85,000 EU migrants move to Ireland

KnowItAll

mycroft wrote:

And once again for the hard of thinking he referendum was on "citizenship tourism" not migrant workers.

I'm talking about the amount of non-nationals flooding into the country! I think the problem with you (and the others who are disagreeing with me) is that you are obsessed with the economy and material wealth. I'm more worried about quality of life and culture.

mycroft wrote:

So again that statement of fact. Whats it based on on. Because it implies that cork people not some cork people, not a minority not a majority just cork people a vague amount, aree with you. Do you see how your statement is kinda vague "knowitall"? do you think someone called "knowitall" could elaborate. Seeing as you "knowitall" could you establish what % of kinsale families are happy/unhappy with migrant workers? Or foreigners?

What do you want me to do? Should I call to every home in Co Cork and give them a questionaire?

You (and Daveirl) seem to think that I'm some sort of fool. I speak to people everyday. I speak to all sorts of people. These people are worried about what is happening with the immergration situation.

The people are also very concerned that they have no say in the matter. When Noel O'Flynn spoke out against the immergration influx a number of years ago he was attacked in the press and threatened by the psycho lefties. That why nobody says much about the influx. They are fearfull of their saftey.

Why do you think Noel O'Flynn spoke out? He was speaking for the people who elected him. Those were Cork people!

oscarBravo

KnowItAll wrote:

What do you want me to do? Should I call to every home in Co Cork and give them a questionaire?

That's up to you, but until such time as you do, it's probably wise to refrain from claiming to represent them all.

billy the squid

KnowItAll wrote:

You say that because they have not worked in the last 24 months they are unlikely to work in the next 24 months. Your probally correct but how did you get those figures? Either you have a time machine or your generalising the situation.

actually no, I dont think I am generalising.

I have been with the same employer for the past five years. and as regular as Christmas, we get the same heads looking for letters for the dole to say they were looking for work, and we give them the same answer, we tell them to piss off unless they want to do a bit of work.

so you could say that the people who were looking for letters from companies to prevent the dole from cutting them off were unemployed 24 months ago, and were unemployed for 24 months already at that time, if not longer.

But like your own statements, this is anecdotal, and based on personal experience. but if you want to find the figures for those on the dole for the past 2 or five years you could always check the CSO website.

bonkey

KnowItAll wrote:

I'm talking about the amount of non-nationals flooding into the country!

That might be what you are talking about, but you are taking a decision that represented how to deal with one particular group of non-nationals, and claiming that it is representative of the public's sentiment on a completely seperate group of non-nationals.

It may make no difference to you whether or not that foreigner is a migrant worker, a genuine asylum-seeker fleeing persecution, or just a citizenship-shopper. Thats your perogative but it still doesn't mean that your interpretation of what the public was voting for is in any way validated.

Like your comment regarding Cork people you seem very quick to decide what others mean/think on an issue but from your lack of corroboration its becoming increasingly clear that you're simply persenting opinion as fact.

I think the problem with you (and the others who are disagreeing with me)

....is that they are disagreeing with you? I can't see any possible other reason for this comment other than to try and distract from the fact that people are pointing out large holes in the arguments you've been making, and you don't have any solid means of patching tehm.

is that you are obsessed with the economy and material wealth. I'm more worried about quality of life and culture.

And, of course, our quality of life is free right?
If our economy collapses, it won't be impacted in the slightest, right?

Even Prof "we'll be overrun by 2050" quoted above acknowledged that we will need such numbers of migrants in order to maintain our economy....and how can we maintain quality of life without maintaining the ability to pay for it?

As for culture...well...I think you're over-estimating both the frailty and the constancy of what you consider Irish culture.

What do you want me to do? Should I call to every home in Co Cork and give them a questionaire?

If you're going to state their opinion as fact, then that would be an idea. Finding a representative survey would probably be enough. Alternately, making it clear that it is opinion and not fact that you were expressing would also keep the lads happy, I'm guessing.

