Immirgration Contracts?

elvenscout742

Not to criticise the way things are done or to turn this into a personal fight, but surely such blatant xenophobia as KnowItAll's warrants some kind of banning or something.

Obviously it's frowned upon, but nothing ever seems to be done about it, however much the need is.

To be on-topic, I say let immigrants in. The more the better. Although I don't much like thinking about what the PTB actually do with them once they arrive, as I always see a lot of Chinese in town but never anywhere else. Ghettos or something?

:mad: :mad: :mad:

MadsL

Interestingly in Australia where such stringent immigration policies that are (kind of inarticulately) being argued for here have historically been applied, they now find themselves almost 150,000 jobs cannot be filled for lack of the right skills.

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3917626

Macmorris

billy the squid wrote:

If every country in the world were to adopt a policy we would be over run with irish sent home from the likes of America and Austrailia. And you can be sure that there are more Irish in other countries than there are Foreign nationals in this country.

then where would we be.

That sounds like a good idea. If thousands of Irish emigrants were to return home, we wouldn't have a labour shortage problem as the returning Irish would be able to fill those vacancies that are now being filled by the foreign immigrants. We would be able to solve the economic problems while at the same time avoiding the ethnic problems.

Of course the fat-cat employers groups wouldn't be happy with that. Contrary to what they may say, immigration isn't a necessity for them, it's a luxury. When they say they want skilled labour, what they really mean is easily-exploitable, obedient, cheap labour.

Macmorris

johnnyboy4711 wrote:

After working in immigration in New Zealand I cannot understand how it is so easy for non-nationals to exploit the system.

The reason the government is so soft on immigration is because there is nobody to challenge them. I think we must be the only country in Europe where immigration is not a mainstream political issue. Not only don't we have a well organised anti-immigration party but we don't even have a single high-profile politician who will openly admit that immigration is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Even Tony Blair is prepared to acknowledge that people in Britain have genuine fears over immigration.

It says a lot about the lazy, careerist politicians that we have in this country that not even one of them is prepared to speak up on behalf of the 80% of the population who want a tougher line on immigration. I'm sure there are plenty of politicians in Dail Eireann who are secretly unhappy about the open-borders set-up we now have but not one of them has the courage to stand up to the media and the unelected quangos (NCCRI) who are ready to jump on anyone who might take a less than enlightened view on immigration and muliticulturalism.

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

And we coulda done beers if I had known

I was staying near Zug, so I would have been a bit far from you. Perhaps next time I'm there

sceptre

Macmorris wrote:

not even one of them is prepared to speak up on behalf of the 80% of the population who want a tougher line on immigration.

I suspect that's partly because you just made up that 80% figure. Sounds good though doesn't it - massive majority unrepresented by the evil bad politician men?

bonkey

Macmorris wrote:

It says a lot about the lazy, careerist politicians that we have in this country that not even one of them is prepared to speak up on behalf of the 80% of the population who want a tougher line on immigration.

it says about as much as the implication that 80% of the population are incapable of finding a politician to stand for what they allegedly believe in.

Meh

Macmorris wrote:

I think we must be the only country in Europe where immigration is not a mainstream political issue. Not only don't we have a well organised anti-immigration party but we don't even have a single high-profile politician who will openly admit that immigration is a problem that needs to be dealt with.

Perhaps the reason for this is that we have, by and large, avoided the problems which can be associated with immigration? (paranoid fantasies about free cars and houses for asylum seekers apart.) Maybe it's because the number of asylum seekers has halved over the past few years? Maybe the people of this country are clever enough to tell the difference between asylum seekers, refugees and economic migrants?

It says a lot about the lazy, careerist politicians that we have in this country that not even one of them is prepared to speak up on behalf of the 80% of the population who want a tougher line on immigration.

Yeah, those politicians, always afraid to agree with public opinion :rolleyes: I'm sure they're being secretly terrorized by the evil masterminds of the NCCRI.

Macmorris

sceptre wrote:

I suspect that's partly because you just made up that 80% figure.

