Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

Lockstep wrote: »

No, it's not outdated: both articles are a few years old. It's not like they're from the 1980s. There are certainly large numbers arriving to the EU to claim asylum and this is exactly due to the fact that they're refugees and not economic migrants: they're coming here out of fear rather than to claim the dole.
If you can show that there are sufficient numbers of illegal migrants within the EU to skew the statistics, please show this.
Once again, I've already shown that non-EU nationals are not a major drain on the public purse, even with their higher unemployment rate in two separate articles. If you can provide any evidence to discount this, I'm all ears.

There are certainly problems with refugees accessing employment in Ireland but this is not due to laziness on the refugees part.

The graphs date back to a different immigration pattern . An eample 20 years ago non EU here were either working or a student. There was not the asylum process as it exists today.There is a difference in nationalities too compare the Chinese ,Indians who own businesses unlike other non EU .Those non EU that do have small business have got grants . '' High numbers of non EU unemployed greater than the average claiming benefits are not a drain on the state'' . I rest my case with this looney statement . You do not need proof of this but here are some links because you like them.http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/irish-migration-gain-or-drain-31505095.htmlhttp://acdemocracy.org/muslim-immigrants-draining-european-social-benefits/

Nodin wrote: »

It's entirely accurate and addresses the core of the issue.

But what happened in Fiji is not whats happening in Europe and thus is not "soft colonisation".



We are not Tigers. There is no 'racial purity' to preserve.

I have no religious dogma.

We are not Tigers, but we are animals, thousands of years of evolutionary change producing distinct populations of humans populations, each with their own genetic make up, eg in European populations alone, here is the genetic variance.

Nodin wrote: »

Pseudo scientific nonsense that confuses and conflates immigration with colonisation, using terminology to cloak its base nature.

Further to the above accusations of base "pseudoscience", shocker :rolleyes:.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/new-muslim-group-in-dublin-to-encourage-engagement-with-politics-1.2478981

"South Dublin Muslim Board was set up in anticipation of the general election"

"Dr Ali Selim, of the Islamic Cultural Centre in Clonskeagh and a member of the board, said it was also planned to hold a subsequent meeting at which they would discuss candidates who might “serve the best interests of Muslims”."

"More broadly, he noted, there were no Muslims in Ireland’s public service, where the cultural knowledge they would bring could be of great use."

Not that I "blame" anyone for voting for their group interests, or am surprised by this, muslims are uniting and voting in their group interests, the Irish do/did it abroad, every "group" does this, its an evolutionary strategy/group dynamics, but its also a negative and subversive one when the cultures are not broadly similar.
This is political Islam in action, form a voting block and vote for "muslim interests"(note, he doesnt say arabic, north african or whatever). This is the foundations soft colonisation, form a voting block to further your ethnic and religious group. Look to England where its completely race/religious based voting, for all intents and purposes segregation. Then you splinter the judiciary by introducing Sharia,(which isnt just baseless fearmongering), German courts defer to Sharia in civil/family cases...
http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article13845521/Scharia-haelt-Einzug-in-deutsche-Gerichtssaele.html

This is the end result of a so called "migrant crisis"(that is, in real terms, a "permanent reality"), an increase of an alien(Islamic) voting bloc.

Immigration to Ireland is a permanent reality and one which will enhance our country and nation.

http://www.activelink.ie/content/irish-links/civil-liberties-human-rights/immigrant-council-ireland

In summary, migration is a positive, permanent reality for Ireland and the European Union

Brian Killaron

I welcome all of the contributors and will keep my comments brief. Mr. Killoran asked what Ireland could do and spoke about migration being a positive and permanent reality.

Kathryn Reilly, Sinn Fein
But hey, this drum is being banged since 2005, its just a "crisis" in the med with an end in sight though........

