85,000 EU migrants move to Ireland

QualderWahl

Calina wrote:

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.

You're right Calina. It is your "impression", nothing more nor less. I have no control over your interpretation of material. I refer you to the thread title for the reason why I have focused on immigrants from the new accession states.

PaulinCork

QualderWahl, Sweetie, do you happen to have any opinions about the Holocaust ?

QualderWahl

PaulinCork wrote:

QualderWahl, Sweetie, do you happen to have any opinions about the Holocaust ?

I won't dignify that with a response.

Calina

QualderWahl wrote:

You're right Calina. It is your "impression", nothing more nor less.

I'm fully aware it's my impression. Now I would like to know if it is correct.

This is the question:

Are arriving immigrants from the new EU accession countries less welcome to you than arriving immigrants from the older member states?

QualderWahl

Calina wrote:

I'm fully aware it's my impression. Now I would like to know if it is correct.

This is the question:

Are arriving immigrants from the new EU accession countries less welcome to you than arriving immigrants from the older member states?

Immigrants from the 10 new accession states are equally welcome in Ireland as those who arrive from the older 15 member states. My concern is the volume of immigrants and the lack of public consulation on the issue. However, we are just going around in circles if we continue to discuss numbers etc....

I really need to clarify that I have nothing against citizens of the accessions countries. This will sound like a tired, old cliche but one of my favourite colleagues is Russian and two of my drinking buddies when I studied abroad were Polish. And yes we have discussed this issue but not in the depressingly serious vain of this thread.

uberwolf

PaulinCork wrote:

QualderWahl, Sweetie, do you happen to have any opinions about the Holocaust ?

WTF has that got to do with anything, if you've nothing better to do than troll or flame posters find somewhere else to do it.

ambro25

QualderWahl wrote:

My concern is the volume of immigrants and the lack of public consulation on the issue.

We're all friends, here - so let's be positive.

With regards to the numbers, this is a policy issue, and I believe that -since the EU HR Directive has been issued before the 10 new Members came in and is merely awating rubber-stamping in Members' statutes- it will be difficult for Members old or new to implement quotas without breaching the terms of the Directive (and those more fundamental of the main EU Charter to which they are a party)... or 'numbers' will be officiously and arbitrarily decided, then summarily and *very* quietly enforced. There is such a term as 'charterization' (as in 'Airbus') in France, y'know

So, I take your point, but what sort of public consultation would you recommend?

Other than requesting some sort of "immigrant-specific statutes" that would (say) compel immigrants to conform to the letter of the law of the country to which they emigrate (with which, as a law-abiding citizen/immigrant, I have absolutely no quarms whatsoever), i.e. no more honour killings/arranged marriages/etc. (a local culture-conforming law, sort of), I can't really envisage what you are suggesting...

QualderWahl

ambro25 wrote:

We're all friends, here - so let's be positive.

With regards to the numbers, this is a policy issue, and I believe that -since the EU HR Directive has been issued before the 10 new Members came in and is merely awating rubber-stamping in Members' statutes- it will be difficult for Members old or new to implement quotas without breaching the terms of the Directive (and those more fundamental of the main EU Charter to which they are a party)... or 'numbers' will be officiously and arbitrarily decided, then summarily and *very* quietly enforced. There is such a term as 'charterization' (as in 'Airbus') in France, y'know

So, I take your point, but what sort of public consultation would you recommend?

Other than requesting some sort of "immigrant-specific statutes" that would (say) compel immigrants to conform to the letter of the law of the country to which they emigrate (with which, as a law-abiding citizen/immigrant, I have absolutely no quarms whatsoever), i.e. no more honour killings/arranged marriages/etc. (a local culture-conforming law, sort of), I can't really envisage what you are suggesting...

The proposed "local culture conforming law" isn't really applicable to this discussion. Practices such as honour killings, arranged marriages aren't a feature of society in the 10 accession states. The implementation of this or a similar law need only be discussed if we open up the parameters of this discussion to include non-EU immigration. Quite frankly I don't have the energy for that right now

My point about public consultation was one that Bonkey and I discussed previously. The government enacted a policy not to impose any restrictions on the number of immigrants from the 10 new members states. This policy was implemented without any reference to public opinion. The Irish people simply were not asked, despite the fact that we were the only EU state to provide (almost) unconditional access to our labour market. The Irish people are stakeholders in this democracy and should have a right to decide to align our immigration policies with those of our EU partners. I am aware that people could quite easily have decided that they didn't want to impose any restrictions. However, they were effectively disenfranchised by not being allowed to vote on the issue.

