Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why is it wrong to oppose mass immigration?

Options
24567…26

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What isn't? Allowing low-skilled immigration apparently means a race to the bottom. Allowing high-skilled immigration displaces people further down the wage scale which is a race to the bottom. Outsourcing jobs is a race to the bottom. The only thing that isn't a race to the bottom is keeping the poorer countries "in their place".

    Or what about giving the third world back its own resources and giving it a chance to develop itself? Maybe its possible to have a race to the top?

    Most immigrants dont want to be immigrants.


  • Options
    #33
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    wexie wrote: »
    There was? Last year? Are you sure? This country? As in Ireland?

    (I had to check the date on this post to make sure it wasn't 2007)


    Yeap there sure was. Thing is you don't hear about it too much as we love to beat ourselves up about people leaving. Only about 20,000 of those are Irish people returning home which would conclude that 30,000 or more are non nationals. But but but .....da re na joabs!

    As an immigrant myself I applaud anyone leaving their home and going off to better their lot. However, as an independent democratic state Ireland still has the right to let whomever they want into the country. EU nationals are a different matter of course.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/generationemigration/2012/09/27/irish-emigration-rises-by-16-per-cent/
    A total of 52,700 people immigrated into Ireland, a decrease of 65 per cent since 2007 when immigration was at its peak. Some 25,000 men immigrated last year, compared to 80,000 in 2007.


  • Options
    #34
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    SoulandForm wrote: »

    Most immigrants dont want to be immigrants.

    That isn't really true. Many people move to another country and stay out of their own free will. Remember the highest non national group living in Ireland are those from the UK.


  • Options
    #35
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    jank wrote: »
    That isn't really true. Many people move to another country and stay out of their own free will. Remember the highest non national group living in Ireland are those from the UK.

    Many people do- but we are talking about mass immigration. A lot of the Irish people who left Ireland in the past didnt want to leave Ireland. Probably most of them.

    Part of Ireland is in the UK. In many was I would prefer to back in the north but the mess there doesnt give me space to be myself. I can in a lot of ways breathe more freely here than there. I can empathize strongly with immigrants but Im far from sure mass immigration is a good thing.


  • Options
    #36
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,306 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    jank wrote: »
    Do we have other stats to prove this otherwise or is it just a gut feeling.
    No, there appears to be no other stats on the amounts of remittances sent from here - I cannot categorically state this as fact however.
    I am not being obtuse but can you explain why its common sense dismiss the numbers?
    Is it " I dont believe the numbers, * sticks head in sand *" or "the numbers are off because of x,y,z"
    I did not say it is common sense to dismiss the numbers - what I meant was given the numbers of Nigerians here vs. amount allegedly sent every man, woman and child would have to be sending back tens of thousands. The main reason, as I stated, I have for thinking the numbers are inaccurate is due to the methodology used by the World Bank. As I said previously, this has been done to death on the AH thread (link); read the posts by southsiderosie (starts at post #118), they explain why the number given is essentially meaningless.
    I admit the numbers are very very high which raised eyebrows but there must be a explanation for this. Think occam's razor.
    Methodological issues, unreliable results.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Can someone explain to me the difference between immigration and "mass" immigration?


  • Options
    #38
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Many people do- but we are talking about mass immigration. A lot of the Irish people who left Ireland in the past didnt want to leave Ireland. Probably most of them.

    Part of Ireland is in the UK. In many was I would prefer to back in the north but the mess there doesnt give me space to be myself. I can in a lot of ways breathe more freely here than there. I can empathize strongly with immigrants but Im far from sure mass immigration is a good thing.

    Most of the people leaving Ireland today will be back as they are going off to places like Australia and Canada on temporary visa's. I myself, 3 months away from my blue passport plan to be back in Ireland in the next 3-4 years. Emigration is a double edged sword it can be both good and bad for a country but we should not think of it like the days of the coffin ships when Mary and Paddy went off never to be heard off again. The world is changing all the time and the concept of the nation state of the 1920's is long gone.


