BBC on mass immigration to Ireland - we have messed it up basically

HollyB · 27-12-2007 8:21pm

OPENROAD wrote: »

My problem is that some Irish are all in favour of say allowing the illegal Irish in US to stay but will have zero tolerance on illegals here which I would agree with, zero tolerance for all illegals in US and here unless a valid argument can be put across by individuals.

I think it should be up to the US to decide what to do regarding illegal Irish immigrants over there. Irish politicians are free to ask for amnesty if they so choose - just as those of other countries may ask for amnesty for their citizens - but it should be the choice of each country how they will deal with illegal immigrants.

If the US chooses to allow Irish illegals to stay, that's their choice.

Wertz · 27-12-2007 8:58pm

OPENROAD wrote: »

A well put across argument imo, and I agree with many if not all of your points. It is clear in particular with the UK that they have no indication of the real numbers. As to whether the UK could absorb the numbers, while I agree to a large extent with you, immigration and Irish are included in this would put pressure on services in the UK. My problem is that some Irish are all in favour of say allowing the illegal Irish in US to stay but will have zero tolerance on illegals here which I would agree with, zero tolerance for all illegals in US and here unless a valid argument can be put across by individuals. Their are some people that don't realise that many of our roads have been financed by British,French,German taxpayers and those that do know don't mind taking the money but don't want immigration from EU countries here. That's what really bugs me.

Although I know a few illegals in the US (most of them came home when the tide turned here) I'd be in agreement that our expats shouldn't be singled out for special treatment just because they're Irish.
The problem with the States (and it's a problem I had to contend and compete with when I was an illegal) is the large number of hispanic illegals (mainly but not exclusively Mexican) who flooded into the US through a somewhat porous land border, their use in the black economy (ironically by middle class people who would politically call for all illegals to be ejected) taking up of low skilled jobs, creating a burden on schooling and other services.
It's easy to see (especially now that we have our own comparable perspective) why people are up in arms and that politicians are being called to act....but you can't simply single out Mexicans or Hondurans or whatever and tell them to GTFO but leave illegals of other race be. Similar to how we couldn't decide to just deport all Nigerians for instance (I'm not singling anyone out here).

On your point about roads, it's one I've heard before. We've no doubt done very well on the back of the EEC/EC/EU (that said, it wasn't everyone's wish that we join eurpoe in the first place but that's neither here nor there) and now that their investment has borne fruit, it's payback time...but why should we ever have been expected to deal with the huge influx we ended up getting and more importantly what bunch of muppets left an open door policy with absolutely no checks and balances. Why did only ourselves, the Swedes an the Brits decide to carry the can?
We're currently a very enviable place to live, primarily because of all the infrastructure money that was pumped into the State by Europe and it's knock on effects. That infrastructure and some coy financial policies are the only real reasons the almighty dollar came here the way it did and pushed us to the boom levels.
As a result of all those factors, we were always going to be inundated....the failure to anticipate that and to police it is the crux of our problem...
But you can't put the sh*t back in the horse.

OPENROAD · 27-12-2007 9:05pm

HollyB wrote: »

If the US chooses to allow Irish illegals to stay, that's their choice.

It looks like that this is unlikely to happen, and rightly so, they should be sent home back to Ireland.

OPENROAD · 27-12-2007 9:07pm

Wertz wrote: »

The problem with the States (and it's a problem I had to contend and compete with when I was an illegal) is the large number of hispanic illegals (mainly but not exclusively Mexican) who flooded into the US through a somewhat porous land border, their use in the black economy (ironically by middle class people who would politically call for all illegals to be ejected) taking up of low skilled jobs, creating a burden on schooling and other services.
It's easy to see (especially now that we have our own comparable perspective) why people are up in arms and that politicians are being called to act....but you can't simply single out Mexicans or Hondurans or whatever and tell them to GTFO but leave illegals of other race be. Similar to how we couldn't decide to just deport all Nigerians for instance (I'm not singling anyone out here).

Exactly and we should not expect special treatment.

OPENROAD · 27-12-2007 9:11pm

Wertz wrote: »

On your point about roads, it's one I've heard before. We've no doubt done very well on the back of the EEC/EC/EU (that said, it wasn't everyone's wish that we join eurpoe in the first place but that's neither here nor there) and now that their investment has borne fruit, it's payback time..

But you have a situation where people are moaning that we now have to make a financial contribution rather than taking all the time.