That why nobody says much about the influx.

<Falls off chair laughing>
Right. Sure we didn't. Weren't you just claiming that the Irish voted in a referendum because of the influx in general. Although others disagree thats what happened, thats what you say they did....

I'm confused....the public was given a chance to vote....and you say it was a vote against foreign influx....and now you're saying that they're not only incapable of doing anything about the situation, but too scared to even discuss the issue. What was all the media coverage and the vote itself then?

Are you changing your mind about what the referendum was about?

They are fearfull of their saftey.

Yeah...fearful of the people calling for humanitarianism, compassion, less greed, and so on. I can see why those people are dangerous....their hearts might bleed over your clothes and you'd never get the stains out.

And seeing as you claim (again, from your interpretation of what the referendum meant) that the majority of people fall into this category....one has to wonder who they are fearful of? After all, don't they have the government who drafted and supported this rederendum on their side?

He was speaking for the people who elected him.

Our government allegedly spoke for the people who elected them when they allowed the use of Shannon to the US military...but it would seem that an awful lot of the people who elected them weren't too happy about this.

Did it ever occur to you that the attacks he suffered for speaking out could just have esily been from people outraged that he claimed to speak in their name? Or did no Cork people attack him? Or is this perhaps another fact for which you have no actual factual basis?

jc

QualderWahl

"And, of course, our quality of life is free right?
If our economy collapses, it won't be impacted in the slightest, right?

Even Prof "we'll be overrun by 2050" quoted above acknowledged that we will need such numbers of migrants in order to maintain our economy....and how can we maintain quality of life without maintaining the ability to pay for it?

As for culture...well...I think you're over-estimating both the frailty and the constancy of what you consider Irish culture."


You mis-interpreted the tone of the document produced by the professor who is the president of DCU. He was actually pleased that the native Irish will be a minority in Ireland by the middle of this century.

I'm not sure I understand your point about maintaining our standard of living without the ability to pay for it. How will a massively increased population contribute to our standard of living ? Sure there will be more tax payers contributing to the national coffers but equally there will be a heightened demand for resources; schools, hospitals, roads etc... I fail to see how a larger population with a proportionately larger infrastructure will enhance our quality of life.

I am aware that median age of the Irish population is increasing and we are experiencing general population aging. However, the trajectory of our aging curve is nowhere near as steep as that evident in remainder of the EU. (43% of the current Irish population is under 30). Therefore, I am puzzled at this imperative to increase the population at all costs. The situation isn't that severe that we require large volumes of immigrants to replace those who have retired or died. The current birth rate in Ireland is also healthy by European standards (1.99 children per woman or 15 per 1,000 women of child bearing age). This is actually the third highest birth rate on the entire continent after Albania and Iceland. We are just about replacing ourselves naturally. This would again seem to contradict the argument to permit large scale immigration to supplement a flagging indigenous birth rate.

I guess I just don't understand why some people are so vociferous in their support of a multi-cultural society. What precisely is wrong with Irish society as it is today ? Do some people suffer from a form of cultural self-loathing and all things distinctly and uniquely Irish must be "internationalised" at all costs ?

The one thing of which us forum members can all be certain is that although we have all argued both our pro- and anti- positions, we are just a small subset of the electorate. I'm not sure how representative any of the views expressed here are of the mindset of the general population. It will be very interesting to seeing how the immigration issue influences future election results or any future referenda which may be held to decide the future composition of the Irish population.

Meh

QualderWahl wrote:

I'm not sure I understand your point about maintaining our standard of living without the ability to pay for it. How will a massively increased population contribute to our standard of living ? Sure there will be more tax payers contributing to the national coffers but equally there will be a heightened demand for resources; schools, hospitals, roads etc... I fail to see how a larger population with a proportionately larger infrastructure will enhance our quality of life.

The immigrants will overwhelmingly be of working age (rather than children or pensioners, who make greater demands on public services) so they will provide a net benefit to Ireland's infrastructure.