"Large-scale immigration is now a permanent reality for Ireland"

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/integration-of-immigrants-needs-to-be-centre-stage-1.449026

To Lockstep.

http://acdemocracy.org/muslim-immigrants-draining-european-social-benefits

Another link that shows unemployed non eu are a drain . I could not fit this into the earlier reply.

rgossip30 wrote: »

The graphs date back to a different immigration pattern . An eample 20 years ago non EU here were either working or a student. There was not the asylum process as it exists today.There is a difference in nationalities too compare the Chinese ,Indians who own businesses unlike other non EU .Those non EU that do have small business have got grants .

But we're not talking about 20 years ago: the two sources provided are from 2011. What major changes to European immigration policy and welfare have taken place since then?

rgossip30 wrote: »

'' High numbers of non EU unemployed greater than the average claiming benefits are not a drain on the state'' . I rest my case with this looney statement

Something is "looney" even though it is based on evidence merely because it doesn't fit with your preconceptions?

rgossip30 wrote: »

You do not need proof of this but here are some links because you like them. http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/irish-migration-gain-or-drain-31505095.html

What does this prove? If anything it says

The low-skilled foreign-born are less likely to be unemployed than Irish-born, and the higher-than-average immigrant unemployment rate in Ireland is due to more well educated people being jobless.

rgossip30 wrote: »

http://acdemocracy.org/muslim-immigrants-draining-european-social-benefits/

Hardly a compelling article (even for the ADC), nowhere does it show that immigrants (not even Muslims) are a net loss for the EU's member states. The best it does is claim that Muslims soak up 40% of Denmark's welfare costs. I've looked around for the source on this and it seems to come from Daniel Pipes, with the claim being rejected by Danish parliamentarians in Canada's National Post.
Likewise, the article claims French Muslim youth unemployment is 40%, whereas it is actually one in four which is almost indentical to the general level of French youth unemployment

Nodin wrote: »

"hybridisation" - Racist nonsense.

How can he be racist? He also said he's sad that the Native American "species" is dying out. :rolleyes:

rgossip30 wrote: »

Changes to European Immigration policy over 20 years . I am not sure why you want proof . I did state only that the immigration pattern has changed with large number of muslim asylum seekers fleeing war . Do I need to prove this ? http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-4544_en.htm In Ireland the single procedure is to be brought into law in an attempt to stop bogus asylum seekers .

Well yes. You claimed that two articles from 2011 are "out of date". I asked what major European immigration or welfare reforms have taken place since then, which your link fails to disprove. We certainly do have an increased number of refugees arriving this year but you've yet to show that this will have a negative effect on the EU's economy, particularly since the Commission does not think there will be a negative effect.

As for Ireland, of our recent asylum seekers half were Pakistani or Bangladeshi despite these groups making up just 7% of the EU total . Evidently, Ireland's asylum seekers are different from the norm.

rgossip30 wrote: »

Can you explain why Sweden is closing its border to asylum seekers and its likely Denmark will follow .http://www.independent.ie/world-news/denmark-sweden-tighten-border-controls-to-stem-migrant-flow-34333873.html

As I've highlighted a few times in this thread, because Sweden's resources aren't unlimited. The refugees are set to make a small but positive impact on Sweden's economy by 2016. However, refugees require investment, as noted by the European Commission's report . Even though refugees are set to make a positive contribution to the EU's economy, they still require investment in the short term. It's simply too much for a small country like Sweden to bear alone. If I were to invest money in a house, I would see a net benefit over time. This doesn't stop me going bankrupt from buying too many houses to begin with.

gallag wrote: »

It's fact that refugees/immigrants will boost a country's GDP, as I said in another thread importing a million hampsters will also boost a countries GDP because they will consume resources resulting in financial transactions that will boost GDP, yes the immigrants will eat, drink and consume services and countries will generally be borrowing the money to give to the immigrants to spend that results in the higher GDP, but is it worth it? What about the stress on housing and health? The larger classrooms and added translators? What about the higher crime and unemployment? What about the higher debt? All worth it to say there were 0.5% more financial transactions in a year?

A higher GDP does not mean a healthier economy.

