FAS proposes Green-card-type system for non-EU workers

Roisin Dubh

billy the squid wrote:

wouldnt that exclude most of the world given that Ireland is now one of the richest countries in the world?



isn't that only for seven years? and my apologies if you misunderstood my point. but wasn'. the original purpose of the european union to encourage free trade, and later free movement of people within its member states.

as an aside I personally disagree with the 7 year delay on new members having free movement within the EU. I think it is a little rich for the likes of Germany to vote for this in leu of the fact that when east and west Germany were unified, and east Germany then became a member of the EU, there were no such restrictions on east German citezens. even though they were just as poor if not poorer than the 10 new EU countries.

Well I think that maybe that is different, since the German people since the Soviet creation of East Germany had still considered themselves part of the one nation.

I also disagree with the 13 countries that are imposing restrictions. By the way I understand some are not due to end until 2011. But I think we should not automatically jump down their throats as to their motivations. I think that their motivations are understandible, given that there are already 7 million foreigners in Germany out of a population of 84 million.

What concerns me is that Ireland and the UK are the only ones that are allowing everyone from the East to come in. I think the Government made a mistake on this. In the urge to make the new member states feel 'welcome' the Government chose to disregard the risks to the our health-service and welfare state. Remember that these people are not going to be required to work, and as a consequence, some could become a burden on the State after the 2 years are up during which EU citizens are not now automatically entitled to access to our SW system. Am I alone in thinking that the EU should have harmonised rules from immigration from the new member states?

billy the squid

we will have to disagree on the decisions made by ourselves and the other member states on this one i am afraid.

just to note, the 10 new countries joined in 2004, and 7 years would mean that the restrictions would be lifted in 2011.

MadsL

OK. But what evidence have you that on a trend basis, more First World migrants than Third World migrants are coming here annually?

Knock yourself out....

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/persclassbynationality2002.htm

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/population/current/popmig.pdf


Note that immigration is actually falling - a fact not much spoken about in these parts, and that immigration falls into approx 33% returning Irish, 33% First world, 30% Other than EU15.

The estimated number of immigrants in the year to April 2004 was 50,100 while emigrants numbered 18,500 in the same period. Both flows were down compared with the previous twelve-month period (see graph).

Immigrant wife

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Immigrant wife wrote:

I don't agree with your assertion that once they are deported from Ireland, no one else in Europe would take them. Countries that have skills-shortage problems might need them. In fact, I think we should consider deporting workers we no longer need to other EU countries experiencing skills-shortages, - unless the worker would prefer to go home.

BTW, my reference to deportations of this kind is hypothetical .We probably don't need to do it yet. But in a future economic crisis where unemployment rises we may need to consider it.

Prior to deportation a foreign national is arrested by the gardai and a deportation order issued by the Minister of Justice. What crime are you suggesting these foreign workers should be tried for? The reason another country will not accept someone who has been deported is because deportation follows a crime, usually to do with illegal immigration. What law are you proposing to pass to make working here on a work permit or work authorisation a crime? Or are you just using words that you don't have any idea of the meaning and significance thereof?

Why on earth would a country take the route of deporting people when all it has to do is refuse to renew the work permit of people it no longer needs. Why make itself into a world paraiah by resorting to unjustified racially motivated deportation.

You can't deport a person to a third country, only to their country of origin who are obliged to take them. The only time a person can be deported to a third country is if that country has an agreement with the deporting country whereby a criminal arrested in one country can be deported to another country to stand trial there.

Immigrant wife

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Oh come on. I am clearly not talking about First World immigrants. I am talking about developing world immigrants. Economic factors are far more likely to attract someone from the Third World to the West from a developing world, than to attract persons from other First World countries. I am not including bosses in my argument. I am referring to employees of Third World origin.

I would arrange that as part of the procedure for getting a work-permit, the applicant would need to sign a form agreeing to the procedures I mentioned in my earlier post. So they DO get a say in it

How many nurses, doctors, engineers, IT specialists etc. from so called developing countries do you think will bother with Ireland if they can be deported and if they have no stability. There are many other countries in the world that need them so there is no need to bother with a country that is going treat them like that.

