85,000 EU migrants move to Ireland

KnowItAll

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

For your information I was talking about asylum seekers and EU migrants. In case you have not noticed there has been EU migrants in Cork for years.

So what exactly do you have a problem with?

The threat to our culture and quality of life. For instance house prices have rocketed in recent years. Prices are not going to come down if the population is keep going to rise. What about the destruction of the hill of tara. Muslims who hate the west are coming in on a daily basis. I'm actually fearful for my family.

Actually I've asked loads of people, it's been a topic of conversation at around 5-10 different lunches/dinners I've been at recently and every single person was happy with the EU migration, even people who, like myself, are in favour of a harsher immigration policy in general.

That explains it. You and your friends the types who goes to posh dinners every second night. Sorry, I don't mean to generalise but why don't you ask ordinary people on the streets to get a more realistic opinion?

You see most people unlike yourself seem to be capable of distinguishing between the different type of immigrants.

I can distinguish alright! I know the difference between criminals and genuine people. Unfortunatly people here want to bring them all in regardless of the type of people they are.

Well you again have yet to point out a single story/anecdote about loads and loads of people in Cork having issues with the migrants living in the city

(once again) What about the Noel O'Flynn incident??? Did you agree with Noel O'Flynn btw?

mycroft

KnowItAll wrote:

That explains it. You and your friends the types who goes to posh dinners every second night. Sorry, I don't mean to generalise but why don't you ask ordinary people on the streets to get a more realistic opinion?

Ah like your friends, still haven't got around to getting that qualified survey of people from cork's attitudes to migrants?

I can distinguish alright! I know the difference between criminals and genuine people. Unfortunatly people here want to bring them all in regardless of the type of people they are.

Wozza Spidey sense tinglying........ criminals nearby.......

Care to explain how you spot the difference between criminals and genuine people? Kenneth Lay was a criminal with a private jet, George Redmond, Ray Burke, they all ripped off the exchequer for greater amounts than a dole dodger.

But no tell us "knowitall" how do you distinguish a criminal from joe upright citizen? The swag bag, strippy jumper and mask?

As for the bring em in regardless do you really think under the statute of liberty theres in smaller type face beneath "bring us your poor, your tired, your weak and huddled masses and criminal underclass?

No one wants the undesirable element, but theres such a thing as benefit of the doubt, unless *snaps fingers*, no wait, our overtaxed immirgration service could use your superhuman sense of smell to weed out the criminals among the group! Will you do it "knowitall"? will you serve your country? Please knowitall all, Ireland needs you.......

Justin Barrett* could be your boy wonder.........

*he's getting on in years but the uniform would still fit

oscarBravo

KnowItAll wrote:

The threat to our culture and quality of life.

I'm too tired to search the forum right now - has there ever been an explanation of exactly how immigration will destroy our culture? Will all the criminals and Muslims force us to stop doing... whatever it is we're calling culture these days?

KnowItAll wrote:

For instance house prices have rocketed in recent years. Prices are not going to come down if the population is keep going to rise.

Aren't prices levelling off? Genuine question, I haven't been keeping an eye on them.

KnowItAll wrote:

What about the destruction of the hill of tara. Muslims who hate the west are coming in on a daily basis. I'm actually fearful for my family.

Muslims are destroying Tara? You're fearful because, um, you live on Tara?

KnowItAll wrote:

That explains it. You and your friends the types who goes to posh dinners every second night. Sorry, I don't mean to generalise but why don't you ask ordinary people on the streets to get a more realistic opinion?

Ordinary people don't eat lunch or dinner?

KnowItAll wrote:

I can distinguish alright! I know the difference between criminals and genuine people.

You do? Care to explain it?

billy the squid

KnowItAll wrote:

The threat to our culture and quality of life. For instance house prices have rocketed in recent years Prices are not going to come down if the population is keep going to rise. .

House prices have gone up like that because it was the white Irish were becoming more prosperous and buying up houses as quick as they were being build. You cannot blame EU migration from assession states for this. Why? Because house prices have been rising dramatically for the past 10 years, where as the influx of EU migration from assession states has happened over the last year.

