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
1…1213151718…26

Comments

  • Options
    #422
    hotbabe1992
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 602 ✭✭✭hotbabe1992


    What about the Irish that are in the UK? Should they all be sacked/deported?

    Well...If there all not working or the majority of them are not working and speiling out kids, i would say ya get rid of them.


  • Options
    #423
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    hotbabe1992 wrote: »
    How do i break it down for someone like you..OMG!

    1. She had a broken ankle.

    2. She didnt feel like travelling miles and miles.

    3. She went to the nearest a & e.

    4. She does work as a receptionist in a hospital and doesnt sponge off the state.

    Nah, she's a sponger. I mean, you give your evidence against my charge but she's clearly taking the piss.

    See?

    See, now?


  • Options
    #424
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    hotbabe1992 wrote: »
    Well...If there all not working or the majority of them are not working and speiling out kids, i would say ya get rid of them.

    And send them where?


  • Options
    #425
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    hotbabe1992 wrote: »
    Oldhippy you dont think that 63 million is a lot of people?.

    Are we back on to 63 million immigrants in the UK? I can't keep up - what's the latest UK population estimate then?


  • Options
    #426
    hotbabe1992
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 602 ✭✭✭hotbabe1992


    And send them where?
    The gulags :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #427
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    hotbabe1992 wrote: »
    They come over basically to sponge off the state and some of them turn up out of the blue using the already overstretched public healthcare services.

    Oldhippy you dont think that 63 million is a lot of people?Do you think that adding romania or bulgaria to the mix is a good idea i would argue purely on a numbers point of view.

    Other people have argued,Its already caused a lot of tensions in various communities.

    But if you actually checked the facts you would know the following. There is no right to SW for any arriving immigrants in Ireland except (recognised asylum seekers and certain family payments) if a Romanian family arrives here with no work then no dole sorry. Non EU must have medical insurance. To get welfare a person must be habitual resident, look it up if you don't believe me. Also free movement of people is an economic right not a social one, that means you can only move within the union for work or business not just cause you want to go and live in Galway cause it looks nice.

    Maybe adding other countries to the EU is not a good idea, but it's what we as a country singed up for, it has positives and negatives like any deal.


  • Options
    #428
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    hotbabe1992 wrote: »
    How do i break it down for someone like you..OMG!

    1. She had a broken ankle.

    2. She didnt feel like travelling miles and miles.

    3. She went to the nearest a & e.

    4. She does work as a receptionist in a hospital and doesnt sponge off the state.

    No we understand don't worry we all understand.


  • Options
    #429
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    hotbabe1992 wrote: »
    The gulags :rolleyes:

    Pathetic.

    You can't really back up your arguments, can you?

    You've failed.


  • Options
    #430
    hotbabe1992
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 602 ✭✭✭hotbabe1992


    Pathetic.

    You can't really back up your arguments, can you?

    You've failed.

    No im just sarcastically pointing out the ridiculousness of the insinuations and accusations on this thread with a bit of humour.

    You fail to see that.


  • Options
    #431
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,226 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    hotbabe1992 wrote: »
    Yep thats what im saying ... Kill them all :rolleyes:
    hotbabe1992 wrote: »
    The gulags :rolleyes:
    hotbabe1992 wrote: »
    This thread is BS everybody is jumping on me trying to call me a bigot or whatever
    hotbabe1992 wrote: »
    More hysteria.
    hotbabe1992 wrote: »
    I was wondering when the mad hippy hysteria would start :rolleyes::
    hotbabe1992 wrote: »
    But of course someone on here will resort to calling me a bigot no doubt.
    hotbabe1992 wrote: »
    How do i break it down for someone like you..OMG!
    hotbabe1992 wrote: »
    No im just sarcastically pointing out the ridiculousness of the insinuations and accusations on this thread

    MOD ACTION:
    hotbabe1992 banned for 3-days for trolling.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #432
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    alastair wrote: »
    No accusations of racism there I'm afraid - just double standards.

    Clearly the narrative was just that. The post mentions that I was blatantly anti-immigration, yet when challenged to post actual proof well none was forthcoming…..