This is what the whole discussion so far has been about - the fact that Ireland is having to improve on the offer it is making to these highly skilled workers by introducing a green card type of system because they are leaving after their initial contract and the economy of Ireland depends on them staying. The fact that all non EU-immigrant workers have to have a work permit or work authorisation which means that their employer has been unable to employ an Irish worker despite advertising, is further proof that the economy needs them. How can you justify discriminating among workers just on their country of origin (in this read race to address it honestly) regardless of their skills? How do you know that a worker from a so called first world country is going to be better than a worker from a developing country? America for instance (and indeed Ireland) has many citizens who would be of very little benefit to any country they went to - poorly educated and no motivation to get on in the world.

bonkey

Immigrant wife wrote:

How many nurses, doctors, engineers, IT specialists etc. from so called developing countries do you think will bother with Ireland if they can be deported and if they have no stability.

/me looks around Switzerland, which has almost exactly such a system in place for foreign workers (although recent treaties with the EU grant EU citizens somewhat more protection)....

...quite a lot, I'd say....even allowing for the fact that we Jonny Foreigners pay far more tax than the natives too.

There are many other countries in the world that need them so there is no need to bother with a country that is going treat them like that.

But by this logic, people would surely also inherently prefer permanent jobs over (say) contract positions as well...and there'd be no-one working in contract positions unless they were somehow unfairly forced to.

I know its not identical, but both situations stem from the simple fact that people will often choose a lack of security as part of their preferred package

Ireland in recent years has had the strongest economy in the EU. This gives a choice (even within EU nations) between the country with the strongest economy where you're not guaranteed any security but have the best chance of getting a decent job, and other countries with weaker economies where you're less assured of a good, lasting job, but where you will have security should your employer (or your contract) go titsup.com.

Many Irish have emigrated over the decades - a trend which only recently reversed itself. Many went to countries where they had less job security, less social security, less residency-security than they had in Ireland. Why did they do it? Because they had the possibility of a job.

How can you justify discriminating among workers just on their country of origin (in this read race to address it honestly) regardless of their skills?

Well, if you're going to say that race is the honest description, I'd suggest that you also say "people" instead of "workers".

So answer me this. Is it racist that the Irish welfare system is not available to anyone who wants it anywhere in the world, regardless of their nationality? Is it racist that we don't allow every single person who turns up on our doorstep to have full and equal rights in Ireland at the drop of a hat - including the right to vote?

If not, then you should consider that the distinction between "National" and "Non-National" may be discriminatory regarding nationality without being racist. There are other forms of discrimination, and not all discrimination is bad.

jc

MadsL

So answer me this. Is it racist that the Irish welfare system is not available to anyone who wants it anywhere in the world, regardless of their nationality? Is it racist that we don't allow every single person who turns up on our doorstep to have full and equal rights in Ireland at the drop of a hat - including the right to vote?

Interesting point, which raises a few anomalies; for example the health and welfare system is available to Americans who can point to a grandparent born in Ireland. These people may never have visited Ireland or paid a cent in tax to the Irish govt. but can claim an Irish passport and access to the health and welfare system. Yet Irish resident work-permit holders/permission to remain holders are often required to show sufficient means and current private health insurance documentation.

Immigrant wife

[QUOTE=bonkey

Ireland in recent years has had the strongest economy in the EU. This gives a choice (even within EU nations) between the country with the strongest economy where you're not guaranteed any security but have the best chance of getting a decent job, and other countries with weaker economies where you're less assured of a good, lasting job, but where you will have security should your employer (or your contract) go titsup.com.

Well, if you're going to say that race is the honest description, I'd suggest that you also say "people" instead of "workers".

If not, then you should consider that the distinction between "National" and "Non-National" may be discriminatory regarding nationality without being racist. There are other forms of discrimination, and not all discrimination is bad.

jc[/QUOTE]

The point I was making, if you had read, the previous posting by Roisin Dubh, was that there will be no security of keeping your decent job even for the length of your contract. He/She was proposing that Ireland just deport workers (as illegal immigrant or some other crimial) if the economy weakened regardless of whether they had a contract or were the best workers in that particular company IF THEY CAME FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. If they came from first world countries they would not be deported. They would be able to stay and work regardless of their competency. So having a decent job would mean nothing if tomorrow you were summarily thrown out of the country with a large stamp in your passport saying DEPORTED which meant that you would not be allowed entry to any other country. I am not talking abuot access to welfare. I am talking about being thrown out in the middle of your contract with no recourse which is what Roisin Dubh is advocating for those immigrant workers from developing countries and only those from developing countries i.e. non-caucasian.