Most Eastern europeans I know are renting, they are not buying. All the landlords are Irish though.

What about the destruction of the hill of tara.

You might want to take a trip up to meath and ask the locals if they should or should not have a motorway link to Dublin or not. Again Immigrants are not to blame for the construction of the M3 Motorway, It is the growing prosperity of the Irish also which has prompted the need for the M3.

As for the destruction of the hill of Tara, Its not being destroyed, This motorway will be a kilometer away from the Hill of Tara at its nearest pointr.

Muslims who hate the west are coming in on a daily basis. I'm actually fearful for my family.

100 percent of all deaths caused by terrorism in ireland were caused by, wait for it:

MacMorris wrote:

the white, christian (Catholic/Protestant), Western-European inhabitants of the island of Ireland.

I know you didnt say the above quoted words, but these are the people you need to be more afraid of than the Muslims, they are the ones who have killed more people in this country through acts of terrorism.

That explains it. You and your friends the types who goes to posh dinners every second night. Sorry, I don't mean to generalise but why don't you ask ordinary people on the streets to get a more realistic opinion?

Now that is generalising, me personally I would have to put a little aside for weeks before I could go to a posh dinner,

I can distinguish alright! I know the difference between criminals and genuine people. Unfortunatly people here want to bring them all in regardless of the type of people they are.

Seeing as we are generalising about foreigners here, let me put this to you. Would you like to know why we have things like 419 scams originating from poor countries? I will tell you why, because they work.

Why do they work? Because there are white people like you and me out there who are willing to risk a few bob in the pursuit of money that they know damn well isnt theres. Yes people are greedy, and they are not all black either.

As was written in a recent Limerick Leader colum by journalist Patricia Fehely, in relation to the Irish language. (which you might consider a part of our language) "Whats so great about the Irish language, The people who built newgrange didnt speak it."

The way I see it, the only real nugget of Irish culture is the Language. The paddys day parade came from America, St. Patrick himself wasnt even Irish.

ArthurDent

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.

Phew am I glad you don't get to make the rules! Are you seriously telling me you believe that only white christians are indigenous Irish people? What about all the people that don't have a christian belief system? Are you denying them nationality on the basis of religion?

you can count me out of that "most people" ta very much!

ArthurDent

KnowItAll wrote:

The threat to our culture and quality of life. For instance house prices have rocketed in recent years. Prices are not going to come down if the population is keep going to rise. What about the destruction of the hill of tara. Muslims who hate the west are coming in on a daily basis. I'm actually fearful for my family.

QUOTE]

Am I reading this right you think EU migrants and non-EU immigrants and asylum seekers are responsible for the destruction of Tara hill? Last time I checked it was that bastion of predominantly Irish, catholics, the Government that took this decision


Sure there are some Muslims that "hate" the west, but do you think that the majority that arrive here "hate" the west. Do you get that sense from the one's that treat you in hospitals? Sell you your computers etc....?

I'm sorry you are actually fearful for your family - but have you made any efforts to question whether those fears are rational or irrational? Do you know any "muslims" (pretty broad spectrum btw), did you ever make any efforts to talk with them - most of those I've met are pretty decent, family oriented people, interested in working hard to support their families. I'm sure there are nutters that hate th west etc, but ya know I'm more scared of republicans that believe in an armed struggle or the local drug dealing scum.

ambro25

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

I'm 'white'
(though of Med origins so admittedly maybe 'slightly off-white is more appropriate, i.e. not quite Lebanese-dark but definitely darker than Irish/English chalk-white)

'western european'
(in the true sense of words, for a change, as I've lived in so many different EU countries by now that I'm considering myself more 'European' than any particular nationality, my wife isn't the same nationality as me and our daughter defo has double-nationality)

and 'catholic'
(not by choice, let it be said - I'd rather be me own )

and 'inhabit the island of Ireland'

So I'm an 'Irish People', then? Yaaaaayyy !!!

Seriously... what a load of bollotox :rolleyes:

Quantum

Macmorris wrote:

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.