I guess I just don't understand why some people are so vociferous in their support of a multi-cultural society.

Immigration and multiculturalism are not the same thing. It is possible to support one and not the other. I'm all in favour of immigration, however I'm not that mad about multiculturalism -- immigrants ought to be encouraged and helped to integrate into Irish society.

QualderWahl

Meh wrote:

The immigrants will overwhelmingly be of working age (rather than children or pensioners, who make greater demands on public services) so they will provide a net benefit to Ireland's infrastructure.Immigration and multiculturalism are not the same thing. It is possible to support one and not the other. I'm all in favour of immigration, however I'm not that mad about multiculturalism -- immigrants ought to be encouraged and helped to integrate into Irish society.

Immigrants are not units of economic production. They will get sick and old too. Hence, the requirement for additional medical facilities. Immigrants will have children, with first generation immigrants having a higher birth rate than that of the indigenous population. The children must be educated. Immigrants will use public transport / drive cars. Hence the requirment for more roads and public transport (something that is sorely deficient currently). It is too simplistic to say that immigrants will all be of working age and will by extension be of net benefit to the national infrastructure. They will also have many infrastructural requirements which must be addressed.

I agree with you on the issue of multiculturalism. Integration efforts should be supported. However, this is no guarantee of a cohesive society. See the link provided earlier outling the current situation in the Netherlands. Every effort was undertaken to integrate international migrants. This did not stop the development of polarised communities. (*Note this is also the case in Germany where the is a lot of media discussion regarding the "parallel Gesellschaften" that exist between native Germans and foreigners). International experiences of integration have shown that it can be a highly problematic issue.

bonkey

You mis-interpreted the tone of the document produced by the professor
who is the president of DCU. He was actually pleased that the native Irish
will be a minority in Ireland by the middle of this century

I'm not questioning his tone at all. His tone is irrelevant to the point I was making.

This guy's work (and that of others which have produced similar work) is typically held up by those favouring massively stricter immigration laws as some sort of reason as to why we need them. We need them or we'll be overrun...and we don't want to be / shouldn't be overrun. Thats the basic underlying logic, right?

However, the other underlying logic which is conveniently overlooked is that - without exception that I am aware of - anyone who has looked at such largescale immigration figures over the next 50 years also concludes that this will occur as it will be necessary to maintain our economic standards.

I'm not sure I understand your point about maintaining our standard of
living without the ability to pay for it.How will a massively increased population contribute to our standard of living ?

Well - the people tellnig us that we're going to be overrun are the people telling us that if we don't allow ourselves to be overrun, we won't be able to maintain our standard of living as our economy will not be maintainable.

If those opposed to immigration on the "we'll be overrun" basis are using this research and its resultant figures to back up their position , then they should explain why the rest of the conclusions don't apply. Its a case of "This guy says we'll be overrun....so we should listen to him. He also says that if we're not overrun, our economy will be unmaintainable, but we'll ignore that bit because it doesn't suit our argument, and instead we'll say that we'll be overrun and these cheapy foreign workers will ruin our economy".

All I'm asking is that anyone who wants to use this guys population figures also uses his economics figures, or that they explain why they can cherry-pick which aspects of his research to use. In short - if you're gonna use research to back up an assertion, accept the full findings of the research, or explain why they don't apply. I don't see this being done, and that is what I was highlighting....not which side of the fence the person carrying out the research sits on.

I fail to see how a larger population with a proportionately larger infrastructure will enhance our quality of life.

Thats fine...but if you're gonna take this Professor's preduiction of mass immigration as credible then you should also take his prediction of the economic need for it as being equally credible - especially as the two are interlinked.

I guess I just don't understand why some people are so vociferous in their support of a multi-cultural society. What precisely is wrong with Irish society as it is today ?

Speaking for myself, I guess primarily I'm ideologically opposed to any culture which sees stagnation and seperation as the ideals for the future.