When I spoke of workers, I meant workers.

Some immigrants do come to Ireland not intending to stay for more than a couple of years. This applies mainly to the younger immigrant without a family. The majority of immigrants who are older, more experienced and have a family generally intend to settle in Ireland. They sell their houses etc. before coming here and buy property in Ireland. They need to know whether they are going to be able to settle without having to worry about whether they will be thrown out the country at short notice. Already the government is having to introduce the green card system to entice highly skilled workers to stay on more than their initial contract and not move onto another "first world" country that is prepared to accept them legally as long term immigrants and not just for another year or two at a time. Long term immigrants need to buy a house, pay into a pension scheme, buy life insurance, book children into schools, none of which they can do at present without the possibility of incurring costs if they suddenly are asked to up and leave.

Foreign workers by the way are not non-nationals. We all have a nationality. Someone without a nationality is stateless and there are very few of those. We are foreign nationals. Stripping us of our nationality means we don't matter and can therefore be treated in any way one pleases. It is a term guaranteed to foster racism.

MadsL

Foreign workers by the way are not non-nationals. We all have a nationality. Someone without a nationality is stateless and there are very few of those. We are foreign nationals. Stripping us of our nationality means we don't matter and can therefore be treated in any way one pleases. It is a term guaranteed to foster racism.

Heartily agree. This term has been banded about particularly during the citizenship referendum and I for one as a foreign national (I'd prefer the term EU citizen) feel that non-national has taken on some very negative connotations as a result.

/me waits for howls of derision from the 'namby-pamby liberals at it again' camp.

Roisin Dubh

Immigrant wife wrote:

The point I was making, if you had read, the previous posting by Roisin Dubh, was that there will be no security of keeping your decent job even for the length of your contract. He/She was proposing that Ireland just deport workers (as illegal immigrant or some other crimial) if the economy weakened regardless of whether they had a contract or were the best workers in that particular company IF THEY CAME FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. If they came from first world countries they would not be deported. They would be able to stay and work regardless of their competency. So having a decent job would mean nothing if tomorrow you were summarily thrown out of the country with a large stamp in your passport saying DEPORTED which meant that you would not be allowed entry to any other country. I am not talking abuot access to welfare. I am talking about being thrown out in the middle of your contract with no recourse which is what Roisin Dubh is advocating for those immigrant workers from developing countries and only those from developing countries i.e. non-caucasian.

I don't understand why you use the i.e. there. I never said anything about whites or non-whites. You are the one doing that. There are many developing countries that are white. Romania and Bulgaria for example. I also resent your reference to them being deported "like criminals". I specifically said earlier in this thread that as a future condition for application for a work-permit, you should have to sign a document recognising that you may be given a choice of returning home or going to another EU state if your application is successful. There is no suggestion by me that we should criminalise migrant-workers who obey the rules. Those who break them though can get out as far as I am concerned. We are entitled to exercise sovereign self-governing rights over who we let in here, subject to EU treaties of course. The fact that so much of the First World is in the EU partly explains why I single out the developing world - since free movement between Ireland and these richer countries is so routine at this stage. With 133,000 (according to EUobserver.com) Eastern Europeans having come to the UK in just 8 or so months since Enlargement, it is obvious that whatever MadsL might have to say about most migrants in Ireland not being from the developing world, that the UNDERLYING long-term trend is likely to be more migration/attempted migration from developing countries, because the laws of economics and economic pull-factors, not to mention historical experience e.g. Irish emigration, proves this to be the case.

Some immigrants do come to Ireland not intending to stay for more than a couple of years. This applies mainly to the younger immigrant without a family. The majority of immigrants who are older, more experienced and have a family generally intend to settle in Ireland. They sell their houses etc. before coming here and buy property in Ireland. They need to know whether they are going to be able to settle without having to worry about whether they will be thrown out the country at short notice. Already the government is having to introduce the green card system to entice highly skilled workers to stay on more than their initial contract and not move onto another "first world" country that is prepared to accept them legally as long term immigrants and not just for another year or two at a time. Long term immigrants need to buy a house, pay into a pension scheme, buy life insurance, book children into schools, none of which they can do at present without the possibility of incurring costs if they suddenly are asked to up and leave.