    Why was I called that in the first place? Because I don't buy the line that regards immigration we should all just STFU?

    As demonstrated in this thread 99% agree that government has the right to implement immigration policy based on its best needs as a country and economy, yet on the same hand we are not allowed or should I say 'discourage' actual discussion on what 'best' is for the country. One cannot have a public dialogue because of stupid labels being thrown out at people.


  • Options
    #433
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    jank wrote: »
    One cannot have a public dialogue because of stupid labels being thrown out at people.
    No way. I'm not letting that crap slide.

    There was very blatant xenophobia, if not outright racism, spouted on this thread (I'm not accusing you of it). If we can't call out blatant xenophobia when we see it for fear of the accusation of "stupid labels being thrown out", then all you're doing is exactly what you're accusing others of - shouting down the opposition without actually discussing the issues.

    If someone wants to discuss immigration by reference to actual facts, outlining such problems as actually exist, demonstrating the existence of those problems with actual evidence, then we can have a rational conversation about immigration. But seriously: if you're going to claim with a straight face that this thread didn't have any actual xenophobia spouted on it, then we don't have the basis for a rational conversation.


  • Options
    #434
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    jank wrote: »
    Clearly the narrative was just that. The post mentions that I was blatantly anti-immigration, yet when challenged to post actual proof well none was forthcoming…..

    Why was I called that in the first place? Because I don't buy the line that regards immigration we should all just STFU?

    As demonstrated in this thread 99% agree that government has the right to implement immigration policy based on its best needs as a country and economy, yet on the same hand we are not allowed or should I say 'discourage' actual discussion on what 'best' is for the country. One cannot have a public dialogue because of stupid labels being thrown out at people.

    I think most of the dialog is just that dialog. But people rightly react to what maybe racist views masquerading as a logical discussion on immigration. I have never met a person who really advocates a totally open immigration policy. In fact most of the people i see on this forum accused of such views, are in fact people who know immigration in Ireland and rightly put the correct information out there. My big issue is that people lump all immigration into the one argument, without dealing with the difference between say UK immigration to Ireland v EU immigration to Ireland, or EU immigration v the rest of the world. A person can not logically argue to stop all immigration, that would mean a lot of multi nationals would have no option but to leave, our inward investment is largely high tech and we can not supply all workers they require, even if we could what would we do about company directors and senior management.

    Immigration is not simply stop all or allow all, I doubt if many hold such extreme views at either end. I will happily debate with anyone about our current system, about the expansion of the EU (in 1973 all the arguments used against Ireland are now being used against new members). The last 10 years and expansion has brought that agenda and further expansion firmly onto the table.

    I will gladly debate the Asylum system, with anyone who actually really understands it, and knows the facts the real facts not made up ones. I will gladly debate the Student visa scheme (my own opinion its a mess, and needs radical reform).

    I will gladly debate the extension of habitual residency rule to 5 or even 10 years. I will discuss the proper balance between human rights and right of a state to deport to outside the EU or to exclude persons who are EU citizens.

    I believe if many anti immigration actually understood how hard it was to lawfully reside in Ireland they may agree with many they think are pro open borders.

    If anyone wants to debate Asylum then read the following, http://www.unhcr.org/52a722c49.html it answers such questions as which country hosts the most refugees, answer Pakistan. Which country do the greatest number if refugees come from, Answer Afghanistan. Question how many American or European countries are in the top 10 for host countries, answer 1 Germany.

    But I leave with a Quote I once heard from Senator Bruce Morrison, "There are two types of country in the world, the countries people want to get out of, and the countries people want to get into, Ireland should be proud it is the second type." Ireland is the second type, being that type of country is great, but it does bring challenges, difficulties and headaches, but I still would rather be the second type because the problems are much easier than the first type of country suffers.


  • Options
    #435
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No way. I'm not letting that crap slide.

    There was very blatant xenophobia, if not outright racism, spouted on this thread (I'm not accusing you of it). If we can't call out blatant xenophobia when we see it for fear of the accusation of "stupid labels being thrown out", then all you're doing is exactly what you're accusing others of - shouting down the opposition without actually discussing the issues.

