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

arcadegame2004

The Irish famine emigrants were allowed into the USA irrespective of the skills (or lack of them) that they possessed. If the asylum seekers were allowed to come in without any restriction on their skills, they wouldn't come seeking political asylum either. Many of them are well qualified but have to flee their country. They do not have the time or opportunity to investigate jobs and go through a work permit system as their life is often in danger. Once they arrive in the ocuntry as an asylum seeker they cannot then apply for a work permit. If they wish to do this, they have to return to their home country and apply which is clearly impossible.

Yes but very few of the asylum-seekers who came to Ireland were "famine immigrants". Everyone who has investigated this has found that the majority are either Nigerian, Romanian, Ukrainian or Bulgarian. If they want to come here let them apply for a work-permit. At least then they would be telling the truth as to why they want to come here, instead of pretending to be a refugee.

Someone here used the term "economic refugee". There is no such thing as far as I am concerned. Using the term "economic refugee" implies that you are allowed to claim asylum on solely economic grounds, and I completely reject this, and oppose it totally. Also, Immigrant Wife, you claim that asylum-seekers are forced to leave their country. In some cases this may be true, but it does not justify them travelling through Spain, then France, then the UK, and then being smuggled across the border into this Republic. That is stretching the concept of a genuine asylum-seeker to breaking point. You seem to be arguing also that we should allow asylum-seekers to work. My response is to say NO. Allowing them the same working-rights as Irish people with respect to what jobs they can work in would lead to Irish workers losing out to competition from cheap-labour. Any fool realises this. On Fivesevenlive a few days ago in a discussion on raising the minimum wage, someone mentioned that if the minimum wage was raised, then immigrants wouldn't get any jobs, and obvious reference to low-wage competition from developing world immigrants for whom what Irish people would consider low-wages are a fortune. To deny this, when people are earning practically zilch in countries like Bulgaria, Romania and Nigeria, is just devoid of any credibility.

Ireland has no permanent residence scheme whereby if workers have lived and worked here and paid taxes for a specific number of years, they qualify for permanent residence. At present, unless we take out Irish citizenship, we will still be applying to renew the Work Authorisation every two years in twenty years time. How is one supposed to plan for retirement or arrange future education if one doesn't know which country one should be aiming at.

Surely you know that there is the option of apply for citizenship after having lived here a number of years.

Immigrant wife

Surely you know that there is the option of apply for citizenship after having lived here a number of years.[/QUOTE]

As I said that unless I apply for citizenship, of course I realise that I can apply for citizenship, but I shouldn't be forced to. It should be a choice I wish to make to be come a citizen, not a choice I am forced to make in order to stay here once we retire. There are very few countries in the world where you cannot live as a permanent resident without taking up citizenship, off hand I cannot think of one other than despotic third world countries.

I never suggested that asylum seekers should be allowed to work. I said that some asylum seekers would have preferred to come as migrant workers rather than asking other countries to provide for them but are unable to apply to an embassy for fear of letting their government know that they are planning to leave or they leave in such a hurry they have no time to apply for anything or bring any proof of qualifications. They find it degrading and demotivating to have to beg from their host countries. Of course in this I am not suggesting that every asylum seeker would have been able to qualify for a work permit, nor am I saying that every asylum seeker's application is genuine. There are always dishonest people in every walk of life. I was making the point that if the unskilled Irish refugees (note I didn't say every Irishman was unskilled) had been refused entry to the USA, Australia etc. because they had no skills that were needed, they might have been forced to apply for asylum on the grounds that when the potato blight struck, the English proceeded to confiscate any other crops they grew as rent payment causing widespread famine even where it wasn't initially too bad. They were all fortunate that no discrimination was made according to education or economic need in the USA.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Someone here used the term "economic refugee". There is no such thing as far as I am concerned. Using the term "economic refugee" implies that you are allowed to claim asylum on solely economic grounds, and I completely reject this, and oppose it totally.

Of course there are economic refugees. What do you think all the Irish who fled Ireland because of poverty were? Anyone who flees their country for economic reasons is an economic refugee. My daughter who lives in the UK is one. She is not an asylum seeker though - she does not need asylum, she just needed a job.

