20% foreign people in Ireland now - highest in Europe

Mr.Nice Guy

daithifleming wrote:

Radicalist. Shinner. Bull****.

Call it bullsh*t if you must. Call me a radicalist if it will make you happy. But please, don't call me a Shinner. I consider that personal abuse.

mike65 wrote:

What did Samuel Johnson say? 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel'?

So true.

Mike.

Very true. FF are organising in the North soon...

the_syco

GUIGuy wrote:

We have big problems in our statistics though. If the official census figures think there are only 11,000 Chinese in Ireland then how the hell can our statisticians be trusted to give reliable information for present & future service provision? Schools! I was in Malaysia for the night of the last census, but when I met the invigilator she said that they only gain access to about 30% of apartments. She had tried many times to contact my 3 neighbouring apartments and failed. I asked could they not just post in letterbox and she said no.

"Hi, we're from the goverment... we wnat to see what race you are, to count you...":rolleyes:

LeixlipRed

Cheeky_gal wrote:

K i realsie posting this i'm probs gonna get a hammering but It's how i feel so shsh! Anyhoo to my point...I cant stand reading facts like this about Ireland...soon theres gonna be no irish...as it is theres far too many foreigners around...the government should really put a stop to it! Sure Dublins WAAAAY overcrowded...plus now this may be contraversial too but the nigerians (not all but a lot) are absolute pervs...they make my walk to college every morning pretty uncomfortable i gotta say....and thats fair enough...many of my friends feel the same...cant walk along grafton street even now with them around!

Yeh only Nigerians are pervs. And have big lips. And are lazy. And swing from trees :rolleyes: I hope when you graduate from college (AQA course was it?) that you get screwed over for a job by a better qualified and more intelligent foreigner

Terry

I don't really have anything to say.

I just wanted to see three posts in a row by people from Leixlip.

Sam Vimes

daithifleming wrote:

I never said they consume all the resources of the country, or whatever bull**** you were on about. All in your head.

ok you said nothing of the sort. In fact you never even posted go the thread. I'm clearly insane. Or whatever bull**** i was on about


you're quite a pleasant fellow aren't you? And most polite

Terry

mike65 wrote:

What did Samuel Johnson say? 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel'?

So true.

Mike.

Are we to forget the sacrifices made by these people?

Would you prefer us to carry on as if nothing happened?

Wasn't Samuel Johnson a colonist?

North&South

There shouldn't be a problem with most people regarding immigrants into their Mother Country - as long as said immigrants are willing to contribute to that country & pay their way.

Yeah, I sometimes get fed up when I pop to town & all our cafes & pubs/clubs are staffed by foreigners who speak little english - so frustrating, but at least they are working & (hopefully) paying taxes etc.
The problem I have personally is when I get told that they are working for a pittance - and it takes SO long for the red tape to be cleared to get to the employers, who should know bloody better. :mad:

My other bugbear is the way our UK system almost discriminates against our own in favour of the immigrants. A young polish couple I know have recently had her mother to stay - for 7 weeks. Ok, that's fine. Then Mum 'falls ill' - has a doctor visit & 10 days later has had her triple heart bypass done on the NHS - ok.... still fine, poor lady, she must have been poorly..... well, because she needs 'looking after' and there is no-one back in Poland for her, they now have a lovely 3 bed semi council house, get Carers allowance & pension & benefits & they've been here since May! Oh, hang on - the young girl told me that her mum was taken ill in February, but couldn't possibly have had treatment in Poland...... not to this standard, & not this quick either. And that was why they came in the first place - turns out they were advised to do it this way by a 'UK relocation agency' - a what??? :eek:

Piss-take, or what?
And it's these types of examples that make folk mad, well they make ME mad, because I would never even think of doing something like it - but maybe I'm in the minority, & maybe I sound like a complete cow because if they hadn't taken this route, the lady might have died, I dunno - I'm off to bed!

Ekancone

Commander Vimes wrote:

ok you said nothing of the sort. In fact you never even posted go the thread. I'm clearly insane. Or whatever bull**** i was on about


you're quite a pleasant fellow aren't you? And most polite

When you can point out where i said that immigrants use up all our resources (pillage?) and leave, i will eat my hat. I said nothing of the sort, you just jumped to conclusions.