Your concerns have been addressed numerous times in this thread: even with their higher unemployment rates, non-EU nationals are not a drain on the public purse and are less reliant on social welfare than nationals. Likewise, the Commission Forecast notes that immigration has little to no impact on employment. This tallies with the fact that refugees have no major impact on public expenditure or employment

JPNelsforearm wrote:

Take any individual mammal population and the various adjunct sub species, I'll use tigers so as not to stray into accusations of "racism"(not that I'd agree with the popular race classification, it's too crude) by using humans.

The problem JP is, looking at the totality of your posts, I think we strayed into racism a good while ago:

If every immigrant/refugee was intelligent, well educated, young, healthy and came in sustainable number and filled an acute need, no one would have an issue. Thats not the case.

A fifth column is a group that works against the interests of the native population. Take the major jewish groups in the states, they advocate/lobby for mass immigration, which the majority of the populace has always been opposed to. And seeing as how jews self designate themselves as "separate"(dual citizenship/loyalty to Israel etc) to mainstream US society, that is the behaviour of a fifth column, changing the ethnic make up of the US to suit themselves.
LaRaza, the hispanic group would also fall into this catagory, an out group of people advocating population change to suit themselves.
Same with gun rights, all major jewish organisation lobby for gun control, undermining the constitution.

No they aren't, the Irish state is for the Irish people, no one else, we owe the world nothing, PC multiculturalism doent change that fact.

None of these men are indigenous to the British Isles, nor would they have ever stepped foot in Britain but for unfettered mass immigration.
[IMG][/img]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00639/news-graphics-2007-_639952a.jpg

I would subscribe to the multi regional theory of evolution but, even if we subscribe to the "out of Africa" theory we are still dealing with continuing evolution, so its a stupid point to even make. Verging on utopian equality that ignores the genetic and cultural differences between peoples. How many inventions and nobel prize winners come from Ethiopia, how many come from indigenous British(anglo saxon/english etc) people.

But the various people that make up Britain are indigenous to the British Isles. If they want to dilute and hand over their land to people who outbreed them thats fine, but Britain will stop being Britiain, a nation is only its people, moving someone from Brazzaville to Brighton does not change the evolutionary/ethnic heritage of that person, you cannot just swap people and expect continued progress, look at the collapse of Rome.
And what happened to Arabia and India? Look at the rates of inbreeding in the Arab world, the regressive religion, they have regressed intellectually and culturally.

Anyone with an infectious or inheritable/debilitating genetic disease, any aged or enfeebled people, any people of of low intellect/incapable of caring for themselves and are here solely to live off the state. Uneducated and unskilled people(we have enough of those here between the long term unemployed and travellers).

There is no need for "race based" or "hate" legislation. Adequate legislation exists. There is no such thing as a hate crime, there is just crime. And insults are just that, opinions are just that, distatsteful as they may be. Zero erosion of (the already limited) freedom of speech we have is acceptable.

Then you've this stuff about tigers and elephants and God knows what else, biologically and culturally homogeneous etc. etc.

I think indigenous American culture, language and bio diversity should be preserved. I think Fijian culture, language, bio diversity and way of life should be preserved... I think all of the different variations of elephants, tigers, birds, etc should have their habitats preserved and their biodiversity left intact... I think the Amazon rainforest and all the biodiversity it holds should be preserved.... yeah racism.
One type of all crop, tree, fish, mammal is all we need, Soy beans for everyone, cover the globe in soybeans, who cares about biodiversity, race to the bottom I say.

No one is talking about Europeans being "inherently more deserving", natural selection and evolution dont "inherently" make you more "deserving". We are talking about an ethnic homeland, do you not believe a people, any and all people(s), have a "right" to a homeland and to exist as a homogeneous population, culturally and biologically? The entire concept of anti colonialism/imperialism is built upon this idea.