Just to point out I am not advocating an open door policy.

Wertz · 27-12-2007 9:22pm

Yeah, somewhat laughable when you consider how well a lot of those self same people have probably done on the back of the boom.
But to be fair there are still parts of our native populace who the boom all but bypassed, mainly lower-working class or the underclass and in a lot of cases, it's those people that first feel the pinch from the current situation created by unchecked immigration, in terms of decreased jobs prospects (for those that bother to work), less likelihood of affording to own a home, increased pressure on finite resources; ie social housing, social welfare, public health system leading to higher means test levels to qualify for those resources.

stakey · 27-12-2007 9:29pm

Wertz wrote: »

Also to anyone harping on about the irony of us giving out about immigration; the major difference about when we all had to emigrate was that we went to work and to work only...most countries except the UK did not hand us social welfare/housing if things turned rough...you either worked, wenmt home or starved and went homeless. It's not the same as the cakewalk immigrants and asylum seekers face upon arrival to this island.

LMFAO!!! Typical Irish outlook of "Oh, we built the world and everyone screwed us over", seriously mate, get the head out. The Irish were treated with the same racism we lamp out on other ethnicities coming to Ireland today in the early days of the US, what did the Irish do there? They made there money through racketeering, murdering, robbery and other associated crimes. The Irish only got off the ground in the US nearly one hundred years after they started coming in there droves. Our activities in crime in the US lasts up to the present day. You can look at all the other places we went to as well and find the exact same thing. The Irish did what they could to make money and be accepted into the societies they came into, they certainly didn't arrive off the boats and started working!

So you can leave that idea at the door!

Wertz · 27-12-2007 9:58pm

Might sound like vicious backpeddling but I'm harking back to our bad old days circa 1950's-80's, ie, recent memory, with that comment rather than back to Ellis Island and famine ships. AFAIK no country had a social welfare system barring poorhouses back then.
Your point is a fair one and duly noted.
My point still stands for those willing to take me at my word...

SimpleSam06 · 27-12-2007 10:13pm

OPENROAD wrote: »

But you have a situation where people are moaning that we now have to make a financial contribution rather than taking all the time.

Wertz wrote: »

On your point about roads, it's one I've heard before. We've no doubt done very well on the back of the EEC/EC/EU (that said, it wasn't everyone's wish that we join eurpoe in the first place but that's neither here nor there) and now that their investment has borne fruit, it's payback time...

Where does this idea come from that we owe anyone anything? Ireland among other things gave up most of its fishing grounds when it joined the EC, not to mention the EU wanted a poster child. Once again, we don't owe economic migrants of any flavour any favours.

Wertz wrote: »

Similar to how we couldn't decide to just deport all Nigerians for instance (I'm not singling anyone out here).

Er, actually we could. It might not be very popular, but there is no doubt that sanction could be applied.

purple'n'gold · 27-12-2007 10:27pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wertz
Similar to how we couldn't decide to just deport all Nigerians for instance (I'm not singling anyone out here).
Er, actually we could. It might not be very popular, but there is no doubt that sanction could be applied.
It might not be very popular? With who? I can’t imagine mass demonstrations on the streets if we decided to deport all Nigerians. As a matter of fact I cant imagine any demonstrations at all.

Mr.Micro · 27-12-2007 10:32pm

I may be mistaken but perhaps people forget its the economic migrants who also have been keeping the economy going, they are not just here to take. It is a two way thing and without them there would be a massive labour and skill shortage. We still need their help and skills allied to our own home grown talent to keep our economy going and these migrants should have the same rights as us all under any EU law or directive.

HollyB · 27-12-2007 10:39pm

Wertz wrote: »

Similar to how we couldn't decide to just deport all Nigerians for instance (I'm not singling anyone out here).

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Er, actually we could. It might not be very popular, but there is no doubt that sanction could be applied.

What would the legalities on that one be? All EU citizens must be treated equally, but what about non-EU citizens? If the Stare was to deport all illegal Nigerians, wouldn't they be leaving themselves open to discrimination suits because other non-EU citizens were not being treated as unfavourably?

What about the opposite - could we, for example, declare an amnesty for all illegal immigrants from Country X but not extend the same amnesty to illegal immigrants from Country Y?

Wertz · 27-12-2007 10:40pm

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Where does this idea come from that we owe anyone anything? Ireland among other things gave up most of its fishing grounds when it joined the EC, not to mention the EU wanted a poster child. Once again, we don't owe economic migrants of any flavour any favours.