Sam Vimes

daithifleming wrote:

When you can point out where i said that immigrants use up all our resources (pillage?) and leave, i will eat my hat. I said nothing of the sort, you just jumped to conclusions.

you said they come to a country in droves when the economy is good and then leave when it gets bad.i know you didn't use the exact words "they use up the resources". what's your point?


you say we shouldn't be worried about them because they'll leave if the country ever gets ****ed up. that's not really a reason not to worry about them. i can't picture myself saying in ten years "ah there's not a job to be had and me mammy's starving but at least all the foreigners have ****ed off somewhere better"


if our economy takes a downturn, losing 20% of our population because they have ties to their home country whose economy has been helped by all the irish money they were sent is hardly "nothing to worry about"

bare in mind that i have absolutely no problem with immigration. i was just making the point that what you gave as a reason not to worry about immigration is not a reason not to worry about it

Ekancone

Commander Vimes wrote:

you said they come to a country in droves when the economy is good and then leave when it gets bad.i know you didn't use the exact words "they use up the resources". what's your point?


you say we shouldn't be worried about them because they'll leave if the country ever gets ****ed up. that's not really a reason not to worry about them since its quite possible that they might be the reason why the economy got ****ed up in the first place and when they leave, the country is still ****ed


bare in mind that i have absolutely no problem with immigration. i was just making the point that what you gave as a reason not to worry about immigration is not a reason not to worry about it

if our economy takes a downturn, losing 20% of our population because they have ties to their home country whose economy has been helped by all the irish money they were sent is hardly "nothing to worry about"

Yeah but you think that i implied that they come here and use us, as if there is no net gain for the Irish economy by their presence here when they are needed. But if the economy does a downturn and there are less jobs available, some of them will move on to wherever the work is, otherwise they would have no job and they would be signing on draining the economy further. Their free movements suits us as far as i can see.

Sam Vimes

daithifleming wrote:

Yeah but you think that i implied that they come here and use us, as if there is no net gain for the Irish economy by their presence here when they are needed. But if the economy does a downturn and there are less jobs available, some of them will move on to wherever the work is, otherwise they would have no job and they would be signing on draining the economy further. Their free movements suits us as far as i can see.

i'm not saying it doesn't suit us or anything negative about immigrants at all. I was just saying that what you quoted as a positive didn't sound all that positive, ie "don't worry about them taking your jobs now because as soon as there are no jobs they'll leave, with the net result being you still don't have a job because the one they took from you is no longer available (which is why they left) and you then live in a country with a crappy economy". Doesn't sound great to me

K-9

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

The "boom" in our economy was masterminded by the European Union

The German ambassador disagrees with you and is informing the Germans otherwise.5% of it maybe?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

James Connolly was carried into Kilmainham Gaol on a f*cking stretcher, was propped up on a chair and was shot - and for what? For people like you to come along and not give a sh*t about the freedom which you were given.

Was taking you seriously till this one. Thought it was completely off topic, then I realised:

James Connolly was foreign.

Ekancone

Commander Vimes wrote:

i'm not saying it doesn't suit us or anything negative about immigrants at all. I was just saying that what you quoted as a positive didn't sound all that positive, ie "don't worry about them taking your jobs now because as soon as there are no jobs they'll leave, with the net result being you still don't have a job because the one they took from you is no longer available (which is why they left) and you then live in a country with a crappy economy". Doesn't sound great to me

Well for one you are left with an economy that has advanced far beyond the position it started in, which was built, in part, by the immigrants that came to this country. But of course as things slow down and there is less work available some of them will leave and go to greener pastures. But that doesnt mean there is a crappy economy left behind, just one that isnt growing as fast as before or creating new jobs as quick as before. I suppose my point was that i see no big deal with the free movement of labour. It suits us when we need extra hands, it suits them because they get good money, and when we dont need them they just leave without us asking. So as i said, whats the big deal?

flogen

I'm not going to get involved in another AH debate on immigrants, immigration, intergration, racism, asylum seekers, blah, blah, blah.

Especially one that has lasted 6 pages (and I'm going to guess there's no more than 1 page worth of valid points here).

I'd just like to point out a falacy that's perpetuated by many people, including the OP.

There is no such thing as "the silent majority". Not in a democracy anyway. People who claim there is a "silent majority" only do so to excuse the fact that there are so few people willing to support them.

Again, not getting involved in the debate, just pointing out that majorities do not stay silent in a democracy.

barclay2

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

The evidence is in the fact that we are taking in more immigrants per capita than the states who are net contributors. If you can't see that then you're unbelievably naive. Do you think we got all our money for nothing? No drawbacks whatsoever?



