak in births only lasted for 19 years the extra cash needed would have only lasted for the baby boomers of 19 years but some people still try and use that reasoning. If you continue to increase the population then you will never get rid of the problem unless you age restrict immigrants to a very young working age which was never done.

Agreed there is an increase in age before death but by far the population is a lot healthier and retirement age to be made higher although more cash is needed but not by mass immigration.

Anyway they used to offer incentives to native populations to have more kids to solve population issues. So what is wrong with this besides a bit of forward planning which governments never do as they are only now interested in 5 years to amass their secure pensions at our expense.

123shooter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but yet oddly more people want to live in high density areas than low density ones. if what you said was true there would be an exodus of people from the cities into the countryside. but there isnt.

But in IRELAND where the houses are mostly bigger.

Wheres the agenda please tell?

ohnonotgmail

123shooter wrote: »

But in IRELAND where the houses are mostly bigger.

Wheres the agenda please tell?

but you said low density leads to a better quality of life so explain why people want to live in high density areas?

123shooter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but you said low density leads to a better quality of life so explain why people want to live in high density areas?

Jeez go back and look yerself I gave two reasons then bla bla bla but also you have better services in towns and are nearer to them.

Now can you please disclose the agenda?

JupiterKid

I see two clear agendas in the OP's (very flawed) argument. Anti-immigration and anti-urban.

I have serious reservations about the effects of unbridled mass immigration to Ireland but not to our rural areas. It will be in urban Ireland that the problems from mass immigration will be felt, and those in the most deprived social cohorts will feel the brunt of it most.

123shooter

JupiterKid wrote: »

I see two clear agendas in the OP's (very flawed) argument. Anti-immigration and anti-urban.

I have serious reservations about the effects of unbridled mass immigration to Ireland but not to our rural areas. It will be in urban Ireland that the problems from mass immigration will be felt, and those in the most delrived social cohorts will feel the brunt of it most.

Ha ..........I am an immigrant from a large city. An ethnic minority who also lived in the countryside.

So you could say I know what I am talking about but you never will just more garbage to justify your theories.

ohnonotgmail

123shooter wrote: »

Jeez go back and look yerself I gave two reasons then bla bla bla but also you have better services in towns and are nearer to them.

Now can you please disclose the agenda?

i'm waiting for you to do that. time will tell.

Cee-Jay-Cee

I live in Donegal so don't give a fúck.

123shooter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i'm waiting for you to do that. time will tell.

Actually I don't have one a merely asked the question on why mass immigration for interesting replies while I was cooking 3 chickens and washing up last nights dishes.......done now and you still never told me the agenda unless it was same as other fella's?

I have still never heard of another reason for mass immigration besides the theory and the reply here which kind of go together.

123shooter

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I live in Donegal so don't give a fúck.

123shooter

JupiterKid wrote: »

I have serious reservations about the effects of unbridled mass immigration to Ireland but not to our rural areas. It will be in urban Ireland that the problems from mass immigration will be felt, and those in the most delrived social cohorts will feel the brunt of it most.

Agreed just like you see examples elsewhere but Irish people appear to think it will never happen to them.........This is Ireland don't yer know and we are Irish:D

A soft touch?

The_Pretender

123shooter wrote: »

It's an old one........it's pure junk...........it's been disproved.

I don't think there's any point trying to convince someone who doesn't care about facts and figures but sure I'll give it a shot.

123shooter wrote: »

It was first bought up due to the baby boomers (1945-1964) in the mid-late 80's when they were all tax payers and countries were awash with revenue. Now those baby boomers are retiring and should have large private and state pensions but various governments have robbed them and these same people were told they would be retiring at 55 which never came true and couldn't.

What do you consider a large state pension? 47% of people in employment have a pension i.e. over half of them don't. The contributory pension is €238.30 per week, where's the large state pension for most workers?

Who was told they're retiring at 55 and this hasn't come true? A garda can retire after 30 years service and if they live to the average life expectancy in Ireland will spend almost as long receiving a pension as they have worked!

