Migration Megathread

ArthurDayne

Sand wrote: »

No, its not predicated on that alone. Its predicated on it having been harmful for Europeans to the extent that they have to fight a homegrown Islamic insurgency.

I am taking a view on the mass immigration question. You're still unable to present a single argument in response.

If Europe is a paradise, why aren't Europeans having children?

Non-European migrants are a net cost to the UK economy. They don't contribute. They are funded by the indigenous British. Even this article in the Guardian was careful to qualify its statement that *eastern European* migrants were economically beneficial to the UK.

And indigenous Europeans don't seem to want to stick around to enjoy the civic life in diverse communities. They leave.

And who is going to pay the pensions of the migrant workers? It will be the ageing European workers as they have their pensions cut and their retirement age raised to keep funding the new Europeans.

Europe doesn't need lower skilled workers who do not speak the vernacular. It never did. Post world war two up to the 1970s, over a million migrants from the UK and Ireland were subsidised to migrate to Australia and New Zealand. If an economy needs labour, it hardly encourages shipping it out of the economy. Even today, youth unemployment in Europe remains significant and high. Europe is not an economy short of indigenous labour.

There is at least 87 distinct indigenous peoples of Europe. 33 have a majority in at least one European state, the other 54 are ethnic minorities. There is an even higher number of languages and dialects spoken in Europe. Europe is an intensely diverse region of the world. So often, that diversity was a cause for war: the multi-cultural Austro-Hungarian empire led to WWI, and indirectly WW2. Not peace.

The EU was a deliberate project to seek to find common purpose between the peoples of Europe. The founding fathers of the EU recognised that peace amongst diversity took work, and the solution was finding a common shared identity. They were serious about it.

You on the other hand are hopelessly complacent.

Diversity breeds strife. It always has done, it always will do. Northern Ireland cant even keep a regional government running such is the division, hatred and spite.

Poland doesn't have an Islamic terrorist threat. Germany does have an Islamic terrorist threat. Hungary doesn't have an Islamic terrorist threat. France does have an Islamic terrorist threat. The UK didn't have an Islamic terrorist threat. Now the UK has an Islamic terrorist threat.

I'm not proposing monculturalism. As noted already, Europe is intensely diverse. What I am proposing is that a policy which has demonstrably worsened the lives of Europeans should not be continued.

Post world war I, most of the multi-cultural empires of central and eastern Europe were broken up into nation states. Post world war 2, ethnic German communities which were scattered across central and eastern Europe were forcibly deported to Germany.

Since that was done, Europe has been largely at peace for 73 years. The main exception being Yugoslavia, which was another multi-ethnic state. Which then dissolved into bloodshed and horror, until it was broken up into less diverse nation states.

You are condemning me for observing reality, whilst you edify yourself for dreaming.

And you still cannot present a single argument for continuing this failed policy for another 70 years.

It is frustrating to be described as 'hopelessly complacent' by someone who pushes an absolutist argument that everything would be better if we all just lived in harmonious homogeneity. Sure -- sounds like an interesting theory -- but it is simply never going to happen (with or without immigration). If I am hopelessly complacent, you are hopelessly bereft of a realistic and consistent vision for the future of humanity. You come across as very confident in your view, but I imagine that such confidence is easy to muster when you continuously shift the goalposts of your own logic. One minute you were arguing that diversity and demographic change were in themselves the problem . . . then you moved on to saying 'mass immigration' of 'non-Europeans into Europe' over the past 70 years was the problem despite having just acknowledged that Europe is both intensely diverse and has been peaceful for the past 70 years . . . and now you move on to saying that you are not advocating monoculturalism (you could have fooled me!) but that the technical challenges immigration poses and the Islamist threat are the problem. I've enjoyed this discussion, but your thought process and logic have been confusingly transient -- and as a result, your vision for the way forward is shrouded in nebulous musings of a world where everything just stays the same all the time. Again, it's the Canute stance which rejects change rather than accepting change as a natural and inevitable process and continuously trying (and I acknowledge not always succeeding) to find ways of making the best of it.