I'll ignore the very silly liberal jibe, because it's more sad than annoying. Secondly this anonymous 'report' confirms nothing. It's a load of irrational cobblers, though I would be delighted to read any scientific or statistical information you have relating to this or any other related report. I'll be waiting for your reply to this with anticipation.

There are a number of factors that add credibility to the professor's claims.

Firstly - please note that this 'professor' made no claims. He was quoting an anonymous report from the UK.

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.

I don't see any logic in either of these statements.

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.

So a foreigner cannot be anti immigration ? what an astonishingly prejudiced comment !

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.

He is clearly an idiot. Your faith in university selection methods is amazing.

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.

No. The important thing is the nonsense you chose to swallow in the furtherence of your irrational fears, irrespective of the stupifyingly illogical and counter intuitive data being used to generate such idiotic predictions.

QualderWahl

Calina wrote:

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.

I'm not sure what bearing this has one's perspective on the immigration issue. Personally, I have spent 4 years living abroad. An Erasmus year in Germany, a post-grad qualification in Germany, 6 months working in the UK, 6 months working in the US and I availed of the 12 month visa to Australia. I also speak fluent German and some Spanish. Do these "international" credentials suffice?

I am really bothered by this attempt to stereotype anyone who disagrees with pro-immigration policies as a ill-educated, insular honky. Just because somebody doesn't agree with you doesn't render them ignorant. Thankfully we live in a democracy where each individual is entitled to their opinion and can legitimately voice that opinion.

Calina

QualderWahl wrote:

I'm not sure what bearing this has one's perspective on the immigration issue. Personally, I have spent 4 years living abroad. An Erasmus year in Germany, a post-grad qualification in Germany, 6 months working in the UK, 6 months working in the US and I availed of the 12 month visa to Australia. I also speak fluent German and some Spanish. Do these "international" credentials suffice?

I am really bothered by this attempt to stereotype anyone who disagrees with pro-immigration policies as a ill-educated, insular honky. Just because somebody doesn't agree with you doesn't render them ignorant. Thankfully we live in a democracy where each individual is entitled to their opinion and can legitimately voice that opinion.

The bearing it has is that I would consider it hypocritical for people who have benefitted under the rights accorded to them by EU membership in the past to limit those rights now due to other EU citizens who would like to benefit from them. No one was arguing against the idea when Irish people were benefitting and when Irish people couldn't find work at home.

It has nothing to do with a lack of education or insularity. This debate, if it is on topic at all relates strictly to intra-EU migration, specifically into Ireland.

ambro25

"You can't have your cake and eat it" springs to mind, somehow...

QualderWahl

Calina wrote:

The bearing it has is that I would consider it hypocritical for people who have benefitted under the rights accorded to them by EU membership in the past to limit those rights now due to other EU citizens who would like to benefit from them. No one was arguing against the idea when Irish people were benefitting and when Irish people couldn't find work at home.

It has nothing to do with a lack of education or insularity. This debate, if it is on topic at all relates strictly to intra-EU migration, specifically into Ireland.

By extension of your thesis, 80% of the population of the original 15 EU-member states are hypocritical. Correct me if I am wrong, but 12 of the 15 countries decided to "limit those rights now due to other EU citizens who would like to benefit from them".

Ireland, UK and Sweden are the only non-hypocritical EU states? I think not.

Calina

QualderWahl wrote:

By extension of your thesis, 80% of the population of the original 15 EU-member states are hypocritical. Correct me if I am wrong, but 12 of the 15 countries decided to "limit those rights now due to other EU citizens who would like to benefit from them".

Ireland, UK and Sweden are the only non-hypocritical EU states? I think not.

Are you suggesting that the majority are always - but always - right?

uberwolf

Calina wrote:

Are you suggesting that the majority are always - but always - right?

this is slightly off topic and certainly an exploration of a tangent to the main issue here.

The whole point of democracy is self determination by majority rule. Right or wrong is only a perspectve that cannot be definitively viewed in the abstract.

