Immirgration Contracts?

Hobbes

Cheers Frank.

So Muslims make up approx 0.5% of the Irish population? And they are a major threat how?

Metrobest

Hobbes, instead of putting up an argument all you can do is deliberately mis-represent what I wrote in my last post. You retreat into your comfort zone, common amongst leftwingers, of tagging anyone who raises valid points about immigration control with the charge of racism. Plus your "question" in your last post just makes you sound like one of those dull charachters from Friends. Ouch!

Hobbes

? pika?

I asked you how your fastasy story which had no comparison with reality fitted in with what was going on. You try to put hysterical point across using a flawed story which is based on flawed numbers.

I didn't misrepresent anything, your the one spouting fiction.

I also attacked your comments, not you. Prehaps you can learn something from that. I don't recall calling you racist... Oh and when you raise valid points let me know, k?

mycroft

Kevin Myers has been shot and stabbed in broad daylight on O'Connell Street as "God's punishment" for one of his columns, and Michael McDowell, David Norris and Mary Harney are in hiding becuase a muslim fanatic has scrawled over Myers' body that they are next to die, and a death list is floating about featuring some of the most prominent figures in public life?

And the bad news is...........(sorry couldn't resist)

Metrobest wrote:

Not hysteria: you obviously have not been following events in Holland over the last 2 years, culminating in the murder of Theo van Gogh and in the huge Dutch rejection of the EU constitution.

Okay lets look at this. The Dutch reaction can't be seeing as a reaction entirely to the muslim population. You can't tar the result to be specific to one problem. And teo was killed by a fanatic, a lunactic, suggesting this is endemic to a crisis caused by the muslim population as whole is unjustice. Look at the Swedish minister MS Lindh murdered, are you suggesting its we should bann Serbians?

To translate what had happened recently in Holland into an Irish context, picture this scene: 400,000 muslims are living in Ireland,
How would you feel if these events were taking place in Ireland?

And again nicely whip up the hysteria.

Would your attitude then still be "oh well, we have catholic crackpots so let's give asylum to loads of muslim crackpots, too"? No, it would probably more in line with my attitude which is: integrated immigration works, open door policies based on a mulitcultural ideology don't. So, to boil it down: a big YES to muslims who are able to live comfortably and normally in Western society; and a "please leave" to those who cannot.

And again how do you define "crazy" we only let in the good Muslims, the ones we can trust who don't speak the foreign lingo and the strange clothes.

Metrobest

mycroft wrote:

Okay lets look at this. The Dutch reaction can't be seeing as a reaction entirely to the muslim population. You can't tar the result to be specific to one problem. And teo was killed by a fanatic, a lunactic, suggesting this is endemic to a crisis caused by the muslim population as whole is unjustice. Look at the Swedish minister MS Lindh murdered, are you suggesting its we should bann Serbians?

And again how do you define "crazy" we only let in the good Muslims, the ones we can trust who don't speak the foreign lingo and the strange clothes.

Theo's murder opened up a giant can of worms. It showed, to Dutch people at least, that it's not enough to simply allow anyone who applies for asylum entry into the country, on the ideology of multiculturalism which had prevailed. In the Netherlands, so tolerant was the culture, immigrants were housed in splendid ghettos, cultural and physical, where they never fully integrated into society - hence the abnormally-high levels of crime and educational failure amongst the children of non-native Dutch speakers. The mistake was, it was assumed that immigrants would "find their place" in society, even though many of these immigrants could not, due to their religious beliefs, integrate in Dutch society.

Why do you think the Dutch pendulum has swung so drastically from having one of the most liberal immigration policies to the policy today, which is much more strict? Five years ago, I don't imagine the Netherlands would have rejected an EU constitution. But then there were images of young men cheering the fall of the Twin Towers, 911, and Theo's slaying. People have realised that immigration is not a bed of roses, but need firm, fair policies of control.

So it's not about what people wear on their head or what colour their skin is. Those things matter not one jot. What matters is that the immigrants want to make a good life for themselves in the country they decide to seek residency in, and they are willing to live harmoniously and accept the values of the Western democracy.

mycroft

Metrobest wrote:

Theo's murder opened up a giant can of worms. It showed, to Dutch people at least, that it's not enough to simply allow anyone who applies for asylum entry into the country, on the ideology of multiculturalism which had prevailed.