10% is only the figure that we know of. You really think this state has a handle on the immigration levels?



What I mean is there is a plan underway on the part of the EU to establish a federal European entity and this is why nation states likely to oppose these plans - like Holland and the UK - are being denied the chance to vote on these matters.

The erosion of our sovereignty and our culture is part of the overall plan.



Ah yes the "economic prosperity" line. Judas got economic prosperity too when he got his thirty pieces of silver. Was it worth it?



The "boom" in our economy was masterminded by the European Union and since we are not net contributors we are contributing by being the dumping ground for the non-nationals that the big nation states don't want. As Europe's whore we take it any way that's asked.



WRONG. This is the myth that they are feeding gullible people like you.

If the EU's plans go ahead then our national veto will disappear in most areas. Areas funnily enough like justice and ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION issues. Ronan Mullen in the Irish Examiner wrote an excellent article in 2005 spelling out the dangers of the new voting system:

"Some say this will give the French and Germans enormous clout, since they have 40% of the EU population between them. Given their economic and political influence, won't they be able to find another 13 countries with 25% of the EU population to support them? Will the likes of Poland, Malta, Luxembourg and Cyprus put up that much of a fight? Ireland will lose some of its voting strength, with its percentage of the vote in the Council of Ministers being reduced. And within five years we will lose our automatic right to a commissioner."

WAKE UP TO THE DANGER.



I think the extract I gave above shows what folly this is. You have swallowed the myth.



So the hell what? They pissed all over Irish democracy that's what.

James Connolly was carried into Kilmainham Gaol on a f*cking stretcher, was propped up on a chair and was shot - and for what? For people like you to come along and not give a sh*t about the freedom which you were given.

Makes me f*cking sick.



Ah yes the "low turnout" defense. I was wondering when it would show up. Here's my response - if the original vote with its low turnout had produced a yes, would there have been a second vote taken? F*ck no.

Instead the people who actually bothered to get up off their arses and make their feelings head were ignored and the f*cking idiots who caved in to the scaremongering about our position in the EU being 'under threat' got to decide Ireland's fate. For shame.



Blah, blah, blah. I've heard the party political broadcasts plenty of times. Shouldn't you be at the Mahon Tribunal cheering on the 'lovable rogue' Bertie and toasting how great our country is?



FG didn't sow lies and bullsh*t which FF did so yes FG and Labour ddin't get anything.



It was Ahern who fed the gullible sheep of the country lies about a "magic formula" which would sort out his tribunal woes. This of course was horse manure. It was Harney and co who promised the health service would improve - and hospital facilities have been closing down with people denied access.



Whatever lets the naive people sleep at night. Many like myself will still associate FF with the stench of corruption and shake our heads at the idiocy of those around us who either ignore it or turn a blind eye to it.

Connolly died for this? Connolly died for f*ckwits who cheer a lying Taoiseach and ignore the erosion of our democratic rights by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels?

What a con.

Ok, Mr Nice Guy. Regarding 10% being the figure that we know of. The census is the best we have to go by as far as i can tell. If you can think of a better measure, by all means let me know what it is. I'd be grateful. Actually, do you mind if i ask, what measure are you using? Like what kind of measure of immigration are you basing your opinions on?

Regarding your assertion that holland and the UK are the only countries likely to resist the creation of a European Superstate, i have to say i disagree. For example, there are plenty of examples of states opting out of significant aspects of European Integration. Ireland and the UK have opted out of most of the Schengen agreement's aspects, Sweden UK and Denmark opted out of the euro, denmark opted out of the common defence aspects of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Furthermore, plenty of countries have shown evidence of not being afraid to Brussels e.g. Poland vetoed talks between the EU and Russia due to Russian ban on polish meat exports, http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/13/europe/EU_GEN_EU_Russia.php. Like i think you underestimate the extent to which states can stand up to and have stood up for themselves when they've deemed it necessary.

In terms of "judas getting prosperity in return...", i dont really see what point you're trying to make here. Like, i said immigration was due to our economic prosperity. Sounds pretty simple to me, but you havent really engaged with my point.