    If someone wants to discuss immigration by reference to actual facts, outlining such problems as actually exist, demonstrating the existence of those problems with actual evidence, then we can have a rational conversation about immigration. But seriously: if you're going to claim with a straight face that this thread didn't have any actual xenophobia spouted on it, then we don't have the basis for a rational conversation.

    Well, I have not read the past 8 pages that are new since last night, I see Hotbabe and others were having a go at each other....
    Nether the less one should discuss the topic at hand that the OP posted, to remind people. 'Why is it wrong to oppose mass immigration'?

    Very few people actually have openly stated that it is wrong to oppose mass immigration, yet if someone states an opposition to mass immigration then at best they are responded to with suspicion and at worst the words 'xenophobe, racist' is thrown out at them.

    No doubt there are racists and xenophobes who are against mass immigration yet anytime immigration is discussed the common response is usually 'your a racist so....'

    There is ample evidence in this thread to back this up. Just have a look at the start of the thread.

    The insinuation was thrown out at me and when asked to back it up or prove the accusation the poster disappeared from the thread leaving the accusation hanging. The words of LBJ ring true here.
    His campaign manager replied 'Christ, you can't call him a pig f**ker'.

    LBJ said 'No, but I want to see him deny it!'

    In summary, I recognise that the motive from some maybe from the racist/xenophobic side but you and others also have to recognise that people are much too eager to cast aspersions on those who genuinely want to discuss this topic. That is why it is impossible to have an honest discussion about this.


  • Options
    #436
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    jank wrote: »
    No doubt there are racists and xenophobes who are against mass immigration yet anytime immigration is discussed the common response is usually 'your a racist so....'

    There is ample evidence in this thread to back this up. Just have a look at the start of the thread.

    The insinuation was thrown out at me and when asked to back it up or prove the accusation the poster disappeared from the thread leaving the accusation hanging. The words of LBJ ring true here.



    In summary, I recognise that the motive from some maybe from the racist/xenophobic side but you and others also have to recognise that people are much too eager to cast aspersions on those who genuinely want to discuss this topic. That is why it is impossible to have an honest discussion about this.

    Rubbish.

    Any impartial review of the thread will note the following:

    1. (With one exception) No-one was accused of racism, unless they advocated actual racist views.
    2. No insinuation, bar one of double standards was directed at you.
    3. The issue of whether mass immigration actually applied in Ireland's context, or indeed what mass immigration is supposed to mean, was more of an issue, than anything else.
    4. The majority of 'racism' posts were from those bleating about being called racists, in the absence of any such accusations.
    5. The bulk of the dey-tuk-ur-jobs posts were characterised by ignorance, rather than straight-forward racism.

    So, as far as I can see - the dishonesty isn't a character of the discussion, but of your arguments.

    Let's see where you started from:
    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.
    Getting in the pre-emptive racist card? - check.
    Straw man arguments (we don't apply border controls - pro immigration position is that we shouldn't) - check
    Claim to oppressed perspective? - check


  • Options
    #437
    mdn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭mdn


    It would be wrong to accuse someone of racism based on what you have said. It would not be wrong to say that your remarks could be construed as ignorant (not you, your remarks). When one makes subjective comments such as 'some appear outside the eurozone' it becomes more difficult to defend the argument that claimants are being judged because of their race. How would you know that they are from outside the Eu and if they are - so what, as long as they fulfil the requirements laid down in law?

    Does being from outside the Eu mean they cannot makie a claim for social welfare? Do they look 'different'? Does their colour or facial appearance mean they are from outside the Eu? My partner is from China and he is also an Irish citizen. He has worked for many years and payed his taxes and prsi - as he was obliged to do. If he is made redundant is he not entitled to claim social welfare because he might be a member of that group you mention as 'some appear outside the Eurozone'?

    Next time you are passing a dole queue it would be best to remind yourself that many of those who appear to be from outside of Ireland may be Irish citizens.