  • Options
    #39
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,786 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Can someone explain to me the difference between immigration and "mass" immigration?
    "Immigration" is immigration on a sensible scale. "Mass immigration" is immigration on a dramatic scale that has the potential to fundamentally transform a society, in some cases beyond recognition.


  • Options
    #40
    fianna saor
    Registered Users Posts: 166 ✭✭fianna saor


    jank wrote: »
    The people should always have the right to say who is entering the country and what visas are given out however to say such a thing will get one labelled a racist by most of the media and many other do gooders. We are in the EU so we must apply EU law towards all would be residents of Ireland. I think more could be done to cut down on welfare cheats as we'll but we should cut down on all cheats equally. We could start with the travelling community but again the do gooders will be out in force. Don't forget that 50,000 people entered the country to find work last year so there must be some jobs going. What was the deal with Roma's sending millions offshore? Or was that Nigerians? The amount was huge which would indicate large scale illegal activities or at best work done in the black economy.

    i dont remember being asked! why not hold a referendum on such items at least then the lefty tree huggers can have something to back up their ridiculous arguments.


  • Options
    #41
    Boulevardier
    Registered Users Posts: 1,375 ✭✭✭Boulevardier


    Does anybody know anyone who supports mass immigration? This thread is pretty meaningless from that point of view.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    fianna saor wrote: »
    i dont remember being asked! why not hold a referendum on such items at least then the lefty tree huggers can have something to back up their ridiculous arguments.

    Which "ridiculous arguments" would those be?

    The state continues to retain the right to say who can enter the country, and who requires a visa to do so - the only exception being the freedom of movement within the EU. And we voted on EU membership, so mandated that freedom of movement.

    No-one needed to ask you btw - the state acts on behalf of the people through the mandate of the democratic process.


  • Options
    #43
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Boulevardier wrote: »
    Does anybody know anyone who supports mass immigration? This thread is pretty meaningless from that point of view.

    Mass immigration is a meaningless term to begin with. It's simply a notionally greater degree of immigration than someone's equally notional concept of what's 'sensible'. Society is constantly in flux, and transforms regardless of whether there's immigration at play or not. The notion that there's some stasis that can be preserved is a delusion.


  • Options
    #44
    fianna saor
    Registered Users Posts: 166 ✭✭fianna saor


    alastair wrote: »
    Which "ridiculous arguments" would those be?

    The state continues to retain the right to say who can enter the country, and who requires a visa to do so - the only exception being the freedom of movement within the EU. And we voted on EU membership, so mandated that freedom of movement.

    No-one needed to ask you btw - the state acts on behalf of the people through the mandate of the democratic process.

    the arguments in favour of this ongoing invasion.

    what has EU membership got to do with the welfare tourists coming from lets say nigeria?


  • Options
    #45
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    fianna saor wrote: »
    the arguments in favour of this ongoing invasion.

    what has EU membership got to do with the welfare tourists coming from lets say nigeria?

    Nigerians require a visa to enter the state. EU citizens do not.

    And you seem rather vague on the nature of these supposedly "ridiculous arguments". Can you be more specific?


  • Options
    #46
    fianna saor
    Registered Users Posts: 166 ✭✭fianna saor


    =alastair;87120970]Nigerians require a visa to enter the state. EU citizens do not.

    so do you consider it acceptable the amount of illegal immigration coming in from nigeria?
    And you seem rather vague on the nature of these supposedly "ridiculous arguments". Can you be more specific?

    see the above post


  • Options
    #47
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,306 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    fianna saor wrote: »
    so do you consider it acceptable the amount of illegal immigration coming in from nigeria?
    Can you quantify "the amount"?


  • Options
    #48
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    fianna saor wrote: »
    so do you consider it acceptable the amount of illegal immigration coming in from nigeria?



    see the above post

    I can see the posts - I'm asking for specifics.

