Migration Megathread

Sand

Midlife wrote: »

I think the bits in bold are your words rather than the report. I'm just asking you to explain or justify them.

Didn't my points immediately following those bits in bold explain and justify them? I'd just be repeating myself. Either you accept an outcome which increases unemployed dependants over employed productive people is negative and the reverse is positive, or you don't. Either way, its entirely reasonable for me to class it as such.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

Didn't my points immediately following those bits in bold explain and justify them? I'd just be repeating myself. Either you accept an outcome which increases unemployed dependants over employed productive people is negative and the reverse is positive, or you don't. Either way, its entirely reasonable for me to class it as such.

I don't think so.

You've basically said that because African unemployment is higher, non-EU migration is not economically positive? What did the report say about Asian, north or Central American employment. Especially Asian given the topic.

Also what's the unemployment rate when a community starts being economically negative. What's the ratio of unemployed to employed? Did you just work it out from average tax rates or something?

Sand

Midlife wrote: »

I don't think so.

That doesn't mean anything to me.

You've basically said that because African unemployment is higher, non-EU migration is not economically positive?

No, I'm saying because non-EU migrants are less likely to be employed, less likely to be economically active and more likely to be living in persistent poverty than Irish people non-EU migration is not economically positive. The common myth that all migration is economically positive, but even the ESRI acknowledge in this report that the origin of the migrant is important when considering the outcomes.

To the extent Ireland needs migrants, the evidence is its better to source them from within the EU under existing freedom of movement - which we have no choice in anyway. This echoes the studies in the UK specifically on the lifetime benefits & costs of EU and non-EU migration to the UK.

What did the report say about Asian, north or Central American employment. Especially Asian given the topic.

You could just read the report and educate yourself. I provided you with the link for that purpose. See Table 2.1, it breaks it down in the categories you are seeking.

Also what's the unemployment rate when a community starts being economically negative. What's the ratio of unemployed to employed? Did you just work it out from average tax rates or something?

Its a relative measure, being relative to the native Irish outcomes. There is no absolute figure.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

No, I'm saying because non-EU migrants are less likely to be employed, less likely to be economically active and more likely to be living in persistent poverty than Irish people non-EU migration is not economically positive. The common myth that all migration is economically positive, but even the ESRI acknowledge in this report that the origin of the migrant is important when considering the outcomes.

Yes, and with due respect, you're wrong to say that. It's a massive generalisation that the report does not allude to.

For example, from the same report, Irish nationals unemployment is 7.1%, UK is 7.2%, East EU is 8% and Asia is 8.7%.

But you summerise that Asia is not economically beneficial whereas the others are? How do you come to this conclusion.

As I said originally, I think you're putting your own spin on things which is basically anti anyone not white-european.

Your explination is that...

Its a relative measure, being relative to the native Irish outcomes. There is no absolute figure.

But you're content that a foreign national group with 8.7% unemployment (coincidentally non-white) costs the country money and are essentially economically bad, whereas a group with 7% or 8% unemployment is fine?

Like I said, I don't think the report states that.

Sand

Midlife wrote: »

Yes, and with due respect, you're wrong to say that. It's a massive generalisation that the report does not allude to.

For example, from the same report, Irish nationals unemployment is 7.1%, UK is 7.2%, East EU is 8% and Asia is 8.7%.

But you summerise that Asia is not economically beneficial whereas the others are? How do you come to this conclusion.

The report makes those distinctions by region, whereas I made the distinction between EU and non-EU. If you take the EU-West and EU-East unemployment figures as a whole, its lower than the Irish unemployment rate.

In any case, Ireland has no policy response to EU citizens moving here. Its freedom of movement. Nothing we can do about it if we wish to remain part of the single market. The benefits of which far outweigh the alternative.

Non-EU migration is entirely in the remit of the Irish government and we can make policy on it. And the evidence is non-EU migration is not economically positive as a whole, and there is no single market equivalent which demands we accept it. You can get more precise and differentiate between non-EU migrants by region or specific countries if you wish. But it doesn't change the validity of the statement on non-EU migration as a whole.

As I said originally, I think you're putting your own spin on things which is basically anti anyone not white-european.

Well, I cant do anything about your biased thinking. The evidence shows that non-EU migrants contribute less through employment and cost more through unemployment and persistent poverty. It is not a benefit for Irish people.