  • Options
    #438
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    jank wrote: »
    Very few people actually have openly stated that it is wrong to oppose mass immigration...
    Probably because “mass immigration” is an entirely arbitrary term? For example, the example of the UK has been bandied about on this thread, but net migration into the UK is not especially high:

    _71397926_uk_migration2_624gr.gif
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25135418

    Natural population increase is considerably higher, but I don’t hear many people suggesting restrictions be placed on the number of children that UK residents should be allowed to have.


  • Options
    #439
    techdiver
    Registered Users Posts: 3,079 ✭✭✭techdiver


    It would be interesting to set up a poll of opinion on immigration issues. Perhaps some one more learned than myself could word the options, but I see it something like this:

    1. I support complete uncontrolled immigration with no border control
    2. I support complete shut down of inward migration
    3. I support the current system of immigration in Ireland
    4. I support the "value" system, such as Australia whereby you must prove you can support yourself and have qualifications that are in demand
    If there are other please suggest. Could we add this poll to this thread, or set up a new thread?


  • Options
    #440
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    techdiver wrote: »
    It would be interesting to set up a poll of opinion on immigration issues. Perhaps some one more learned than myself could word the options, but I see it something like this:

    1. I support complete uncontrolled immigration with no border control
    2. I support complete shut down of inward migration
    3. I support the current system of immigration in Ireland
    4. I support the "value" system, such as Australia whereby you must prove you can support yourself and have qualifications that are in demand
    If there are other please suggest. Could we add this poll to this thread, or set up a new thread?

    The Irish system is actually more strick than the Australian system, in that to get a work permit you must show you have a required skill and a job offer paying at least 35k.

    Just for people's education,

    Asylum any person from outside the union who arrives in ireland can claim asylum (success rate is very low) because of irish system it can take years, a asylum seeker gets no right to work or SW and will be provided direct provision of bed and board and spending money of 19.20 a week.

    Stamp 1 permission (work permit) allows a person to work many jobs are excluded, there is a needs test (do we need to bring some one from outside EU to do job) pay must exceed 35k. Jobs like hotel and catering excluded.

    Stamp 2 student permision can not be granted for mor than 7 years does not count towards long term permission etched. No tight to work more than a certain number of hours and any child born to a student has no right to citizenship unless other parent has that right.

    Stamp 3 given to family of legal workers on say work permit permissions no right to work only reside no tight to social welfare must have health insurance.

    Stamp 4 a permision with no conditions except as to time given to for example the spouse of a Irish citizen. A person on stamp 1 or green card can move to this permission after a period of time.

    Stamp 5 not used anymore in reality it's stamp 4 no condition as to time.

    Stamp 6 enforced in a persons passport who has a tight to irish citizenship example through parents but for some reason does not want an irish passport, say other country does not allow dual passports.

    Now we need to look at immigration figures about 750,000 non irish living here.

    200,000 are UK do 550,000 left 350,000 are rest of EU largest single group Polish over 100,000. That leaves 200,000 non EU living in country. 150,000 roughly have a legal permission the remainder are illegal with out permission.

    I for one do not see mass uncontrolled immigration in reality.


  • Options
    #441
    techdiver
    Registered Users Posts: 3,079 ✭✭✭techdiver


    infosys wrote: »
    I for one do not see mass uncontrolled immigration in reality.

    I wasn't saying that for one second. I was just trying to gauge opinion. I deliberately left the terms vague.

    Australia is often held up as a model to be admired, but as you state, ours is tougher.

    I think it's still a worth while exercise. I am more than happy for someone else to word the options.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #442
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    techdiver wrote: »
    I wasn't saying that for one second. I was just trying to gauge opinion. I deliberately left the terms vague.

    Australia is often held up as a model to be admired, but as you state, ours is tougher.

    I think it's still a worth while exercise. I am more than happy for someone else to word the options.

    Sorry, was not aimed at you, it was just easier to put it as a response to your post. Just a clear statement of the reality of immigration. I agree with the proposal of a poll.


  • Options
    #443
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    alastair wrote: »
    Rubbish.