You say that immigration has 'demonstrably worsened the lives of Europeans'. Really? If that is the case then I presume you can pinpoint where exactly in history our lives were demonstrably better. Was life better when we were all slaughtering eachother in Europe for centuries? Was life better for Londoners when it was the cuddly lovable Irish bombing the city every other week instead of the Muslims? Was life better under Thatcher, that great stalwart of the right? Was life better in Ireland during Catholic repression and economic stagnation? When . . . when was this mythical zenith from which life in Europe has demonstrably fallen?

Nobody here is saying that immigration has been handled perfectly over the years. Nobody is saying that we should have immigration purely for the sake of diversity. Nobody is arguing for uncontrolled immigration -- and nobody is arguing for an immigration policy which completely ignores risk. We can never attain perfection though --- but the only logical conclusion to the stance you are taking is either we deport all foreigners immediately or close our borders entirely until such times that all the Muslims in Ireland substitute the headscarf for the Céilí wig and dance with us at the crossroads -- while the government develops a 'Lebensborn' programme (for White Irish people only of course) so that Ireland remains firmly white (because apparently that's important to you for reasons which disturb me somewhat). Is this your vision? Can you promise beyond all doubt that this will not have the effect of tanking our economy which is now acutely dependant on foreign direct investment (including the hundreds of billions worth of Arab finance domiciled in Ireland and creating valuable work for young Irish professionals in their home country)?

Or will you only succeed in driving the young people of Ireland away in droves again from your de Valeran vision? Perhaps when all the young take flight again -- you might be glad of a few foreigners about the place . . .



EDIT : Just to add -- I think we've expended our views on this. Happy to let you have last word but I'm going to bow out of this discussion as we are clearly diametrically opposed. Cheers

PeadarCo

weisses wrote:

Can you point out where in that article the pension cuts and raising the pension age to 68 has anything to do with the funding of "new europeans" ? .... Im intrigued

The retirement age is going up because retired people are making up an increasing proportion of the population. New working age migrants is one way of easing the pressure on pensions.

4068ac1elhodqr

PeadarCo wrote: »

The retirement age is going up because retired people are making up an increasing proportion of the population. New working age migrants is one way of easing the pressure on pensions.

Mass swathes of 'working age' economic migrants are largely useless, and will cost more than pensioners for welfare. That is, unless they meet specific need skill shortages - thus points-based migration, very beneficial indeed.

In years to come the traditional low-skilled work that new arrivals traditionaly take up, will be no longer. Warehousing staff replaced by drones and inteligent conveyer systems, retail staff replaced by online. Even agriculture, catering, banking, insurance, garages, transport will all become fully automated.

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How many of the millions of Muslims living in Europe are likely to join this insurgency?

Does Italy have an Islamic terrorist threat? Greece? These two countries bore much of the refugee burden. Eastern European nations with far right governments might not have an Islamic terrorist threat to worry about but they don't seem to be tempting too many Europeans over as far as I can tell. Viktor Orban also seems to be quite happy to accept EU handouts as it seems his country is not prosperous enough to actually contribute to the EU.

Does it really matter how many actively join the insurgency? Any number higher than zero is a negative outcome for Europeans. We know terrorist groups like the IRA can sustain decades of conflict with only a few hundred "active" members. The key factor is the population they can recruit from exists.

Italy does and does not have a Islamic terrorist threat. They have been spared direct attacks but must devote considerable resources to monitoring Islamic terrorists. "Italians" have carried out terrorist attacks outside of Italy, such as Youssef Zaghba.

But you'll see in the article experts are clear that there is a link between Islamic terrorism and Islamic populations.

“The main difference is Italy doesn’t have a big population of second-generation immigrants that have been radicalised or could potentially be radicalised,” said Francesca Galli, an assistant professor at Maastricht University and an expert in counter-terrorism policies

.

These Islamic populations have been created, and are being expanded by the policy of mass immigration. This is a bad outcome for Europeans.

Economics. It costs too much with the burden posed by an ageing population, the cost of living, stagnant wages, etc...

How do you square that with Arthur's view that living standards in Europe are "excellent" and "one of the best places on earth to live"?