Your explination is that...

But you're content that a foreign national group with 8.7% unemployment (coincidentally non-white) costs the country money and are essentially economically bad, whereas a group with 7% or 8% unemployment is fine?

Are you familiar with the definition of relative? Because you're clearly struggling with it.

Like I said, I don't think the report states that.

Its the purpose of the report. To measure the integration of migrants into Ireland over multiple 'Zaragoza indicators' of which employment is one. Divergence in outcomes relative to the natives is viewed as a negative for the purposes of integration between migrants and natives.

I also view it as a negative, and as an additional drain on Irish workers.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

The report makes those distinctions by region, whereas I made the distinction between EU and non-EU. If you take the EU-West and EU-East unemployment figures as a whole, its lower than the Irish unemployment rate.

In any case, Ireland has no policy response to EU citizens moving here. Its freedom of movement. Nothing we can do about it if we wish to remain part of the single market. The benefits of which far outweigh the alternative.

Non-EU migration is entirely in the remit of the Irish government and we can make policy on it. And the evidence is non-EU migration is not economically positive as a whole, and there is no single market equivalent which demands we accept it. You can get more precise and differentiate between non-EU migrants by region or specific countries if you wish. But it doesn't change the validity of the statement on non-EU migration as a whole.



Well, I cant do anything about your biased thinking. The evidence shows that non-EU migrants contribute less through employment and cost more through unemployment and persistent poverty. It is not a benefit for Irish people.



Are you familiar with the definition of relative? Because you're clearly struggling with it.



Its the purpose of the report. To measure the integration of migrants into Ireland over multiple 'Zaragoza indicators' of which employment is one. Divergence in outcomes relative to the natives is viewed as a negative for the purposes of integration between migrants and natives.

I also view it as a negative, and as an additional drain on Irish workers.

So you can't justify the comment that 'non EU migration is not economically positive'?

You made this judgement, no-one else. Just explain please.

Not why you made the distinction, or what is in the remit of politicians today, but just your evidence for the statements.

Or to put it another way. Is there anything else in the document you quoted rather than african migrant unemployment rates that lead you to the conclusion that non-EU immmigration is an economic drain on the country?

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

Are you familiar with the definition of relative? Because you're clearly struggling with it.

I'm not so sure 'economically positive' and 'ecomomically negative' can be called 'relative' terms.

To be honest, I think that just suits your argument. Or rather means you don't have to admitt any error on your part.

Sand

Midlife wrote: »

So you can't justify the comment that 'non EU migration is not economically positive'?

You made this judgement, no-one else. Just explain please.

Not why you made the distinction, or what is in the remit of politicians today, but just your evidence for the statements.

I did. I cant help it if you cant comprehend the evidence.

Or to put it another way. Is there anything else in the document you quoted rather than african migrant unemployment rates that lead you to the conclusion that non-EU immmigration is an economic drain on the country?

Table 2.1, which I previously directed you to? It has economic outcomes by group.

Midlife wrote: »

I'm not so sure 'economically positive' and 'ecomomically negative' can be called 'relative' terms.

To be honest, I think that just suits your argument. Or rather means you don't have to admitt any error on your part.

You keep presenting your opinion as if it had some value of its own.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

I did. I cant help it if you cant comprehend the evidence.

Table 2.1, which I previously directed you to? It has economic outcomes by group.

You keep presenting your opinion as if it had some value of its own.

Unfortunatly, Sand, no-one can comprehend the evidence in this case. If you find a single other person that understands you and is willing to explain it to me, please have them post here. Start with the economics forum and see how you get on.

In respeonse to my questioning, a signle question, you've twice clarified the question, then said you'd only be repeating yourself, then said you meant something other than what you said, and are now back to 'you don't understand'. You've added in that 'not-economically positive' is a relative term. Like i said, try the economics forum.

All in all, you really should be ashamed of yourself. not for jumping to conclusions and making a mistake but for this three week long subterfuge where you basically refused to explain yourself because you would have to admit you're wrong. Grow up ffs. You're supposed to be engaging in adult debate, everyone's wrong from time to time.

So one last time. Can you please explain how african unemployment being at 14% leads you to the conclusion that migration from outside the EU is not economically positive. Please explain how you judge South America, Asia and the restof the world. Please also explain how a singleunemployment figure leads you to the conclusion that a group of people are not profitable for a country.

splashuum

Very sad news during the week regarding the Irish uni teacher who was murdered by a Pakistani national in France.