Calina

QualderWahl wrote:

The Irish people are stakeholders in this democracy and should have a right to decide to ...

I don't see that they were disenfranchised to be honest. We elect a government to do this. You could put that sentence before just about any policy which is to be decided such as :

...keep Aer Lingus in state ownership.
...toll all national routes.
...reintroduce university fees
...privatise the Health Service

If the Government had in fact chosen to limit the number of intra-EU migrants into Ireland rather than not limiting the number, would you still be calling for consultation?

BTW, thank you for answer my earlier question.

ambro25

QualderWahl wrote:

The proposed "local culture conforming law" isn't really applicable to this discussion.

It is. The examples (arranged marriage etc.) I quoted may have been extraneous to East-European culture, so not in context, but were by way of example only. I am not so knowledgeable enough about East European culture that an example would spring to mind readily, but am quietly confident that relevant practices may exist (such practices as would be caught by the suggested "local culture conforming law").

QualderWahl wrote:

My point about public consultation was (...) However, they were effectively disenfranchised by not being allowed to vote on the issue.

So, what you were really after was a referendum, and you feel cheated. But presumably (don't know your age), you were given to exercise your democratic prerogative at least once in respect of immigration by voting for/against the current government, a component of whose electoral program I would expect to be 'immigration'. No?

Also, (and this is a non-rethorical question) was the Irish population not consulted on accession to the EU? ...with all that entails: ease with which to travel throughout the EU for Irish nationals (for work/pleasure), but de facto ease with which to travel to Ireland for EU nationals (same)? I'll reiterate that, in that respect, "having your cake and eating it" springs to mind, as well as hypocrisy of the worst ilk...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Quantum

QualderWahl wrote:

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

so ? Our Gov takes thousands of decisions every day without consulting us. They do what they are voted in to do, what is best for our country.

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).

Yes they did. Excellently in my opinion.

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."

This is so far away from the truth it's not even funny. We desparately need these imigrants. We are not doing anything to help other people or countries by letting them come here. We are increedibly lucky that they come here because our economy needs them to maintain our economy in a healthy and growing state and to maintain our standards of living.

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 ?

No. It constitutes helping ourselves.

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.

We are not mandated to do so. Our gov decided that we should. The reason why is that OUR economy needs them. Not every economy is so lucky. Not every economy is in such great shape as ours. They do what they want - I am delighted our Gov had the sense and enlightenment to apply no limit.

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

I am not convinced that this argument even exists outside your posts.

Quantum

QualderWahl wrote:

However, they were effectively disenfranchised by not being allowed to vote on the issue.

A tired tired old argument put by every interest group about every decision by the Gov that they don't like.
Our democracy doesn't need or require our Gov to consult the people on every policy decision it makes.
The people were not disenfranchised by anyone. There is no palpable demand for your views. There is no one marching in the streets. There is no huge protest to TD's or to the Gov. The reason is because most people can see how much these immigrant workers are helping us and our jobs and our standard of living, even if you do not.

bonkey

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that when the referendum re: Nice came along, the govt made clear at that point that it was opposed to the notion of quota's and/or any form of two-tier membership for the accesionist nations.

If correct, it may be relevant to the discussion at hand.

shoegirl

The construction industry (or any other industry who routinely overprices work) deserves what it gets. If you are charging 2000 and making a 60% profit well you have no excuse if somebody else undercuts you. Nobody has mentioned the old tradition of nixers. There are still lots of people here in Cork on the dole who are working on the sly and collecting nice cash-in-hand sums for construction and related work whilst screwing the taxpayer. And they are natives, not eastern Europeans.

The number on the dole is very low and a large number of those who are still on it long term are either a) unemployable b) perceived to be unemployable (for example, older people with no qualifications and poor experience or people who cannot read nor write) and c) people who have a vested interest in remaining unemployed. That doesn't take into account people on disability with "bad backs", lone parents and a vast army of people on "supplementary welfare benefit" which is basically the dole for people who are not sick, not disabled, don't want to work, but have no income. Irish social welfare rates have SOARED over the last couple of years. For example, the basic adult rate has gone from €118 3 years ago to over €148 euro - €30 increase or amost a 25% increase. Wages, on the other hand, have gone up by about 13% - for those lucky enough to actually get an increase every year. That in itself CAN be a disincentive to work, especially when you consider the fringe benefits of rent allowance, medical cards etc on social welfare.