    By illegal immigrants you actually mean asylum applicants? There are very few successful asylum applicants coming through the system, and rather fewer actual illegal immigrants. Unless you believe an unsuccessful asylum applicant is the same thing as an illegal immigrant?


  • Options
    #49
    fianna saor
    Registered Users Posts: 166 ✭✭fianna saor


    Frank Grimes wrote: »
    Can you quantify "the amount"?

    i dont think an exact figure could be put on it due to the illegal nature of their arrival.


  • Options
    #50
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,306 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    fianna saor wrote: »
    i dont think an exact figure could be put on it due to the illegal nature of their arrival.
    And yet you can state that is occurring to the point of being an "invasion"? Not only that but you can also identify a specific nationality who are entering the state illegally?


  • Options
    #51
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    fianna saor wrote: »
    i dont think an exact figure could be put on it due to the illegal nature of their arrival.

    You seem sure enough that it amounts to an 'invasion' though?

    Given that you're concerned about Nigerian 'welfare tourism' and the the only route to accessing welfare, if you're a Nigerian immigrant here is the asylum process (less than €20 a week) - which had a grand total of 950 applicants from all counties last year (and is subject to a 90% rejection rate), then you've a pretty low bar for what constitutes an 'invasion'.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    fianna saor
    Registered Users Posts: 166 ✭✭fianna saor


    alastair wrote: »
    I can see the posts - I'm asking for specifics.

    By illegal immigrants you actually mean asylum applicants? There are very few successful asylum applicants coming through the system, and rather fewer actual illegal immigrants. Unless you believe an unsuccessful asylum applicant is the same thing as an illegal immigrant?

    lets take nigerians again, how did they enter this country? isnt the correct process for them to seek asylum in the first country they enter? surely that would make them being here illegal?


  • Options
    #53
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,306 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    fianna saor wrote: »
    lets take nigerians again, how did they enter this country? isnt the correct process for them to seek asylum in the first country they enter? surely that would make them being here illegal?
    First post - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056544373


  • Options
    #54
    Guyanachronism
    Closed Accounts Posts: 220 ✭✭Guyanachronism


    Chicken Ryan wrote: »
    I discovered during the week that 20% of all social welfare recipients are non-Irish nationals. I also discovered that a disproportionately large amount of all social welfare fraud is committed by non-Irish nationals. One example is this guy who is a former Garda reserve who fraudulently obtained 30,000 euro social welfare payments. So why is it that I cannot oppose mass immigration on these grounds and not been branded a racist?
    Every time I pass the dole office there are many times more immigrants there than Irish nationals. Some even appear to be outside the Eurozone which amazes me.

    Hasn't this already been done: Nationality and Benefits I suppose the thread wasn't going the OPs way so . .

    In your OP you have statistics without context that don't actually support your assertions (read the Nationality and benefits thread). Why is 20% of welfare receipents not being citizens a bad thing? A one off case for which the perptrator was caught, and ancedotal evidence (a bad foundation for any opinion or policy position).

    It's not wrong to oppose "mass immigration" (whatever qualifies it as "mass" I don't know). But a narrative has been built around immigration that is regularly repeated despite having little basis in reality. It's evident with the persistent use of poor argumentation like in your OP: statistics that when put in context and scrutinised don't support the assertions of the OP, ancedotal stories, individual cases and appeal to emotion particularly nationalistic sentiments.

    And even if we accept problems with the immigration system which there are. "Anti mass immigration" posters regularly use failings of our immigration systems that could be solved by simple adjustments or reform, as an excuse to justify things such as mass deportations or closed borders. There might be a few genuine posters who are concerned about our ad hoc immigration system, but it seems most use their "concern" as a cover for their zenophobia.

    You have a right to your opinion, but you don't have a right to your own facts or narrative. If you're going to put your opinion into the public sphere be prepared to have you poor logic, argumentation and motivation questioned.