QualderWahl

Calina wrote:

Are you suggesting that the majority are always - but always - right?

No more than you are suggesting that the 20% minority is right

I was responding to your attempt to portray me as hypocritical. What I am asserting is that those 12 countries are democratic societies and decided to implement those limitations against fellow EU citizens. Conversely, the Irish public were not consulted on their preference.

Calina

uberwolf wrote:

this is slightly off topic and certainly an exploration of a tangent to the main issue here.

The whole point of democracy is self determination by majority rule. Right or wrong is only a perspectve that cannot be definitively viewed in the abstract.

I take your point and will endeavour to stay on topic while adding I quite like your quote.

My point was simple. I feel that if I, person X, has exploited and benefitted from privileges available to me by merit of being a citizen of the EU, it would be hypocritical to prevent person Y, also a citizen of the EU, from exploiting and benefitting from those privileges. The majority might decide that they want to limit those privileges, certainly - however, I'm not entirely sure that by merit of a majority doing it, it magically stops being hypocritical. Actually, I am certain it's still hypocritical.

I shall now go back in my box.

bonkey

QualderWahl wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but 12 of the 15 countries decided to "limit those rights now due to other EU citizens who would like to benefit from them".

I believe it ended up as 14 of the 15. We are the only nation not to impose quotas at this point, IIRC.

Ireland, UK and Sweden are the only non-hypocritical EU states?

I disagree with the quotas, and believe it is hypocritical.

I understand why they were imposed, but to me its the wrong reaction to a seperate issue - the issue being that the EU is trying to expand dangerously quickly, and is seeking to minimise some of the potential risks that such a rapid expansion introduces that would not exist under a more careful, progressive expansion (more like the small accessions we've had in the past).

Of course...the flip-side is also true. Could we reasonably have taken on 3 or 4 nations and told the rest to wait...then 15-20 years later, picked another 2 or 4....and so on, until by somewhere closer to the end of the century we'd have the size we have now?

We have no way of knowing which is the right approach, I admit, but the Irish have decided to give to these people as many of the same advantages which were given to us as is possible. Those advantages helped turn Ireland from a pauper-nation into the strongest economy in the EU in under 30 years....but I guess asking us to now shoulder our share of helping others out is too much. No - we shouldn't have to risk our financial well-being by giving these people advantages that were handed to us. No - these things we had handed to us on a plate....they're now our indelible right, or something, and there's no way more needy people should get from it at our expense.

jc

QualderWahl

"but the Irish have decided to give to these people as many of the same advantages which were given to us as is possible".

The Irish people were never consulted if they wished to confer these advantages on citizens from the accession states. The government simply decided to implement this policy without referring to the wishes of the general population. (*Note: I am not implying that the Irish people are definitely pro- or anti- the imposition of quotas. They were never asked either way).

".but I guess asking us to now shoulder our share of helping others out is too much. No - we shouldn't have to risk our financial well-being by giving these people advantages that were handed to us. No - these things we had handed to us on a plate....they're now our indelible right, or something, and there's no way more needy people should get from it at our expense."

But isn't the crux of the entire matter, that we are far exceeding our share of helping out others ? Your previous correction indicated that we are the only EU state not imposing any restrictions. Surely this constitutes helping out others ? Why is it mandatory that Ireland has to admit every potential immigrant from the 10 accession states, whilst our EU partners have decided that they wish to control the volume of immigration. I agree that we as nation received a vast amount of assistance from the EU and it is only fair that we now become net contributors. However, our role as net contibutors should be aligned with that of other EU countries. We can't be expected to be the solitary country to facilitate everybody who wishes to migrate from East to West.

I'm not convinced by the attempt to portray immigration as moral obligation.

bonkey

QualderWahl wrote:

The Irish people were never consulted if they wished to confer these advantages on citizens from the accession states. The government simply decided to implement this policy without referring to the wishes of the general population.

Given that it was a decision which didn't require a constitutional amendment either way, it is correct that the government didn't consult the people. The decision is an intrinsic part of the overall decision-making we elect them to do.