Many media reports stating that the Irish teacher was knifed to death for showing a picture of the prophet Mohammed in class.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishmirror.ie/news/world-news/john-dowling-paris-stabbing-murder-13699636.amp

recedite

splashuum wrote: »

knifed to death

Stabbed and throat cut. Not the first time this trademark method has been used either.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-hostages-idUSKCN1060VA

Sand

Midlife wrote: »

Unfortunatly, Sand, no-one can comprehend the evidence in this case. If you find a single other person that understands you and is willing to explain it to me, please have them post here. Start with the economics forum and see how you get on.

In respeonse to my questioning, a signle question, you've twice clarified the question, then said you'd only be repeating yourself, then said you meant something other than what you said, and are now back to 'you don't understand'. You've added in that 'not-economically positive' is a relative term. Like i said, try the economics forum.

All in all, you really should be ashamed of yourself. not for jumping to conclusions and making a mistake but for this three week long subterfuge where you basically refused to explain yourself because you would have to admit you're wrong. Grow up ffs. You're supposed to be engaging in adult debate, everyone's wrong from time to time.

So one last time. Can you please explain how african unemployment being at 14% leads you to the conclusion that migration from outside the EU is not economically positive. Please explain how you judge South America, Asia and the restof the world. Please also explain how a singleunemployment figure leads you to the conclusion that a group of people are not profitable for a country.

Midlife, I'm comfortable the evidence supports my view. I've directed you to the evidence. Your inability to understand the basic evidence is your own issue. You are in denial of entirely non-controversial points that the authors of the report themselves make.

See page 26 where they summarise some lessons from Table 2.1:

In general, nationals of other EU Member States have higher employment rates than Irish nationals and those from outside the EU: nationals of the pre-enlargement ‘old’ EU Member States (EU-West) had the highest employment rate at 76 per cent. Nationals of the ‘new’ EU15-28 Member States (EU-East) also reported a high employment rate (74 per cent), and the highest activity rate (81 per cent), so there are less economically inactive people in this group. These were significantly higher than the rates for Irish nationals.

Though from reading the above you're so far into denial I cant see how you wade back out of it. You're not actually having that discussion you claimed to want when you're unable or unwilling to accept what even the ESRI are saying.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

Midlife, I'm comfortable the evidence supports my view. I've directed you to the evidence. Your inability to understand the basic evidence is your own issue. You are in denial of entirely non-controversial points that the authors of the report themselves make.

See page 26 where they summarise some lessons from Table 2.1:



Though from reading the above you're so far into denial I cant see how you wade back out of it. You're not actually having that discussion you claimed to want when you're unable or unwilling to accept what even the ESRI are saying.

Erm, that's not explaining it. You're just reiterating higher employment rates. I've never questioned whether or not African migrants are more like to be unemployed. That's what the report says.

What i have issue with is you extrapolating from that that all non-EU migration is not economically positive.

And the above is yet another post in your long string to show that you can't justify that.


To take another viewpoint, by your argument and the section you've just quoted, EU immigrants are economically positive and Irish people are not. Irish people are not econimically positive in their own country because they have a lower employment rate than someone else. This is exactly what you're saying about non-EU migrants. Seriously, look again at the bit you quoted above. It says more about irish people being behind EU migrants in terms of unemployment than it does people from the rest of the world.

First question. If the above line is incorrect, please explain why.

Second question if you've answered the first. Can i ask you if Asian people taken as a group alone by your baromoter are economically positive? If not can you explain how not?

Sand

Midlife wrote: »

Erm, that's not explaining it. You're just reiterating higher employment rates. I've never questioned whether or not African migrants are more like to be unemployed. That's what the report says.

You are overly focusing on African migrants. The report says the EU migrants are more active than Irish who are more active than non-EU migrants.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

You are overly focusing on African migrants. The report says the EU migrants are more active than Irish who are more active than non-EU migrants.

Could you answer some of my questions please?

Apologies if I overfocussed on African migrants, I think you led it down that route though. For the record, here's the section of your post which started this conversation.