And why did poorer generations of Europeans have many more children? Why are poorer Africans going through a population boom of epic proportions?

What we have to acknowledge is that the policies applied to European societies over the past 70 years have created a scenario where European peoples are failing to have children which is the most basic function of society - to sustain itself. Mass immigration will not fix this issue, it will only cause massive demographic changes which no mandate has been granted to engineer.

Immigration which was completely under the control of Her Majesty's government I might add.

Of course. That is the pointlessness of Brexit.

Do they? These populist right and white utopias don't seem to be attracting too many Europeans. They seem more likely to relocate to smaller towns in their home countries but that seems as much financial as ethnographic.

Its not financial - it is fleeing the civic benefits of diversity.

This again has disadvantaged Europeans. As new diverse communities have formed, older European communities have been broken up and dispersed to make way.

Depends on your interpretation of strife. Northern Ireland is hardly tearing itself apart in riots either.

Yes, the riots are reduced by 109 "peace" walls up to 8 meters high and up to 5 kilometres long to keep the two communities apart, and their interactions strictly managed. This is a golden age of inter community relations because they are not murdering each other in near war time levels. Is this a development you wish to see extended across Europe, to go with the allahu akbarriers which must now be installed to protect pedestrian areas from diversity?

London is one of the most diverse cities in the world. You've mentioned that white British people are now technically minority there (though they remain by far the largest single ethnic group) but as far as I can tell, this hasn't caused problems to the everyday lives of most Londoners both native and foreign-born, myself included. I live in a white-minority borough and it's not caused me any problems.

I am glad you've had a positive experience but its anecdotal at best. As noted already its caused problems for enough English people that they have fled their old neighbourhoods and communities which simply don't exist anymore. In their place, London now has post code gangs (another example of how people will build group identity over the stupidest things), who are stabbing each other to such an extent that it is international news. And the 2011 riots were again sparked by a perceived group conflict, when white police officers shot dead a black criminal.

Sand

weisses wrote: »

Can you point out where in that article the pension cuts and raising the pension age to 68 has anything to do with the funding of "new europeans" ? .... Im intrigued

No, I don't have to. You can hardly expect a paper of record to make that connection for its readers. What I can point out is that migrants who have significantly higher unemployment than Europeans are not going to pay European pensions. The myth of the hard working migrant coming to Europe to do the jobs Europeans wont do is just that, a myth. They are a net cost economically, not a benefit. That net cost has to be funded, reducing the ability to fund other programs.

Hence retirement age increases and pension cuts are the reality.

Sand

ArthurDayne wrote: »

It is frustrating to be described as 'hopelessly complacent' by someone who pushes an absolutist argument that everything would be better if we all just lived in harmonious homogeneity. Sure -- sounds like an interesting theory -- but it is simply never going to happen (with or without immigration). If I am hopelessly complacent, you are hopelessly bereft of a realistic and consistent vision for the future of humanity. You come across as very confident in your view, but I imagine that such confidence is easy to muster when you continuously shift the goalposts of your own logic. One minute you were arguing that diversity and demographic change were in themselves the problem . . . then you moved on to saying 'mass immigration' of 'non-Europeans into Europe' over the past 70 years was the problem despite having just acknowledged that Europe is both intensely diverse and has been peaceful for the past 70 years . . . and now you move on to saying that you are not advocating monoculturalism (you could have fooled me!) but that the technical challenges immigration poses and the Islamist threat are the problem. I've enjoyed this discussion, but your thought process and logic have been confusingly transient -- and as a result, your vision for the way forward is shrouded in nebulous musings of a world where everything just stays the same all the time. Again, it's the Canute stance which rejects change rather than accepting change as a natural and inevitable process and continuously trying (and I acknowledge not always succeeding) to find ways of making the best of it.

You say that immigration has 'demonstrably worsened the lives of Europeans'. Really? If that is the case then I presume you can pinpoint where exactly in history our lives were demonstrably better. Was life better when we were all slaughtering eachother in Europe for centuries? Was life better for Londoners when it was the cuddly lovable Irish bombing the city every other week instead of the Muslims? Was life better under Thatcher, that great stalwart of the right? Was life better in Ireland during Catholic repression and economic stagnation? When . . . when was this mythical zenith from which life in Europe has demonstrably fallen?