You still didn't answer either of my questions. Namely, as you feel immigrant workers should not be able to avail of medical care that is paid for by the taxes they pay, are you suggesting that immigrants be charged at a lower rate of tax that doesn't cover medical costs? Or should immigrants have to pay taxes towards medical services in order to improve the system for the benefit of the Irish only. Would this apply to all the immigrant doctors and nurses who make up a large portion of said medical services?

And if you fear the introduction of a green card system for highly skilled workers, what do you suggest should be done to retain these workers in the country as the Work Authorisation scheme is not enough to keep them?

Immigrant nurses are leaving in droves to go and work in England where they are eligible for permanent residence for themselves and their families once they have worked continuously in the country for four years. Workers on work permits also can acquire permanent residence though after a longer work period. As the Irish system stands at the moment, after spending his whole working life in Ireland paying taxes for thirty to forty years, once an immgrant reaches the age of retirement and no longer is able to have a work permit, he will be forced to return to his country of birth which is then expected to care for him despite not having received any of his taxes. On a personal level in his old age he will have to give up all his friends and every support network built up over his working life. I don't know how any one can think this is right no matter how much they think Ireland should take care of its own first.

arcadegame2004

I was making the point that if the unskilled Irish refugees (note I didn't say every Irishman was unskilled) had been refused entry to the USA, Australia etc. because they had no skills that were needed, they might have been forced to apply for asylum on the grounds that when the potato blight struck, the English proceeded to confiscate any other crops they grew as rent payment causing widespread famine even where it wasn't initially too bad. They were all fortunate that no discrimination was made according to education or economic need in the USA.

Well I think it would have been well understand that such applications for asylum by Irish famine refugees would have been more than justified, unlike Nigerian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Romanian asylum seekers, whose countries have no famines, dictatorships or wars. We make a nonsense of the asylum system if we allow people to claim asylum solely on the grounds that they are poor. 80% of the world's population lives in the developing world, and if we set a precedent whererby that is enough to be judged a legitimate grounds for getting "asylum" in this country, then we will be overwhelmed by asylum applications. This stands to reason, since we would be marking ourselves out from the rest of the EU as a soft touch.

You still didn't answer either of my questions. Namely, as you feel immigrant workers should not be able to avail of medical care that is paid for by the taxes they pay, are you suggesting that immigrants be charged at a lower rate of tax that doesn't cover medical costs? Or should immigrants have to pay taxes towards medical services in order to improve the system for the benefit of the Irish only. Would this apply to all the immigrant doctors and nurses who make up a large portion of said medical services?

I am not saying that immigrants already in Ireland should be denied necessary medical treatment. What I am saying is that we should avoid being placed in the position whererby future immigration becomes so great as to place further strain on our health-service. You misinterpret my viewpoint if you think I am calling for immigrants to get less access to the health-service than Irish people.

Immigrant nurses are leaving in droves to go and work in England where they are eligible for permanent residence for themselves and their families once they have worked continuously in the country for four years. Workers on work permits also can acquire permanent residence though after a longer work period. As the Irish system stands at the moment, after spending his whole working life in Ireland paying taxes for thirty to forty years, once an immgrant reaches the age of retirement and no longer is able to have a work permit, he will be forced to return to his country of birth which is then expected to care for him despite not having received any of his taxes. On a personal level in his old age he will have to give up all his friends and every support network built up over his working life. I don't know how any one can think this is right no matter how much they think Ireland should take care of its own first.

We have plenty of time to address that question . But they pmost likely would have applied for citizenship long before then, thus solving the problem if they get it.

billy the squid

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well I think it would have been well understand that such applications for asylum by Irish famine refugees would have been more than justified, unlike Nigerian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Romanian asylum seekers,

you appear to mixing up an asylum seeker with an economic migrant. The irish were not seeking asylum in america they were economic migrants. They went to america because there was promise of riches there. If your saying that the irish went to america because of the famine, then explain why they were still going to america as late as the 1980s. the famine did not last that long.

now we are a rich country it would be a bit rich of us to turn away people who want to make a life for themselves in the same way the irish did only 20 years ago.