Like so many espects of modern society, I am increasingly frustrated with the all-too-often occurring trend of society bringing us in a direction because there is benefit to be gained, and then expecting to keep the benefits whilst arguing that the disadvantages/issues which come as part of the package should be avoided. We're all too ready to accept many benefits of globalisation / the global village / the shrinking world...but the costs...no...they shouldn't be paid.

Do some people suffer from a form of cultural self-loathing and all things distinctly and uniquely Irish must be "internationalised" at all costs ?

I'd be very surprised if there weren't some who do.

I'd also be very surprised if there weren't also some people who suffer from a form of non-self-cultural-loathing, where all things which are not distinctly and uniquely Irish must be avoided.

Then there's the vast majority of the population who are quite happy to allow in the foreign culture that they don't feel threatened by (Isn't all that American TV, movies, music, consumerism etc. great?)....and who have unease to varying degrees about cultural aspects that they do feel threatened by ("We don't want the freedom to bear arms, thanks very much, and we already have a religion to slavishly follow so keep your foreign god and resultant religiously-influenced behaviour out, because we'll have no truck with that sort of thing.").

I assume, of course, that you weren't suggesting that everyone who favours liberal immigration laws is an irish-culture-loather....because to reduce it to such a black-and-white situtation would also mean you'd be suggesting that you (being in the "other" camp, so to speak) are either a xenophobe, a racist, or a hater of everything which is not distinctly and uniquely Irish....and I know you're not going to suggest that you are any such thing (Especially given that neither the language that you're writing in nor the medium that you're using to even partake in this debate are distinctly and uniquely Irish)

I would also point out that the medium you're using is relatively new....should we have locked that new cultural influence out before it got to us too? After all - you asked what is wrong with Irish culture that we don't want to keep it unchanged...but here you are using the Internet. in English. What's wrong with the culture we had pre-internet? Or the culture we had when we spoke Irish as a native tongue? Why were these cultural changes OK?

Culture evolves. No matter what we do, culture will evolve. Cultural evolution is surely a fundamental part of any living culture. So asking "whats wrong with it that we want change" isn't the right question in my book. Change will happen regardless. We should be asking "whats wrong with change that we want to prevent it". After all - change is part of the culture you want to protect....right?

It will be very interesting to seeing how the immigration issue influences future election results

...And who is doing the influencing...and with how honest and complete a representation of the available information....

It will be most interesting indeed.

jc

Zombrex

QualderWahl wrote:

They will get sick and old too. Hence, the requirement for additional medical facilities. Immigrants will have children, with first generation immigrants having a higher birth rate than that of the indigenous population. The children must be educated. Immigrants will use public transport / drive cars. Hence the requirment for more roads and public transport (something that is sorely deficient currently).

Er, so will you ...

My taxes paying for your kids or an immigrants kids, your health bill or an immigrants health bill, your roads or an immigrants roads, it is all the same to me .. i don't know you and I don't know the Polish guy who works in the coffee shop (though I know him a bit better than you), still I pay taxes for the both of you, and you both pay taxes for me

Quantum

Macmorris wrote:

Professor Ferdinand von Prondzynski of Dublin City University

In my opinion this guy is a complete idiot if he himself, or he really expects anyone else, to buy into the stupifyingly unscientific, subjective and counter-intuitive nonsense of this supposed research he quotes in his speech/talk whatever. (note that according to the URL, this is NOT his own research, but some mysterious research by some UK entity)

In my view it's something I would expect a 9 year old student to produce after reading a few newspaper articles on the influx of Dublin City residents to the Dollymount Strand one amazingly sunny Sunday morning.
His conclusion would be that if the rate of increased visitors continued, then in three weeks the island would be so conjested than there would be no space whatsoever for anyone to either lie down or sit down, and the government must adopt emergency legislation this minute to avoid a catastrophic health and safety disaster !