Nobody here is saying that immigration has been handled perfectly over the years. Nobody is saying that we should have immigration purely for the sake of diversity. Nobody is arguing for uncontrolled immigration -- and nobody is arguing for an immigration policy which completely ignores risk. We can never attain perfection though --- but the only logical conclusion to the stance you are taking is either we deport all foreigners immediately or close our borders entirely until such times that all the Muslims in Ireland substitute the headscarf for the Céilí wig and dance with us at the crossroads -- while the government develops a 'Lebensborn' programme (for White Irish people only of course) so that Ireland remains firmly white (because apparently that's important to you for reasons which disturb me somewhat). Is this your vision? Can you promise beyond all doubt that this will not have the effect of tanking our economy which is now acutely dependant on foreign direct investment (including the hundreds of billions worth of Arab finance domiciled in Ireland and creating valuable work for young Irish professionals in their home country)?

Or will you only succeed in driving the young people of Ireland away in droves again from your de Valeran vision? Perhaps when all the young take flight again -- you might be glad of a few foreigners about the place . . .



EDIT : Just to add -- I think we've expended our views on this. Happy to let you have last word but I'm going to bow out of this discussion as we are clearly diametrically opposed. Cheers

The funny thing from my perspective is you feel you have expended the discussion of my views, whereas I cannot see where you ever discussed my view. Now it seems, you never will.

The exchange of posts have been myself posting an opinion, with evidence. You strawmanning me. I correct you and ask you not to strawman me. You strawman me again. I correct you again. You strawman me again. It's like an optical illusion or a gap in your ability to perceive. I say Laurel, and you seemingly hear Yanny.

Even in this post you repeatedly dodge my views and assign me imagined views. I mean, the bits in bold above are just hilarious. I genuinely laughed as you lost the run of yourself in assigning me every negative trait you could think of, even where they contradict each other. I have tried to engage with you reasonably and honestly, evidencing my views, but I don't see that you are extending me the same courtesy (and you've provided no evidence for any of your claims) so it is probably for the best if we leave it there.

10000maniacs

weisses wrote: »

Maybe look this topic up in the cafe archieve. ... It has about 40000 posts rambling on about the same issue

A lot of them yours.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

Does it really matter how many actively join the insurgency? Any number higher than zero is a negative outcome for Europeans. We know terrorist groups like the IRA can sustain decades of conflict with only a few hundred "active" members. The key factor is the population they can recruit from exists.

When a whole demographic of millions of people are getting blamed for it, yes I rather think that it does matter.

Sand wrote: »

Italy does and does not have a Islamic terrorist threat. They have been spared direct attacks but must devote considerable resources to monitoring Islamic terrorists. "Italians" have carried out terrorist attacks outside of Italy, such as Youssef Zaghba.

But you'll see in the article experts are clear that there is a link between Islamic terrorism and Islamic populations.

Fair enough though there seem to be several European countries which haven't suffered any terrorist attacks.

Sand wrote: »

These Islamic populations have been created, and are being expanded by the policy of mass immigration. This is a bad outcome for Europeans.

The mere existence of Islamic populations are not in-and-of themselves a bad outcome. Terrorism is of course but there are other factors at play there such as the foreign policy of various Western powers.

Sand wrote: »

How do you square that with Arthur's view that living standards in Europe are "excellent" and "one of the best places on earth to live"?

Quite easily. I am more likely to live longer than my parents' generation, be more likely to have enjoyed the benefits of a University education, enjoy better healthcare and have much more choice in how I live my life in general. For many people, living standards are excellent if they live within their means. The problem arises when it comes to starting a family or purchasing a home which is getting ever more difficult.