I am saying is that we should avoid being placed in the position whererby future immigration becomes so great as to place further strain on our health-service. You misinterpret my viewpoint if you think I am calling for immigrants to get less access to the health-service than Irish people.

it has been said in this thread over and over again but you seem to ignore it time and time again

"IMMIGRANTS WHO WORK IN THIS COUNTRY WILL BE PAYING TAX IN THIS COUNTRY WHICH WILL PAY FOR MEDICAL SERVICES IN THIS COUNTRY"

Do you still have the opinion that people from poorer countries (mostly with different coloured skin) should be denied the right to work while nice white english and americans and germans can come and go as they please.

the fact that someone isnt as rich as you does not mean that a person should be denied the right to work and earn his loaf for his family.

arcadegame2004

you appear to mixing up an asylum seeker with an economic migrant. The irish were not seeking asylum in america they were economic migrants. They went to america because there was promise of riches there. If your saying that the irish went to america because of the famine, then explain why they were still going to america as late as the 1980s. the famine did not last that long.

Economic migration into Ireland from outside the EU is illegal unless they are here on work-permits or here on holiday. Those Irish who went to the US during the famine were genuine refugees, whereas those who came for the rest of the period were escaping colonial rule until 1920, and that could be considered adequate reason for asylum being sought. Afterwards the immigration from Ireland could be considered economic-migration. However, it was within the rights of the US to restrict immigration if they wanted. The fact that they did not have as stringent restrictions on it back then can be seen in the context of the US being a vast country with an enormous population, as well as the fact that the 19th century was pre-welfare-state in the US. Hence, ther wasn't the issue of being given handouts by the state, accommodation etc., unlike with asylum-seekers who get housed in "regional centres" (houses under a different name) in Ireland. Ireland has a infinitessimly smaller population than the US and hence there is proportionately a far greater risk of cheap-labour competition (including in the black economy bypassing minimum wage rules) losing Irish people their jobs.

We are also in the age of post-911. The world has changed. The Sunday Independent Life magazine had a section referring to Al Qaeda operatives being in Ireland, and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism among Muslims in Ireland. We have to be on our guard against the terrorists, who are all too willing to use our image as a soft touch of Europe to use Ireland as a base for planning terrorist actions in other Western countries under the pretence of being refugees.

I refuse to accept the legitimacy of any asylum claims in Ireland unless we are the first EU country they enter. I will not back down on this and I don't think you have to be a member of Stormfront to agree with me. BTW No I am not a member of Stormfront or any other extremist organisation okay! (just shoved that in there in anticipation of being labelled by those who like labelling people who disagree with them with the term "racist" which I am NOT). Ireland is a cake and a small cake like Ireland cannot share its resources with as many people as France, Germany or especially the US. Comparing Ireland to the US as destinations for migration is ridiculous. They are huge, both in geogrpahy and wealth, and have FAR greater resources to deal with the challenges brought by mass-migration than Ireland.

"IMMIGRANTS WHO WORK IN THIS COUNTRY WILL BE PAYING TAX IN THIS COUNTRY WHICH WILL PAY FOR MEDICAL SERVICES IN THIS COUNTRY"

Well asylum-seekers don't work. Besides, that isn't the only issue with respect to migration. I don't want Irish people losing their jobs to cheap-labour. Did you listen to the report on Fivesevenlive a few days ago, when someone mentioned that if the minimum wage was raised (in relation to the proposal to raise it), immigrants would not get work - an obvious allusion to the tendency of developing world immigrants to work for less. It is obvious to everyone accept political ostriches that people from developing countries, including the new EU members from Eastern Europe, will work for less than us. That is one reason why I want ALL EU-15 members to have the same rules on migration from the new EU-10 member states. This is only fair so as to ensure the burden of immigration (and in this I am including the competition from cheap labour as a burden - before you go on at me about how they might be working) is shared more fairly between Western EU members. Let me add that the social-welfare restrictions on immigrants brought in recently only apply for 2 years, so the case for arguing that a social-welfare burden for unemployed Eastern EU immigrants remains.

the fact that someone isnt as rich as you does not mean that a person should be denied the right to work and earn his loaf for his family.

They are in the West long before they get to Ireland. Why don't they stay in Britain?

Frank Grimes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

We are also in the age of post-911. The world has changed. The Sunday Independent Life magazine had a section referring to Al Qaeda operatives being in Ireland, and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism among Muslims in Ireland. We have to be on our guard against the terrorists, who are all too willing to use our image as a soft touch of Europe to use Ireland as a base for planning terrorist actions in other Western countries under the pretence of being refugees.