I do take your point that it perhaps should still have been put to the people, but that is a criticism of how we implemented it, not whether or not it is the correct implementation to have taken.

But isn't the crux of the entire matter, that we are far exceeding our share of helping out others ?

I don't know....and I'm not saying that as a polite way of saying no. I actually don't know if it is the crux, or if we are exceeding our share.

If we had set our quotas at a total immigrant population (as opposed to a certain number per year), then we'd still in all probability have had 85,000 immigrants come in last year.

I also don't think its workable to look at imigration purely in terms of numbers-per-capita-per-year. What is our overall immigrant-population-density? Should our economic well-being influence what constitutes a fair share?

Why is it mandatory that Ireland has to admit every potential immigrant from the 10 accession states, whilst our EU partners have decided that they wish to control the volume of immigration.

I would have said its not a question of "why do we have to"...rather "why did our government choose to".

We can't be expected to be the solitary country to facilitate everybody who wishes to migrate from East to West.

We're not.

Don't confuse the existence of quotas in other nations with a closed-door policy. Do you know, as a matter of interest, what the total "intake capacity" of the other 14 members is? What are the quotas that they've put in place?

I'm not convinced by the attempt to portray immigration as moral obligation.

You don't have to be. All you have to do is accept that some people see it that way and have every right to do so. Some see it instead as an economic must-have, or just a straightforward win-win. Some see it as a calculated risk.

I fall mostly into the last category. Sure...it could go seriously wrong...but I've faith that if and when it starts to do so, we will have both the time and the support of the EU in order to fix things. It serves no-one for a member-nation's economy to go down the toilet, because that leaves fewer people to carry a greater burden.

On the other hand...if it doesn't go seriously wrong....I'm pretty certain that the begrudgers won't say no to the improvements that it brings us on the grounds that they were opposed to the means in which we got them.

QualderWahl

"We're not.

Don't confuse the existence of quotas in other nations with a closed-door policy. Do you know, as a matter of interest, what the total "intake capacity" of the other 14 members is? What are the quotas that they've put in place? ".

I don't know the precise post-accession immigration figures for the other EU countries. However, the two figures that I did hear bandied about are for Sweden and the UK.

Apparantly 5,000 people have migrated to Sweden in the 12 months since the accession of the new members. (Total population of Sweden: 8.5 million approx).

The figure is 90,000 - 95,000 immigrants to the UK. (Total UK population: 59 million approx).

The 85,000 immigrants who have arrived in Ireland represent a 6 times greater pre capita level of immigration than the volume experienced by the UK.

QualderWahl

QualderWahl wrote:

"We're not.

Don't confuse the existence of quotas in other nations with a closed-door policy. Do you know, as a matter of interest, what the total "intake capacity" of the other 14 members is? What are the quotas that they've put in place? ".

I don't know the precise post-accession immigration figures for the other EU countries. However, the two figures that I did hear bandied about are for Sweden and the UK.

Apparantly 5,000 people have migrated to Sweden in the 12 months since the accession of the new members. (Total population of Sweden: 8.5 million approx).

The figure is 90,000 - 95,000 immigrants to the UK. (Total UK population: 59 million approx).

The 85,000 immigrants who have arrived in Ireland represent a 6 times greater pre capita level of immigration than the volume experienced by the UK.

The following URL is a link to support the figures quoted above:

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1396990&issue_id=12479

ambro25

QualderWahl wrote:

The figure is 90,000 - 95,000 immigrants to the UK. (Total UK population: 59 million approx).

Now THAT is an utter-bollotox figure... there's close to 90,000 French people in the UK or so, are you saying that's nigh-on 100% of the UK intake? Get real! :rolleyes:

(and, for a change, HARD FACTS: you can check it out there, look for entries under 'Royaume Uni')

And bear in mind that those figures are for French registered with the Embassy/Consulate in the UK. I lived in the UK for 4 years before I bothered to register...

uberwolf

ambro25 - tone down your posting style or your right to post here will be removed.

ambro25

erm... fair do's, though bear in mind that it's directed at the (obviously very poorly-researched) article, not QualderWahl.