However, nobody has mentioned that a lot of migrant workers don't stay. Often they work in call centres where the demand is for native Finnish or Hungarian workers and you won't get too many locals with fluent Finnish willing to work for the 18k or so that is on offer in these kind of workplaces. In my place we have great difficulty in keeping French workers as the majority go home within 18 months. A lot of foreign workers don't like Ireland, find it difficult to live in, and the growing murmur of racism doesn't help either.

However we have short memories - 20 years ago huge numbers of Irish people left Ireland to work elsewhere. And lots never came back. The good fortunes of the Irish economy is not being replicated around Europe - least of all in those countries who subsidized the Irish for years. I see no harm in allowing migrants workers to take up jobs that cannot be filled by Irish people, or by EU-migrants. In a free market there is give and take. And we took so much for so many years, it is inevitable that we now give back and share our good fortune.

KnowItAll

ArthurDent wrote:

Am I reading this right you think EU migrants and non-EU immigrants and asylum seekers are responsible for the destruction of Tara hill?

No, your not reading it right. Go back and read what I said. I was pointing some things out. I find it amazing how people are taking 2 completely different random sentences and fusing them together!

billy the squid

KnowItAll wrote:

No, your not reading it right. Go back and read what I said. I was pointing some things out. I find it amazing how people are taking 2 completely different random sentences and fusing them together!

If you dont believe that the destruction of Tara Hill is not a consequence of Imigration then why did you list it as one of the concequences of Imigration in a thread about EU migration?

dathi1

The construction industry (or any other industry who routinely overprices work) deserves what it gets.

This has no bearing on the opening post. "The Construction Industry" is made up of big Building conglomerates in some cases paying below cost or not even at all (Gamma) wages to immigrant workers. Individuals working on the entry end of construction work for the same basic wage as everybody else are the first people in the line of fire when it comes to multi occupancy low rent eastern block workers who can undercut them on the "nixer" market. My argument is in favour of a level playing field. What we have now is an open door, unlimited, unspecified EU accession state access. A quota would have been better, but of course "The Construction Industry" wants a cut throat dog eat dog labour pool and thats where the real profit is. The 2000 you refer to is a full 5 bed household repaint. The 700 euro is black market work.

In my place we have great difficulty in keeping French workers as the majority go home within 18 months. A lot of foreign workers don't like Ireland, find it difficult to live in, and the growing murmur of racism doesn't help either.

Although not EU accession state workers as stated in the previous argument this is rubbish. I have 6 French, 2 German, 1 Mexican and 4 Malay friends working here and loving it. They haven't experienced any "Racism" at all. I suspect you mean people calling for controls on immigration numbers like myself are racist?

bonkey

dathi1 wrote:

This has no bearing on the opening post. "The Construction Industry" is made up of big Building conglomerates in some cases paying below cost or not even at all (Gamma) wages to immigrant workers.

OK - so your base problem would appear to be that existant law isn't being applied to the big conglomerates.

They break the law. they exploit the immigrant workers, and the solution you'd prefer is to remove/limit the temptation rather than deal with the illegal activity they're engaged in.

If we're not going to enforce the existant law, what grounds do we have to believe that changing the law we don't/won't enforce will change anything for the better?

Individuals working on the entry end of construction work for the same basic wage as everybody else are the first people in the line of fire when it comes to multi occupancy low rent eastern block workers who can undercut them on the "nixer" market.

I woulda said that individuals working below the entry level (i.e. the indigenous nixer market) are the first to get it. Then the workers working for companies who are willing to act illegally to save a few pence. Then come the people I might feel sorry for....the people working for (and running) law-abiding, honest, as-competetive-as-possible companies who simply cannot compete with illegal activity. And you know what...those people most probably include as many if not more of the 85,000 immigrants as the law-breaking problem-causing groups below them, and I see no reason to screw those immigrants over for being nothing more than the same ethnicity of others who are breaking laws that we won't enforce.

Although not EU accession state workers as stated in the previous argument this is rubbish. I have 6 French, 2 German, 1 Mexican and 4 Malay friends working here and loving it.

I fail to see how this shows that a statement saying that many immigrants don't like it here is rubbish. You've shown that some do like it here, which was already implicitly admitted by the use of the word "many"

jc

dathi1

JC,
No my base problem is we don't have a quota on EU accession immigration. The gamma example is used to show the lengths that some companies will go to undercut the existing jobs market. In a immigration Flood (which is what it has turned out to be) this makes the opportunity to "break the law" more tempting.