It wasn't me who made it up, it was the Sunday Tribune.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0501/poll.html

1203_axle_d3

suspect that's partly because you just made up that 80% figure

No, thats a correct figure. 80 percent of Irish people want immigration control. Who in their right mind doesent want immigration control?

johnnyboy4711

People say we are much better off than we were on the early eighties,yes agreed!but just as we get up on our feet there will be peolple trying to drag us down to our knees again!
we have been a member of the EU since 1972 all the revenue gained from structural funds since then and I have seen a major improvement in our infrastructure"EAST OF MAYNOOTH"only.
the countries that have just joined the EU have FACT a better more organised road,rail network.
amazing cinsidering that they have just come out of communism .
The point is now Ireland is going to get substantially less funding across the board,its time for the GOVT to realise that Europe will not always be there to bail us out.

gandalf

1203_axle_d3 wrote:

No, thats a correct figure. 80 percent of Irish people want immigration control. Who in their right mind doesent want immigration control?

Where is your proof it is the correct figure. Please provide backup to that.

As you are new to Politics you may not be aware that you are suppose to back up anything that you claim is a fact.

Macmorris

gandalf wrote:

Where is your proof it is the correct figure. Please provide backup to that.

It comes from an IMS poll that was carried out for the Sunday Tribune.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0501/poll.html

1203_axle_d3

It comes from an IMS poll that was carried out for the Sunday Tribune.

Yes..

As you are new to Politics you may not be aware that you are suppose to back up anything that you claim is a fact.

Is this a message board or a court room?? Maby not everything can be proved by the way of a link..

1203_axle_d3

1203_axle_d3 wrote:

Is this a message board or a court room?? Maby not everything can be proved by the way of a link..

It's a politics discussion forum.
We like to see sources to facts presented in the discussion,otherwise we treat them as opinion pieces to which you are entitled.


That poll says a lot of things.
Of course it's reasonable to have controlled immigration from outside the E.U
We can do and should accept all that come from inside the E.U ,we signed up to that many times over.

Is there any aspect of that poll with which you would disagree?

Hobbes

1203_axle_d3 wrote:

Is this a message board or a court room?? Maby not everything can be proved by the way of a link..

Then you post it as opinion. Its in the forum charter. Abusing the rule tends to get you banned. It is stop people posting crap without any source to back up.

Its an intresting that both sides of the argument are both claiming the survey is flawed for the same reason. Checked Stormfront and comments is that it should of said "Whites and non-whites" where as Irish refugee board complained that some people think "non-national" means refugee or asylum seeker.

The survey should be taken as its whole instead of just picking the stat you want.

For example the same percentage wanted a multi-cultural society and the majority wanted people to be able to work in Ireland while paperwork is being processed and 43% wanted non-nationals to recieve social welfare benefits if they were over 65.

Also while 79% wanted restrictions less then half of that wanted serious restrictions.

Haven't found the actual survey yet though. I'd be intrested to see the sampling data.

References:
http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/pub05/fears.html
http://www.swp.ie/socialistworker/2005/sw242/socialistworker-242-4.htm
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=202535

Macmorris

Hobbes wrote:

For example the same percentage wanted a multi-cultural society

I don't think that's true. What they were asked is if they thought it was a good thing that their children were growing up in a multicultural society. Naturally people will say yes because being exposed to different cultures is an important part of any child's education. I don't think you can infer from that a direct endorsement of multiculturalism in anything other than education.

It's interesting the way it was worded though. I can't see why they didn't just ask people straight-out if they themselves would want to live in a multicultural country. I'm fairly sure that if that question was put to them, most people would reject multiculturalism.

Hobbes

Macmorris wrote:

I don't think that's true. What they were asked is if they thought it was a good thing that their children were growing up in a multicultural society. Naturally people will say yes because being exposed to different cultures is an important part of any child's education. I don't think you can infer from that a direct endorsement of multiculturalism in anything other than education.

Except that they didn't ask about education. So you can't infer that either.

If you read the second link I posted (which has the stats listed) would imply that the majority do not have a problem with non-nationals across the board while some want restrictions but not a total shut down of borders.

uncivilservant

Ah, opinion polls. I think the writers of Yes Prime Minister got it just right:

Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."

http://www.yes-minister.com/ypmseas1a.htm

ionapaul

Those of us still a tad confused on the subject:

Could someone define 'refugee' and 'asylum seeker' in a manner that clearly illustrates the difference between to two?

