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…1314161819…26

Comments

  • Options
    #452
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    jank wrote: »
    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.
    Bollocks. Absolute, utter horse bollocks.

    There has been one poster spouting totally irrational, xenophobic nonsense and they’ve rightly been called out on it. There has been very little rational debate of anything.
    jank wrote: »
    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.
    Probably because nobody really gives a toss?

    Ireland is currently experiencing net emigration and economic stagnation – you think the average voter is worried about “mass immigration”?


  • Options
    #453
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    infosys wrote: »
    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
    My point is that any changes must be applied to all EU citizens equally. For example, the habitual residence requirement in Ireland that you referred to above applies to Irish citizens.


  • Options
    #454
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    cerastes wrote: »
    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.



    But that is the whole idea of free movement. Ireland when it joined the Common Market as it was then called, I think. Was a largely agricultural economy, most of our men who travelled to work up-to that point went to the UK, to work in construction.

    During the 70's and 80's as education improved and the Irish skill set changed our labour became more specialised. I remember when a job in McDonalds in Ireland was a good job. But as Ireland began to produce more and more professional people they could move freely within the union, and else where. Now the highly educated engineer needs to go to the mideast or to germany (I was in Frankfurt recently it was going through a construction boom).

    Free movement is a pure capitalist concept, which only sees the economy of the EU as one large economy, a capitalist economy must have free movement of goods, and services, and finally workers. As the EU was and is currently set up it is not free movement of people its workers. Now the next debate is that the EU is moving towards the current economic right to a social right. Union Citizenship is stepping out from the shadows, the recent decision in Zambrano, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30dbb1b3ac922eb0491eb27cb0317cf4db2d.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxuMb3j0?text=&docid=80236&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=478445

    But it is currently incorrect to say there is mass immigration in Ireland, while immigration has increased over the last 10 years, it is not mass immigration by any stretch of the imagination.

    It is not wrong to object to mass immigration, even the most left wing proponent of open borders or the most right wing proponent of free movement, will agree that it would be a serious issue for any state to accept a mass immigration of people in a short time.

    But if a person wants to discuss mass immigration please have the facts and understand the difference between the different types of immigration and what they actually allow and do.


  • Options
    #455
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    djpbarry wrote: »
    My point is that any changes must be applied to all EU citizens equally. For example, the habitual residence requirement in Ireland that you referred to above applies to Irish citizens.

    Yes, and the UK can impose a requirement that 6 months and your out rule, as same is allowed in EU law. Once a EU member is in and working then they can not be discriminated against but if they are not a worker they do not have the protections.

    An example a retired couple from France can live in Ireland, but they must show they have sufficient means and they must have private health care. A worker from France does not need to show either and must be treated like any Irish Citizen. Not because they are French but because they are a worker.


  • Options
    #456
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    cerastes wrote: »
    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.
    I’m really not convinced that tens of thousands of people are leaving Ireland because they can’t find work. I think most are leaving by choice. But anyway, Ireland’s economy is in the midst of a transition and a lot of unemployed people, those who previously worked in construction, in particular, are finding that their skills are no longer required. Worse still, there are going to be a large number who have no real skills to speak of whatsoever.

    I don’t disagree that every effort should be made to help retrain anyone who is willing to undergo retraining – I fully support such initiatives, so long as the training is of long-term benefit. But at the end of the day, it’s difficult to help people who are not prepared to help themselves and I’m really not convinced that many long-term unemployed people in Ireland are willing to work in the local Spar or McDonalds. Based on my own experience (and I accept that this is purely anecdotal), many are waiting for jobs in construction to re-appear. I mean, why bother retraining or taking a low-paid job you don’t want when you can claim welfare indefinitely?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #457
    hbilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭hbilly


    infosys wrote: »
    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.

    The press and politicans in the UK are more vocal about restricting immigration . The figures per population in comparison show they are more effective at controlling it . This demonstrates Irish politicans and the press are limp about its control in case they offend .


  • Options
    #458
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    hbilly wrote: »
    The press and politicans in the UK are more vocal about restricting immigration . The figures per population in comparison show they are more effective at controlling it . This demonstrates Irish politicans and the press are limp about its control in case they offend .

    Are you offended by their "limp" approach? What would you have done?


  • Options
    #459
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


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

    An article in the times yesterday - an editorial suggests that the parliament is supreme in British politics. A recent UK Supreme Court decision pushed an appeal court legal challenge to parliament back to parliament. This is true even if the lower court had based its ruling on a European court. Britain can do what it wants.


  • Options
    #460
    hbilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭hbilly


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

    I did see a headline in the British press ' The Romas are coming ' .


  • Options
    #461
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    hbilly wrote: »
    I did see a headline in the British press ' The Romas are coming ' .

    Sounds like the Daily Heil or the Express. Old news.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #462
    hbilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭hbilly


    old hippy wrote: »
    Are you offended by their "limp" approach? What would you have done?

    Not at all we are still just Paddies. diddery idle da
    I will pass the buck . Saw that headline 2 days ago.


  • Options
    #463
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    hbilly wrote: »
    Not at all we are still just Paddies. diddery idle da
    I will pass the buck . Saw that headline 2 days ago.

    Oh dear. It's you again, isn't it? Going on ignore now. Best of luck.


  • Options
    #464
    hbilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭hbilly


    Nodin wrote: »
    The dread wave of Bulgarians and Romanians hasn't occurred yet. They are Europeans, btw.


    It would be best if your read this, before going down that path.....
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59465073&postcount=1


    Contraception. You may have heard of it.