That people voice opinions, pro-/anti-/moderate about- immigration is their Constitutionsal right.
That they form opinions based on third-party knowledge such as journalistic / research material is all the better for them.
That such material not be accurate, is what I have a serious problem with, as -in this particular example, which is symptomatic in the highly-emotional context of immigration debates in Ireland as elsewhere- that's how extreme positions gradually acquire legitimacy in the eyes of the many...and that's not good.

I have so far posted glib comments to try and lighten up what is turning out to be a fairly 'heavy' thread, which increasingly resembles the kind of debates that should take place in the Dail, as opposed to these Boards. Not that any debate can't/shouldn't get extremely serious on the Boards, of course.

This because -possibly unlike most posters here- I have had the unfortunate displeasure of experiencing up close (veeery close, about as close as you can get without being an Ministerial Aide in Paris) and had no choice but to participate in how such immigration-restricting policies arise, are enforced and 'silenced', in France (and to an extent bordering Germany Länder): never publicly, not sanctioned by any parliamentary vote, extremely hushed all along the civil service chain of command (mostly comprising the executive branch and 'specialized' policing services, certainly not social services/social affairs and the like), with wholly arbitrary 'target figures' based on perceived race/place immigration hotbeds. In other words, politically motivated, period.

And don't ask me to substantiate/corroborate further, as I value my freedom as much as the next man.

So you can debate as to the macro-/micro-economical benefits and cultural gains and losses until you're blue in the face, but -at least in my experience- the reality of immigration policing is -at least in some EU Member countries- a nasty affair with relents of something everybody thought had vanished 60 years ago to the day, or nearly.

halkar

I would be more worried about the amount of uninsured, unfit cars they bring here with the danger to public. They are welcome but they should do as Irish do, buy their cars here and pay their taxes insurance as Irish do. After all most are here over a year.

Maybe there are forumers from PL, LT, LV to clear it but how do they get insurance for a year or more where as my insurance only covers me for few months abroad?

QualderWahl

ambro25 wrote:

Now THAT is an utter-bollotox figure... there's close to 90,000 French people in the UK or so, are you saying that's nigh-on 100% of the UK intake? Get real! :rolleyes:

(and, for a change, HARD FACTS: you can check it out there, look for entries under 'Royaume Uni')

And bear in mind that those figures are for French registered with the Embassy/Consulate in the UK. I lived in the UK for 4 years before I bothered to register...

Presumably, you are implying that the total French population in the UK is 90,000 plus an indeterminate number of those who haven't registered hitherto. I would imagine that the 90,000 French people arrived cumulatively, perhaps 10,000 per year over a decade with obviously a certain amount returning to France each year. Where did I ever suggest that French people constitute the entire 90,000 immigrant intake to the UK since May 2004?

I suggest that you read posts and supporting documentation carefully before launching into diatribes. I don't agree with what many people are posting here but I do accept that they are entitled to their opinion and have every right to defend their postion. Please extend me similar courtesy.

ambro25

QualderWahl wrote:

I don't know the precise post-accession immigration figures for the other EU countries. However, the two figures that I did hear bandied about are for Sweden and the UK.

The figure is 90,000 - 95,000 immigrants to the UK. (Total UK population: 59 million approx).

OK, QualderWahl, I shall rephrase:

The 90,000-95,000 immigrants to the UK post-accession, for a population of 59 millions approx, are cumulative to the additional hundreds of thousands of other non-UK (but EU:FR, DE, IT, ES, NL, BE, etc, etc.) immigrants to the UK, pre-accession. A portion equal to 90,000 or so of which is French, hard facts supplied if you would kindly follow the link to the PDF and peruse, official statistics of the French administration for 2001 to 2003.

And of these 90,000-95,000 immigrants to the UK post-accession, I would be interested to learn what the portion is, which arrives from newly-made EU countries as opposed to old-established active population migration (such as myself).