QualderWahl

Quantum wrote:

In my opinion this guy is a complete idiot if he himself, or he really expects anyone else, to buy into the stupifyingly unscientific, subjective and counter-intuitive nonsense of this supposed research he quotes in his speech/talk whatever. (note that according to the URL, this is NOT his own research, but some mysterious research by some UK entity)

In my view it's something I would expect a 9 year old student to produce after reading a few newspaper articles on the influx of Dublin City residents to the Dollymount Strand one amazingly sunny Sunday morning.
His conclusion would be that if the rate of increased visitors continued, then in three weeks the island would be so conjested than there would be no space whatsoever for anyone to either lie down or sit down, and the government must adopt emergency legislation this minute to avoid a catastrophic health and safety disaster !

Quantum I agree with you. Just to clarify, the only reason I referenced this document was because I thought that Bonkey had mis-interpreted it and was of the opinion that the Professor was attempting to engender panic by saying we are going to be over-run etc. He has since clarified.

I believe that he (the Professor) may have derived these figures from "Migration watch" a UK think-tank on immigration with an agenda to reduce the volume of immigration to the UK. Although I am not in favour of large-scale, uncontrolled immigration, I do think that his publishing of this ill-conceived and unsupported data is highly irresponsible. It makes you wonder about the academic community in Ireland...

mycroft

Knowitall and Qualderwahl, I think Bonkey Quantum and Wickednight answered your rebuttals to me more than adequately, I'll wait for your responses before I continue.

bonkey

QualderWahl wrote:

It makes you wonder about the academic community in Ireland...

They're like most other academic communities, in that they're (unfortunately) not devoid of those who allow their ideologies to influence their research.

jc

QualderWahl

Wicknight wrote:

Er, so will you ...

My taxes paying for your kids or an immigrants kids, your health bill or an immigrants health bill, your roads or an immigrants roads, it is all the same to me .. i don't know you and I don't know the Polish guy who works in the coffee shop (though I know him a bit better than you), still I pay taxes for the both of you, and you both pay taxes for me

Refer to my previous post. I indicated that the age profile and curent birth rate in Ireland is very healthy by European standards. Therefore, I was questioning why there is this imperative to increase the number of immigrants arriving into the country. The immigrants who do arrive, along with those currently here will age and get sick (along with the indigenous population). Any net infrastructural benefit brought about by immigration will be negated by their requirement for additional services and their increasing need to access those services as the get sick / age.

I'm aware of how the taxation system works but thanks for the tutorial anyway.

Meh

QualderWahl wrote:

I agree with you on the issue of multiculturalism. Integration efforts should be supported. However, this is no guarantee of a cohesive society. See the link provided earlier outling the current situation in the Netherlands. Every effort was undertaken to integrate international migrants. This did not stop the development of polarised communities. (*Note this is also the case in Germany where the is a lot of media discussion regarding the "parallel Gesellschaften" that exist between native Germans and foreigners). International experiences of integration have shown that it can be a highly problematic issue.

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong there. Germany did not make any sort of effort to integrate the Turkish Gastarbeiter. Even third-generation Turks whose grandparents immigrated to Germany aren't entitled to German citizenship -- they are only entitled to Turkish passports. And that article you mentioned makes the point that the Dutch also had a policy of multiculturalism until very recently:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-1488514_1,00.html
The Dutch supplied funding for mosques, religious schools, language courses and housing. They passed special legislation so Moroccans could have dual nationality, as Moroccan nationality is inalienable under Moroccan law.

These are the kinds of separatist policies we should avoid (apart from the language courses, that's an excellent idea).

Zombrex

QualderWahl wrote:

Any net infrastructural benefit brought about by immigration will be negated by their requirement for additional services and their increasing need to access those services as the get sick / age.

Every school leaver who is about to enter the work force will eventually leave the work force, and probably become sick and a drain on the state a number of times with in their life. How is it any different for immigrants. They don't "negate" the contribution to the state by being sick or retiring any more than a native person negates their contribution by being sick or retiring.

Quantum

I take your point above regarding the 'Professor'.

