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
13567…26

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    fianna saor
    Registered Users Posts: 166 ✭✭fianna saor


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

    In summary, the first country of entry is not the first country of transit. If you go via Heathrow to another country, but do not exit the international area at Heathrow by passing Customs & Immigration, you have not entered the UK. The same rule applies in all airports:



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

    moderately,
    Scofflaw

    so, in your opinion why is ireland chosen as their destination as opposed to england or france?


  • Options
    #63
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    fianna saor wrote: »
    so, in your opinion why is ireland chosen as their destination as opposed to england or france?



    ....why do you think it is?


  • Options
    #64
    Leftist
    Registered Users Posts: 2,230 ✭✭✭Leftist


    as opposed to england or france :D

    jesus christ.


  • Options
    #65
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    fianna saor wrote: »
    so, in your opinion why is ireland chosen as their destination as opposed to england or france?

    I'm not offering an opinion on the subject - my note points out a relevant fact regarding the Dublin Convention, and should not be taken as part of the discussion.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #66
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


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

    Ah, the 'Irish Patriot Movement', the group that amalgamated the same figures and platform as the aforementioned 'Irish National Party'. It's no mystery to any casual observer that the racist right-wing scene in Ireland is both tiny and incestious. Yeah - a completely different platform at play there. :rolleyes:

    Any chance you're going to actually spit out the specifics of your claimed 'ridiculous arguments'? Dissembling by making false claims of 'invasions' and 'illegal' asylum claims doesn't really substitute.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


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

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

    Honest debate with racist groups? You don't debate these people, giving them air-time. You dismantle them, or try to educate their ignorant followers.

    Honest debate, lol.


  • Options
    #68
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Honest debate with racist groups? You don't debate these people, giving them air-time. You dismantle them, or try to educate their ignorant followers.

    Honest debate, lol.

    Its not good enough to just label any group that has problems with immigration racist. Its becoming such an overused and abused word. The word racist will lose its potency in discussions like these soon enough i think. Its thrown about like snuff at a wake.


  • Options
    #69
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    woodoo wrote: »
    Its not good enough to just label any group that has problems with immigration racist. Its becoming such an overused and abused word. The word racist will lose its potency in discussions like these soon enough i think. Its thrown about like snuff at a wake.

    The policies of these groups all end up in the same place - demonising anyone who doesn't belong inside the white, European camp. Unless you're Jewish of course - look at the particular bile they have for Alan Shatter. Show me an anti-immigration platform that isn't riddled with racists, and we'll have a one pony show.


  • Options
    #70
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    woodoo wrote: »
    Its not good enough to just label any group that has problems with immigration racist. Its becoming such an overused and abused word. The word racist will lose its potency in discussions like these soon enough i think. Its thrown about like snuff at a wake.

    The problem is that a generally anti-immigration stance requires at base making a distinction between "them" and "us", and making that distinction on the basis of factors that the individual has no control over - and such a distinction is of exactly the same form as the distinction involved in racism. So however you argue an anti-immigration position, it requires you a priori to make a distinction which is exactly the same in form as racism.

    At best, that distinction is between those born here and those not born here, but even that distinction follows the same form as racism, since individuals have no control over where they're born. Even that is a distinction which says the accident of being born in Ireland entitles one to be treated differently from someone to whom that accident did not happen, despite the lack of control either person had over it. There really isn't any argument against immigration that doesn't require the exact same kind of distinction made by racists - that is, distinguishing "them" and "us" by virtue of an accident over which neither group has any control. As such, any anti-immigration stance necessarily exists on a gradient which includes racism - it's merely a matter of degree, there's no fundamental difference.

    Anti-immigration arguments that appear not to involve such distinctions invariably do. For example:
    • If you argue that it's necessary to restrict immigration to prevent the destruction of a uniquely Irish culture, you find yourself quickly face to face with the fact that nobody makes adherence to any such culture a requirement for those born here - so why should adherence to it be required of those not born here? The argument relies on the distinction it's trying to avoid.
    • If you argue that immigration lowers the wages of labour and thus the standard of living of workers, you come face to face with the problem that for the immigrants, that's not true, quite the opposite, so you have to resort to dismissing their gains as something that cannot be balanced against the losses of the native-born - and the argument again relies on the distinction it's trying to avoid.

    To put it in a nutshell, there are two positions - that all people are equal, or that all people are not equal. The former position does not allow for an anti-immigration stance in principle (although pragmatic limits based on 'carrying capacity' are possible), while the latter position is fundamentally indistinguishable from racism.

    The obvious way out of this conundrum for the anti-immigrant who doesn't wish to be labelled racist, and the one regularly used, is to argue that "racism" applies only to distinctions made on skin colour, and that someone who is opposed to immigration but who doesn't mind what colour either immigrants or natives are is not racist, and therefore should be able to confidently reject the 'racist' epithet. Which sounds like a good argument until you realise that the problem with racism by skin colour isn't skin colour.