10 years ago, I wouldn't have given Ireland a second look, so I went UK. Today, the economical reality is different. Sorry if this offends you, but Ireland is simply facing the problems the UK had 5 to 10 years ago, because it is now in the "economical magnet" position the UK was - and it's a fortunate one, at that.

So, am I a better/more worthy economical migrant because I'm not Lithuanian? Or do I pose the same bread-stealing risk to the average Irish person? I think neither, since comparatively very few Irish persons can do what I do for a living... and that's what it's all about: offer and demand, at the end of the day.

Interestingly, lifted from Official UK Statistics,

1 in 12 in UK were born overseas
In 2001, 8.3 per cent (4.9 million) of the total population of the UK were born overseas. This is almost double the proportion in 1951 (4.2 per cent).

The overseas-born population is more concentrated than the UK-born population in the working age group. Three-quarters (75 per cent) of the overseas-born population were aged between 16 and state pension age in 2001. Only three-fifths (60 per cent) of the UK-born population were in this age group. There were 23 overseas-born people of pension age for every 100 overseas-born people of working age, compared with 31 per 100 for the UK-born population.

So how doe Eire compare?

QualderWahl

ambro25 wrote:

OK, QualderWahl, I shall rephrase:

The 90,000-95,000 immigrants to the UK post-accession, for a population of 59 millions approx, are cumulative to the additional hundreds of thousands of other non-UK (but EU:FR, DE, IT, ES, NL, BE, etc, etc.) immigrants to the UK, pre-accession. A portion equal to 90,000 or so of which is French, hard facts supplied if you would kindly follow the link to the PDF and peruse, official statistics of the French administration for 2001 to 2003.

And of these 90,000-95,000 immigrants to the UK post-accession, I would be interested to learn what the portion is, which arrives from newly-made EU countries as opposed to old-established active population migration (such as myself).

10 years ago, I wouldn't have given Ireland a second look, so I went UK. Today, the economical reality is different. Sorry if this offends you, but Ireland is simply facing the problems the UK had 5 to 10 years ago, because it is now in the "economical magnet" position the UK was - and it's a fortunate one, at that.

So, am I a better/more worthy economical migrant because I'm not Lithuanian? Or do I pose the same bread-stealing risk to the average Irish person? I think neither, since comparatively very few Irish persons can do what I do for a living... and that's what it's all about: offer and demand, at the end of the day.

It's my turn to clarify. The 90,000 - 95,000 immigrants to the UK refers to the total number of post-accession immigrants from the 10 new member states. It does not include any pre-accession figures.

BTW, it doesn't offend me in the slightest, nor am I making any value judgements on you or Lithuanian people. Attempts to be snide are not required.

ambro25

QualderWahl wrote:

BTW, it doesn't offend me in the slightest, nor am I making any value judgements on you or Lithuanian people. Attempts to be snide are not required.

*cajoling voice* not attempting to be snide at all, but hoping to place the figures you have quoted in a larger (economical) context, steeped in a modicum of reality™: where is the 'going good' at the moment in Europe (since it's now so easy for those to move about within the enlarged EU)? the UK and Ireland. So these countries will get the lion's share of emigration from the New Members - who won't be going to France or Germany, where the 'going' is particularly bad at the moment.

It is cyclic, really. It was happening in the 1930s before throughout what would become the EU (trust me on that, I should now given my genetic background), with all the border patrolling and VISAs in place, and it's happening again now. Ireland is no less Irish today than it was in the 1930s, is it? Nor is France, or Germany, or the UK?
But, funnily enough, people newly in-the-money have the same knee-jerk reaction when faced with 'competition' coming in today, as they did back in the 1930s. It's cyclic, really

Calina

QualderWahl wrote:

It's my turn to clarify. The 90,000 - 95,000 immigrants to the UK refers to the total number of post-accession immigrants from the 10 new member states. It does not include any pre-accession figures.

I'm not absolutely clear on one thing, QualderWahl. Are immigrants from the 10 new member states less welcome than immigrants from the 15 more senior member states? I'm getting the impression that you don't care too much how many old-EU citizens turn up and get jobs here but you're highly interested in the recent accession countries.