Your analogy is perfectly clear:

No biologist/taxonomist would suggest destroying or hybridizing those unique populations, (that arose on account of geographic isolation and continuing evolution), so we(nominally) have preservation programs in place to preserve each population in biologically homogeneous populations,

gallag wrote: »

You choose to believe that despite their higher unemployment and working mostly unskilled jobs that they can be net contributors to the economy and don't displace natives from work or cause wage deflation ! All because party's with vested intrests wrote it is so. Yay slight bump in GDP!!!

Yes, and even with their higher unemployment, they're less reliant on social welfare.
If your only response is "I dislike these sources so they must be biased and wrong" then I rest my case.

gallag wrote: »

What is it with you guys? yes, I simply believe that immigrants are a net drain on society, yes you have sources that say no to my opinion but there are other sources out there that say otherwise (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11751188/Immigrants-more-likely-to-claim-benefits-be-jobless-or-on-low-wage-report.html) yes you have sources but all sources have some kind of skin in the game and believe it or not I don't have to believe your sources over any other source or indeed my real world observations. You want me to believe that immagrants who have high crime and unemployment rates and higher birthrates and who mostly work in unskilled labour actually pay more in taxes than they take in benefits and services and don't displace the host working class from jobs or over saturate the labour market resulting in wage deflation then fantastic, but I am not breaking any rules or evoking the wrath of the source police by ignoring your sources.

If you expect your claims to be taken seriously, you'll need to do better than that (your link doesn't work by the way)
Dismissing credible sources for being biased isn't on, unless you can show why they're biased. Claiming bias isn't a trump card for sources that don't fit with your pre-existing opinions. You need to show *why*.
As for your "real world observations", maybe you've got some excellent evidence that the rest of the world isn't privy to but if all you can do is say "But in my experience", then you can't expect others to take you seriously, especially when they're able to provide evidence and you are not.
RationalWiki do a good piece on why anecdotal evidence is a poor source

RDM_83 again wrote: »

What the litrature says is they are small to non existent in the negative, and thats for far more controlled movement than the last year

When a meta-analysis of existing studies on migration show that the economic impact of immigration on unemployment is "small to non existent", it's not much of a defense to claim that immigration leads to unemployment. Especially when other sources such as the Commission predicting that even with the vast influx of refugees, unemployment is set to fall in the EU and that

. Overall, immigration appears to have no obvious or little impact on native unemployment levels.

Likewise, several studies show that welcoming refugees (specifically) has a neutral to positive impact on economies and wages

So if you're trying to argue that immigration leads to rising unemployment, you'll need to do better than that.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

My previous post addressed this, migrants move in older natives move out, waiting times decrease in migrant area or stay neutral, waiting times rise in area where natives move too, its in the article your referencing you aren't supporting a overall reduction in waiting times and perceptually existing inhabitants experience increased waits :edit: by this I mean to a "native" it would appear waiting times increase

Can you link to your post? There'd need to be extremely heavy native displacement for this to take place and this would need to be a significant move given that the NHS operates out of central hospitals. For example, when I lived in Nottingham, QMC was the major regional hospital and took in patients from surrounding areas. It wouldn't matter if someone moved from say, immigrant filled St Anns to strongly white Beeston, they'd still be using the same hospital in the region.
If you've any relevant studies to prove your point, please provide them.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

To explain again, your own link states that migrants get more unemployment benefits, it then says this disappears if the figures are matched, e.g if Migrants are equally skilled, have the same education, age etc etc as a "native", the thing is the migrant population doesn't, as a group they are more likely to be unemployed, the focus on the individual obfuscates the actual effect

As the other IZA link shows, this is based on raw data. When conditioning for employment status, immigrants are even less likely to claim welfare than natives. Even if you were to solely use raw data, immigrants are less reliant on social welfare than natives anyway. This is confirmed by [url=http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/52045/1/664412149.pdf Barret and Maitre [/url]