Yet again I'll ask, and yet again I'm sure you won't answer.
What do you suggest we do here? Not let any Muslims in? Kick out the Muslims (Irish and immigrant alike) that live here already? Any thoughts?
Also, I would not put much faith in that Sunday Independent article. Parts of it were just plain wrong, i.e. most Sunni Muslims are not Wahhabis. A great deal of it seemed to be speculation based on what that Palestinian lawyer said, and they didn't really say why or how he was qualified to speak on this matter.
What makes you think there is rise in "fundamentalism" amongst Muslims in Ireland too?

billy the squid

Besides, that isn't the only issue with respect to migration. I don't want Irish people losing their jobs to cheap-labour.

If irish people were to apply for these jobs instead of sitting on their arses and collecting their dole every week (some of which is paid for by foreigners taxes by the way) then there would be irish people in lower paid jobs.

as low as the pay is with these jobs, its more than they are getting on the dole.

Did you listen to the report on Fivesevenlive a few days ago,

when?

when someone mentioned...

who?

I went through the episodes of 5-7 live on the rte website and was unable to find the program to which you are referring to.

It is obvious to everyone accept political ostriches that people from developing countries, including the new EU members from Eastern Europe, will work for less than us.

so will irish people on CE schemes. would you deny people on CE schemes the opportunity to get out of the house for a while and do a little work for their community at the same time. most people on CE schemes are irish.

That is one reason why I want ALL EU-15 members to have the same rules on migration from the new EU-10 member states.

we were not the richest country in the EU when we joined were we. when rules on free movement came into practice in the EU, Poorer countries were not excluded from this. the rules for the EU 15 should be no different to ther 10 new countries.

We are also in the age of post-911. The world has changed. The Sunday Independent Life magazine had a section referring to Al Qaeda operatives being in Ireland, and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism among Muslims in Ireland. We have to be on our guard against the terrorists, who are all too willing to use our image as a soft touch of Europe to use Ireland as a base for planning terrorist actions in other Western countries under the pretence of being refugees.

now I know you are a racist, why i hear you ask, we have had terrorists crossing back and forth accross the border for the past 30 years. yet you are happy to give migrants from the UK a carte blanche when it comes to entering this country. muslim terrorists, IRA terrorists, they are all terrorists, only difference is the muslim ones arent white. what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

what i am saying is we don't blanket ban all citezens from the UK from entering this country because a small few of their citezens are members of the likes of the IRA UVF or whatever, so why should be blanket ban muslims from entering thic country , because a minority of them are members of al-Queda, i think not.

sackville

billy the squid wrote:

If irish people were to apply for these jobs instead of sitting on their arses and collecting their dole every week (some of which is paid for by foreigners taxes by the way) then there would be irish people in lower paid jobs.

as low as the pay is with these jobs, its more than they are getting on the dole.



when?



who?

I went through the episodes of 5-7 live on the rte website and was unable to find the program to which you are referring to.



so will irish people on CE schemes. would you deny people on CE schemes the opportunity to get out of the house for a while and do a little work for their community at the same time. most people on CE schemes are irish.



we were not the richest country in the EU when we joined were we. when rules on free movement came into practice in the EU, Poorer countries were not excluded from this. the rules for the EU 15 should be no different to ther 10 new countries.



now I know you are a racist, why i hear you ask, we have had terrorists crossing back and forth accross the border for the past 30 years. yet you are happy to give migrants from the UK a carte blanche when it comes to entering this country. muslim terrorists, IRA terrorists, they are all terrorists, only difference is the muslim ones arent white. what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

what i am saying is we don't blanket ban all citezens from the UK from entering this country because a small few of their citezens are members of the likes of the IRA UVF or whatever, so why should be blanket ban muslims from entering thic country , because a minority of them are members of al-Queda, i think not.

Well, did it ever dawn on you that during the next econmoic downturn that many of these low skilled Irish workers are going to be competing with not just low skilled natives and perhaps E.U. nationals but also many non-E.U. Nationals.

On a more general point it is truly phenomenal how belligerent “anti-racist’ ideologues refuse to acknowledge the implications for the native low skilled workforce, both in better and worse times, of a influx of foreign labour from poorer regions.
It’s as if they are so twisted by their own ideological worldview that they seem incapable of acknowledging even the possibility that mass immigration, may have any negative effects of at least part of the host society.( and probably the vulnerable part at that.)