Facts? Evidence? Links? As mentioned a Swedish minister was murdered on the eve of a EU election by a Serbian, and it wasn't seen as an anti intergration murder it was seen as a tragic event by a deranged killer, not the fault of an ethic group. You've not proved a link here.

In the Netherlands, so tolerant was the culture, immigrants were housed in splendid ghettos, cultural and physical, where they never fully integrated into society - hence the abnormally-high levels of crime and educational failure amongst the children of non-native Dutch speakers.

Facts links evidence?

The mistake was, it was assumed that immigrants would "find their place" in society, even though many of these immigrants could not, due to their religious beliefs, integrate in Dutch society.

Facts links evidence? Aside from one murder of one person by one crazy person.

Why do you think the Dutch pendulum has swung so drastically from having one of the most liberal immigration policies to the policy today, which is much more strict? Five years ago, I don't imagine the Netherlands would have rejected an EU constitution.

Speculation. Anything to support this?

But then there were images of young men cheering the fall of the Twin Towers, 911, and Theo's slaying. People have realised that immigration is not a bed of roses, but need firm, fair policies of control.

So now its a rejection based on 9/11? Come on would you care to give anything other than your opinion to back this wild assertion?

So it's not about what people wear on their head or what colour their skin is. Those things matter not one jot. What matters is that the immigrants want to make a good life for themselves in the country they decide to seek residency in, and they are willing to live harmoniously and accept the values of the Western democracy.

Yet you've not described what harmonious living is, or what are values are? infidelty of Prime Ministers? Massive corruption at the highest level? Lying to the electorate to justify an illegal war? Having your own private army? Cause all those are traits of Party leaders in these Isles?

MadsL

Kevin Myers has been shot and stabbed in broad daylight on O'Connell Street

Perhaps if he called an entire race goat****.ers as opposed to just insulting 'love-children' he'd get more than outrage on RTE?

How can anyone take Van Gogh seriously. The guy was a twat. Didn't deserve to die, but was an idiot.

Hobbes

Metrobest wrote:

But then there were images of young men cheering the fall of the Twin Towers, 911, and Theo's slaying. People have realised that immigration is not a bed of roses, but need firm, fair policies of control.

What has people in a completly different country cheering. A country ravaged by US policies and blame the US for a lot of what is going on their country and at that time most had no concept of what was going on.

What jump of logic leads you to think this is related to immigration issues in our country?

You do know that Israelis were caught celebrating as they watched the towers fell (Actually Mossad who later on Israeli TV claimed they knew it was to happen and were there to document it).

Prehaps by your stretch of imagination we can also remove israelis from immigration based on a handful of people dancing. :rolleyes:

So it's not about what people wear on their head or what colour their skin is. Those things matter not one jot. What matters is that the immigrants want to make a good life for themselves in the country they decide to seek residency in, and they are willing to live harmoniously and accept the values of the Western democracy.

Which may certainly be true but you have some sense of flawed argument that contridicts your last comments.

Metrobest

Metrobest wrote:

Hobbes, instead of putting up an argument all you can do is deliberately mis-represent what I wrote in my last post. You retreat into your comfort zone, common amongst leftwingers, of tagging anyone who raises valid points about immigration control with the charge of racism. Plus your "question" in your last post just makes you sound like one of those dull charachters from Friends. Ouch!

No need for that.
Deal with the post and not the poster.
1 week ban.

bonkey

Metrobest wrote:

We have control to shape our destiny. Part of that control involves determining who is allowed to join our society, and who should be deported from it.

I'm not questioning that at all. I'm questioning who it is you want to exclude, your reasoning why, and the grounds on which you would base such deportation.

The problem is when a large number choose not to integrate.

So? Are you saying that we should let them in, see if they integrate or not, and if they don't behave enough like us we kick them out after a while?

Or are you suggesting that we somehow make the decision that they won't integrate, as opposed to that they haven't, and simply decide that we shouldn't let certain people in because we've decided that they fit some cultural profile we've decided to pre-judge?

People have realised that immigration is not a bed of roses, but need firm, fair policies of control.

Again, a stance I agree with entirely. What I disagree with is the notion that your proposed stance is fair.

jc

KnowItAll

Meh wrote:

You do know that's exactly how the work permit system works for economic migrants now, right?

I didn't know that but it's all the one anyway. If a Nigerian want to stay in Ireland he/she will stay, no bother. My point being they don't follow the law.