  • Options
    #55
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    fianna saor wrote: »
    lets take nigerians again, how did they enter this country? isnt the correct process for them to seek asylum in the first country they enter? surely that would make them being here illegal?

    No it wouldn't. If it was, they wouldn't be granted access to the asylum claim process in the first place. If the credibility of the asylum seeker's claim that Ireland was the first safe country they had access to is deemed to be unsubstantiated, then they will be rejected as asylum applicants, but that doesn't make their claim illegal.

    But you've still not indicated what these supposed 'ridiculous arguments' are?

    Are you still a supporter of the Irish National Party's platform btw? Lovely people.


  • Options
    #56
    fianna saor
    Registered Users Posts: 166 ✭✭fianna saor


    alastair wrote: »
    No it wouldn't. If it was, they wouldn't be granted access to the asylum claim process in the first place. If the credibility of the asylum seeker's claim that Ireland was the first safe country they had access to is deemed to be unsubstantiated, then they will be rejected as asylum applicants, but that doesn't make their claim illegal.

    But you've still not indicated what these supposed 'ridiculous arguments' are?

    Are you still a supporter of the Irish National Party's platform btw? Lovely people.

    i have never had any dealings with the 'irish national party' you should really get your facts right. if your referring to the group formerly known as irish national group then yes i am a supporter.


  • Options
    #57
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    Most people here seem to be arguing about the mechanics of how welfare works in Ireland. But in answer to the basic premise
    Chicken Ryan

    Why is it wrong to oppose mass immigration?

    Because if you were about to be born at random in some sort of the world what immigration law would you want Ireland and the rich part of the world to have? This is John Rawls' 'veil of ignorance'. If you (or I) happened to be born in Kenya why does that mean we are less deserving of a happy life then I am who was lucky enough to be born in Ireland?
    woodoo

    Yep it sure is a mystery why it is so unpopular to hold this view OP. I have said it many times i think there is far too much immigration into Europe.

    The consensus amongst economists is that there should be more immigration. Global GDP would increase by an estimated double with free immigration. Bryan Caplan has a very good podcast here arguing for free immigration.


  • Options
    #58
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    fianna saor wrote: »
    lets take nigerians again, how did they enter this country? isnt the correct process for them to seek asylum in the first country they enter? surely that would make them being here illegal?

    Before going down this particular road, please read the Sticky regarding the Dublin Regulation: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056544373

    In summary, the first country of entry is not the first country of transit. If you go via Heathrow to another country, but do not exit the international area at Heathrow by passing Customs & Immigration, you have not entered the UK. The same rule applies in all airports:
    Simple movement through a transit area without leaving it, does not count as regular entry into the first member state but if an application for asylum is made while in the transit zone, the member state where the transit zone is bears responsibility (Article 7 The Dublin Convention)

    So, no, it's not illegal, and be sure to get this right in future references.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #59
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    alastair wrote: »

    No-one needed to ask you btw - the state acts on behalf of the people through the mandate of the democratic process.

    That is the nub of the issue. If say for instance a party comes up with a policy that wants to restrict immigration from country x,y,z and outlines the reasons why then you get the usual howling from the media and the left regarding this policy.
    Said party is of course within its rights to come up with any policy it so wishes as it is then up to the people under the "mandate of the democratic process" to vote or not vote for that party. Isnt that what democracy is?

    Instead we get a type of blanket silence over most people and parties as they are afraid of being labelled a racist or xenophobe, so then everything is swept under the carpet and bad policy is continued throughout. Instead of honest debate that should be the hallmark of a mature democratic society we the usual defamation of an opposite opinion.


  • Options
    #60
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    cavedave wrote: »



    The consensus amongst economists is that there should be more immigration. Global GDP would increase by an estimated double with free immigration. Bryan Caplan has a very good podcast here arguing for free immigration.

    Seems like the libertarian position on immigration is gaining ground :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    It's not wrong. It depends on the infrastructures of your country and what they can handle.


Advertisement