I fail to see how this shows that a statement saying that many immigrants don't like it here is rubbish. You've shown that some do like it here, which was already implicitly admitted by the use of the word "many

I've given an example of people I know working here who think its great. That person just said many dont like it here without any reference or back up. From the few I do I'd say overall more than not like it here. But this "many" and "some" is a diversion from the real argument as are the cultural arguments above.....why hasnt anybody put forward a valid reason to keep our EU accession immigration under control?

ambro25

dathi1 wrote:

why hasnt anybody put forward a valid reason to keep our EU accession immigration under control?

Because there isn't?

MrPudding

bonkey wrote:

They break the law. they exploit the immigrant workers, and the solution you'd prefer is to remove/limit the temptation rather than deal with the illegal activity they're engaged in.


jc

Well of course. And once we are done with the immigrants we can make short skirts and low cut tops illegal. It's not the rapists fault you know.

MrP

Quantum

shoegirl wrote:

The construction industry (or any other industry who routinely overprices work) deserves what it gets.

I take it you are referring to self employed craftsmen... because the construction industry is booming and is booming only because they have this immigrant resource to carry out their work.

However, nobody has mentioned that a lot of migrant workers don't stay. Often they work in call centres where the demand is for native Finnish or Hungarian workers and you won't get too many locals with fluent Finnish willing to work for the 18k or so that is on offer in these kind of workplaces. In my place we have great difficulty in keeping French workers as the majority go home within 18 months. A lot of foreign workers don't like Ireland, find it difficult to live in, and the growing murmur of racism doesn't help either.

Actually several of us have been saying this very thing repeatedly. But you are indeed correct to repeat it.

However we have short memories - 20 years ago huge numbers of Irish people left Ireland to work elsewhere. And lots never came back. The good fortunes of the Irish economy is not being replicated around Europe - least of all in those countries who subsidized the Irish for years. I see no harm in allowing migrants workers to take up jobs that cannot be filled by Irish people, or by EU-migrants. In a free market there is give and take. And we took so much for so many years, it is inevitable that we now give back and share our good fortune.

How right you are ! People chose to have short memories when it suits them. We sent millions across the globe right up to the 60's, many of whom screwed their host country for social welfare as well as working and were proud of it and made no secret of and people here thought it was COOL.

bonkey

dathi1 wrote:

JC,
No my base problem is we don't have a quota on EU accession immigration.
The gamma example is used to show the lengths that some companies will go to undercut the existing jobs market.

I can't understand how these fit together. The companies will go to great lengths, so we should punish those who want to build themselves a better life by coming to Ireland and working here by limiting the immigrants.

why hasnt anybody put forward a valid reason to keep our EU accession immigration under control?

Because there's no evidence that its out of control?

There is evidence that there is an initial "rush", which may or may not be the beginnings of a larger trend, but the correct way to manage it is to try and get through the teething problems and I'm not convinced that imposing artificially low, temporary limits rather than correcting the underlying problem which will remain (the ease with which these companies can continue to openly break the law) is the right way to go.

As I think I said earlier, the Irish government took a calculated risk in how they approached the issue. Artificial immigration limits are also a risk, as they carry their own risks. Decreased economic competetiveness is one such, which in turn would reduce the ability to fund growth and development in the new States thus possibly costing us more in the long run and ultimately being just as detrimental to our ability to maintain and improve our quality of life.

The only difference would be the numbers of Johnny Foreigners we had allowed into our nation while losing our ability to maintain our quality of life if the chosen approach goes badly wrong.

But no-one's come out and actually explained what the threat to our culture is from allowing other European cultures to share in our island, and why the cultural influence it would have is any different or more threatening than the massive cultural influence we have from the US for little better reason than that we share the same (non-indigenous-culture originating) language.

jc

dathi1

I can't understand how these fit together. The companies will go to great lengths, so we should punish those who want to build themselves a better life by coming to Ireland and working here by limiting the immigrants.

I'm trying to figure out where I said or implied that we should punnish immigrants. I said: No my base problem is we don't have a quota on EU accession immigration. The gamma example is used to show the lengths that some companies will go to undercut the existing jobs market. ..............Thats a perfectly understandable statement.

As I think I said earlier, the Irish government took a calculated risk in how they approached the issue.

I dont think they did. A calcualted risk should be proportional to economic and social needs of both immigrants and Irish workers alike. A free for all whereby 35,000 more than the initial 50,000 quota as recomended by IBEC is not calculated, its a cavalier approach exclusive to us.

dathi1

I can't understand how these fit together. The companies will go to great lengths, so we should punish those who want to build themselves a better life by coming to Ireland and working here by limiting the immigrants.