In Ireland for the purposes of Granting asylum:


iirc an asylum seeker is someone who is seeking asylum but hasnt had his or her case adjudged yet.

A Refugee is a person whose case has been adjudged, they were an asylum seeker and they were adjudged to be genuine.

KnowItAll

The Corinthian wrote:

KnowItAll began with a fundamentally flawed theory that claimed that Germany’s economic woes were as a result of immigration.

I claimed that Germany’s economic woes were as a result of immigration? Did you read what I wrote? I didn't blame anybody for Germany's economic woes.

The Corinthian wrote:

When it was pointed out to him (or her) that this was a simplistic supposition and that it ignored the effects of reunification, which (surprise, surprise) coincide with the decline of Germany’s economy, he (or she) quietly ignored the rather gaping hole in his (or her) logic.

Sorry for not answering all arguments against. I was banned for a week!

It's a simple logic really. When the economy is going well immigrants come in because they are "needed". So when the economy goes bad they should be asked to leave as they are not needed anymore. If this happened in Germany the east Germans would have filled the positions left by the immigrants.

The Corinthian wrote:

Additionally, the effects of contract immigration when reversed on Ireland (in particular were the US or Australia to send back all those Irish who immigrated there) would more than reverse any benefits that we would escrow from such a policy here. This too was both pointed out to him (or her) and ignored.

If they were born here and they are Irish then the countries have the right to send them home, if they choose to send them home. I have no problem with that.

The Corinthian wrote:

Additionally no sources, let alone credible ones, have been proffered. Of course there’s nothing wrong with this as long as it is explained that this is opinion rather than fact, but the lack of deduction in this opinion seems to render it invalid.

I presume you're talking about me blaming Germany's problems on immigrants. As I already explained you (along with some others) have misread the point I was making.

Hobbes

KnowItAll wrote:

I claimed that Germany’s economic woes were as a result of immigration? Did you read what I wrote? I didn't blame anybody for Germany's economic woes.

Well you claimed if you got rid of the immigrants then Germanys woes would suddenly vanish. So yes you are blaming them. In fact...

If this happened in Germany the east Germans would have filled the positions left by the immigrants.

Oh look you did it again.

If they were born here and they are Irish then the countries have the right to send them home, if they choose to send them home. I have no problem with that.

And who would you blame the massive rise of unemployment then? After all your going to have people coming back who will not have the skills to do the jobs you fired all the others for, along with a huge shortage in the Irish infrastructure of jobs that suddenly has Irish offering to work for much higher prices.

I suppose some of these people will have tans and funny accents, just not sure where you can ship them off to.

KnowItAll

Hobbes wrote:

Well you claimed if you got rid of the immigrants then Germanys woes would suddenly vanish.

Yes it would help the economy, I said that. I did not say Germanys woes would suddenly vanish.

Hobbes wrote:

So yes you are blaming them. In fact....

I think you are reading it wrong. I never blamed anyone for Germanys problems. That is a totally different argument. If I had to blame someone it would be the government. I'm not blaming immigrants for Germanys problems, I'm saying when the economy is going bad and millions of people are unemployed then the immigrants should leave so the Germans can take up jobs in their own country.

Hobbes wrote:

And who would you blame the massive rise of unemployment then? After all your going to have people coming back who will not have the skills to do the jobs you fired all the others for, along with a huge shortage in the Irish infrastructure of jobs that suddenly has Irish offering to work for much higher prices.

They can be trained in. You are missing my point anyway. It's the principal that counts not economic cost! They might even have skills that will help the economy.

The Corinthian

KnowItAll wrote:

I claimed that Germany’s economic woes were as a result of immigration? Did you read what I wrote? I didn't blame anybody for Germany's economic woes.

Actually you did in your very first post:

The German economy was going well years ago so they brought in millions of immirgrants. Now that the economy is going through a very bad spell those immirgrants should be told to go home as they are not needed. But they are there to stay and it's the Germans who are suffering now with high umemployment etc.

It’s pretty close to impossible to read that any other way, TBH.

Sorry for not answering all arguments against. I was banned for a week!