Perhaps a subconscious desire on our behalfs not to look as if we're all take and no give? Maybe to make it look as if we're suddenly a mature and well off economy willing to "pay it forward"? I'm not sure. It certainly comes from a political and business level more than an individual citizen level.
We don't "owe" in the sense of any contract or loan agreements signed AFAIK...I think it's more a sense of honour.
Your comment on the fishing is a good one....often heard the bitterness of my uncles (ex-trawlermen) talking about that; our national waters divvied up and given to those dirty Iberians*....doesn't matter now, since there's no bloody fish left.

*Their insinuation, not mine.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Er, actually we could. It might not be very popular, but there is no doubt that sanction could be applied.

So why Nigerians and not all non-EU nationals (barring genuine asylum seekers, if any actually exist here), since by rights none of them are entitled to live or work here unless they're naturalised citizens or here on valid work permits...?
My point in saying that was just to reiterate the problem faced by the US WRT illegal Irish and double standards...it was semi-off the cuff remark.

SimpleSam06 · 27-12-2007 10:58pm

purplengold wrote: »

It might not be very popular? With who? I can’t imagine mass demonstrations on the streets if we decided to deport all Nigerians. As a matter of fact I cant imagine any demonstrations at all.

In Australia a year or two ago, there were what were described as "race riots", complete with lurid images of red faced Aussies wielding beer bottles. The international press had a field day.

What actually happened was groups of Muslim youths of middle eastern extraction had been hassling bikini-clad young women on the beach, cursing at them and occasionally attacking them physically. In this particular situation the rest of the people on the beach got fed up with them, and dealt with them appropriately.

You could expect a similar but much more severe backlash from the international community at any attempt to deport Nigerians en masse. These aren't drunken troublemakers, they are families with children (indeed it was by using these children that the majority of them got in). However good the reasons for doing it, it would go down in Irish history as a day of infamy, a permanent black mark on the country.

Whether or not the majority of Irish people care about that is a different story.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I may be mistaken but perhaps people forget its the economic migrants who also have been keeping the economy going,

You are mistaken. The economic boom came about because of historically low international interest rates, flooding the country with "free" cash and easy credit. Then came the economic migrants.

HollyB wrote:

What would the legalities on that one be? All EU citizens must be treated equally, but what about non-EU citizens? If the Stare was to deport all illegal Nigerians, wouldn't they be leaving themselves open to discrimination suits because other non-EU citizens were not being treated as unfavourably?

What about the opposite - could we, for example, declare an amnesty for all illegal immigrants from Country X but not extend the same amnesty to illegal immigrants from Country Y?

Lets be absoloutely clear on this - in our own country, we make the laws, regardless of membership in the EU or any other groups. The legalities are exactly what we make them. The international backlash would doubtless be severe, however.

Wertz wrote:

So why Nigerians and not all non-EU nationals (barring genuine asylum seekers, if any actually exist here), since by rights none of them are entitled to live or work here unless they're naturalised citizens or here on valid work permits...?

Eh you were saying that we couldn't; I was simply making the point that we could, very easily. This isn't the US, we don't have a large porous land border with any third world nations.

HollyB · 27-12-2007 11:07pm

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Lets be absoloutely clear on this - in our own country, we make the laws, regardless of membership in the EU or any other groups. The legalities are exactly what we make them. The international backlash would doubtless be severe, however.

Doesn't a decision in the EU courts trump one in our own courts? If the State decided that they were going to have a crackdown on all illegal Nigerian immigrants and deport them from the country ASAP, but the European courts declared that it was illegal for Nigerians to be singled out, would we still be able to do it?

Wertz · 27-12-2007 11:07pm

Like I said it was a semi- off the cuff remark...
By "couldn't" I meant more on a moral basis than on a legal one and as you alluded to yourself, we can't, in reality...at least not with the world looking on.
Land of a 1,000 welcomes and all that...wouldn't look good for Bórd Failte really, would it...

Mr.Micro · 27-12-2007 11:28pm

SimpleSam06 how do you think a booming economy can boom with labour and skill shortages? The Government sent delegations of civil servants abroad to encourage people to come to Ireland to fill the vacancies. Many took up this offer. So without these migrants and our small population we would have not had our boom for so long. We cannot just kick them out now.