QualderWahl wrote:

Immigrants are not units of economic production. They will get sick and old too. Hence, the requirement for additional medical facilities. Immigrants will have children, with first generation immigrants having a higher birth rate than that of the indigenous population. The children must be educated. Immigrants will use public transport / drive cars. Hence the requirment for more roads and public transport (something that is sorely deficient currently). It is too simplistic to say that immigrants will all be of working age and will by extension be of net benefit to the national infrastructure. They will also have many infrastructural requirements which must be addressed.

Seeing as you yourself raised the point about being simplistic, I would just suggest that it may be a tad simplistic to make your above point about immigrants getting old and requiring medical facilities. Firstly I doubt very much if most of them have any intention to settle here, and secondly as most are very young when they arrive they will have contributed their fair share to the economy to justify such facilities.

I agree with you on the issue of multiculturalism. Integration efforts should be supported. However, this is no guarantee of a cohesive society.

No offense meant, QualderWahl, but I get a bit exasperated when I read this kind of coment. When someone posts something that they believe should be done about a problem and someone else comes and says "this is no guarantee . . ."
For goodness sakes why does any valid contribution to solving or reducing a problem have to be a guarentee ? Of coure it isn't a guarentee, and nor is it a solution. But I believe and I think I have supported my belief with a rationale, that it is a valid suggestion toward making a big difference and a big improvement.

See the link provided earlier outling the current situation in the Netherlands. Every effort was undertaken to integrate international migrants. This did not stop the development of polarised communities. (*Note this is also the case in Germany where the is a lot of media discussion regarding the "parallel Gesellschaften" that exist between native Germans and foreigners). International experiences of integration have shown that it can be a highly problematic issue.

I am sorry but i do not have an confidence that either Germany or the Netherlands made any serious attempt at the kind of cross community socialising effort suggested by me above. They did a lot of talking but in the end they put their faith in what others here have referred to as 'natural' integration between communities. I do not believe in this 'natural' mixing and hence I believe that a proactive government program directed from the highest levels is needed.

As a footnote, may I say that this has been a terrific thread. Lots of great contributions and responses from different viewpoints.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Macmorris

Quantum wrote:

In my opinion this guy is a complete idiot if he himself, or he really expects anyone else, to buy into the stupifyingly unscientific, subjective and counter-intuitive nonsense of this supposed research he quotes in his speech/talk whatever. (note that according to the URL, this is NOT his own research, but some mysterious research by some UK entity)

Typical liberal response to anything that tends to confirm anti-immigration predictions. That's the great fallacy of political correctness - anything that is politically incorrect must automatically be scientifically and statistically incorrect.

There are a number of factors that add credibility to the professor's claims. Firstly, he himself is pro-immigration and pro-multiracialism, as you can see from reading the article. I don't think a liberal pro-immigrationist would be the kind of person who would want to spread baseless claims likely to raise people's fears. Secondly, judging by his name, he seems to be a foreigner himself, which would seem to disqualify him as being some redneck, nativist, anti-immigration crank. And thirdly, I think it would be difficult for an idiot to become the president of one of the country's main universities. I don't think you could find a more reputable source, to be honest.

And what is it that is so unscientific and counter-intuitive about the claims? Look at how much Ireland has changed in just the last ten years. Ten years ago Ireland was almost completely homogenous and now we're as ethnically diverse as any country in Europe. I might be wrong but I think the ethnic minority population is now running at around 5% of the total. If you had told someone fifteen years ago that the population of Ireland would be 5% non-Irish by the year 2005, they would also have accused you of being counter-intuitive. When you consider that the immigration we're having to deal with now is much greater than anything we've had to deal with before, and when you consider that the birth-rate of the indigenous population will probably decline, while that of the minorities will be higher than that of the natives, I don't think it's difficult to see that the numbers are not in our favour. 5% isn't far behind the British and according to research I remember reading a few years ago, the indigenous British are set to become a minority by 2060, so isn't it possible that the same will happen to us at around the same time?