Correct and I think we need to go down the Australian route in order to establish which workers can stay for longer and which for shorter. This will help these workers plan for their future, one way or the other. By Australian route I refer to their points system and no I am not referring to the more unpleasant aspects of their immigration system like austere detention camps.

Foreign workers by the way are not non-nationals. We all have a nationality. Someone without a nationality is stateless and there are very few of those. We are foreign nationals. Stripping us of our nationality means we don't matter and can therefore be treated in any way one pleases. It is a term guaranteed to foster racism.

No it is a term designed to allow our authorities to know what country someone is a national of i.e. which country their parents are from under Citizenship amendment, and to plan accordingly. Irish people have to be the primary concern of the Irish Government, rather than foreigners. They matter too but charity begins at home, and in return for the generosity being shown by the Government (some would say too much) to all those getting work-permits, we are entitled to attach conditions. Just as these workers may have been let into Ireland to benefit our economy by filling vacancies resulting from skills-shortages, so too should they be removed if the economic interest of Ireland no longer necessitates their presence.

"Treated in any way one pleases", "racism" etc.? If you are trying to imply that controls are racist, then I am afraid you are either incredibly badly informed or using emotion to tar all in favour of sensible immigration control as neo-fascists, which we are NOT.

MadsL

whatever MadsL might have to say about most migrants in Ireland not being from the developing world,

What the census has to say actually - do you dispute that?

that the UNDERLYING long-term trend is likely to be more migration/attempted migration from developing countries, because the laws of economics and economic pull-factors, not to mention historical experience e.g. Irish emigration, proves this to be the case.

Actually this is your opinion, unless you would care to post statistics that prove the contrary, until which time it simply remains your opinion. I have no problem with immigration controls being put in place, but these should be based on fact rather than whim, and workers who are welcomed one day should certainly not be banished the next on a whim of the government of the day.

bonkey

Roisin Dubh wrote:

With 133,000 (according to EUobserver.com) Eastern Europeans having come to the UK in just 8 or so months since Enlargement, it is obvious that whatever MadsL might have to say about most migrants in Ireland not being from the developing world, that the UNDERLYING long-term trend is likely to be more migration/attempted migration from developing countries, because the laws of economics and economic pull-factors, not to mention historical experience e.g. Irish emigration, proves this to be the case.

I'm sorry...my degree in Mathematics is failing me here.

Can you explain how this 133,000 figure, taken on its own as you have presented it, makes anything "obvious".

I would have said that if there was an underlying and long-term trend, then the effects of that trend should be visible at any point in time - including the current point in time if the trend is already established.

But the figures you've been provided with by the others show no such thing, which immediately questions the existence of this "obvious" trend.

jc

Immigrant wife

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I don't understand why you use the i.e. there. I never said anything about whites or non-whites. You are the one doing that. There are many developing countries that are white. Romania and Bulgaria for example. I also resent your reference to them being deported "like criminals". I specifically said earlier in this thread that as a future condition for application for a work-permit, you should have to sign a document recognising that you may be given a choice of returning home or going to another EU state if your application is successful. There is no suggestion by me that we should criminalise migrant-workers who obey the rules.

(No it is a term designed to allow our authorities to know what country someone is a national of i.e. which country their parents are from under Citizenship amendment, and to plan accordingly. Irish people have to be the primary concern of the Irish Government, rather than foreigners. They matter too but charity begins at home, and in return for the generosity being shown by the Government (some would say too much) to all those getting work-permits, we are entitled to attach conditions. Just as these workers may have been let into Ireland to benefit our economy by filling vacancies resulting from skills-shortages, so too should they be removed if the economic interest of Ireland no longer necessitates their presence.

"Treated in any way one pleases", "racism" etc.? If you are trying to imply that controls are racist, then I am afraid you are either incredibly badly informed or using emotion to tar all in favour of sensible immigration control as neo-fascists, which we are NOT.