123shooter wrote: »

Being as the large peak in births only lasted for 19 years the extra cash needed would have only lasted for 19 years but some people still try and use that reasoning. If you continue to increase the population then you will never get rid of the problem unless you age restrict immigrants to a very young working age which was never done.

Except the birth rate is falling and continues to fall which is the crux of the issue. It didn't just stabilise after the baby boom and go back to the level it was at. You want less immigration - look at Japan. Immigrants make up less than 2% of the population however their population is aging faster than anywhere else in the world.

123shooter wrote: »

Agreed there is an increase in age before death but by far the population is a lot healthier and retirement age to be made higher although more cash is needed but not by mass immigration.

People living longer is a good thing - it's great that if someone close to you gets sick they'll receive far better treatment than any of your ancestors. The problem is though, from an economic point of view it's better if people worked till 65 and then were dead by 70. We need to find a way of meshing the two together so that we can enjoy a long and healthy life without a complete economic meltdown where the young pay the majority of their wage to supporting the elderly.

123shooter

The_Pretender wrote: »

I don't think there's any point trying to convince someone who doesn't care about facts and figures but sure I'll give it a shot.

Youre so kind thank you......should I be seated?

What do you consider a large state pension?

A myth.

47% of people in employment have a pension i.e. over half of them don't. The contributory pension is €238.30 per week, where's the large state pension for most workers?

I agree with your point but how large a pension is given by the state and how much of your private one you receive is another thing as they can't promise you anything and they simply won't either which is wrong.

Who was told they're retiring at 55 and this hasn't come true?

We were. As a baby boomer we told all kinds of rubbish especially about pensions (1980's). Take a private personal one out..........then its never enough so you have to pay more. A pension man at the time told me it was all rubbish and he was right.

The truth is no matter what happens unless you get such a low number of claimants and a huge number of payers in to the system then pensions will always be a non starter. But even then no government is going to promise you anything. Fact is the retirement age will keep going up so a pension will be pointless no matter how many immigrants come in.

Except the birth rate is falling and continues to fall which is the crux of the issue. It didn't just stabilize after the baby boom and go back to the level it was at.

I never said it did. After a boom it falls obviously and still has because of the contraceptive pill mainly as that's what ended the baby boom.

You want less immigration

Do I?

- look at Japan. Immigrants make up less than 2% of the population however their population is aging faster than anywhere else in the world.

And your point?

People living longer is a good thing

Depends if all you have to look forward to in life is wreeking of p*ss .....pooing your pants bored stiff in a care home.

- it's great that if someone close to you gets sick

Not really brain tumors aren't great..

they'll receive far better treatment than any of your ancestors.

That's debatable as there will come a time (I can see it) when oldies get shoved to the back of the queue.

The problem is though, from an economic point of view it's better if people worked till 65 and then were dead by 70. We need to find a way of meshing the two together so that we can enjoy a long and healthy life without a complete economic meltdown where the young pay the majority of their wage to supporting the elderly.

Well when you have sorted that one, there is a cure for cancer, how to stop wars, and the biggest.......trying to understand women.............until then mass immigration isnt going to solve any of the things you are banging on about.

my3cents

I don't know if its been mentioned yet but the population just before the famine was 8.2 million people, current population is 4.7 million so if we had room in the 1840's I suspect we still have a bit of room left now.

123shooter

my3cents wrote: »

I don't know if its been mentioned yet but the population just before the famine was 8.2 million people, current population is 4.7 million so if we had room in the 1840's I suspect we still have a bit of room left now.

Possibly if you want to wear rags, travel on foot or by donkey, eat just spuds and milk (staple diet in Ireland those days) and live 13+ in a tiny house sharing a bed with your bros and sisters:eek:

tonycascarino

my3cents wrote: »

I don't know if its been mentioned yet but the population just before the famine was 8.2 million people, current population is 4.7 million so if we had room in the 1840's I suspect we still have a bit of room left now.

That's fine just so long as the extra 3.5 million will be staying in your house and your area only.;)

ScumLord

JupiterKid wrote: »

I have serious reservations about the effects of unbridled mass immigration to Ireland

Well luckily that isn't happening and more than likely won't happen.

123shooter

I'll give you an example of why and how it goes wrong.