I dont think its fair to say the EU "masterminded" the boom. The boom resulted from a lot of things - sound domestic economic policy, an educated population, a boom in the US, great work by the IDA, membership of the EU single market (a result of a decision of the irish government and people to join in 1973) and a lot of other things. Like, if you say the EU masterminded it, what do you mean? Who in the EU did so and how did they do so?

Again, you've said we're Europe's dumping ground but you ignored what i pointed out in my first post - countries like poland are trying to get their emigrants to come back! Please engage with that point. And regarding the "big states" not wanting the immigrants - the UK are a big state and have received far more immigrants than the Republic, and Sweden (another bigger state) also allowed unrestricted immigration from the 2004 accession states. Regarding France and Germany, its true that they dont want as much immigration as we do, but thats because they're unfortunately in a different (i.e. more difficult) economic situation from ourselves.

Regarding the article by Mullens, could you give us a link to that please? and he's counted wrong about the 40%, France and Germany together have a population of 148 million in an EU of over 470 million (www.wikipedia.org) - thats less than a third.

How exactly did the government "piss all over irish democracy" by ASKING people to FREELY VOTE again? I agree they wouldnt have asked us to vote again if we'd voted yes the first time, but you have not shown how asking us to vote again involves forcing something on us. If the original vote was the true will of the Irish people then it would simply have been replicated in the second referendum, would it not?

Saying connolly gave his life only for "people like me" to not give **** about our freedom etc is you making a political discussion personal. I'd prefer if you wouldnt do that. If anything, i would imagine that Connolly didnt die in the hope that Irish democracy would involve political debate being undermined by people throwing personal insults.

And saying "blah blah blah ive heard the party political broadcasts before..." does nothing to disprove my point. If anything, it looks like you're avoiding any attempt to engage with what i said. Please show me how im wrong.

Mr.Nice Guy

Seanies32 wrote:

The German ambassador disagrees with you and is informing the Germans otherwise.5% of it maybe?

The German ambassador disagrees with me does he? And?

Seanies32 wrote:

Was taking you seriously till this one. Thought it was completely off topic, then I realised:

James Connolly was foreign.

Connolly regarded himself as Irish and I regard him as Irish. Perhaps you're one of those types who regards Connolly, Dev, Larkin etc. as foreign. I'm not.

barclay2 wrote:

Ok, Mr Nice Guy. Regarding 10% being the figure that we know of. The census is the best we have to go by as far as i can tell. If you can think of a better measure, by all means let me know what it is. I'd be grateful. Actually, do you mind if i ask, what measure are you using? Like what kind of measure of immigration are you basing your opinions on?

The census is not credible. Many people put down that they can speak Irish when they can't. Take the census with a pinch of salt. Look here:

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2007/0917/1189076546717.html

Minister of State for integration Conor Lenihan has said that he believes last year's census gave a "serious underestimate" of the number of foreign nationals living in the State.

See what I mean?

barclay2 wrote:

Regarding your assertion that holland and the UK are the only countries likely to resist the creation of a European Superstate, i have to say i disagree.

I never stated they were the 'only countries' likely to resist a European Superstate. I stated they were two examples of countries hostile to the EU's plans who were denied a say on matters pertaining to their sovereignty.

barclay2 wrote:

For example, there are plenty of examples of states opting out of significant aspects of European Integration. Ireland and the UK have opted out of most of the Schengen agreement's aspects, Sweden UK and Denmark opted out of the euro, denmark opted out of the common defence aspects of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Furthermore, plenty of countries have shown evidence of not being afraid to Brussels e.g. Poland vetoed talks between the EU and Russia due to Russian ban on polish meat exports, http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/..._EU_Russia.php. Like i think you underestimate the extent to which states can stand up to and have stood up for themselves when they've deemed it necessary.

Obviously there are examples of countries standing up to the EU as that is why the EU constitution got derailed in the first place (thank you French and Dutch voters). The issue though is that the EU eventually gets round these obstacles by either ignoring the democratic will of the people (see British and Dutch voters being denied a referendum as an example) or by scaremongering tactics (see Ireland and Nice Treaty vote number 2). These are the hard facts.

barclay2 wrote:

In terms of "judas getting prosperity in return...", i dont really see what point you're trying to make here. Like, i said immigration was due to our economic prosperity. Sounds pretty simple to me, but you havent really engaged with my point.