    That is, the objection to the racist distinguishing against dark skinned people is not that the people he distinguishes against have dark skins, but that he is separating an 'out' group of people on the basis of an accident of birth and viewing them as having less rights than the 'in' group are entitled to.

    And all anti-immigration arguments require exactly that distinction, which is the objectionable part of racism. That's why they get labelled as 'racist' by people who hold all people equal, and the label is justified even if the anti-immigrants aren't distinguishing on the basis of skin colour but some other basis like birth, because the principle behind it is the same objectionable decision that some people are better than others by accident of birth.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #71
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Excellent post Scofflow, I agree with every word of it.

    I struggle to grasp how some genuinely nice people can simultaneously hold anti-immigration views that are making life difficult for fellow human beings. Fellow human beings whose only fault was being born in a less developed country than their own.

    I really hate the "looking after our own" argument, it implies that I'm in some way part of a collective "our own" with the racists. I've far more in common with a tolerant Nigerian than I do with an Irish racist.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    PaddyORuadhan
    Registered Users Posts: 563 ✭✭✭PaddyORuadhan


    Perhaps we should follow Britain's lead where 'patriots' stand up to people who don't 'belong' and who have no 'loyalty' to the country. Look at this group of British patriots that are willing to stand up and advocate kicking out immigrants that don't fit their values.

    brian5.jpg


  • Options
    #73
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    I don't think all reservations about immigration are racist. It also has to do with what your country can sustain.

    More immigrants means also means more kids in classrooms, which may burst whatever union agreements have been made about student teacher ratios., more hospitals, more everything, and unless you have an economy which is hiring, more immigration also means more unemployment and less tax revenue to fund the increases necessary in local infrastructures.

    There are practical things to consider which have nothing to do with race.


  • Options
    #74
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    PaddyORuadhan wrote: »
    Perhaps we should follow Britain's lead where 'patriots' stand up to people who don't 'belong' and who have no 'loyalty' to the country. Look at this group of British patriots that are willing to stand up and advocate kicking out immigrants that don't fit their values.

    brian5.jpg

    Considering the history of the IRA, the Irish are very lucky that there is so much free travel to and from Britain.


  • Options
    #75
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Honest debate with racist groups? You don't debate these people, giving them air-time. You dismantle them, or try to educate their ignorant followers.

    Honest debate, lol.

    Thank you for proving my point.

    Debate about Immigration... RACIST!!


  • Options
    #76
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    I don't think all reservations about immigration are racist. It also has to do with what your country can sustain.

    More immigrants means also means more kids in classrooms, which may burst whatever union agreements have been made about student teacher ratios., more hospitals, more everything, and unless you have an economy which is hiring, more immigration also means more unemployment and less tax revenue to fund the increases necessary in local infrastructures.

    There are practical things to consider which have nothing to do with race.

    Agreed, it pretty much comes down to economics, human self interest and sustainable growth. To see the other side of the coin should we open our borders and give everyone in the world a visa to stay here indefinately AND claim the same benefits, access to education, healthcare etc..that current residents have... yes/no....?
    Well if you say no then you are obviously a racist.:rolleyes: but I cant imagine anyone saying yes to the above.

    Immigration is great for a country and can be immensely positive once its sustainable, controlled and any rorting of the system is diminished.


  • Options
    #77
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    jank wrote: »
    Agreed, it pretty much comes down to economics, human self interest and sustainable growth. To see the other side of the coin should we open our borders and give everyone in the world a visa to stay here indefinately AND claim the same benefits, access to education, heakthcare etc..that current residents have... yes/no....?
    Well if you say no then you are obviously a racist.:rolleyes: but I cant imagine anyone saying yes to the above.

    Immigration is great for a country and cab be immensely positive once its sustainable, controlled and any rorting of the system is diminished.

    This is an example of the kind of common argument I covered that tries to avoid the appearance of discrimination by talking about 'pragmatic constraints', but is actually based on assigning reduced rights to an 'out' group in the usual way:
    If you argue that immigration lowers the wages of labour and thus the standard of living of workers, you come face to face with the problem that for the immigrants, that's not true, quite the opposite, so you have to resort to dismissing their gains as something that cannot be balanced against the losses of the native-born - and the argument again relies on the distinction it's trying to avoid.

    In this case the 'out' group are distinguished by the accident of not having been born here. This is a position fundamentally indistinguishable from racism, although notionally at the top of the gradient.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #78
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    I don't think all reservations about immigration are racist. It also has to do with what your country can sustain.

    More immigrants means also means more kids in classrooms, which may burst whatever union agreements have been made about student teacher ratios., more hospitals, more everything, and unless you have an economy which is hiring, more immigration also means more unemployment and less tax revenue to fund the increases necessary in local infrastructures.