The important thing isn't really whether or not the claims are accurate. The important thing is how we should react if they are accurate. I'm fairly sure that if the research on which the professor relied to make his predictions was published, and that if it was found to be valid, that you people who now seem to be denouncing the claims as being typical anti-immigration scare-mongering, would quickly change your minds and suddenly see the economic benefit of Irish people becoming a minority in our own country. It's the same as happened during the Nice Treaty. The Anti-Treaty side were accused of scare-mongering by the other side, but when it has been shown that they have now been proved right about immigration, the pro-treaty side have strangely forgotten about their claims of scare-mongering.

So just assume that the predictions are wrong if it makes you feel better and treat this as a purely hypothetical problem. Suppose, hypothetically, that the current rate of immigration were to lead to the Irish people becoming a minority sometime in the second half of the current century, would you be happy about that or would that be something that you would prefer didn't happen?

Dublin8

i think you shud change your nick from know it all to dontknowitall
yr one of de muppets i talk about useless yolk
do some work will ya
you ejit

KnowItAll wrote:

What about the Romany Gypsies? What do they do? Does the economy need the Polish guys wou got caught with drugs for sale in Cork last week? And what about the Nigerians? What do they do ( except multiply)?

pete

Macmorris wrote:

Typical liberal response to anything that tends to confirm anti-immigration predictions.

Whooaahh there - confirm? The alleged research "confirms" nothing. To all intents and purposes it doesn't even exist.

That's the great fallacy of political correctness - anything that is politically incorrect must automatically be scientifically and statistically incorrect.

Nobody is talking about "anything" - the discussion hinges on (as yet) completely unverified "demographic research".

There are a number of factors that add credibility to the professor's claims. Firstly, he himself is pro-immigration and pro-multiracialism

Pardon?

What might "pro-multiracialism" be when it's at home, then?

, as you can see from reading the article. I don't think a liberal pro-immigrationist would be the kind of person who would want to spread baseless claims likely to raise people's fears. Secondly, judging by his name, he seems to be a foreigner himself, which would seem to disqualify him as being some redneck, nativist, anti-immigration crank.

I don't think any reasonable interpretation of the article in question would indicate that at all - he appears to be using some notional, unsubstantiated numbers as a starting point for a debate.

And thirdly, I think it would be difficult for an idiot to become the president of one of the country's main universities. I don't think you could find a more reputable source, to be honest.

A source can be reputable without being authoritative.

And what is it that is so unscientific and counter-intuitive about the claims?

What is unscientific is the complete lack of supporting evidence.

Look at how much Ireland has changed in just the last ten years. Ten years ago Ireland was almost completely homogenous and now we're as ethnically diverse as any country in Europe. I might be wrong but I think the ethnic minority population is now running at around 5% of the total. If you had told someone fifteen years ago that the population of Ireland would be 5% non-Irish by the year 2005, they would also have accused you of being counter-intuitive.

I don't see how this is relevant. If someone had suggested 5% "non-irish" to me 15 years ago I would have looked at the evidence, the trends and weighed up the possibilities... which in this specific case is precisely what we can't do. Obviously there may very well be other demographic analysis available, it's just that nobody here has presented it.

When you consider that the immigration we're having to deal with now is much greater than anything we've had to deal with before, and when you consider that the birth-rate of the indigenous population will probably decline, while that of the minorities will be higher than that of the natives, I don't think it's difficult to see that the numbers are not in our favour.

Interesting analysis. With an even more interesting conclusion.

5% isn't far behind the British and according to research I remember reading a few years ago, the indigenous British are set to become a minority by 2060, so isn't it possible that the same will happen to us at around the same time?

Do you share the same library with the good professor, by any chance? The one with apparently nothing available to use as reference material, that is.