You proposed that immigrant workers be DEPORTED if the economy weakens. You did suggest that they should have to sign a form on entry giving the government permission to deport them at any time, thus giving the goverment permission to grant them criminal status. The government already has the ability to refuse to renew a person's work permit if the economy changes, why do they need to deport legal workers. You also said this should only apply to immigrants from developing countries instead applying it to all workers in a particular industry. If this is not racist, then I don't know what is. You spoke of First World countries and developing countries i.e. Third world, who are recognised generally as being in Africa, Asia and South America and by and large are not white. The fact that the country itself may be a developing country, has no bearing on the skills of the individual worker. Look at Dr Chris Barnard who is from South Africa and pioneered his heart transplants in that country. Many people refer to South Africa as a "developing" country.

There is a vast difference between calling some one a foreign national or non-Irish national and calling them a non-national. Non-national here is used in the same sense that Apartheid South Africa used the term non-white. If you were not white, you were of no consequence. It didn't matter then if people then made racial slurs, treated you without dignity or generally discriminated again you or even deprived you of the basic human rights. By calling someone a non-national you strip them of any identity and foster a climate in which racism prospers. I am not talking in this instance about immigration controls. I am speaking about generally living in the Irish community, about people who feel it is alright to treat foreigners rudely or dishonestly because they are not on the same level as they are, they're just non-nationals.

Roisin Dubh

There is a vast difference between calling some one a foreign national or non-Irish national and calling them a non-national. Non-national here is used in the same sense that Apartheid South Africa used the term non-white. If you were not white, you were of no consequence. It didn't matter then if people then made racial slurs, treated you without dignity or generally discriminated again you or even deprived you of the basic human rights. By calling someone a non-national you strip them of any identity and foster a climate in which racism prospers. I am not talking in this instance about immigration controls. I am speaking about generally living in the Irish community, about people who feel it is alright to treat foreigners rudely or dishonestly because they are not on the same level as they are, they're just non-nationals.

Comparisons with Aparteid are just silly. In that case, South African nationals were being denied equal rights with their fellow South Africans who were white. I am not proposing discrimination against Irish citizens. The controls I propose only affect non-Irish nationals and certainly do not include "non-black/asian" areas like Aparteid South Africa! This argument by you seems driven by emotion. Even Bonkey, who judging by earlier in this thread, seems quite liberal on immigration, seems to agree with me on the issue of the right of the Government to impose certain kinds of controls on immigrants that are not imposed on Irish citizens.

May I add that I am also against treating non-Irish nationals "rudely or dishonestly" like you say they shouldn't be treated. I totally reject any assertion that the term non-national is racist. It means non-Irish nationals and I personally would have no problems changing the term to that. However, I personally see no problem with the term "non-national" either. I think it smacks of excessive political correctness to argue that inoffensive terms like "non-national" are suddenly "racist/xenophobic etc". I think some people cannot cope with the idea of others differing in their political views from themselves and so prefer to try to silence debate with namecalling like that, or by indirect name calling involving labelling certain harmless phrases as "racist/xenophobic". This is grossly undemocratic and in a democracy we are entitled to debate these serious issues.

You proposed that immigrant workers be DEPORTED if the economy weakens. You did suggest that they should have to sign a form on entry giving the government permission to deport them at any time, thus giving the goverment permission to grant them criminal status. The government already has the ability to refuse to renew a person's work permit if the economy changes, why do they need to deport legal workers. You also said this should only apply to immigrants from developing countries instead applying it to all workers in a particular industry. If this is not racist, then I don't know what is. You spoke of First World countries and developing countries i.e. Third world, who are recognised generally as being in Africa, Asia and South America and by and large are not white. The fact that the country itself may be a developing country, has no bearing on the skills of the individual worker. Look at Dr Chris Barnard who is from South Africa and pioneered his heart transplants in that country. Many people refer to South Africa as a "developing" country.

OK then call it a difference name from deportation if you like. But the outcome should be the removal from the country if necessary. You ask why we need to deport legal workers. I did not propose deporting legal workers. When the Government declares they are no longer needed they should then lose their "legal" status and be sent either home or to another EU country needing them.