On the issue of Islamist Terrorism. they seem to think that security shouldn’t be any consideration as their preoccupation with this ill-defined concept of ‘racism ‘’ that if you believe that your country shouldn’t be an open door you are regarded those who are always right about this as ‘one of them ’i.e. ‘ a racist’.



It’s a mindset characteristic of an indoctrinated member of a fundamentalist cult-which is how ‘anti-racists’ deserve to be seen.

Frank Grimes

sackville wrote:

On the issue of Islamist Terrorism. they seem to think that security shouldn’t be any consideration as their preoccupation with this ill-defined concept of ‘racism ‘’ that if you believe that your country shouldn’t be an open door you are regarded those who are always right about this as ‘one of them ’i.e. ‘ a racist’.

Nobody is saying that security shouldn't be a consideration.
It just seems (to me anyway) that people like AG2004 and (presumably) yourself think that the only option is to treat all Muslims like terrorists, ignoring the fact that most aren't and also ignoring the fact that not all Muslims in the West are immigrants so immigration policies (strict or otherwise) aren't the only factor in combating this "threat". That is of course if you subscribe to the notion that there is this overwhelming threat in the first place, but that's another story.
Nobody is suggesting an open door policy, but we are rejecting the closed door policy people like you seem to favour. There is a difference.

billy the squid

Well, did it ever dawn on you that during the next econmoic downturn that many of these low skilled Irish workers are going to be competing with not just low skilled natives and perhaps E.U. nationals but also many non-E.U. Nationals.

but you see we are not in a downturn, now is the time for them to acquire skills and work experience instead of sitting on the dole and complaining about "bloody foreigners"

On the issue of Islamist Terrorism. they seem to think that security shouldn’t be any consideration as their preoccupation with this ill-defined concept of ‘racism ‘’ that if you believe that your country shouldn’t be an open door you are regarded those who are always right about this as ‘one of them ’i.e. ‘ a racist’.

that is not what I said. I was saying that why should we block all muslims from entering this country while at the same time allow residents from northern ireland enter the south. there are terrorists who are muslims and there are terrorrists from northern ireland. . only difference between the two is the muslim terrorists are more likely to be black or brown. If we are going to block one group of people on security grounds, then we should block them all. even the white ones.

MadsL

It’s as if they are so twisted by their own ideological worldview that they seem incapable of acknowledging even the possibility that mass immigration, may have any negative effects of at least part of the host society.( and probably the vulnerable part at that.)

Benefits of immigration include;

1. Economic growth
2. A more interesting place to live (A diversity of experiences)
3. Better food!
4. Wider understanding of world cultures
5. Additional contibutions to our health service, tax and pensions
6. People in shops politely asking if they can help, rather than "are you OK?"
7. People who are prepared to work, rather than expect a job.
8. An end to a monocultural view of the world.
9. An alternative to the establishment monopolies
10. People prepared to serve the 24hour culture we seem to want


The drawbacks seem to be;
1. An increase in the number of ill-educated people who blame society's ills on 'those bloody immigrants'

Dhimmi76

MadsL wrote:

Benefits of immigration include;

1. Economic growth
2. A more interesting place to live (A diversity of experiences)
3. Better food!
4. Wider understanding of world cultures
5. Additional contibutions to our health service, tax and pensions
6. People in shops politely asking if they can help, rather than "are you OK?"
7. People who are prepared to work, rather than expect a job.
8. An end to a monocultural view of the world.
9. An alternative to the establishment monopolies
10. People prepared to serve the 24hour culture we seem to want


The drawbacks seem to be;
1. An increase in the number of ill-educated people who blame society's ills on 'those bloody immigrants'

well indoctrained!
One problem- were the People of this Country actually asked if they wanted these 'benefits' without debate on the problems as well ? (and I've yet to see any post blaming 'bloody foreigners' if they exist i'm sure they're rare).

More specifically does your part of your diverse culture include this?

http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/
http://dhimmi.com

Mr Theo Van Gogh was the idiot?

Frank Grimes

Dhimmi76 wrote:

More specifically does your part of your diverse culture include this?

The paranoid rantings on jihadwatch are hardly a balanced counter point of view on this debate are they?
And of course, Robert Spencer's rantings are nothing to do with pushing the sales of his books either, are they?

sackville

Frank Grimes wrote:

The paranoid rantings on jihadwatch are hardly a balanced counter point of view on this debate are they?
And of course, Robert Spencer's rantings are nothing to do with pushing the sales of his books either, are they?