Sand wrote: »

- Non-EU migration is not economically positive. The employment rate for African nationals in particular is just 45%, and the unemployment rate is over twice the Irish rate. Their economic performance is not catching up with the Irish average. It actually worsened between 2016 and 2017.

How many times more can you post without justifying that comment?

recedite

Sand wrote: »

The common myth that all migration is economically positive, but even the ESRI acknowledge in this report that the origin of the migrant is important when considering the outcomes.

To the extent Ireland needs migrants, the evidence is its better to source them from within the EU under existing freedom of movement - which we have no choice in anyway.

Sand is referring to "all" migration that we can control. We cannot control migration from the EU, as long as we are in the EU.

Midlife wrote: »

Yes, and with due respect, you're wrong to say that. It's a massive generalisation that the report does not allude to.
For example, from the same report, Irish nationals unemployment is 7.1%, UK is 7.2%, East EU is 8% and Asia is 8.7%.

You are generalising yourself there. Asia? Do you mean Bangladesh, or China or India, or Japan?
There's a vast difference between a guy from Bangladesh coming in as a an asylum seeker and a guy from China coming in on a working visa who already has a job lined up in a Chinese restaurant. Or an Indian programmer who has a job lined up.


The vast difference can best be summed by the tragedy last year when a respectable Japanese worker in Drogheda was murdered by a migrant who randomly wandered into this country with no paperwork whatsoever, and who still lives here apparently.

recedite

recedite wrote: »

The vast difference can best be summed by the tragedy last year when a respectable Japanese worker in Drogheda was murdered by a migrant who randomly wandered into this country with no paperwork whatsoever, and who still lives here apparently.

Dundalk it was. A student who got a job in a factory to support himself while here.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

Dundalk it was. A student who got a job in a factory to support himself while here.

Correct yes. A very fine fellow by all accounts, law abiding, hard working, and very popular with his workmates.

But now we are left in a situation where the taxpayer funds the indefinite stay in this country of his murderer, who arrived here unannounced, uninvited, and unwanted.

fly_agaric

recedite wrote: »

The vast difference can best be summed by the tragedy last year when a respectable Japanese worker in Drogheda was murdered by a migrant who randomly wandered into this country with no paperwork whatsoever, and who still lives here apparently.

That was a very (very) strange one + had forgotten about it. Was it ever established who the man actually was or where he really came from in the end? Think he is under psychiatric care or something now (or was last I read anything about it in the news).

no.8

fly_agaric wrote:

That was a very (very) strange one + had forgotten about it. Was it ever established who the man actually was or where he really came from in the end? Think he is under psychiatric care or something now (or was last I read anything about it in the news).

He should be dropped in the water...say mid-Atlantic

Midlife

recedite wrote: »

Sand is referring to "all" migration that we can control. We cannot control migration from the EU, as long as we are in the EU.

You are generalising yourself there. Asia? Do you mean Bangladesh, or China or India, or Japan?
There's a vast difference between a guy from Bangladesh coming in as a an asylum seeker and a guy from China coming in on a working visa who already has a job lined up in a Chinese restaurant. Or an Indian programmer who has a job lined up.


The vast difference can best be summed by the tragedy last year when a respectable Japanese worker in Drogheda was murdered by a migrant who randomly wandered into this country with no paperwork whatsoever, and who still lives here apparently.

With due respect to the points you make, I think you should again read Sand's initial comment and my response to it.

I'm not saying you should or shouldn't accept migrants.

The generalisation is kind of my point. The report doesn't differentiate. It just says Asia. This is kind of my problem with Sand's judgement. He cherry-picked the high African unemployment statistic and generalised that all non-EU migration is unprofitable for the country. I'm pretty sure you can see how wrong that is from your explination above.

Mentioning the Asian statistic in the report kind of tears that argument apart as they're pretty much on par with UK and parts of Europe.

And as you as sensible enough to point out, taking Asia as a group is massivly vague. Sand's initial argument lumps your highly trained Hyderbadi contract worker in with uneducated Sudanese asulym seekers.

Whether or not we should take either into the country is a spearate conversation but including both in a general non-white group and then saying they all cost us money is very very poor form, and fairly racist to be honest.

fly_agaric

no.8 wrote: »

He should be dropped in the water...say mid-Atlantic

No, don't agree with that. He is our problem now and likely forever more but he should never have gotten into Ireland in the first place. We (and the UK) have some natural advantages being island(s) when it comes to keeping people we don't want here out, but in this instance authorities still managed to mess up.:rolleyes:

recedite

Midlife wrote: »

Whether or not we should take either into the country is a spearate conversation but including both in a general non-white group and then saying they all cost us money is very very poor form, and fairly racist to be honest.