KnowItAll

Hobbes wrote:

No serious. You have a work permit, you loose your job = back to where you came from. Some permits will allow you to stay here if you can prove you will not be a burden on the state.

I don't care if they are not a burden. If the economy turns bad and Irish people are out of work then all foreigners should be sent home until the economy balances out.

Hobbes wrote:

Actually it would be possible to get some (not all) of the tax back. Certainly a number factors in this. For example if you did not earn the tax limit within a given year you could claim it back.

Then the tax laws should be changed if there was a loophole.

Hobbes wrote:

Just because your not Irish doesn't mean you don't have rights.

What! The Irish are the ones who have the least rights. As far as I'm concerned the Irish should have more rights than non-Irish!

KnowItAll

sovtek wrote:

If you leave Ireland and sign a form that you aren't going to work in Ireland for a year you can claim that tax year back.
My point was that if you have to leave ever year or every few years then why should you have to pay tax. Yes you use public services while you are here but you also can't collect the dole and other such public services (state pension?) that citizens do...but you are still paying the same tax. On top of that you have to leave and go back "where ya came from" wether you have any ties to that place or not.
I'm not sure if you read the article or not but it shows how migrants pay more in than they get back.

The system would need to be changed if there would be loopholes.

I wouldn't say that migrants pay more tax then Irish do. Do you mean the working migrants from the EU or the Asylum seekers from Africa (I'd love to see what they contribute!)? Also I don't hear migrants complain about living here. They get far more than they would at home.

All this talk of tax anyway is getting off track from what the tread began with.

oscarBravo

KnowItAll wrote:

If a Nigerian want to stay in Ireland he/she will stay, no bother. My point being they don't follow the law.

Care to explain how "Nigerians don't follow the law" isn't a racist remark?

KnowItAll

oscarBravo wrote:

Care to explain how "Nigerians don't follow the law" isn't a racist remark?

When I said "they" I didn't mean Nigerians in particular. You know that. Whats racist about it anyway? Why would you call me racist?

therecklessone

KnowFeckAll wrote:

When I said "they" I didn't mean Nigerians in particular. You know that.

Care to explain how " If a Nigerian want to stay in Ireland he/she will stay, no bother. My point being they don't follow the law." doesn't mean Nigerians in particular?

Maybe if we subsitute ****** or darkie for Nigerian it'll all become clearer... :rolleyes:

Hobbes

KnowItAll wrote:

I don't care if they are not a burden. If the economy turns bad and Irish people are out of work then all foreigners should be sent home until the economy balances out.

The problem is it doesn't work that way. We apply your system we would remove people who are maintaining an infrastructure. You would also remove foreign businesses here which would cause more damage then good.

I get the general impression you think that foreigners all work in fast food or as cleaners.

Then the tax laws should be changed if there was a loophole.

Its not a loophole. You don't get all your tax back and you have to have left within a tax year.

What! The Irish are the ones who have the least rights. As far as I'm concerned the Irish should have more rights than non-Irish!

Really? Last time I checked we have the exact same rights and more rights in some instances. Prehaps you can point out exactly where they have more rights?

KnowItAll wrote:

When I said "they" I didn't mean Nigerians in particular. Y

What did you mean by "They" then? The context you used it in would refer to Nigerians. Prehaps you can clear that up.

pete

KnowItAll wrote:

I don't care if they are not a burden. If the economy turns bad and Irish people are out of work then all foreigners should be sent home until the economy balances out.

Migrants 'boost' economies find report

A new report on world migration suggests that economic migrants are a boost to their host countries rather than a drain on welfare services.

The report is the result of a comprehensive survey by a body based in Geneva, the International Organisation for Migration.

It found that concerns that immigrant numbers were spiralling out of control, causing job losses, and increases in welfare spending were not supported by any evidence.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0622/migration.html

More detail from the BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4117300.stm

bonkey

KnowItAll wrote:

I don't care if they are not a burden. If the economy turns bad and Irish people are out of work then all foreigners should be sent home until the economy balances out.

So what you're saying is that a non-working, self-sufficient immigrant who is doing nothing but pumping money into the economy should be turfed out because some Paddy is out of a job?

That sounds, if you don't mind me saying so, exceedingly counter-productive.

As far as I'm concerned the Irish should have more rights than non-Irish!