In summary the descriptive analysis suggests that across all social support payments, there is generally little evidence that immigrants are excessive users relative to natives. Immigrants are more likely to be in receipt of unemployment related supports in a wide range of countries and also of family-related payments.They are less likely to receive old age payments and sickness/disability payments.However, the most clear-cut result to emerge from this element of the analysis was the greater likelihood of immigrants being in poverty.The picture that emerges from Figure 7 is striking in that it shows a clear and unambiguous pattern of poverty risk among immigrants that exceeds that of natives. Echoing what was found in Section 2, but to a stronger degree, the broad conclusion to be drawn from the regression analysis is that there is little evidence of excessive receipt of support by immigrants relative to natives, where “excessive” is defined as higher rates of receipt whether adjusting for socio-economic characteristics or not. To the extent that higher rates of receipt are present, they appear to be restricted to unemployment support; but even in this case, this only applies in a restricted number of countries.In summary the descriptive analysis suggests that across all social support payments, there is generally little evidence that immigrants are excessive users relative to natives. Immigrants are more likely to be in receipt of unemployment related supports in a wide range of countries and also of family-related payments.They are less likely to receive old age payments and sickness/disability payments.However, the most clear-cut result to emerge from this element of the analysis was the greater likelihood of immigrants being in poverty.The picture that emerges from Figure 7 is striking in that it shows a clear and unambiguous pattern of poverty risk among immigrants that exceeds that of natives

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Drawing data from an period of unprecedented economic growth in most of the EU 1999-2007 when there was very high labour demands due to unsustainable behavior

Yes and at those times, member state citizens would have been partaking in the same growing economy that non-EU ones were. So I dunno what your point is.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

And governments have been attempting to do that: hence according to the reports logic about "rational" governance there is a problem

I'm not sure what your point is here. You said nations are unable to restrict welfare to immigrants in case it impacts their own citizens. They can easily do this just by increasing the residency requirements.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Still shows a higher rate of unemployment, simply that paper shows that welfare rates during the economic boom didn't influence migrant destinations, I'm also hesitant of the results anyway as welfare systems operate in very different ways across the EU, country like France is likely better if you have been in permanent employment but far worse than a country like Ireland if you haven't (does the report break it down between contributory welfare and non contributory welfare)

. Once again, this relies solely on unconditioned data. At any rate, unemployment benefit is only one small part of a nation's social welfare system. Which all the studies above show that immigrants partake of less than natives.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Read the link below, its a fairly impartial summary of the available data, as far as I can see it points to migration being neutral, bad for some good for others, (data for UK, in fact I am sure you have already read this, however this is for migration that is at least partially controlled so the skills based/selective visa's and EU migration are highly represented. The current situation is not this, also interestingly Germany is shown to have a negative effect on GDP for migration (fig 2)
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/fiscal-impact-immigration-uk

Actually, Figure 2 shows that the vast majority of the countries had a positive fiscal impact from immigration.

As for the UK, it relies on three studies. One by MigrationWatch (which are an anti-immigration lobby group and their 2014 report is of dubious validity (Also, see here , one by Dustmann and Frattini (who themselves acknowledge that their data for non-EU immigrants should not be relied on

Dustman and Frattini say it is misleading to use the £118bn figure as the Telegraph and Mail have done. As they point out, this is based on the cost of all immigrants living in Britain between 1995 and 2011. This isn’t migrants who arrived in Britain in the late 1990s and 2000s but all the non-UK born people living in Britain at that time. More than 90% of them will have arrived in Britain long before 1995, including Britain’s large long-settled Asian and Caribbean communities who were born abroad.

and Rowthorn who finds they've made a positive contribution. Keep in mind this data goes up to 2011 so it's operating during the recession.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

In summary in my opinion much of what you link to doesn't actually support your arguments when you look at it in a holistic manner or with a focus in reducing inequality within countries (the increased economic and social marginalization of citizens that are already at the bottom of the pile)

Actually it does: the Commission Forecast shows that not only will the current refugee impact benefit GDP but that it will have negligible impact on employment.
Given that immigrants are less reliant on social welfare than the rest of us and make no discernible impact on employment rates, I dunno what your problem is.