I agree immigration was due to "economic prosperity" but I don't see it in the way you see it. I see the extraordinarily high levels of immigration here as the price we've had to pay for our increased wealth. Nothing is free in this world. And the point I'm making with Judas is that sometimes, believe it or not, money is not the most valuable possession to have. Principles, traditions etc. are worth more. Well to me anyway.

barclay2 wrote:

I dont think its fair to say the EU "masterminded" the boom. The boom resulted from a lot of things - sound domestic economic policy, an educated population, a boom in the US, great work by the IDA, membership of the EU single market (a result of a decision of the irish government and people to join in 1973) and a lot of other things. Like, if you say the EU masterminded it, what do you mean? Who in the EU did so and how did they do so?

In the early years of our membership our unemployment levels were among the highest in the EU. The government of the day was unable to sort out Ireland's woes and so turned to the continent for assistance. It was their contributions that helped Ireland grow economically. Sadly some people felt this was all done out of the goodness of their hearts. Not so.

barclay2 wrote:

Again, you've said we're Europe's dumping ground but you ignored what i pointed out in my first post - countries like poland are trying to get their emigrants to come back! Please engage with that point.

I'm not as convinced as you are on this point.

barclay2 wrote:

And regarding the "big states" not wanting the immigrants - the UK are a big state and have received far more immigrants than the Republic, and Sweden (another bigger state) also allowed unrestricted immigration from the 2004 accession states. Regarding France and Germany, its true that they dont want as much immigration as we do, but thats because they're unfortunately in a different (i.e. more difficult) economic situation from ourselves.

No the French and Germans don't want the immigrants because it suits them to unload the problem on other nations. France has had race riots and extreme right-wing parties rise to prominence and doesnt want to face up to its responsibilities. We are the dumping ground therefore.

barclay2 wrote:

Regarding the article by Mullens, could you give us a link to that please? and he's counted wrong about the 40%, France and Germany together have a population of 148 million in an EU of over 470 million (www.wikipedia.org) - thats less than a third.

The link no longer works as he wrote it for the Irish Examiner in January of 2005. It used to be here. Being pedantic over the figures doesn't change the main issue - that it takes power OUT OF IRISH HANDS.

barclay2 wrote:

How exactly did the government "piss all over irish democracy" by ASKING people to FREELY VOTE again?

They completely ignored the result of the original vote. Please don't play dumb about this. You're clearly a smart guy and it cheapens your views.

barclay2 wrote:

I agree they wouldnt have asked us to vote again if we'd voted yes the first time, but you have not shown how asking us to vote again involves forcing something on us.

Surely it stands to reason then that if you refuse to listen to the will of the people because you didn't get the result you wanted, and instead demand a second vote, that you are therefore undemocratic?

barclay2 wrote:

If the original vote was the true will of the Irish people then it would simply have been replicated in the second referendum, would it not?

Not when the second vote involved disgraceful scaremongering from the main parties and warnings about "grave consequences" for our membership if we voted No again.

barclay2 wrote:

Saying connolly gave his life only for "people like me" to not give **** about our freedom etc is you making a political discussion personal. I'd prefer if you wouldnt do that.

No offence towards you was intended but this is personal to me and I feel very strongly about my country's sovereignty being eroded away.

barclay2 wrote:

If anything, i would imagine that Connolly didnt die in the hope that Irish democracy would involve political debate being undermined by people throwing personal insults.

I imagine Connolly didn't die so that capitalists could flout "economic prosperity" as a fair trade-off for the freedom he fought and died for. Nor do I imagine he'd approve of people saying "so the hell what" over Irish opinions being ignored by foreigners in Brussels seeking to impose their agenda on us whether we want it or not.

The farce of Irish history is that men like Connolly fought and died to free us of a Union which did not listen to us, all so that future generations could sell us out into a Union which will not listen to us. Only in Ireland eh? :rolleyes:

barclay2 wrote:

And saying "blah blah blah ive heard the party political broadcasts before..." does nothing to disprove my point.

What you said was not a point but rather the typical pro-EU mantra. I've heard it all before from people who'd sell out their own granny if it brought them some "economic prosperity".

barclay2 wrote:

If anything, it looks like you're avoiding any attempt to engage with what i said. Please show me how im wrong.

I've just spent quite a while responding to your beliefs so I'm certainly not avoiding engaging with you. I think I've shown you how wrong you are. If not let me summarise...

You acknowledged that the EU would not have requested a second Nice Treaty vote if they had got a Yes the first time round. Therefore it surely follows that you accept there is a plan on the part of the European Union to implement their agenda by hook or crook.