MadsL

MadsL wrote:

/me waits for howls of derision from the 'namby-pamby liberals at it again' camp.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I think it smacks of excessive political correctness to argue that inoffensive terms like "non-national" are suddenly "racist/xenophobic etc".

I told you so.

Why not actually listen to "non-nationals"? There are two here posting that feel that this term has taken on negative overtones since the referendum. But, sure, what do they care about the way they are referred to by the govt and national media.

After all isn't it the "non-national" pregnant women clogging up the health service? And I guess we are worried about these "non-nationals" coming here after our jobs, but lets not concern ourselves with whether they have a right to live and work here, lets just lump em all together.

"Feckin non-nationals..."

Roisin Dubh wrote:

When the Government declares they are no longer needed they should then lose their "legal" status and be sent either home or to another EU country needing them.

Yeah, use 'em and lose 'em I say...feck any dignity or respect or dare I say it gratitude??? Of course we completely trust this govt to know exactly the moment the economy needs to be shot of these drains on the Irish State :rolleyes: whisper ... SSIA

Will you also be lobbying for visa-dodging Irish in the US to be sent back here then. Any Irish on the dole in the UK to be transported??? Long-term dole wasters here to be sent to somewhere else???

Or do you drastic interventionist policies only extend to these here "non-nationals"?

Roisin Dubh wrote:

This is grossly undemocratic

It sure is....

Immigrant wife

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Comparisons with Aparteid are just silly. In that case, South African nationals were being denied equal rights with their fellow South Africans who were white. I am not proposing discrimination against Irish citizens. The controls I propose only affect non-Irish nationals and certainly do not include "non-black/asian" areas like Aparteid South Africa! This argument by you seems driven by emotion. Even Bonkey, who judging by earlier in this thread, seems quite liberal on immigration, seems to agree with me on the issue of the right of the Government to impose certain kinds of controls on immigrants that are not imposed on Irish citizens.

May I add that I am also against treating non-Irish nationals "rudely or dishonestly" like you say they shouldn't be treated. I totally reject any assertion that the term non-national is racist. It means non-Irish nationals and I personally would have no problems changing the term to that. However, I personally see no problem with the term "non-national" either. I think it smacks of excessive political correctness to argue that inoffensive terms like "non-national" are suddenly "racist/xenophobic etc". I think some people cannot cope with the idea of others differing in their political views from themselves and so prefer to try to silence debate with namecalling like that, or by indirect name calling involving labelling certain harmless phrases as "racist/xenophobic". This is grossly undemocratic and in a democracy we are entitled to debate these serious issues.



OK then call it a difference name from deportation if you like. But the outcome should be the removal from the country if necessary. You ask why we need to deport legal workers. I did not propose deporting legal workers. When the Government declares they are no longer needed they should then lose their "legal" status and be sent either home or to another EU country needing them.

I didn't expect you to understand. You have never been called a non-national. You say my argument is driven by emotion - of course it is driven by emotion, I am extremely insulted by being called a non-national. I have a nationality. By comparing the term to the term non-white in South Africa, I was not referring to the immigration laws but to how the use of a word shapes a nation's outlook and can influence the way in which they perceive those people and consequently treat them.

You have already been affected by the use of the word in that you feel that non-nationals are just a commodity to be used and discarded at will. They are not entitled to security in a country in which they have paid all their taxes and helped build up the country both financially and by their expertise. I know you will deny this but looking from outside one can see how the use of this word has shaped your thinking.

Roisin Dubh

Immigrant wife wrote:

I didn't expect you to understand. You have never been called a non-national. You say my argument is driven by emotion - of course it is driven by emotion, I am extremely insulted by being called a non-national. I have a nationality. By comparing the term to the term non-white in South Africa, I was not referring to the immigration laws but to how the use of a word shapes a nation's outlook and can influence the way in which they perceive those people and consequently treat them.