The population doesn't matter who they are native or immigrants, pay so much every week for all kinds of things including for oldies and towards their pension.........brilliant idea.

Trouble is a succession of governments have squandered the money to pay for their disastrous economic policies so the pot is bare for many many years even if corrected now unless we somehow check and get right and keep the correct ratio of population age groups so it can work but it is simply impossible to do.

ScumLord

topper75 wrote: »

Wait a sec...
how can we 'easily' support a higher population when a famine resulted the last time we pushed up to that higher population?

The higher population had nothing to do with the last famine. The last famine was mostly down to the actions of the British Empire. Ireland had loads of food the English just took it all and left us with only one source of food that got a disease, so we were left with nothing to eat. But again, the country was producing more than enough food to feed everyone in Ireland and even have food left over for export.

123shooter

tonycascarino wrote: »

That's fine just so long as the extra 3.5 million will be staying in your house and your area only.;)

As long as they are all female around 25 - 40 and bring a bottle.........no need to worry about a pension then:D

123shooter

ScumLord wrote: »

The higher population had nothing to do with the last famine. The last famine was mostly down to the actions of the British Empire. Ireland had loads of food the English just took it all and left us with only one source of food that got a disease, so we were left with nothing to eat. But again, the country was producing more than enough food to feed everyone in Ireland and even have food left over for export.

Correction is was taken and sold and not just by the English........but you were part of the UK and therefore a UK population and should have been looked after.

topper75

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Our country is more than capable of supporting a much bigger population. our population density is among the lowest in europe.

You are making the very same mistake with this opinion as most of our politicians i.e. assuming that continental EU countries are correct in how they do things and are a standard to aspire to for us.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

is it? the dutch, belgians, germans and the swiss have a much higher population density yet dont seem to be suffering on the quality of life metric. are you suggesting that there is some link between quality of life and population density?

Pure tashte wrote: »

The Netherlands has a very high population density and also very high quality of life, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

These high densities were arrived at organically over long time scales. There was no mass dumping of people on those nations such as some now propose for Ireland.
With a mass dump being foisted on Ireland, existing service capacities, supply chains, infrastructure cannot cope -- so yes a huge negative impact on quality of life for natives. Seems a bit nuts frankly to suggest otherwise.

The phrase 'well enough alone' comes to mind.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

ALL ENGLAND ALL LIVES IN TOWNS SO THEREFORE WE SHOULD ALL LIVE IN TOWNS

ScumLord

topper75 wrote: »

You are making the very same mistake with this opinion as most of our politicians i.e. assuming that continental EU countries are correct in how they do things and are a standard to aspire to for us.

Well they do a hell of a lot right, and better than us. Whenever I go to places like Amsterdam, or Germany, or even parts of Spain, I look around in awe at their road networks, public transport, and so on. They're clearly leaps and bounds ahead. Of course they've had a head start and places like the UK have nice things because they were stolen from other peoples. They have symbols of their empire littered all over London.

These high densities were arrived at organically over long time scales. There was no mass dumping of people on those nations such as some now propose for Ireland.
With a mass dump being foisted on Ireland, existing service capacities, supply chains, infrastructure cannot cope -- so yes a huge negative impact on quality of life for natives. Seems a bit nuts frankly to suggest otherwise.

The phrase 'well enough alone' comes to mind.

There is no mass dump. I don't think given that we went through two world wars, the rise and fall of multiple nations that the other European nations had an easy time of it and a continuous history going back more than 100 years. Many European cities were a wasteland after ww2, there were thousands of refugees moving around europe.

I have a Polish friend who gave out about syrian refugees and how Muslims wouldn't help us out, so I showed him this video.

ohnonotgmail

topper75 wrote: »

You are making the very same mistake with this opinion as most of our politicians i.e. assuming that continental EU countries are correct in how they do things and are a standard to aspire to for us.





These high densities were arrived at organically over long time scales. There was no mass dumping of people on those nations such as some now propose for Ireland.
With a mass dump being foisted on Ireland, existing service capacities, supply chains, infrastructure cannot cope -- so yes a huge negative impact on quality of life for natives. Seems a bit nuts frankly to suggest otherwise.