HollyB · 27-12-2007 11:35pm

Wertz wrote: »

So why Nigerians and not all non-EU nationals (barring genuine asylum seekers, if any actually exist here), since by rights none of them are entitled to live or work here unless they're naturalised citizens or here on valid work permits...?

Probably because Ireland isn't doing too well on actually carrying out deportations of illegal immigrants.

Look at the situation with a deportation scheduled this month. 348 people were due to be deported to Nigeria. Nine people were actually deported.

http://www.tribune.ie/article.tvt?_scope=TribuneFTF&id=108221&SUBCAT=&SUBCATNAME=&DT=09/12/2007%2000%3A00%3A00&keywords=asylum&FC

A good start would be to actually deport those who are scheduled for deportation.

HollyB · 27-12-2007 11:37pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

SimpleSam06 how do you think a booming economy can boom with labour and skill shortages? The Government sent delegations of civil servants abroad to encourage people to come to Ireland to fill the vacancies. Many took up this offer. So without these migrants and our small population we would have not had our boom for so long. We cannot just kick them out now.

If they have valid work permits, or have been granted citizenship, of course not.

Instead of targeting those who are legitimately here, the State should begin by deporting those who are illegally here and by minimizing the numbers of new arrivals.

Mr.Micro · 27-12-2007 11:44pm

HollyB wrote: »

If they have valid work permits, or have been granted citizenship, of course not.

Instead of targeting those who are legitimately here, the State should begin by deporting those who are illegally here and by minimizing the numbers of new arrivals.

If the migrant workers are from EU countries then I cannot see what the Government could do? Other countries outside the EU permits can be limited or refused. As long as Ireland is seen as prosperous then we will be a magnet. If the current sales madness is anything to go by then we are still in the money.

Wertz · 27-12-2007 11:48pm

HollyB wrote: »

Probably because Ireland isn't doing too well on actually carrying out deportations of illegal immigrants.

Look at the situation with a deportation scheduled this month. 348 people were due to be deported to Nigeria. Nine people were actually deported.

http://www.tribune.ie/article.tvt?_scope=TribuneFTF&id=108221&SUBCAT=&SUBCATNAME=&DT=09/12/2007%2000%3A00%3A00&keywords=asylum&FC

A good start would be to actually deport those who are scheduled for deportation.

Yet more evidence that we simply can't cope and haven't got the infrastructure, staff or policies in place to deal with things as they stand. It's only going to get worse, like I said way back up the thread. Hell we can't lock up half our own criminals, let alone get around to finding out where undocumented illegal asylum seekers have moved to within the country (maybe we could ring them on their mobiles :rolleyes: ), and getting them on a plane....then you throw the likes of RAR into the mix, add a little media frenzy and we're back to square one....

HollyB · 27-12-2007 11:51pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

If the migrant workers are from EU countries then I cannot see what the Government could do? Other countries outside the EU permits can be limited or refused. As long as Ireland is seen as prosperous then we will be a magnet. If the current sales madness is anything to go by then we are still in the money.

We can't stop EU citizens coming and going as they please, but the numbers of non-EU citizens allowed entry should be controlled.

HollyB · 27-12-2007 11:54pm

Wertz wrote: »

Yet more evidence that we simply can't cope and haven't got the infrastructure, staff or policies in place to deal with things as they stand. It's only going to get worse, like I said way back up the thread. Hell we can't lock up half our own criminals, let alone get around to finding out where undocumented illegal asylum seekers have moved to within the country (maybe we could ring them on their mobiles :rolleyes: ), and getting them on a plane....then you throw the likes of RAR into the mix, add a little media frenzy and we're back to square one....

The appeals process is another one; cases that would have been over and done with quickly can be dragged through the courts for years, with the inevitable result that once the appeals are exhausted, the illegal immigrant will claim that they have put down roots in the country and should be allowed to stay.

Don't provide legal aid for appeals, and don't count any time spent in the application or appeals process towards length of residence.

Mr.Micro · 27-12-2007 11:59pm

HollyB wrote: »

We can't stop EU citizens coming and going as they please, but the numbers of non-EU citizens allowed entry should be controlled.

Yes I agree such a move would be prudent in an economic downturn and an inadequate state infrastructure. How many of the non EU migrants are seeking asylum though? Care has to be taken there to be sure that these people are not deported back to torture or death. It is a difficult situation and most other European countries are having similar problems. It is all new to us.

Wertz · 28-12-2007 12:00am

HollyB wrote: »

Don't provide legal aid for appeals...