    There are practical things to consider which have nothing to do with race.

    The problem is that this supposes some pretty strange things:

    1. That immigration doesn't boost economic activity. This would run counter to most studies internationally, and to the clear evidence of immigrant/new-Irish entrepreneurial activity in the Irish context.

    2. That the education system in this country can't cope with a level of new school-age kids around half of what it was through the 70's and 80's.

    3. That economic migration for Irish benefits (rather than employment) would operate at anywhere the same degree that economic migration to celtic tiger Ireland would. Those Irish emigration figures of the past five years include many immigrants getting out of Dodge because they don't want anything to do with life on benefit in Ireland.


  • Options
    #79
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    This is an example of the kind of common argument I covered that tries to avoid the appearance of discrimination by talking about 'pragmatic constraints', but is actually based on assigning reduced rights to an 'out' group in the usual way:



    In this case the 'out' group are distinguished by the accident of not having been born here. This is a position fundamentally indistinguishable from racism, although notionally at the top of the gradient.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    We live everyday with pragmatic constraints in the real world. Why does one get the Pension at 65 (or is it 67 today, can't remember), why are we allowed to vote and drink at 18, why cant we have sex with children, why are there borders in the first place?

    Do you think that a immigrant who arrives today should be able to claim job seekers benefit from that moment. I know that is not the case as one has to be living here for a number of years, two I think but that is an example of the state putting in a 'pragmatic constraint' on welfare 'cheating'. You don't agree with this I presume?

    If we didn't have pragmatic constraints than the above example would be a reality. The word 'racist' is banded about so much it loses all meaning. Are all countries inherently racist as they have national borders?

    I myself am in the position of not being able to claim any welfare benefits due to only becoming an Australian permanent resident only 18 months ago. One has to wait two years as a PR before they can claim. Now I am in a job, working full time but if I lose that job and I cant get another one then I wont be able to claim a dime, even though I have paid the same tax as everyone else, in fact more tax as I earn more on average. I am coming up to 4 years living and working here. I don't personally feel aggrieved by this, I don't feel that this is racism as you may put it and neither would the majority of migrants. I do the time for a number of years and will get the reward later on. It is the way it should be for everyone no matter who you are or what you are or where you come from. The rules are there in black and white and in the big picture I am better off as Australia is a wealthy western democratic country that lets me do what I want once I stay within the laws. That is the trade off. There are people literally dying to get here and I for one feel lucky to be where I am as I gather most of the immigrants to western nations including Ireland.

    As I said immigration can be hugely beneficial to a country but one can't have a carte blanche unless we demolish the welfare state. The only reason immigration has tightened up in the west is because of the ever expanded welare state that western citizens continue to enjoy (whatever about sustainability). The US had no welfare per say 100 years ago yet anyone could get on a boat and move there, very little questions asked. You have me wrong, I am very Pro-immigration as I am one myself but a country still has the right to write its own rules.

    Note: Many laws restricting immigration were actually conned up by the left to protect Unions and their members. Corporations and business (the right) have a vested interest for immigration as it increases the labour supply and drives down wages.

    Finally I think you are making up your own definition of racism to curry favour and make your point.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/racism

    noun
    [mass noun]
    the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:
    theories of racism
    prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:
    a programme to combat racism

    Australia's white only policy was racist, its current immigration policy is not as it will not discriminate based on race or sex or religion. If you have the skills, education, medically OK, no criminal record much to speak off then there is no problem if you are from the UK or Uganda.


  • Options
    #80
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    It is the political agenda of the left wing contingent and political parties in the UK and the Irish Republic to use immigration for political reasons. The hope of building a vote base on it.

    It's why Labour opened the doors to try and keep the Conservatives out. Too many of the UK parties are scared to debate the issue.
    Eh, there’s an immigration bill being debated in the Commons this week?


  • Options
    #81
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Geuze wrote: »
    Now, non-EU workers should be severely restricted...
    They already are – do you have any idea how difficult it is to get a work permit in Ireland?
    Geuze wrote: »
    I can't understand how lots of shops in Dublin seem to employ Asians/Arabs. This should be explained.
    Really? You think everyone working in a shop who looks Asian/Arab needs to explain themselves to you?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    jank wrote: »
    My appolgies to the Romanians in the house.
    Roma ≠ Romanian.
    jank wrote: »
    To see the other side of the coin should we open our borders and give everyone in the world a visa to stay here indefinately AND claim the same benefits, access to education, healthcare etc..that current residents have... yes/no....?
    Well if you say no then you are obviously a racist.:rolleyes: but I cant imagine anyone saying yes to the above.
    Why just the one border? Why not get rid of all of them? Most of them are completely arbitrary anyway.