You acknowledged that there is hostility within some nation-states towards these plans by the EU and that the Dutch and British voters have been denied a chance to vote on them.

You queried the figures given by Mr Mullen but didn't query the simple truth which is that, if implemented, these plans will significantly decrease our position on important matters like justice and immigration.

And one last thing regarding the EU constitution, when Merkel's Germany put great effort into getting the constitution back on track under a new name - "the EU treaty" - it was our very own Bertie Ahern who came out and told the world the real truth:

Tony Blair and Mr Brown both argued the treaty is not the same as the Constitution.

But Mr Ahern exposed the truth about the Brussels power grab last night.

Talking about the similarities with the Constitution, he said: “Thankfully they haven’t changed the substance — 90 per cent of it is still there."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007290092,00.html

So there you have it, my friend. This country's sovereignty is being whittled away and people can call me a "radicalist" and say I'm talking "bullsh*t" but everything I've been warning about is based on facts and evidence and is not some whacky conspiracy theory.

They have their agenda and they will do whatever it takes to implement it. If democracy doesn't give them what they want then they will find a way around that obstacle.

I'm not sure if you're ignorant to the problem or one of those self-loathing Irish who finds the idea of a European Superstate a wondrous thing.

I myself am neither and will remain that way until the last drop of sovereignty has been sucked away by the vampires in Brussels.

SimpleSam06

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

The evidence is in the fact that we are taking in more immigrants per capita than the states who are net contributors. If you can't see that then you're unbelievably naive. Do you think we got all our money for nothing? No drawbacks whatsoever?

Correlation does not equal causation, say it after me.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Good lad.

Just because there are a lot of immigrants coming into the country does not mean the EU designated Ireland as a skip for all of their undesireables. It simply means Ireland is seen as being wealthy and has a reputation internationally for wealth. "Celtic tiger" ringing any bells at all?

Poor people go to rich countries. No conspiracy required.

SimpleSam06

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I see the extraordinarily high levels of immigration here as the price we've had to pay for our increased wealth. Nothing is free in this world.

Its a price we are paying simply because we were woefully underprepared for the level of immigration that would take place, as well as the massive abuse of our "any child born in Ireland is Irish" clause, since revoked. The UK itself, with whom we share a common border, was taken aback by the scale of Polish migration within its borders.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

In the early years of our membership our unemployment levels were among the highest in the EU. The government of the day was unable to sort out Ireland's woes and so turned to the continent for assistance. It was their contributions that helped Ireland grow economically. Sadly some people felt this was all done out of the goodness of their hearts. Not so.

Ireland's economic boom is due mostly to two things: the low corporate tax of 12.5% which attracted many multinationals to Ireland (which still form the vast bulk of our manufacturing base) and the historically low interest rates which allowed banks to loosen lending criteria, thus flooding the country with "free" money. This in turn fuelled the housing boom, and led to the (mistaken) impression that Ireland was rich.

The EU had very little to do with either one of those. Ireland served a very important purpose at the start of the EU; it was to be a poster child to convince other nations that the EU wasn't just a rich boys club, allowing much easier expansion than was otherwise available.

And of course, we are ultimately expected to become a net contributor.

mise_me_fein

The 20% figure sounds like BS to me and yes I have seen that 10% is the correct figure given. I'd say the true figure is somewhere in between.

Regarding these non Irish, most of these are British. Probably a lot of people who have Irish parents.

I think and hope, once the other countries in the EU open up their borders - it's only us, the Brits and Sweden I think at the moment - that we'll see a lot of the Eastern Bloc nationals choose to go elsewhere other than here. I mean the ones that are here will probably stay.

Have to say the government are doing a lot better on Africans than they had been doing in the past 5 or 6 years. I like this tough stance.

mike65

Most other states opened thier borders in the "Accession 10" over the last 3 years with Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France and Germany yet to be fully open though the 2004 restrictions in those countries are now only partial.

Mike.

Alessandra

To be honest, I think our country is benefiting from the amount of foreign nationals. Not just economically, I mean Ireland is a small place and I for one am quite happy that the gene pool is becoming more diluted!

robinph

mise_me_fein wrote:

The 20% figure sounds like BS to me and yes I have seen that 10% is the correct figure given. I'd say the true figure is somewhere in between.