    Any impartial review of the thread will note the following:

    1. (With one exception) No-one was accused of racism, unless they advocated actual racist views.
    2. No insinuation, bar one of double standards was directed at you.
    3. The issue of whether mass immigration actually applied in Ireland's context, or indeed what mass immigration is supposed to mean, was more of an issue, than anything else.
    4. The majority of 'racism' posts were from those bleating about being called racists, in the absence of any such accusations.
    5. The bulk of the dey-tuk-ur-jobs posts were characterised by ignorance, rather than straight-forward racism.

    To be fair on the other immigration thread (Eastern Europe one) I was called an "obvious bigot" because I argued the crazy idea :rolleyes: that there was a disproportionate problem with anti-social behaviour in the Roma community in Ireland, its not fair to say that one side is always the height of reasonableness and logic, or in fact the idea that there is sides is unhelpful anyway.

    I think immigration policy and attitudes are changing across the EU, and it must be happening for a reason even if its as simple as "pro"-immigration advocates/bodies not recognizing and informing the general voter without dismissing their concerns a change is needed otherwise extremists will dominate the dialogue


  • Options
    #444
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    To be fair on the other immigration thread (Eastern Europe one) I was called an "obvious bigot" because I argued the crazy idea :rolleyes: that there was a disproportionate problem with anti-social behaviour in the Roma community in Ireland, its not fair to say that one side is always the height of reasonableness and logic, or in fact the idea that there is sides is unhelpful anyway.

    I think immigration policy and attitudes are changing across the EU, and it must be happening for a reason even if its as simple as "pro"-immigration advocates/bodies not recognizing and informing the general voter without dismissing their concerns a change is needed otherwise extremists will dominate the dialogue

    There should be nothing wrong with questioning the free movement contained in the Treaties. But as long as that discussion considers all the the issues. Free movement has problems of course it does, it also brings advantages, Apple for example operates a number of customer service jobs for many different countries in Europe and the Middle East, it can do that through free movement of persons who can come and work in Ireland doing jobs that to put it simply native Irish would not have the language skills in the required numbers. I for one am always open to discuss free movement, the good, the bad and the Ugly as long as real facts are used. I agree there is a perception that certain populations from certain countries cause problems, but ask other countries in the EU of their view of the Irish based on a small group.

    http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-Traveller-gang-arrested-for-international-crime-spree---from-theft-of-rhino-horns-to-tarmac-fraud-187096071.html

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/30-in-irish-traveller-crime-gang-arrested-across-eu-219594.html

    If we are going to close any door remember we may be closing it also on ourselves.

    Am I a bigot because i have linked to the articles no I don't believe so, as I am not making any claim as against travelers, and 2 I am not calling for the shutting down of Free Movement due to the actions of a few.


  • Options
    #445
    enricoh
    Registered Users Posts: 4,843 ✭✭✭enricoh


    saw a programme on bbc1 last night about how they are changing the welfare system in the uk once romania gets full movement rights in 2014 - 6 months max on the dole n then yer sent back home.
    has irish politicians even mentioned it never mind tighthened up ours?


  • Options
    #446
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    enricoh wrote: »
    saw a programme on bbc1 last night about how they are changing the welfare system in the uk once romania gets full movement rights in 2014 - 6 months max on the dole n then yer sent back home.
    It won't happen. EU citizens cannot be discriminated against.


  • Options
    #447
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    enricoh wrote: »
    saw a programme on bbc1 last night about how they are changing the welfare system in the uk once romania gets full movement rights in 2014 - 6 months max on the dole n then yer sent back home.
    has irish politicians even mentioned it never mind tighthened up ours?

    OK if you actually did any research on the subject you would know in Ireland we have the a Habitual Residence rule, it's been mentioned. It simply says that if you are resident here 2 years or more (in other words you can't claim SW on arrival) you may be entitled to claim SW. The UK has a much more liberal system but Ireland does not. Not only did we tighten it like the UK propose we went even tighter.

    I am personally aware of multiple irish and non irish who have been refused SW because of the rule. Certain payments are excluded family payments and SW allowance to get allowance a person must have a large number of weeks of insurable employment.