    You come on a transit flight from another EU country and tear up your passport before you enter Ireland.
    Passports are stamped on a transit visa too !!


  • Options
    #465
    hbilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭hbilly


    old hippy wrote: »
    Oh dear. It's you again, isn't it? Going on ignore now. Best of luck.

    Passing the buck is what is done in Ireland you know that . I leave it to you as you are the expert .


  • Options
    #466
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    Britain can do what it wants.
    Including refusing to honour the terms of treaties to which it voluntarily agreed?


  • Options
    #467
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    hbilly wrote: »
    The press and politicans in the UK are more vocal about restricting immigration . The figures per population in comparison show they are more effective at controlling it . This demonstrates Irish politicans and the press are limp about its control in case they offend .
    Do you have any idea how difficult it is to obtain a work permit in Ireland?


  • Options
    #468
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    Britain can do what it wants.
    A substantial proportion of the population certainly seems to think so, but they are mistaken.


  • Options
    #469
    hbilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭hbilly


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Do you have any idea how difficult it is to obtain a work permit in Ireland?

    Most immigration now is family reunification be it from the EU or non eu who have got passports, student visa ,asylum and illegals.


  • Options
    #470
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    hbilly wrote: »
    Passing the buck is what is done in Ireland you know that . I leave it to you as you are the expert .

    When re-regging, taking up where your previous incarnation left off in the discussion makes things a little obvious. Continuing exactly the same behaviour as got you banned also leads to a ban in your new incarnation.

    Permabanned as rereg of hotbabe1992. Looking forward to serial incarnations of same.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #471
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Including refusing to honour the terms of treaties to which it voluntarily agreed?

    Yes, by voluntary disagreeing via parliament which is where it previously agreed. Lets recall that only Britain and Ireland allowed full immigration in 2004.

    Other European countries have a de facto control on immigration via strong private sector retail unions who operate a closed shop policy.

    Link on parliamentary sovereignty.

    http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #472
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    Yes, by voluntary disagreeing via parliament which is where it previously agreed. Lets recall that only Britain and Ireland allowed full immigration in 2004.

    Other European countries have a de facto control on immigration via strong private sector retail unions who operate a closed shop policy.


    .....presumably there are consequences for breaking with the treaties in question.


  • Options
    #473
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    Yes, by voluntary disagreeing via parliament which is where it previously agreed.
    You don't get to not honour your treaty commitments. At least, you don't get to opt out of them unilaterally.
    Lets recall that only Britain and Ireland allowed full immigration in 2004.
    So?
    Other European countries have a de facto control on immigration via strong private sector retail unions who operate a closed shop policy.
    If that "closed shop policy" includes discrimination based on nationality, it's illegal.


  • Options
    #474
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    hbilly wrote: »
    Passing the buck is what is done in Ireland you know that . I leave it to you as you are the expert .

    Reported as sockpuppet account.

    Ooops! I see I'm a bit late on board.


  • Options
    #475
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You don't get to not honour your treaty commitments. At least, you don't get to opt out of them unilaterally. So? If that "closed shop policy" includes discrimination based on nationality, it's illegal.

    No the closed shop policy controlled who could become workers. You had to be a member of the union. This makes retail a career in some countries. Protected workers will, de facto, not be recent immigrants.


  • Options
    #476
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    Yes, by voluntary disagreeing via parliament which is where it previously agreed. Lets recall that only Britain and Ireland allowed full immigration in 2004.
    I don't understand what you're talking about? It was agreed at EU level that each existing member state had the option of restricted access to their labour markets for citizens from the new accession states. The UK and Ireland chose not to avail of this option.

    The UK cannot now decide, "actually, we'll go ahead with our own set of arbitrary restrictions as we see fit".


  • Options
    #477
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Nodin wrote: »
    .....presumably there are consequences for breaking with the treaties in question.

    Maybe not as severe as expulsion so therefore, what of it? Unless the UK is threatened with expulsion it can do what wants. My point isn't necessarily anti-immigration - I am pro controlled positive net immigration - but to point out points of facts. The UK's parliaments relation to the European Courts is not the same as Congress and the American Supreme Court. That's largely because of the lack of a codified constitution. Parliament is subject to the ECHR as much as it wants to be. Parliament is sovereign over courts.


  • Options
    #478
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I don't understand what you're talking about? It was agreed at EU level that each existing member state had the option of restricted access to their labour markets for citizens from the new accession states. The UK and Ireland chose not to avail of this option.

    The UK cannot now decide, "actually, we'll go ahead with our own set of arbitrary restrictions as we see fit".

    Actually it can. Read the link again.
    ( if you even did )

    EDIT:

    From the link I posted.

    Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.


  • Options
    #479
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    Actually it can.

    Actually it can't. Not while remaining a member of the EU in any case. Parliamentary sovereignty remains intact, insofar as they could repeal the '72 European Communities Act, but that would require the UK's leaving the EU. As long as they remain under the legal umbrella of the EU, EU law takes precedence over UK law.


  • Options
    #480
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    Maybe not as severe as expulsion so therefore, what of it? Unless the UK is threatened with expulsion it can do what wants.

    Rather unlikely - the combination of penal fines and the antagonism it would cause with partner EU states, would make that sort of messing impractical.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #481
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    Maybe not as severe as expulsion so therefore, what of it? Unless the UK is threatened with expulsion it can do what wants.
    Then why doesn't it? Why does Dave need to "renegotiate" the UK's relationship with the EU if the UK can just do whatever the hell it wants?


Advertisement