Solicitors and barristers the land over would have that appealed quicker than you can say "Pension Plan" citing discrimination and such.
A mini industry springs up around so much of legal stuff....just look at the tribunals...

OPENROAD · 28-12-2007 12:16am

[QUOTE=SimpleSam06;54736854

Lets be absoloutely clear on this - in our own country, we make the laws, regardless of membership in the EU or any other groups. The legalities are exactly what we make them. The international backlash would doubtless be severe, however.

Do we really? The EU has no influence with regards our laws, so we are not bound by EU Law, really?

think you might be wrong, how did you come to that conclusion.

HollyB · 28-12-2007 12:20am

Wertz wrote: »

Solicitors and barristers the land over would have that appealed quicker than you can say "Pension Plan" citing discrimination and such.
A mini industry springs up around so much of legal stuff....just look at the tribunals...

Precisely. Solicitors take these cases and drag them through the courts for years. If they lose, they keep trying and it costs the State - and the tax payer - a fortune.

If you had a situation where someone appealing had to pay their own legal costs or find a solicitor who would work pro-bono, solicitors would be far more selective about the cases they took because if they lost, they could wind up liable for paying the State's defence costs themselves.

Either refuse all legal aid for appeals against immigration issues, or make it a strictly once-off thing. If you lose your first appeal, you pay for your second and subsequent appeals yourself.

OPENROAD · 28-12-2007 12:23am

Mr.Micro wrote: »

If the current sales madness is anything to go by then we are still in the money.

I wonder how much is down to credit cards that people won't be able to pay.

SubjectSean · 28-12-2007 12:26am

Really I think anybody posting on this topic should actually go and live in the dirt and disease of the 3rd world for a while and try hard to remember that all men are brothers.

HollyB · 28-12-2007 12:28am

OPENROAD wrote: »

I wonder how much is down to credit cards that people won't be able to pay.

Too much. I make a point of not having a credit card.

thefinalstage · 28-12-2007 12:42am

SubjectSean wrote: »

Really I think anybody posting on this topic should actually go and live in the dirt and disease of the 3rd world for a while and try hard to remember that all men are brothers.

Have you lived there? Tell us of your experience.

HollyB wrote: »

Too much. I make a point of not having a credit card.

Just stirring the ****....

purple'n'gold · 28-12-2007 2:21am

We don’t want to stop EU citizens coming and going as they please, that is their right, and we are delighted to have them. But we do want and need to stop non EU citizens coming here unless they have valid travel documents. If non EU citizens arrive here without valid travel documents they should be held at the point of arrival and deported to where they have just come from ASAP. The United Kingdom has incoming direct flights from every part of the world, (unlike ROI). All it takes is for an illegal immigrant (from god knows where) to travel over the border from Northern Ireland and Hey! It’s our problem. We need to get a serious dose of cop on and secure our border, and examine the documents of every arrival in our country and detain anyone not in compliance.

HollyB · 28-12-2007 2:36am

purplengold wrote: »

If non EU citizens arrive here without valid travel documents they should be held at the point of arrival and deported to where they have just come from ASAP.

Don't let them leave the airport. If they're claiming asylum, they should have to produce their travel documents, including flight ticket stub. If they're coming through an EU country, they're not eligible to claim asylum here and should be sent back to the other EU country.

purplengold wrote: »

All it takes is for an illegal immigrant (from god knows where) to travel over the border from Northern Ireland and Hey! It’s our problem. We need to get a serious dose of cop on and secure our border, and examine the documents of every arrival in our country and detain anyone not in compliance.

Agreed. More vigilance is needed.

johnathan woss · 28-12-2007 4:04am

johnathan woss wrote: »

To those talking about irony, etc etc

The Irish that emigrated went mostly to either
a) large, relatively young countries that were largely composed of immigrants, and that had large amounts of untapped land and resources and a need for labour (think the US, Canada, Australia)

b) Britain, which for most of the period was the same country anyway, which has an unique historical link with Ireland, which has always required Irish labour and birth rates, which was crying out for Irish soldiers(at times the British army has been 50% Irish), which was crying out for Irish labour to help rebuild cities after WW2, etc etc etc

Ireland is a small country that by the most extremely conservative estimates has taken in over 10% of it's population in immigrants in a very short period of time.
Most of these immigrants are from countries with no historical or cultural link to Ireland whatsoever.

If you can show how the two situations are similar, and hence show how Irish people worrying about the current immigration is "ironic" or "hypocritical" or whatever, I am all ears.....