Education opens doors and creates opportunities which would not otherwise have existed for people which means they have less reason to start families. Many people just don't want children and would rather focus on themselves, their careers, travelling, etc... If I were part of the previous generation, I would most likely have become the local librarian or worked for the local council and simply settled down after school because that's what people in my area did. Even now, when I return home it's baffling how many people have eschewed the traditional path of domestication and child rearing in favouring of travelling and the pursuit of interesting careers. By contrast, the idea of spending all of one's time at home looking after a child which is a highly demanding and stressful endeavour seems unattractive.

Sand wrote: »

And why did poorer generations of Europeans have many more children? Why are poorer Africans going through a population boom of epic proportions?

There's a well established link between poverty and having children. A lack of options, a need to ensure care in later life, a need for more breadwinners for the house, etc....

Sand wrote: »

What we have to acknowledge is that the policies applied to European societies over the past 70 years have created a scenario where European peoples are failing to have children which is the most basic function of society - to sustain itself. Mass immigration will not fix this issue, it will only cause massive demographic changes which no mandate has been granted to engineer.

Nobody is arguing for mass migration any more. It's only gotten more and more toxic with the passing of time.

I'm not sure how much is down to policies. Sure, a functioning housing market and access to affordable childcare would very likely help but ultimately, ageing demographics are a problem which need to be confronted.

Ultimately, if migration were tightly controlled there would still be this problem and I don't see how less foreigners is going to help fix it.

Sand wrote: »

Its not financial - it is fleeing the civic benefits of diversity.

This again has disadvantaged Europeans. As new diverse communities have formed, older European communities have been broken up and dispersed to make way.

A few quotes in a documentary? That's it? The phenomenon of people moving out of the city in favour of literal greener pastures is well established.

Sand wrote: »

Yes, the riots are reduced by 109 "peace" walls up to 8 meters high and up to 5 kilometres long to keep the two communities apart, and their interactions strictly managed. This is a golden age of inter community relations because they are not murdering each other in near war time levels. Is this a development you wish to see extended across Europe, to go with the allahu akbarriers which must now be installed to protect pedestrian areas from diversity?

And these are all over Northern Ireland? Newry? Derry? Portadown? Omagh?

Northern Ireland has a unique history in Europe, so much so that it is being afforded special status in the Brexit negotiations. I'd also add that the residents of London seem capable of not dismembering each other in the absence of peace walls.

Sand wrote: »

I am glad you've had a positive experience but its anecdotal at best. As noted already its caused problems for enough English people that they have fled their old neighbourhoods and communities which simply don't exist anymore. In their place, London now has post code gangs (another example of how people will build group identity over the stupidest things), who are stabbing each other to such an extent that it is international news. And the 2011 riots were again sparked by a perceived group conflict, when white police officers shot dead a black criminal.

I hardly think it's about group identity. Poverty and social deprivation seem to be much more likely causes with the postcode thing being a gimmick.

weisses

Sand wrote: »

No, I don't have to. You can hardly expect a paper of record to make that connection for its readers. What I can point out is that migrants who have significantly higher unemployment than Europeans are not going to pay European pensions. The myth of the hard working migrant coming to Europe to do the jobs Europeans wont do is just that, a myth. They are a net cost economically, not a benefit. That net cost has to be funded, reducing the ability to fund other programs.

Hence retirement age increases and pension cuts are the reality.

Next time you put up a link to make a point try to at least make it look it supports the point you are trying to make .....now its just incoherent waffle about migrants being the reason pensions are cut and pension age increases because of it ... You know this isn't the case

If you believe it is at least come up with a source stating such ...

Clariss

Depends whether you consider it a NWO inspired attempt to create artificial homogeneity or a natural corollary of the global village; of which we are all ourselves complicit in blindly embracing new technologies since late eighties.

All of the dominant civilisations waxed and eventually waned as a functional way of cleansing history.

This perceived Muslim takeover is merely the wheel endlessly turning. Change will happen. It's a dialectical process.
Western liberalism has had it's top spot position for a while now don't you think?

Nitrogan

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Mass swathes of 'working age' economic migrants are largely useless, and will cost more than pensioners for welfare. That is, unless they meet specific need skill shortages - thus points-based migration, very beneficial indeed.

That system exists already doesn't it?