Once you add up the 500,000+ Poles, 300,000+ Chinese, 150,000 Brits and then probably the same again from each of Nigeria, Romania and another 10 made up countries there can only be about 3 Irish people left in the country out of a population of 4 million.

From looking at the census numbers previously though I think the country that we should be really worried about is Luxembourg. The number of them here in the previous census was only 10 I think and then in the 2006 one it had jumped up to over 100. I mean a 1000% increase in their numbers in only 4 years, how on earth are we supposed to cope with that kind of sudden influx of foregin nationals.

cournioni

ejmaztec wrote:

So, what would Ireland be like now, had it not joined the EU back in '73? I think that it would be pretty much the same, where there were more donkeys than tractors, less tarmacced roads, more emigration, zero immigration. The only thing that would not have changed would have been the supply of brown envelopes. Politicians made money even when there wasn't any.

Very very true... Some people forget that we are the second richest nation in the world at the moment. Yes there are problems with health and yes there are problems with school placement and infastructure... We are still doing better than we were 40, 30 and even 20 years ago. This is a transitional period for this country and these problems will be sorted out in time. Just as they will be in any other country that has had a huge influx of foreign nationals.

I honestly couldn't see any other party other than FF dealing with it any better, especially not FG. Any bit of respect I had for that party left when that prick Bruton was Taoseach...

Hydroquinone

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Very very true... Some people forget that we are the second richest nation in the world at the moment. Yes there are problems with health and yes there are problems with school placement and infastructure... We are still doing better than we were 40, 30 and even 20 years ago. This is a transitional period for this country and these problems will be sorted out in time. Just as they will be in any other country that has had a huge influx of foreign nationals.

I honestly couldn't see any other party other than FF dealing with it any better, especially not FG. Any bit of respect I had for that party left when that prick Bruton was Taoseach...

If Ireland is the second richest country in the world now - as you say - then surely the lack of proper infrastructure, school placements and the inadequacies of the healthcare system are all even more inexcusable and must signify woeful financial management by the government?

I have no particular allegiance to any political party - whether they be in government or not - but that can only be basic common sense.

Ekancone

Hydroquinone wrote:

If Ireland is the second richest country in the world now - as you say - then surely the lack of proper infrastructure, school placements and the inadequacies of the healthcare system are all even more inexcusable and must signify woeful financial management by the government?

I have no particular allegiance to any political party - whether they be in government or not - but that can only be basic common sense.

We have the second highest GDP per capita, we are cash rich, but as you pointed out we have poor infrastrucure. If you did a total capital calculation, Ireland wouldnt come anywhere near 2nd place.

gurramok

mike65 wrote:

Most other states opened thier borders in the "Accession 10" over the last 3 years with Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France and Germany yet to be fully open though the 2004 restrictions in those countries are now only partial.

Mike.

Throw Italy in the mix.

Ain't it funny that the big economies(bar UK) never opened their borders and let the smaller ones take the influx?

Ireland/UK/Sweden were first...Sweden got hardly any probably due to lack of the Swedish language
Then Spain/Portugal/Greece/Finland followed 9 months ago.

The sh1t will hit the fan when the likes of Germany/France/Italy open their borders, it would be interesting to see if the Eastern Europeans will opt to stay\come here or go to one of the above a few hours drive away from their home country.

Maglight

DonJose wrote:

Immigration will slow down but the immigrants will still trickle in and take more jobs from the Irish. I did the same when I moved to Germany in the early 1990's. I took a job a German wouldn't take and there were 4 million unemployed at that time. Thank fúck I'm self employed

Let me clarify something. Do you mean that foreign nationals will still take jobs that Irish people want to do? Or do you mean that foreign nationals will still take jobs that Irish people couldn't be arsed doing? It's a fine point but one equals Irish society in meltdown and the other equals Irish society in sitdown and watch the soaps.

Cheeky_gal

LeixlipRed wrote:

Yeh only Nigerians are pervs. And have big lips. And are lazy. And swing from trees :rolleyes: I hope when you graduate from college (AQA course was it?) that you get screwed over for a job by a better qualified and more intelligent foreigner

Awww sound lad! :rolleyes:

Latchy

Report in todays front page daily mail (uk) says that the UKs population will swell in the next decade by 2 million more immigrants .......

K-9

latchyco wrote:

Report in todays front page daily mail (uk) says that the UKs population will swell in the next decade by 2 million more immigrants .......

That could have been any front page of the Mail, not just today.