.

justcallmetex · 28-12-2007 10:40am

SubjectSean wrote: »

Really I think anybody posting on this topic should actually go and live in the dirt and disease of the 3rd world for a while and try hard to remember that all men are brothers.

Thats what I'm talkin about!!!!!

I can't believe that there is one single person here with a family who wouldn't emigrate to another country if they could have even the slightest possibility of giving your children a better life.

goldenbrown · 28-12-2007 11:07am

and face down the screaming 'right on' resistance to this policy...

SimpleSam06 · 28-12-2007 11:11am

SubjectSean wrote: »

Really I think anybody posting on this topic should actually go and live in the dirt and disease of the 3rd world for a while and try hard to remember that all men are brothers.

I have lived in third world countries, for several years, and not as part of a mission, charity work or any other organisation either. Not too many people I met would have regarded me as their brother.

Once again, we don't owe (and can't afford to owe) any favours to anyone, especially not individuals who view Ireland as a "soft touch", something that was quite the talk of the town in some parts of the globe.

justcallmetex wrote: »

Thats what I'm talkin about!!!!!

I can't believe that there is one single person here with a family who wouldn't emigrate to another country if they could have even the slightest possibility of giving your children a better life.

Most of the ones we are talking about here used their children (or more to the point put their heavily pregnant wife on an international flight) in order to abuse a system put there in the spirit of goodwill and friendship, something that risked both the life of the child and the life of the woman. Do you really want these people as your neighbours?

The_Conductor · 28-12-2007 11:39am

SubjectSean wrote:

Really I think anybody posting on this topic should actually go and live in the dirt and disease of the 3rd world for a while and try hard to remember that all men are brothers.

Been there, done that. Thats what I meant when I referred to APSO......

SimpleSam06 · 28-12-2007 11:43am

HollyB wrote: »

Doesn't a decision in the EU courts trump one in our own courts?

OPENROAD wrote: »

Do we really? The EU has no influence with regards our laws, so we are not bound by EU Law, really? think you might be wrong, how did you come to that conclusion.

Unless they physically invade us, we most certainly can make and enforce our own laws. I'm not saying there wouldn't be other consequences, but we could do it. I wonder, would that mean we get our fishing grounds back?

Mr.Micro wrote: »

SimpleSam06 how do you think a booming economy can boom with labour and skill shortages? The Government sent delegations of civil servants abroad to encourage people to come to Ireland to fill the vacancies.

The economy isn't booming now, and when it was booming it was due to the reasons I mentioned, which lead directly to pay rises, which gave everyone this "land of opportunity" idea.

Now we're into inflation racing ahead of already uncompetitive pay, international interest rates climbing and crippling the free money pyramid schemes built earlier (including the property market), the tax takes from the boom period squandered on enlarging the public sector which still needs to be paid for (complete with non contributory pensions), and a glorious leader who gave himself a thirty eight grand pay rise this year, and tried to cover it up with a baldly transparent diversion, knocking half the drivers off the road. Why people aren't calling for his head by now is anyones guess. If every migrant worker upped stakes and hit the road tomorrow (with the exception of the health sevices I guess), we'd tick over just fine.

As for the government sending delegations abroad, I think you are underestimating the level of muppetry we are talking about here. You have a bunch of mé féiners with a chance to go abroad on a public-money junket. What does the reason matter?

The_Conductor · 28-12-2007 11:52am

SimpleSam06 wrote:

the tax takes from the boom period squandered on enlarging the public sector which still needs to be paid for (complete with non contributory pensions)

Public sector employees since 1995 are compulsarily required to contribute to their pensions- when you factor in the different schemes that contributions are made to- it comes to about 9% of gross income. Those prior to 1995, do not make PRSI contibutions, and had the option of opting out of some of the contibutory schemes, but still had to pay towards their superannuation entitlements. Its a common misconception perpetuated by the media that they're all getting a free ride- its not actually the case though. Its such massive news these days because the government are required to make actuarial declarations (known as FRS17 declarations) detailing the costs of pension rights and entitlements. In some semi-state bodies with fewer than 2,000 employees- this can be a deficit valued at up to a billion Euro (as per annual published accounts).

justcallmetex · 28-12-2007 12:05pm

Most of the ones we are talking about here used their children (or more to the point put their heavily pregnant wife on an international flight) in order to abuse a system put there in the spirit of goodwill and friendship, something that risked both the life of the child and the life of the woman. Do you really want these people as your neighbours?[/quote]

The fact a man would be desperate enough to take a chance like the one you described only highlights the point I'm makin. Thanks. Makes no difference to me who my neighbor is, don't like the one's I got anyway drinkin and fighting 24 7 would rather have a people next door who care about their family.

johnathan woss · 28-12-2007 12:10pm

justcallmetex wrote: »

The fact a man would be desperate enough to take a chance like the one you described only highlights the point I'm makin. Thanks. Makes no difference to me who my neighbor is, don't like the one's I got anyway drinkin and fighting 24 7 would rather have a people next door who care about their family.