Dhimmitute is a reality in many parts of the 'Islamic' world.

So typical of ideologues to (try to) shot ( or discredit) the messenger when the message gets in the way of their worldview-it's somewhat to be expected :rolleyes:

Just as a footnote Dhimmitute was non-existant in Ba'athist Iraq.
Doubt if the same could be said about 'Democratic" Iraq though sadly!

Frank Grimes

sackville wrote:

Dhimmitute is a reality in many parts of the 'Islamic' world.

For example?

What they're talking about on those sites are laws that would apply to non Muslim citizens in countries ruled by Islamic law.
No such countries exist in the world today, just some countries who's rulers selectively apply Islamic law to suit their own ends or their own interpretation of the religion.
Those types of sites just promote utter paranoia, these are sites where contributors suggest (jihadwatch for example) that Muslims must be made swear on entry to the US that they do not want to overthrow the government or some such nonsense.
I'm not shooting the messenger because it doesn't suit my opinion, I'm shooting the messenger because it's ill informed racist garbage.

MadsL

were the People of this Country actually asked if they wanted these 'benefits' without debate on the problems as well ?

I've named my perceived benefits, perhaps you would care to list these 'problems'?

Please limit these to Ireland.

arcadegame2004

MadsL wrote:

I've named my perceived benefits, perhaps you would care to list these 'problems'?

Please limit these to Ireland.

A: Competition for jobs with Irish people on the basis of undercutting Irish wage-rates.

B: United Ireland could be blocked by foreign votes in referendum.

C: Risk of Islamist policies being introduced in Ireland if liberal immigration policies allow Islamists to form a large part of the electorate. This has implications for women's rights, democracy, terrorism, and religious tolerance (even if I am an atheist).

AQ using Ireland as a base for planning terrorism, or committing terrorist acts against us.

E: Increased racial tensions due to jobs being lost to cheap labour.

Frank Grimes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

A: Competition for jobs with Irish people on the basis of undercutting Irish wage-rates.

B: United Ireland could be blocked by foreign votes in referendum.

C: Risk of Islamist policies being introduced in Ireland if liberal immigration policies allow Islamists to form a large part of the electorate. This has implications for women's rights, democracy, terrorism, and religious tolerance (even if I am an atheist).

AQ using Ireland as a base for planning terrorism, or committing terrorist acts against us.

E: Increased racial tensions due to jobs being lost to cheap labour.

Are you ever going to give examples, reasons or, better yet, proof to back up what you're saying (and for that matter quit the mass generalisations) or are we all just wasting our time asking you each time you post up this same stuff?
Can you also give an opinion on what you think the government should actually do regarding what you see to be a problem?
All I can see is that you don't want foreigners in the country, other than to serve menial employment roles in certain industries.

arcadegame2004

Evidence for A:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/business/2003/apr/17/514961328.html
This link gives an example of where theis has happened in the US, where Hispanic immigrants were paid considerably less than American workers. Even without evidence such as this, it stands to reason that immigrants from the developing world would be prepared to work for less. simply because what Irish people consider a low wage, is a fortune to these immigrants, in that they could never hope to earn it in their home countries. The average wage in Latvia is about $2,000, so OF COURSE Lativan migrants to Ireland would be prepared to work for a lot less than Irish people. This should be common sense and indeed it is.

Evidence for B:
This is my opinion. Only time will tell of course, as there isn't really much of a parallel to the NI problem that we can look at with respect to determining whether foreign immigration would influence the continuation or otherwise of a country's partition. But I believe it MIGHT happen, and that it is better to act now rather than waiting to find out if we are right or wrong.

Evidence for C:
http://www.bu.edu/partisanreview/archive/2002/3/bawer.html This article deals with the prevalence of Islamic fundamentalism, among Islamic migrants into Western Europe. The article refers to the fact that only their minority status and consequent lack of political power, prevents them introducing the kinds of systems that exist in most Muslim countries, including so-called "honor killings" (where women are murdered for being raped or having sex outside marriage) and the torture, imprisonment and execution of gays.

Evidence for
Evidence found in Life Magazine in the Sunday Independent last Sunday.