You were’nt answering arguments posed against you prior to your ban, in fairness.

It's a simple logic really. When the economy is going well immigrants come in because they are "needed". So when the economy goes bad they should be asked to leave as they are not needed anymore. If this happened in Germany the east Germans would have filled the positions left by the immigrants.

Back to blaming Germany’s economic woes on immigration again, I see.

If they were born here and they are Irish then the countries have the right to send them home, if they choose to send them home. I have no problem with that.

Good for them that they were able to adopt a new nationality in more liberal immigration regimes. However in the scenario you proposed nationality (regardless of your birthplace) would be very difficult to attain. So were all countries to have adopted this system we would now be swamped with deported Irish emigrants.

I presume you're talking about me blaming Germany's problems on immigrants. As I already explained you (along with some others) have misread the point I was making.

And I’ve pointed out, no one misread anything.

Metrobest

To add my thoughts to this, I fully understand that people from poor countries want to make a better life for themselves, and that's why they want to settle in a rich EU country. But a country must control her borders. This is a lesson that has been learnt harshly in the Netherlands, where there are all sorts of statistics to disprove the theory that net immigration helps the economy. Skilled, educated immigrants help the economy. Unskilled immigrants, who arrive with social/emotional problems, have more mixed effects.

There are huge issues with regards to the integration of immigrants. Some cultures, particularly islam, just do not gel well with Western values. A lot of the discussion in the Irish media seems to have been hijacked by left-wing lobby groups who want an open door policy on asylum/immigration, and like to pretend that all cultures are equal, and all immigration/asylum is a wonderful thing, which is not true. Diversity is good - and the influence of other cultures has made Ireland a better place - but immigrants, as a basic, must integrate with the values and culture of their host country. I would like to see all those seeking asylum in Ireland take a course on "ireland", to make sure that they are comfortable adapting to their new cultural home. Those who find they are not, must leave. We cannot allow a Dutch-style situation to develop, where immigrant populations live in cultural ghettos, rejecting the very values of the society they have chosen to immigrate to. The problems this causes were all too painfully exposed with the murder of Theo van Gogh.

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

To add my thoughts to this, I fully understand that people from poor countries want to make a better life for themselves, and that's why they want to settle in a rich EU country. But a country must control her borders. This is a lesson that has been learnt harshly in the Netherlands, where there are all sorts of statistics to disprove the theory that net immigration helps the economy. Skilled, educated immigrants help the economy. Unskilled immigrants, who arrive with social/emotional problems, have more mixed effects.

There are huge issues with regards to the integration of immigrants. Some cultures, particularly islam, just do not gel well with Western values. A lot of the discussion in the Irish media seems to have been hijacked by left-wing lobby groups who want an open door policy on asylum/immigration, and like to pretend that all cultures are equal, and all immigration/asylum is a wonderful thing, which is not true. Diversity is good - and the influence of other cultures has made Ireland a better place - but immigrants, as a basic, must integrate with the values and culture of their host country. I would like to see all those seeking asylum in Ireland take a course on "ireland", to make sure that they are comfortable adapting to their new cultural home. Those who find they are not, must leave. We cannot allow a Dutch-style situation to develop, where immigrant populations live in cultural ghettos, rejecting the very values of the society they have chosen to immigrate to. The problems this causes were all too painfully exposed with the murder of Theo van Gogh.

Agreed.

bonkey

I would like to see all those seeking asylum in Ireland take a course on "ireland", to make sure that they are comfortable adapting to their new cultural home. Those who find they are not, must leave. We cannot allow a Dutch-style situation to develop, where immigrant populations live in cultural ghettos, rejecting the very values of the society they have chosen to immigrate to.

Metrobest...

Is there any reason you are mentioning asylum seekers in a thread discussing Immigration contracts?

I mean, other than both groups being composed of foreigners, I don't really see any connection.

jc

Metrobest

I'm not quite sure what you mean. To boil it down for you, Bonkey, the point I was making is about those from non-EU countries where there cultural norms differ hugely from what is the norm in Ireland and other EU countries.

Victor

[Off topic] Wow Metrobest, thats your seventh post outside Commuting / Transport!