I cannot believe what I'm reading.
The fact that a man risks his pregnant wife's life in order to send her halfway across the world in search of better economic opportunities backs up your point of view ?

SimpleSam06 · 28-12-2007 12:12pm

justcallmetex wrote: »

The fact a man would be desperate enough to take a chance like the one you described only highlights the point I'm makin. Thanks. Makes no difference to me who my neighbor is, don't like the one's I got anyway drinkin and fighting 24 7 would rather have a people next door who care about their family.

The man isn't taking a chance. Hes getting the women and unborn babies to take a chance.

justcallmetex · 28-12-2007 12:20pm

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The man isn't taking a chance. Hes getting the women and unborn babies to take a chance.

you dont have children do u?

SimpleSam06 · 28-12-2007 12:30pm

justcallmetex wrote: »

you dont have children do u?

Oh, won't somebody think of the children! :rolleyes: I'm not sure how you can cry that on one hand and on the other hand defend those who would risk the lives of women and children for their own financial betterment.

justcallmetex · 28-12-2007 12:41pm

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Oh, won't somebody think of the children! :rolleyes: I'm not sure how you can cry that on one hand and on the other hand defend those who would risk the lives of women and children for their own financial betterment.

you don't get it your name suits u

SubjectSean · 28-12-2007 2:37pm

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I have lived in third world countries, for several years, and not as part of a mission, charity work or any other organisation either. Not too many people I met would have regarded me as their brother.

I don't know why that might be, that certainly isn't my experience and I was there on my own also. Eitherway, all men are brothers whether they recognise the fact or not.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Once again, we don't owe (and can't afford to owe) any favours to anyone, especially not individuals who view Ireland as a "soft touch", something that was quite the talk of the town in some parts of the globe.

Frankly this is nonsense. The economic system that underpins your well being, and that of your family, is entirely dependant on people in the 3rd world having to suffer. On behalf of us our Government here and in Europe, conspires with the other developed countries to keep the status quo. What this boils down to is more dead babies in Africa and elsewhere. You can wash your hands all you like but the grieving mothers know of your guilt.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Most of the ones we are talking about here used their children (or more to the point put their heavily pregnant wife on an international flight) in order to abuse a system put there in the spirit of goodwill and friendship, something that risked both the life of the child and the life of the woman. Do you really want these people as your neighbours?

So you think flying in luxury on a plane is more risky than trying to scratch a living in sub-saharan Africa for instance? Get real and have a heart.

SubjectSean · 28-12-2007 2:47pm

johnathan woss wrote: »

I cannot believe what I'm reading.
The fact that a man risks his pregnant wife's life in order to send her halfway across the world in search of better economic opportunities backs up your point of view ?

Even if this is a risk it pales to insignificance when seen beside the risks of remaining. Oh we who are spoiled rotten, without any conception of how hard life can be. Every day people die trying to get into our fortress where all the wealth in the world is.

HollyB · 28-12-2007 2:55pm

johnathan woss wrote: »

I cannot believe what I'm reading.
The fact that a man risks his pregnant wife's life in order to send her halfway across the world in search of better economic opportunities backs up your point of view ?

After the Citizenship Referendum, there is hopefully far less incentive for people to do this. The child won't be an Irish citizen. They'll be a <Whatever country/countries their parents are from> citizen who happened to be born in Ireland.

purple'n'gold · 28-12-2007 3:01pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

Even if this is a risk it pales to insignificance when seen beside the risks of remaining. Oh we who are spoiled rotten, without any conception of how hard life can be. Every day people die trying to get into our fortress where all the wealth in the world is.

If, as you say people die every day trying to get into our fortress, that’s their decision. We didn’t ask them to risk their lives.

BBC on mass immigration to Ireland - we have messed it up basically

Comments