    But here are the rules, http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Habitual-Residence-Condition--Guidelines-for-Deciding-Offic.aspx#sect3


  • Options
    #448
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    djpbarry wrote: »
    It won't happen. EU citizens cannot be discriminated against.

    The treaties only allow 3 months to seek employment, most people forget its economic right not a social one. The treaties allow for fee movement of goods, services and workers. If you are not a worker then under EU law it can be goodbye.

    Certain family members of workers get rights through the worker, and students get rights of residency but family members and students can be required not to be a drain on SW or the Public Health Service.

    The rules are set down here, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:en:PDF

    See article 6 and 7


  • Options
    #449
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    alastair wrote: »

    Getting in the pre-emptive racist card? - check.
    Straw man arguments (we don't apply border controls - pro immigration position is that we shouldn't) - check
    Claim to oppressed perspective? - check

    Yet, what I have said is basically true. The strange this is we both agree on this, "The people should always have the right to say who is entering the country and what visas are given out"
    yet we disagree on this
    "however to say such a thing will get one labelled a racist by most of the media and many other do gooders."

    You think it doesn't happen, I do. There is ample evidence in this thread that people who want to open a dialogue on immigration are defacto racists or at best xenophobes or anti-immigrants. Again, you may disagree on the accusation levelled against me but the intent to smear is clearly there. I find it surprising that one would think its a only double standard when the poster clearly mention that I was spouting "anti immigration rhetoric" in their post. One cannot deny what is written.

    To quote you.
    Any state is entitled to formulate it's own immigration policy - and within that the motivation may be racist or not. I don't believe border controls by themselves are intrinsically racist

    Some posters would say that is racist by its nature because you are discriminating against those who are born elsewhere.

    To cut to the chase we both agree that a state is entitled to pursue their own immigration policy, the problem of course happens in public debate. I can't even remember a public debate about immigration or indeed any main party having its own view on immigration printed in a policy document for us to read over, be it they are in favour of mass immigration or controlled/strict immigration.

    Also, do we want to qualify everyones motive in regards all topics under public discussion in future?

    By the way if you want to accuse me of dishonest debate then cast your eye back to your own idea that we could implement a utopian global welfare package for all residents of earth…. stones and glasshouses.


  • Options
    #450
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    jank wrote: »
    Yet, what I have said is basically true. The strange this is we both agree on this, "The people should always have the right to say who is entering the country and what visas are given out"
    Eh, you said that this doesn't happen - which would be untrue. It's a straw man argument.

    jank wrote: »
    yet we disagree on this
    "however to say such a thing will get one labelled a racist by most of the media and many other do gooders."

    You think it doesn't happen, I do. There is ample evidence in this thread that people who want to open a dialogue on immigration are defacto racists or at best xenophobes

    There's not ample evidence on this thread. An accusation of anti-immigration rhetoric is precisely that - not an accusation of racism or xenophobia. Why not deal with the actual points made, rather than start off with the position of 'poor me, they're all out to get me and call me a racist'? There's your dishonesty on a plate.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #451
    cerastes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭cerastes


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Probably because “mass immigration” is an entirely arbitrary term? For example, the example of the UK has been bandied about on this thread, but net migration into the UK is not especially high:

    _71397926_uk_migration2_624gr.gif
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25135418

    Natural population increase is considerably higher, but I don’t hear many people suggesting restrictions be placed on the number of children that UK residents should be allowed to have.


    I believe someone did mention reducing population isnt a bad idea, but like the one mention of racism that was pointed out, its just one mention so doesnt seem to matter when its shown back to you, but you cant say no one called for it.
    Also, I cant see the benefit in Ireland of tens of thousands of people leaving where they cannot find work, only to be replaced by x thousands of other people, there are enough people unemployed here that the relevant body could do something about fitting at least some of those people into jobs to reduce the unemployment q.
    Im sure there are reasons why someone from abroad is more suitable for certain jobs for a number of reasons, its not about maintaining or moderately keeping the population to a suitable level, there are plenty of able people that can work and are willing to fill positions, people were queuing up when a burger place opened a new outlet.


Advertisement