I think you'll find that non-Irish people are treated, by and large, a hell of a lot better in Ireland than the non-whites were in South Africa. I have not seen townships or apartments of immigrants being bulldozed in Ireland like blacks' homes were in South Africa by the Aparteid regime. Now have I seen or heard of thousands of non-Irish people being thrown into jail and tortured or killed on account of their ethnic differences from the Irish. You are really putting the boat out by drawing parallels with South Africa. Exaggeration is the word that springs to mind. In fact, it is worse than exaggeration. You seem to be casting a slur on anyone who uses the word "non-national", but making them out to be Apartied-style haters of foreigners, who want to persecute ethnic-minorities like the blacks in South Africa. Off the wall! :rolleyes:

You have already been affected by the use of the word in that you feel that non-nationals are just a commodity to be used and discarded at will. They are not entitled to security in a country in which they have paid all their taxes and helped build up the country both financially and by their expertise. I know you will deny this but looking from outside one can see how the use of this word has shaped your thinking.

I don't see them as a commodity. It is unheard of internationally for a national government to allow 100% of foreigners equal access to all the services and labour markets of the country they have migrated too. It would be simply unmanageable to extend that sort of right. We are entitled to pick and choose to fit the needs of our economy. But I do agree that in future, under the system I have proposed in this thread, that future applicants for work-permits should be made aware of the transfer requirement subject to labour shortages subsiding in the Irish economy.

ArthurDent

Roisin Dubh wrote:

OK then call it a difference name from deportation if you like. But the outcome should be the removal from the country if necessary. You ask why we need to deport legal workers. I did not propose deporting legal workers. When the Government declares they are no longer needed they should then lose their "legal" status and be sent either home or to another EU country needing them.

Are you seriously suggesting this, or is this a wind up?
How would you go about this? -
Dear Mr/Ms X even though you have worked here for years,paid tax, contributed to our economy, bought a house, put down roots in your community - we've decided that we don't want you any more - kindly put your house on the market and bugger off.
PS ta for all the tax.

Would you extend this to Irish people that are surplus to requirements in particular areas - say for example Intel pull out and there are 5000 odd people unemployed in the Dublin West/Kildare area - would you tell them that they can't get umemployment and stay living in that area - they need to put their houses up for sale and move to where-ever the govt decide? And before I'm flamed to death here - I know this is pushing it to an extreme, but Roisin Dubh seems to be treating people as commodities only - work-units if you like - as if that is all a person, Irish, non-Irish has to offer.

MadsL

It is unheard of internationally for a national government to allow 100% of foreigners equal access to all the services and labour markets of the country they have migrated too.

Nobody is suggesting that. However most countries with green-card schemes offer workers access to the job of their choice - that's the point being discussed here. Now, what part of that do you have a problem with.

Also, have you come up with the statistics to prove your opinion about a growing trend toward developing countries nationals coming here en-masse? Any time you are ready...

Roisin Dubh

MadsL wrote:

Nobody is suggesting that. However most countries with green-card schemes offer workers access to the job of their choice - that's the point being discussed here. Now, what part of that do you have a problem with.

Also, have you come up with the statistics to prove your opinion about a growing trend toward developing countries nationals coming here en-masse? Any time you are ready...

I don't have statistics available immediately other than the 133,000 Eastern Europeans who travelled to the UK in the months since Enlargement according to Euobserver.com. But its a good start in terms of proving economic pull factors play a huge role in attractive migrants to the First World, even though these 133,000 are from the new EU countries.

I have no problem with people on work-permits working in a job they like....as long as is a sector experiencing labour shortages.

MadsL

proving economic pull factors play a huge role

Here's another economic factor, ever hear of 'pent up demand'?

I have no problem with people on work-permits working in a job they like....as long as is a sector experiencing labour shortages.

So you are not in favour of the current system then?

Roisin Dubh

MadsL wrote:

Here's another economic factor, ever hear of 'pent up demand'?



So you are not in favour of the current system then?

I would change the current system by getting all applicants for work-permits to sign a document stating that they can be transferred to another EU state experiencing labour shortages should Ireland no longer require them. It's better than they know this beforehand from the poin of view of planning etc.

MadsL

It's better than they know this beforehand from the poin of view of planning etc.

Perhaps you would also favour them signing a document stating how many kids they intend to have "from the point of view of planning"

Would you also include CEOs of large corporations in having to sign this document, I'm sure that the new head of Vodafone Ireland - an American - will be delighted to entertain plans of which EU country she will be 'transferred' to should the economy take a dip.