I'm trying to figure out where I said or implied that we should punnish immigrants. I said: No my base problem is we don't have a quota on EU accession immigration. The gamma example is used to show the lengths that some companies will go to undercut the existing jobs market. ..............Thats a perfectly understandable statement.

As I think I said earlier, the Irish government took a calculated risk in how they approached the issue.

I dont think they did. A calcualted risk should be proportional to economic and social needs of both immigrants and Irish workers alike. A free for all whereby 35,000 more than the initial 50,000 quota as recomended by IBEC is not calculated, its a cavalier approach exclusive to us.

But no-one's come out and actually explained what the threat to our culture is from allowing other European cultures to share in our island, and why the cultural influence it would have is any different or more threatening than the massive cultural influence we have from the US for little better reason than that we share the same (non-indigenous-culture originating) language.

I think the multicultural debate is a diversion from the topic at hand....and the use of the word "Johnny foreigner" by yourself and Pete above is too imply that those of us who are in favour of some sort of logical immigration control are somehow anti foreigner...which is of course rubbish.

bonkey

dathi1 wrote:

I'm trying to figure out where I said or implied that we should punnish immigrants.

I meant that those who would be immigrants under the current system, but who would be denied that opportunity under a quota system not because of anything they did to merit not being allowed in, but because others would abuse their presence.

Maybe deprive would have been a better word than punish.

I dont think they did. A calcualted risk should be proportional to economic and social needs of both immigrants and Irish workers alike.

Yes, and I am arguing that the economic risks are not significantly different either way (other than perhaps that some area of the economy other than the one that you work in would be hit instead), and that no-one that I can recall has actually clarified the social issues without reverting to explaining why asylum seekers and citizenship tourists were causing social problems.

A free for all whereby 35,000 more than the initial 50,000 quota as recomended by IBEC is not calculated, its a cavalier approach exclusive to us.

And yet we're still at full employment, with the strongest economy in the EU, so I'm not seeing why this is a bad thing yet. And I would be pretty sure IBEC's estimate was conservative - especially since the economy hasn't been beaten down as a result of getting the extra numbers, and business is their game at the end of the day.

I think the multicultural debate is a diversion from the topic at hand

I should have said social issues I guess. They're effectively the same thing - people with a different culture, coming into our system, and effecting it.

Or are you talking about other social issues that I'm not getting?

....and the use of the word "Johnny foreigner" by yourself and Pete above is too imply that those of us who are in favour of some sort of logical immigration control are somehow anti foreigner...which is of course rubbish.

My use of it was an attempt to be somewhat flippant while highlighting the impersonality that these people's lives are being treated with. To us they are just immigrants - a nameless body of people. I hear time after time that we need to protect ourselves. We need to protect Ireland. We don't seem to give much (if any) consideration to what these people are coming from, and what they would (in all probability) be still in, had we not taken a chance and allowed them to come here. We put our neck on the line to help them - no argument from me on that one. Only, I don't think its as dangerous as many would have me believe, nor that the alternatives were any less fraught with risk once we agreed to the rapid expansion of the EU. I also believe that it will ultimately turn to our significant advantage, but that along the way it will necessitate some small upsets and hardships. And thats all we have at present: a small upset. Its a larger number of ppl than some wantedor expected, I grant, but it is one which our economy is proving capable of handling thus far. If we are to take every upset as a sign of the end of all that is good....well....I don't see any path being acceptable.

But anyway...I won't use the term again. I take your point about how it can be perceived.

jc

Quantum

dathi1 wrote:

A free for all whereby 35,000 more than the initial 50,000 quota as recomended by IBEC is not calculated, its a cavalier approach exclusive to us.

Your convenient confidence in the accuracy and primacy of this IBEC report is transparent.
If you are right, then please provide evidence that the 35,000 are unable to find work and/or are claiming social welfare.

The truth is they are all in work - hence the stable and improving unemployment rate. A good decision by the Gov.

pete

dathi1 wrote:

and the use of the word "Johnny foreigner" by yourself and Pete

oh, hello.

... above is too imply that those of us who are in favour of some sort of logical immigration control are somehow anti foreigner...which is of course rubbish.

"Johnny Foreigner" is a fantastic phrase. It's just so Alf Garnett.

My use of it is not meant to "imply" anything. Consider it nothing more than a reaction to the throwaway manner with which some refer to "immigrants" (as if they're some kind of homogeneous mass of humanity) and not as something actually directed at anyone in particular.

Coincidentally enough, as it would happen I picked it up from a mutual acquaintance of ours (one of several, it would seem!). Anyway I know you've nothing personal against the JF's - you just don't want too many of them over here.