The phrase 'well enough alone' comes to mind.

what "mass" dumping do you think is happening?

jackofalltrades

This was all our fault and had nothing to do with immigrants.

123shooter

ScumLord wrote: »

Well they do a hell of a lot right, and better than us. Whenever I go to places like Amsterdam, or Germany, or even parts of Spain, I look around in awe at their road networks, public transport, and so on. They're clearly leaps and bounds ahead. Of course they've had a head start and places like the UK have nice things because they were stolen from other peoples. They have symbols of their empire littered all over London.

Wow thats some claim about the UK. But being as you mention Spain, what about what they have stolen from around the world not to mention Germany in WW11 and from Ireland since 2008.

123shooter

jackofalltrades wrote: »

This was all our fault and had nothing to do with immigrants.

Where is that?

ScumLord

123shooter wrote: »

Wow thats some claim about the UK. But being as you mention Spain, what about what they have stolen from around the world not to mention Germany in WW11 and from Ireland since 2008.

What have spain stolen from Ireland since 2008?

Spain did have an empire and Maybe if I was a Mayan or something I'd have a more developed distaste for them flaunting it, but I'm Irish.

Go stand outside buckingham palace and you'll see them proudly boast about their far flung colonies, on the surface the statues are impressive but in reality they are a symbol of millions of deaths and the destruction of the local environments to grab whatever resources they could.

I have no problem with England, but the British empire was one of the most evil organisations that humanity has ever had to bare. It's nothing to be proud of. To me those statues are a reminder of a dark period in humans history.

123shooter

ScumLord wrote: »

What have spain stolen from Ireland since 2008?

No the German bankers since 2008.

Spain did have an empire and Maybe if I was a Mayan or something I'd have a more developed distaste for them flaunting it, but I'm Irish.

Go stand outside buckingham palace and you'll see them proudly boast about their far flung colonies, on the surface the statues are impressive but in reality they are a symbol of millions of deaths and the destruction of the local environments to grab whatever resources they could.

I have no problem with England, but the British empire was one of the most evil organisations that humanity has ever had to bare. It's nothing to be proud of. To me those statues are a reminder of a dark period in humans history.

Well I suppose that's through only having half a story.

Spain plundered the Americas and it's people wiping out whole populations for gold and imposing their religion.

Germany robbed the fillings from peoples mouths before the gas chambers.

As far as I know your evil British empire hasn't come close.

Ash.J.Williams

123shooter wrote: »

So what's wrong with training the native population so immigrants are not needed en-mass, or is it more cost effective to let them sit around on benefits and by doing so attract their support because if a government pays people to sit at home they will definitely get their vote?

Anyone willing to be trained can be trained

Yourself isit

jackofalltrades wrote: »

This was all our fault and had nothing to do with immigrants.

That picture, though horrible, is not very representative.

ScumLord

123shooter wrote: »

Spain plundered the Americas and it's people wiping out whole populations for gold and imposing their religion.

I know.

Germany robbed the fillings from peoples mouths before the gas chambers.

Well, Nazi's did that, I don't know if it was a national policy that the people knew about and approved of.

As far as I know your evil British empire hasn't come close.

Well then you're in for a treat, the British Empire trump all of them, do you really think the Nazi's could do in a few years what the English spent centuries doing? Brits were using concentration camps at the start of the 1900s where do you think the Germans got the idea from?

ED E

123shooter wrote: »

Where is that?

Somewhere in Donegal.

123shooter

ScumLord wrote: »

I know.

Well, Nazi's did that, I don't know if it was a national policy that the people knew about and approved of.

Well then you're in for a treat, the British Empire trump all of them, do you really think the Nazi's could do in a few years what the English spent centuries doing? Brits were using concentration camps at the start of the 1900s where do you think the Germans got the idea from?

Nazis were still mainly Germans and they were put into power by Germans and supported by same.

Germans and British were very similar until the wars but I am not aware of British gas chambers, executing jews or disabled people of theirs and their neighbours.

Ush1

Yourself isit wrote: »

That picture, though horrible, is not very representative.