They already do.

jc

oscarBravo

KnowItAll wrote:

When I said "they" I didn't mean Nigerians in particular. You know that.

No, I don't. It's the only logical interpretation of what you posted, and I'm not inclined to revisit that assessment based on anything you've posted since. If you sincerely meant someone else other than Nigerians, why not clarify it in a subsequent post?

KnowItAll wrote:

Whats racist about it anyway?

I'm going to take the "anyway" at the end of that question to mean you're asking about the remark I described as racist: "Nigerians don't follow the law." It attributes a negative characteristic to all people of a particular nationality. What's not racist about it?

KnowItAll wrote:

Why would you call me racist?

Nice try, but I didn't: I asked you to explain how your comment wasn't racist. Notably, you haven't.

KnowItAll

bonkey wrote:

So what you're saying is that a non-working, self-sufficient immigrant who is doing nothing but pumping money into the economy should be turfed out because some Paddy is out of a job?

Yes. Look after the Irish first because after all this is Ireland.

Reading down through the posts I notice you are all obsessed with money. It's as if the whole economy would crash if it was filled with just the dumb paddies!

When I said they I ment immigrants. I wasn't talking about Nigerians in particular.

People here are implying that I'm a racist which I'm not. As soon as anybody mentions immigration some people brand them racists. If thats the case the majority of the country is racist.

Hobbes

No one has called you a racist.. not understanding the English language prehaps but not a racist. Lets face it how is anyone supposed to get "immigrant" out of your sentances which has no reference to it.

Yes. Look after the Irish first because after all this is Ireland.

So as an example lets say all nursing and doctors who are not Irish who are told to leave. How do you plan to fill those spots?

Or to take another example lets say all cleaning staff are sent home. What makes you think they will fill the staff with Irish people on the same pay? Pay is already crap, most Irish don't take the job because its not enough to live on.

bonkey

KnowItAll wrote:

Yes. Look after the Irish first because after all this is Ireland.

But you're not looking after the Irish first. You're proposing a knee-jerk punishment of foreigners for no apparent justification other than a non-supported (I would go so far as to say unsupportable) belief that its better for us in the long run.

Reading down through the posts I notice you are all obsessed with money.

Riiiiiiight. So when you say to look after the Irish first....its not in the financial sense? You're not raising this whole issue from a monetary/financial well-being point of view?

What, exactly, are you on about then? You've clarified that its not race thats the issue....so if its not race, and its not money....whats the problem with foreigners earning a living in Ireland if not that they're taking money in the form of employment from the natives?

You're basically suggesting that come some hard times, employers shoulodn't cut back by keeping their best staff, or making their most cost-effective savings....but should fire the foreigners first. And if one company goes bankrupt, another should fire foreigners to allow the Irish who;s company went under to get jobs again.

If its not race, and its not money.....what exactly is the point of this suggestion?

jc

Victor

KnowItAll wrote:

Do you mean the working migrants from the EU or the Asylum seekers from Africa (I'd love to see what they contribute!)?

Why African asylum seekers? How about we get rid of pensioners also (I'd love to see what they contribute!)?

And as you probably know, asylum seekers aren't allowed work, even if they wanted to. I met (well I'd met him before, but hadn't really talked) a guy the other day from Sudan, to date he hasn't been allowed work, but now he is.

tim3115

Care to explain how "Nigerians don't follow the law" isn't a racist remark?

I wonder if you are so jumpy when people say 'Those dumb Americans' etc.

The difference?

Wibbs

Firstly I agree that immigration can be good for country for both economic and cultural reasons.

Secondly I also feel that such immigration should be controlled more than it is. As one example, the lack of health checks for infectious diseases in migrant workers/potential citizens is crazy.

That said such controls have to be fair and even. Which of course is the difficulty.

Originally posted by Metrobest
Some cultures, particularly Islam, just do not gel well with Western values/All cultures are not equal: Islam, in particular, is a backward culture, and those who believe in its core principles have about them an ideology incompatible with Western values/certain basic values - the role of women, female circumcision, tolerance of homosexuality, etc. - are things which cannot be compromised in the guise of "multiculturalism."

I agree.

Originally posted by bonkey
As Sand pointed out, its a religion, not a culture.
Its also backward based on your cultural perspective.

Quote:
and those who believe in its core principles have about them an ideology incompatible with Western values.

Which core principles? The ones that say its a religion of peace?