  • Options
    #83
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    I don't think all reservations about immigration are racist. It also has to do with what your country can sustain.
    If something is inherently unsustainable, then, by definition, it will not sustain itself. Case in point: Ireland’s property bubble.
    clairefontaine wrote: »
    More immigrants means also means more kids in classrooms, which may burst whatever union agreements have been made about student teacher ratios., more hospitals, more everything, and unless you have an economy which is hiring, more immigration also means more unemployment and less tax revenue to fund the increases necessary in local infrastructures.
    Only if you assume that there’s a fixed number of a jobs in an economy and more immigrants means more competition for those jobs.


  • Options
    #84
    fianna saor
    Registered Users Posts: 166 ✭✭fianna saor


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....why do you think it is?

    social welfare rates!


  • Options
    #85
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Considering the history of the IRA, the Irish are very lucky that there is so much free travel to and from Britain.

    Some would say it was because of the history of the IRA that free passage was given to Britain in order to defuse any real threat of rebellion in Ireland- particularly a rebellion that would strike at property relations and not just colonialism.


  • Options
    #86
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    fianna saor wrote: »
    social welfare rates!

    Asylum seekers here are entitled to €19.10 per week and €9.60 for each child. The entitlement for asylum seekers in France is € 10.67 per day, or € 320.10 for 30 days. Which kind of undermines that argument - as do the applicant numbers - 2011: Ireland - 1,290, France - 57,335.


  • Options
    #87
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Maybe it has been said already, but it's a bit rich, for an Irish person in particular, to be so vocal against immigration. For obvious reasons.

    Put simply. A group of Irish people broke our economy, the public sector workers were pitted against the private sector. Then attention turned to immigrants. It's small-minded and pathetic really.

    There was no problem with immigration during our boom years, we couldn't get enough immigrants to fill vacancies. I'm sure we all remember hearing Irish people say things like; "McDonalds?!". "Yeah right, I wouldn't be caught dead working there". Few years later the queue for applicants to fast food restuarants and cinemas are down the road and around the corner.

    There was a report earlier this year I think, on RTE news, documenting the struggle facing the Irish in Australia, who claimed they were treated like second class citizens. The Aussies preferred to hire 'their own' first. This must be happening to English immigrants there too, so it would be an interesting question to put to the likes of Nick Griffin or Nigel Farage.


  • Options
    #88
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    joseph brand wrote: »

    There was a report earlier this year I think, on RTE news, documenting the struggle facing the Irish in Australia, who claimed they were treated like second class citizens. The Aussies preferred to hire 'their own' first. This must be happening to English immigrants there too, so it would be an interesting question to put to the likes of Nick Griffin or Nigel Farage.

    More likely these Irish people *cough* tiger cubs,*cough* are waking up to the reality that mammy and daddy are not there anymore to cook your dinner and clean your clothes for ya. Obviously it must be someone else fault and not their own they can't land a job. Anyone who comes to Australia should be able to get some work. All it takes is a positive attitude, sell yourself and lose the sense of entitlement. Nobody in Australia or Canada or where ever owes you a living and the state certainly does not.

    There has been lots of reports of young Irish people, in Perth especially, who go there and behave disgracefully treating the place like some Spanish holiday resort, bringing a bad name to the rest who want to make it and graft away. There has been a noticeable increase in the past 24 months of these people on 'extended holiday visas', because they are not migrants at all. If you are on a WHV you are NOT an immigrant. It is a holiday visa with a limited work time frame. They arrive in for a few months, piss away their savings in some Irish pub and **** off home without doing a jot of work or seeing what the country has to offer. Not all are like this mind but a sizeable enough minority tend to ruin a reputation for others.

    When you emigrate you are on your own and have to start from scratch with no backup from the state. It will shake the cobwebs from you and make you realise that you may have been the man at home in your little town or village but in most major cities nobody gives a ****. Many are in for a shock thinking the streets are paved with gold and that anyone can just walk into the mining industry picking up a handy 100k a year. Lots of pub talk doing the rounds and the vast majority of anti-irish 'discrimination' is perceived in my opinion

    Nice straw man at the end as well.


  • Options
    #89
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Why just the one border? Why not get rid of all of them? Most of them are completely arbitrary anyway.

    Yes, they are arbitrary in many ways. If we get rid of all borders who is entitled to welfare benefits, public health care?


  • Options
    #90
    fianna saor
    Registered Users Posts: 166 ✭✭fianna saor


    alastair wrote: »
    Asylum seekers here are entitled to €19.10 per week and €9.60 for each child. The entitlement for asylum seekers in France is € 10.67 per day, or € 320.10 for 30 days. Which kind of undermines that argument - as do the applicant numbers - 2011: Ireland - 1,290, France - 57,335.

    and you really believe they are only receiving that amount?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    fianna saor wrote: »
    and you really believe they are only receiving that amount?
    Yes.
    Do you have verifiable data that disputes the facts?


Advertisement