The important thing isn't really whether or not the claims are accurate. The important thing is how we should react if they are accurate. I'm fairly sure that if the research on which the professor relied to make his predictions was published, and that if it was found to be valid, that you people who now seem to be denouncing the claims as being typical anti-immigration scare-mongering, would quickly change your minds and suddenly see the economic benefit of Irish people becoming a minority in our own country.

It's the same as happened during the Nice Treaty. The Anti-Treaty side were accused of scare-mongering by the other side, but when it has been shown that they have now been proved right about immigration, the pro-treaty side have strangely forgotten about their claims of scare-mongering.

So just assume that the predictions are wrong if it makes you feel better and treat this as a purely hypothetical problem. Suppose, hypothetically, that the current rate of immigration were to lead to the Irish people becoming a minority sometime in the second half of the current century, would you be happy about that or would that be something that you would prefer didn't happen?

"The Irish people"?

A "minority in our own country"?

I guess that depends on your definition of "Irish People". Are we to assume you're excluding our non-caucasian, non-(extreme) western european fellow citizens?

oscarBravo

Macmorris wrote:

Ten years ago Ireland was almost completely homogenous and now we're as ethnically diverse as any country in Europe.

Speaking for myself, I think it's a much more interesting country for it.

pete wrote:

I guess that depends on your definition of "Irish People". Are we to assume you're excluding our non-caucasian, non-(extreme) western european fellow citizens?

Ethnic Irish, doncha know. Whatever that means.

bus77

Dublin8 wrote:

i think you shud change your nick from know it all to dontknowitall
yr one of de muppets i talk about useless yolk
do some work will ya
you ejit

Now thats intergration

uberwolf

Dublin8 wrote:

i think you shud change your nick from know it all to dontknowitall
yr one of de muppets i talk about useless yolk
do some work will ya
you ejit

banned.

Macmorris

pete wrote:

"The Irish people"?

A "minority in our own country"?

I guess that depends on your definition of "Irish People". Are we to assume you're excluding our non-caucasian, non-(extreme) western european fellow citizens?

I think most people understand what I mean when I say Irish people.

When I said "Irish People" I meant the indigenous Irish people, the white, christian (Catholic/Protestant), Western-European inhabitants of the island of Ireland.

Calina

I get the impression that there are are a large number of people here against the influx of 85,000 EU migrant workers. I would be interested to know if, for example, they have ever worked outside Ireland, even for three months at summer on a J1 Visa, or in a factory in Germany or whatever.

For the record, yes I have. For five years in England, France, Germany and Belgium.

pete

Macmorris wrote:

I think most people understand what I mean when I say Irish people.

When I said "Irish People" I meant the indigenous Irish people, the white, christian (Catholic/Protestant), Western-European inhabitants of the island of Ireland.

how enlightening

now -what about that "pro-multiracialism" bit? I googled the term and found it used on only 3 websites, two of which are http://www.amren.com & http://www.freewebs.com/survivalbook/

Just sayin, like.

KnowItAll

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I never said he was talking about the 85,000 EU migrants. Doesn't that tell you something? Even before the 85,000 EU migrants came people were not happy with the influx. I think that answers your question!

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Did you ask anyone their views? They are not going to go around shouting it from the rooftops. Like I said previously, people are too scared to speak out. Thats because as soon as they do the lefties accuse them of being racist or in some cases physical violence occurs. I myself don't go around saying it. I would say it if asked though.

I have noticed here that the pro-immirgration brigade are distorting facts and figures that they do not like. Like when I gave the Noel O'Flynn example it was instantly dismissed because not everybody liked reading it.

When you know it all you can't be wrong!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sceptre

KnowItAll wrote:

I have noticed here that the pro-immirgration brigade are distorting facts and figures that they do not like. Like when I gave the Noel O'Flynn example it was instantly dismissed because not everybody liked reading it.

Regardless of why people may or may have not dismissed it, O'Flynn's comments have a somewhat tenuous (and contrived by mere opinion) link with the actual topic at hand - the quoted figure of 85k migrants from the new accession states. That's the topic at hand, for those in a forgetful mindframe.