Did Sand differentiate between migrants according to skin colour? I must have missed that.

I think he did say that those from the continent of Africa have a lower than average success at finding gainful employment, which was backed up by the statistics.


Perhaps you could tell us what the stats say about the % of African migrants now living in Ireland who arrived here originally holding a work permit?
That might give more of a clue about this phenomenon.
It is possible for Irish employers to recruit unskilled workers abroad, but such employers normally seek out people who want to work. The govt. announced this year they would be making that process even easier.

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/visas-for-lowskilled-migrants-may-be-loosened-36456499.html

Midlife

recedite wrote: »

Did Sand differentiate between migrants according to skin colour? I must have missed that.

I think he did say that those from the continent of Africa have a lower than average success at finding gainful employment, which was backed up by the statistics.

As you mentioned, he said that those from the continent of Africa have a lower than average success at finding gainful employment, which was backed up by the statistics. He used this as his evidence that all non-EU migration was not economically profitable for the country.

I personally think that saying that people not from the EU cost the country money is a very dangerous thing to be throwing around.

Saying it's based on statistics when it's not is either mistaken or dishonest.

But not admitting when you're wrong about something like that is poor form.

I get you're taking the side you normally take recedite and that you probably agree with Sand on most things but I'm pretty sure you can see that he's wrong here.

Just to post it again. 3 weeks and waiting for an explination.

Sand wrote:

- EU migration is positive. Western EU migrants are only 4% unemployed, compared to 7% of Irish people.
- Non-EU migration is not economically positive. The employment rate for African nationals in particular is just 45%, and the unemployment rate is over twice the Irish rate. Their economic performance is not catching up with the Irish average. It actually worsened between 2016 and 2017.

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote: »

That was a very (very) strange one + had forgotten about it. Was it ever established who the man actually was or where he really came from in the end? Think he is under psychiatric care or something now (or was last I read anything about it in the news).

There's been over a dozen hearings and still very little confirmed. But sure the judge and solicitors will get paid each time they wheel him out to rant for a minute.

recedite

Midlife wrote: »

Saying it's based on statistics when it's not is either mistaken or dishonest.

His argument was correct and was backed up by the stats, it is dishonest of you to say otherwise.
Your beef with him is that the stats were too generalised (in comparing EU migration (which we cannot control) to "all" non-EU migration (which we can control).
Its a flimsy argument when you yourself were not differentiating between different countries. Or to take the real elephant in the room, you do not differentiate between "all" migrants arriving with valid permits and "all" those arriving with only a sob story and no invitation.


I'd be delighted to see stats published on a country by country basis, and correlated with what % of them had work/study permits. I'm sure with that more specific info, we could advance this discussion and point to those countries where people just don't feel the need for such things.

its funny i find my life entirely unaffected by the muslim takeover

am i doing something wrong

Midlife

recedite wrote: »

His argument was correct and was backed up by the stats, it is dishonest of you to say otherwise.
Your beef with him is that the stats were too generalised (in comparing EU migration (which we cannot control) to "all" non-EU migration (which we can control).
Its a flimsy argument when you yourself were not differentiating between different countries. Or to take the real elephant in the room, you do not differentiate between "all" migrants arriving with valid permits and "all" those arriving with only a sob story and no invitation.


I'd be delighted to see stats published on a country by country basis, and correlated with what % of them had work/study permits. I'm sure with that more specific info, we could advance this discussion and point to those countries where people just don't feel the need for such things.

Then please explain what 'not economically positive' means. After some time Sand said it's a relative term. I'm not so sure. 'Economically negative' or 'economicallly neutral' means that you are either losing money or breaking exactly even. I'mm not so sure how you can take another meaning from the phrase 'not economically positive'.

After then, please explain how a statistic on African unemployment means that non-EU migration is 'not economically positive'.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

its funny i find my life entirely unaffected by the muslim takeover

am i doing something wrong

That's because you don't know about it

splashuum

14 shot in strasbourg last night by a radical islamist. 4 dead.