Any word on those statistics or are you just happy to start posting on older threads just to make it all go away?

Roisin Dubh

MadsL wrote:

Perhaps you would also favour them signing a document stating how many kids they intend to have "from the point of view of planning"

Would you also include CEOs of large corporations in having to sign this document, I'm sure that the new head of Vodafone Ireland - an American - will be delighted to entertain plans of which EU country she will be 'transferred' to should the economy take a dip.

Any word on those statistics or are you just happy to start posting on older threads just to make it all go away?

I would exempt bosses of big companies in Ireland from the rules.

MadsL

I would exempt bosses of big companies in Ireland from the rules.

Why? Can't Irish people do these jobs just as well? Or are your ideas based on what people earn?

Anything else you wish to add to your "Queen for a Day" idea of political debate?

PS Any word on those statistics?

Roisin Dubh

MadsL wrote:

Why? Can't Irish people do these jobs just as well? Or are your ideas based on what people earn?

Anything else you wish to add to your "Queen for a Day" idea of political debate?

PS Any word on those statistics?

I already said in an earlier post that other than the confirmed 133,000 figure for the UK I have no other statistics at hand at the moment. I specifically said this so you cannot fairly accuse me of pretending to have statistics and then failing to produce them.

In answer to your question, many of these bosses in Ireland ARE Irish. However, we don't all have the necessary expertise to run a huge multinational so the answer is "sometimes yes but often no".

MadsL

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I already said in an earlier post that other than the confirmed 133,000 figure for the UK I have no other statistics at hand at the moment. I specifically said this so you cannot fairly accuse me of pretending to have statistics and then failing to produce them.

In other words you cannot substantiate your claim that the figures back up your opinion. To dismiss the Irish census as 'whatever Madsl might say' does little to convince me that you have actually thought this through and done ANY research.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

In answer to your question, many of these bosses in Ireland ARE Irish. However, we don't all have the necessary expertise to run a huge multinational so the answer is "sometimes yes but often no".

So therefore there is already a hole in your 'one-size-fits-all' 'use 'em and lose 'em' policy. Any other holes? Health service? IT?

Also I notice that you didn't respond to my question about family planning in your scheme for running immigrants lives? How many kids should they be allowed?

Roisin Dubh

MadsL wrote:

In other words you cannot substantiate your claim that the figures back up your opinion. To dismiss the Irish census as 'whatever Madsl might say' does little to convince me that you have actually thought this through and done ANY research.



So therefore there is already a hole in your 'one-size-fits-all' 'use 'em and lose 'em' policy. Any other holes? Health service? IT?

Also I notice that you didn't respond to my question about family planning in your scheme for running immigrants lives? How many kids should they be allowed?

No I would not limit family size. Where did that come from?

They can do whatever they damn well want to as long as the question of their presence in this country is controlled by our Government.

MadsL

Roisin Dubh wrote:

No I would not limit family size. Where did that come from?

From your insistance that there should be intrusive 'controls' on immigrants, surely it makes sense to limit any offspring?? Or is that too unpalatable for you?
[/QUOTE]
They can do whatever they damn well want to as long as the question of their presence in this country is controlled by our Government.[/QUOTE]
Decided by the Government eh? Not by the individuals and families themselves? How very totalitarian of you. Should there be similar controls on Irish citizens? Perhaps we can extend the principles of decentralisation to others then? Tell every tenth family they have to move to Mayo to ease Dublin congestion and house pricing??

Wake up and smell the reality.

Roisin Dubh

MadsL wrote:

From your insistance that there should be intrusive 'controls' on immigrants, surely it makes sense to limit any offspring?? Or is that too unpalatable for you?

They can do whatever they damn well want to as long as the question of their presence in this country is controlled by our Government.[/QUOTE]

Decided by the Government eh? Not by the individuals and families themselves? How very totalitarian of you. Should there be similar controls on Irish citizens? Perhaps we can extend the principles of decentralisation to others then? Tell every tenth family they have to move to Mayo to ease Dublin congestion and house pricing??

Wake up and smell the reality.[/QUOTE]

I said controls. I never said those sorts of controls! How presumptious of you! :rolleyes:

BTW, are you saying the rest of Europe are "totalitarian"?