Evidence for E:
The rise of far right parties in France, Denmark, Italy, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Frank Grimes

So in other words:

A. Your opinion
B. Your opinion
C. Your opinion (btw honour killings have nothing to do with Islam. They are certainly not a system in Muslim countries. They're a cultural problem within certain groups, stopping Muslims coming into the country won't prevent them from happening)
D. Your opinion (I've already said parts of that article are factually wrong, the author (Mark Dooley) is being discredited in 2 or 3 3 threads here so using that a "source" isn't the best idea. Also if you look at the letters page in yesterdays Indo. you'll see the response from the Muslim community here to that article)
E. Your opinion

Why not just give your views as what they are, your opinion. Stop presenting them as facts, which they are clearly not.
And again, what do you propose doing about this?
And please, quit with the mass generalistions.

Here's some links relating to C & D (for you to ignore no doubt)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1367868,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1374605,00.html

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=53&si=1334128&issue_id=12046

arcadegame2004

The first 2 sources you provide actually back up my warnings about the spread of barbaric "honor killings". The third source is just denial for 2 people. While the first source refers to "Hundreds of disappearances, suicides and missing persons cases will be reopened in fresh inquiries into crimes excused by 'misbehaviour' ".

Frank Grimes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The first 2 sources you provide actually back up my warnings about the spread of barbaric "honor killings".

They do not back up your "warning", they refute it. You are claiming/implying (falsely) that "honour killings" are somehow sanctioned by Islam and that they only occur in Muslim communities.
Murder occurs in every society. Going by that logic we should just stop all people from coming to the country in case they kill someone.
The actions of a minority of people do not give you the right to taint one fifth of the earth's population.
The 3rd source refutes the rubbish that Mark Dooley wrote, are you trying to say that just because what he wrote agrees with your opinion then there is no possibility that he was wrong? As I've already said, parts of what he wrote were factually wrong, the rest was more or less based on one unidentified source. Why should what he writes be taken for fact? This is the same guy who said on national TV that he gets a lot of his information on Iraq from blogs.
Again, what do you propose we do? Let no Muslims in? Deport the ones that live here?

MadsL

A: Competition for jobs with Irish people on the basis of undercutting Irish wage-rates.

With a pretty much full-employment rate, why is this a concern? Where have you seen this happening? What industries? The Small Business Association are calling for more immigrants, yet unemployment continues to fall, what is your explaination for this?

B: United Ireland could be blocked by foreign votes in referendum.

When is this referendum? Given the current actions of certain individuals it seems unlikely that the ceasefire will continue, never mind a referendum. What makes you think that foreign votes might affect this. If the referendum is based on constitutional change you have to be a citizen to vote anyway.

C: Risk of Islamist policies being introduced in Ireland if liberal immigration policies allow Islamists to form a large part of the electorate. This has implications for women's rights, democracy, terrorism, and religious tolerance (even if I am an atheist).

Isn't this more likely to come from militant Catholics, Dana, Youth defence et al.

AQ using Ireland as a base for planning terrorism, or committing terrorist acts against us.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling...

E: Increased racial tensions due to jobs being lost to cheap labour.

Jobs being lost to cheap labour generally related to off-shoring/outsourcing to the likes of call-centres in India. Increased racial tensions come from incidents like my friend who had his car impounded by the gardai, apparantly solely because he was Romanian and they would not believe it wasn't stolen.
Where does he complain to?

arcadegame2004

With a pretty much full-employment rate, why is this a concern? Where have you seen this happening? What industries? The Small Business Association are calling for more immigrants, yet unemployment continues to fall, what is your explaination for this?

You bet they are calling for more immigrants. More cheap labour! I personally haven't personal experience of seeing this happen, but I have given a link in a recent post to this thread depicting examples of this in the US. There is NO reason to believe that the US in unique in this regard. Immigrants from a poor country to a rich country have always been prepared to work for less. It is an historical fact and denying it just emphasises that nothing short of absolute 100% proof will persuade you of my case, because basically, with all due respect, you want a liberal immigration policy and seem, to me, wedded to that goal. And you are entitled to that view. I'm just making the point that just because you find flaws in my argument does not mean there are flaws. Unemployment only went down on the basis of the "seasonally-adjusted" figures, and even then not by very much. Okay so unemployment is not rising. But it remains the case that it has stopped falling substantially since it reached 4% a few years ago, since it has ebbed and flowed. In my opinion, cheap labour from developing-world immigrants is a key reason for this.