Where do you get the idea that it's fundamentally a religion of peace? Certainly there is the core principle of peace towards brothers in Islam, but that does not hold true when dealing with other faiths. People of the book(ie Christians and Jews) are accorded certain "rights", yet even these are contradicted in different parts of the Quran. Other faiths have not even these privileges and have few rights under Sharia law.

Relations with non Muslims
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.028
Killing "pagans"
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.005

Or by core principles do you mean the extremist/fundamentalist aspects that have taken hold in parts?

The "extremism" that you speak of is at the very heart of the religion. Even a cursory reading of the Quran, the Haddith/Hadeeth and Sharia law would show that. It is open to very little leeway as the Quran is considered the holy word of God and cannot be changed.

The KKK believed in God...can I use them to say that Christianity is a backwards culture which believes in racism?

The KKK may have believed in God/Christianity but they hardly adhered to the faith. Thou shalt not kill was one biggy they neglected to follow. In Islam, killing is proscribed, but only in the case of other Muslims. Non Muslims have little value according to sharia law. In fact the prophet himself killed many men and ordered the rape, enslavement and death of many more. I can't for the life of me remember Jesus or Buddha getting hot and heavy with the ould battle axe. Maybe I was sick the day those passages were read out.

Backward cultural elements associated with Islam are not due to Islam but the local cultures through which Islam has spread/Like the Bible I imagine you can find something to support anything in the Koran - from treating women like chattel to killing unbelievers. Its the culture underlying the interpretation that makes the difference.

Not quite. As I point out before, you would have to really dig deep into most of the religious books out there to find any justification for killing, slavery and rape. No such digging is required in Islam. Indeed could be argued that the wahhibi form of Islam is truest to the Quran.

Sharia law when applied has little leeway especially in the face of modernity. Democracy, human rights(as we would understand) and freedom of speech would make uneasy bedfellows with such a system. Freedom of speech would be a biggy. When you have fatwas(rulings) put out on Salmon Rushdie among others that call for their death it was only a matter of time before something like the Dutch Van Gogh incident happened. It will happen again in a climate where any criticism of Islam and it's teachings are met with violence. Violence that is actively encouraged in the original texts themselves. Turn the other cheek is not a sentiment easily found.

Actual quotes from the quran
Unbelievers
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.191
Fighting
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.216


Interesting Sharia take on becoming a EU citizen

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=14235&dgn=4

If a muslim decides to leave his or her faith

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=12406&dgn=4

Check out the rest of that site (and others like it) and you may get a shock. Especially if you think such ideas can ever be fully integrated into a western liberal society.

ISAW

pete wrote:

If it's all the same with you I'll take my immigration policy analysis from someone who can actually spell the word "immigration". Thanks.

As Moe (Simpsons barman) once said "The Immeegwants. I knew it! I always knew it was the immegwants!!

ISAW

Hobbes wrote:

The problem is it doesn't work that way. We apply your system we would remove people who are maintaining an infrastructure. You would also remove foreign businesses here which would cause more damage then good.

I get the general impression you think that foreigners all work in fast food or as cleaners.

If I can get my two cents in...
1. As far as I know and I can't be bothered to produce references but if you challenge it i am sure i can ...migrants actuallt contribute tothe oeconomy overall. surely then removing them would do more economic harm than good.

2. Children born here before the referendum (and for those who have had children since then where one parent is Irish or where they have lived here for five years (? is it five again I would have to look up the wording of the article that was changed) are IRISH! so how can you say they should go home? Surely they are Irish and this is their home. Probably even more their home than white Irish people who have lived in say London or the US for say 50 years.

Could I ask if you are against Irish pensioners returning here from say Liverpool? DO you think they are not a drain on the State?

johnnyboy4711

In response to the foreign doctors and nurses from hobbes,it was one foreign"doctor"(who is going to check for references)where my nephew was admitted to casulalty with a pain in his stomach,was checked over,sent home with a suppository,diagnosed with a case of constipation.
later that night appendix burst,pushing highly poisionous bile around the 3 year olds system,had to be cut open from groin to chest to eradicate and stuck on morphine for 2 months!
DO we really NEED such misguided Professionals?
:mad:

Wibbs

Take it from me I've had experience of equally disastrous medical attention from Irish doctors. Put it this way, I'd rather be treated in a Saudi or Malaysian hospital than any in this country, but that's a big topic deserving of another thread.