You need a work permit to work in the EU.

Experience_day

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A few quotes in a documentary? That's it? The phenomenon of people moving out of the city in favour of literal greener pastures is well established.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9888310/Lets-talk-about-the-exodus-of-600000-whites-from-London.html

I wouldn't say that is a particularly natural phenomenon...

weisses

10000maniacs wrote: »

A lot of them yours.

Of course ...That's why I referenced to it ... and to point out people do know about this story

10000maniacs

weisses wrote: »

Of course ...That's why I referenced to it ... and to point out people do know about this story

And of course you don't consider yourself one of the people you accuse of rambling on for 40,000 posts?

ancapailldorcha

Mod: No more personal digs, please.

4068ac1elhodqr

Nitrogan wrote: »

That system exists already doesn't it?

You need a work permit to work in the EU.

In principle. But do those 3,000 camped out in central Paris tonight (most from outside the EU) have a permit? Are they asked to move, from their tent cities

Do the hundreds of thousands crossing the Med (aided by the $1bn illegal human trafficing gangs) get asked for permits, or do they get taxied across to Sicily?

Do the many thousands that over stay their student visas, or hitch a lift in the back of a lorry have proper work permits? Not to mention the many thousands living in sheds in the back of gardens or overcrowded houses across in the uk.

The uk for example, has just suspended migration checks on new bank checks, as it was deemed 'too hostile'. Labour's Abbot has called for young illegal migrants to be allowed to stay permanently, invite families over and the scrapping of caps. Funny thing is Labour could very easily win the next election without 'slightly vocal' Diane on board.

Nitrogan

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

In principle. But do those 3,000 camped out in central Paris tonight (most from outside the EU) have a permit? Are they asked to move, from their tent cities

Do the hundreds of thousands crossing the Med (aided by the $1bn illegal human trafficing gangs) get asked for permits, or do they get taxied across to Sicily?

Do the many thousands that over stay their student visas, or hitch a lift in the back of a lorry have proper work permits? Not to mention the many thousands living in sheds in the back of gardens or overcrowded houses across in the uk.

The uk for example, has just suspended migration checks on new bank checks, as it was deemed 'too hostile'. Labour's Abbot has called for young illegal migrants to be allowed to stay permanently, invite families over and the scrapping of caps. Funny thing is Labour could very easily win the next election without 'slightly vocal' Diane on board.

I don't get what you're saying.

What has illegal immigration got to do with a points system?

bigpink

How are all the Muslims here in Ireland the last 5 years?

4068ac1elhodqr

Nitrogan wrote: »

I don't get what you're saying.

What has illegal immigration got to do with a points system?

What use is the cost, time and effort of a points-system, if illegal migration is encouraged. Well, not discouraged anyway?

Nitrogan

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

What use is the cost, time and effort of a points-system, if illegal migration is encouraged. Well, not discouraged anyway?

Who encourages illegal immigration?

It happens no matter how tight your immigration controls are.

Irish people have been doing it in places like the US and Australia for decades and getting away with it. Are you endorsing draconian systems with heavy penalties to catch them out and discourage them in future too?

weisses

10000maniacs wrote: »

And of course you don't consider yourself one of the people you accuse of rambling on for 40,000 posts?

Oh I did my part ... so much nonsense to address back then, that's why it's a good reference for this discussion, but sadly nothing changed, non European immigrants are now being blamed for the cuts in pension and the rise of the pension age according to some, and of course people are entitled to that opinion but i like to see some reliable figures to support that opinion

Odhinn

bigpink wrote: »

How are all the Muslims here in Ireland the last 5 years?

You might be a bit more specific in what you're referring to.

dublinbuster

i come on here and post the following
“i don’t believe that women have any rights, and i think gays should be hanged”

Posters would come out of the wood work
“You are a asshole, a primitive Nethanderthal, MODS ban this sexist, homophobic pig”

Then i reply
“Im actually a Muslim ,and those are my religious belief”

posters would then be like
“oh im so sorry, i apologies, idid not mean to offend, im not Islamophobic”

Call a spade a spade, Police offices around Europe are being force to take early retirement for pointing out the truth about the rape crime increase, in the UK rape gangs got away with it for years because , police where told to stand down, as not to offend the muslim community.