When is this referendum? Given the current actions of certain individuals it seems unlikely that the ceasefire will continue, never mind a referendum. What makes you think that foreign votes might affect this. If the referendum is based on constitutional change you have to be a citizen to vote anyway.

Alternatively, if the deal does collapse, then any remaining notion in mainland UK that NI is capable of being a stable, peaceful state will collapse too (polls show mainland UK citizens do not want the Union with NI to continue), and you never know, the UK govt might someday come to its senses and realise that the cause of NI's problems, IS NI. The creation of that statelet was unnatural, especially the way the borders were drawn to include half a million Nationalists who were a majority in 2 of the 6 counties that were supposedly wanting to remain in the UK. It was bound to turn out to be a mess. In that event an Algeria scenario would not be beyond the realms of possibility, with a UK referendum and and Southern Irish referendum being held in tandem to lift the curse of partition and restore harmony to these isles. And we don't want foreigners, who know little or nothing about this issue, deciding it for us.

Frank Grimes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

And we don't want foreigners, who know little or nothing about this issue, deciding it for us.

Only Irish citizens can vote in referenda here. What are you getting at exactly with that remark?

billy the squid

I thought this thread was about FAS making things easier for legal immigirants to work here. what have the issue of whether or not they can vote in elections/referenda got to do with it arcadegame2004. all they want to do is feed their families, the same way any irish citwezen would want to do. why do you have a problem with them doing that.

I mean the cost of living in ireland (which foreign workers have to do if they want to work here ) isnt exactly cheap so their wages wouldnt be leaving the country by the truckload as you seem to think.

sceptre

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Okay so unemployment is not rising. But it remains the case that it has stopped falling substantially since it reached 4% a few years ago, since it has ebbed and flowed. In my opinion, cheap labour from developing-world immigrants is a key reason for this.

Find your Leaving Cert economics book. Read past page 10. Look up exactly what full employment is in the index (it'll be knocked in somewhere in the introduction to Keynesianism as John Maynard had quite a bit to say about the natural rate of employment and the possibility of "full" employment figures). Come back and share your results. You might also check the influence interest rates have on employment when the levels of unemployment drop to around 6% and lower as well but I'd be happy if you figured out why unemployment doesn't tend to drop below around 4-5% by reading the book and saved people the trouble of reading absolute unmitigated unfounded uneducated crapola like the above. I'm glad you prefaced the last sentence with "in my opinion" as frankly I've seen better facts come out the smelly end of a horse. Please go and educate yourself slightly about the middle sentence of the quoted post before you even think about presenting anything as vaguely factual about it ever again - ever, here, in the pub, at an interview, in fact anywhere.

I'm not even going to bother addressing the "The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming!" part of your post in ordinary user mode. If I wrote that and re-read my post I'd assume I had problems. Interpret that as "problems making a case" or just "problems" at your whim.

arcadegame2004

Frank Grimes wrote:

Only Irish citizens can vote in referenda here. What are you getting at exactly with that remark?

With Labour's policy of giving total amnesty to ALL asylum-seekers, it seems likely they will get citizenship if that party gets its mits on Ministerial pens. So what I am saying is not far-fetched.

Frank Grimes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

With Labour's policy of giving total amnesty to ALL asylum-seekers, it seems likely they will get citizenship if that party gets its mits on Ministerial pens. So what I am saying is not far-fetched.

That's a lot of ifs.
But if that did happen, would these people not be Irish citizens at that point?
Does this mean what your saying is certain Irish citizens are worth less than others?

billy the squid

arcadegame2004 wrote:

With Labour's policy of giving total amnesty to ALL asylum-seekers, it seems likely they will get citizenship if that party gets its mits on Ministerial pens. So what I am saying is not far-fetched.

if if iif if if if if if

1. Labour are not in power
2 As things stand the only way labour will ever get into power is as part of a coalition government.
3 who might get into power in 4 years time has nothing to do with the topic of the thread
4 not all immagrants are al-queda terrorists
5 not all immigrants carry out "honour killings"
6 not all immigrants eat babies
7 the custom of "dowries" is now illegal in india
8 It wasnt long ago since we had dowries in ireland


now did i leave any of your fears out arcade game.