Moral cowardice has infected too many people her in Ireland, to concerned with virtue signalling than stating the obvious.
They some how think Ireland is special, it will be different here, we all know it won’t be, a few sensible decisions now can prevent untold heart ache in the years to come.

4068ac1elhodqr

Nitrogan wrote: »

Who encourages illegal immigration?

It happens no matter how tight your immigration controls are.

Irish people have been doing it in places like the US and Australia for decades and getting away with it. Are you endorsing draconian systems with heavy penalties to catch them out and discourage them in future too?

It's encouraged - by not being discouraged, simple really.

Should all other 'illegal actions' carry no penalty or determent as well? Should illegal actions carry 'reward over risk'.

It may still happen, but not on such an 'unprecedented level'. A level of which as a direct result caused the (small matter) of Brexit, and today's new Italian coalition looking for an 'eu exit prodecure'.

There has been very, very little in the way Irish illegals going to Australia, why would there be, when WH417 or other permits are readily available?

In the US, Ireland always had very close histroical, cultural and social affinity. Work was always plentyful and available. But there is very few (of any sense) today that would chance their arm moving there today without the proper prerequisites, as the risk outweighs the reward.

Are you endorsing illegal actions, or the removal of all EU borders?

An open door policy for masses of unchecked, mostly unskilled and likely non-fluent arrivals, from anywhere? How will that even benefit them, or us, as automation takes hold in the new 'gig economy' of the future, where zero contract jobs will become rare, not plentyful.

Nitrogan

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

It's encouraged - by not being discouraged, simple really.

Should all other 'illegal actions' carry no penalty or determent as well? Should illegal actions carry 'reward over risk'.

It may still happen, but not on such an 'unprecedented level'. A level of which as a direct result caused the (small matter) of Brexit, and today's new Italian coalition looking for an 'eu exit prodecure'.

There has been very, very little in the way Irish illegals going to Australia, why would there be, when WH417 or other permits are readily available?

In the US, Ireland always had very close histroical, cultural and social affinity. Work was always plentyful and available. But there is very few (of any sense) today that would chance their arm moving there today without the proper prerequisites, as the risk outweighs the reward.

Are you endorsing illegal actions, or the removal of all EU borders?

An open door policy for masses of unchecked, mostly unskilled and likely non-fluent arrivals, from anywhere? How will that even benefit them, or us, as automation takes hold in the new 'gig economy' of the future, where zero contract jobs will become rare, not plentyful.

Yes?

ed. if Irish migration also needs to be controlled isn't this thread a bit hypocritical?

4068ac1elhodqr

Nitrogan wrote: »

Yes?

ed. if Irish migration also needs to be controlled isn't this thread a bit hypocritical?

Eh?, What Irish illegal mass migration is there?

dublinbuster

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Eh?, What Irish illegal mass migration is there?

If there is illegal irish migration, it is not Irelands problem, its the problem of which ever country they are illegally moving too.
Should ireland let illegals in because some irish move abroad illegally?

OneEightSeven

Nitrogan wrote: »

Who encourages illegal immigration?

It happens no matter how tight your immigration controls are.

The tighter your border controls are, the less illegal immigrants you receive, as exemplified by the Japanese. Illegals aliens know the Japanese won't give them handouts like we foolishly do.

Irish people have been doing it in places like the US and Australia for decades and getting away with it. Are you endorsing draconian systems with heavy penalties to catch them out and discourage them in future too?

No, the Irish don't get away with it, we are routinely deported from said countries.

What sort of Draconian do you speak of?

ancapailldorcha

Mod: No more one-liners please. This is a forum for serious discussion.

James Brown

It seems to me, the greatest threat to the white American demographic is armed teenage white American males and white American billionaires, (allegedly). 'The biggest story of our time' is embedded vested interests bleeding their own people dry while looking to outsiders and those culturally different for distraction and blame. Most apparent in the US and it's interests abroad. Maybe they could do with some new blood.