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

Could Ireland cope with another wave of immigration?

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    opo wrote: »
    Unlike the asylum system - where they can enjoy instant and comprehensive access to welfare...
    ...at our lavish Mosney resort (for example), where our lucky guests will also receive a whopping €19.10 spending money per week. Wow.

    One wonders why, given such luxury, the number of asylum applications received by the state has been declining since 2002.
    opo wrote: »
    ...and simply work illegally - easily undercutting the rest.
    Hypothetical situation: I'm an asylum seeker - exactly how 'simple' is it for me to find work, assuming I'm not selling my body for money or some such? Could you, for example, point me in the direction of a prospective employer?


  • Options
    #93
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    djpbarry wrote: »
    ...at our lavish Mosney resort (for example), where our lucky guests will also receive a whopping €19.10 spending money per week. Wow.

    To be fair they do get free meals, accomodation, electricty, water...


  • Options
    #94
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Denerick wrote: »
    To be fair they do get free meals, accomodation, electricty, water...
    They do. But so do prison inmates.


  • Options
    #95
    opo
    Registered Users Posts: 746 ✭✭✭opo


    djpbarry wrote: »
    ...at our lavish Mosney resort (for example), where our lucky guests will also receive a whopping €19.10 spending money per week. Wow.

    One wonders why, given such luxury, the number of asylum applications received by the state has been declining since 2002.
    Hypothetical situation: I'm an asylum seeker - exactly how 'simple' is it for me to find work, assuming I'm not selling my body for money or some such? Could you, for example, point me in the direction of a prospective employer?


    What percentage of asylum seekers would you say are in direct provision?

    Why is it you assume they must sell their bodies?

    I believe the decline in asylum applications is directly linked to the decline of the economy unless recession in Ireland has some other link with - say FGM - that you might like to develope.


  • Options
    #96
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    opo wrote: »
    What percentage of asylum seekers would you say are in direct provision?
    I'm not sure I understand the question - you're implying that a large number of asylum seekers have fled state care and are 'making their own way'?
    opo wrote: »
    Why is it you assume they must sell their bodies?
    Why do you assume they can 'simply work illegally'?
    opo wrote: »
    I believe the decline in asylum applications is directly linked to the decline of the economy...
    The economy's been on the slide since 2002? News to me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Can't keep it in, can you?
    opo wrote: »
    where they can enjoy instant and comprehensive access to welfare ).

    Nope.
    opo wrote: »
    (and simply work illegally - easily undercutting the rest).

    ...an allegation, which can't be quantified.


  • Options
    #98
    opo
    Registered Users Posts: 746 ✭✭✭opo


    Nodin wrote: »

    Nope.

    .

    Please explain.............

    It would be nice if you could develope your posts every now and then.

    If you just want to boost your 6K post count - then please post a smilie.

    Otherwise, try engage in an adult like manner.

    (Ps I expect your like minded saviour soon for daring to express my remotest frustration - as before)


  • Options
    #99
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Pittens wrote: »
    Obviously it wasn't. I am talking about accession States. That treaty had to be updated because how else would Germany get an exemption.

    The Accession Treaties exist in parallel to the EU's Treaties - the TEU and the TFEU. These do update the EU Treaties to insert references to the new states as you mention. They also specify when the measures in the EU Treaties will take effect and what alternate arrangements apply in the meantime.

    For instance to quote a snippet relating to freedom of movement of workers in Annex XII (which deals with Poland):
    2. By way of derogation from Articles 1 to 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and until the end of the two year period following the date of accession, the present Member States will apply national measures, or those resulting from bilateral agreements, regulating access to their labour markets by Polish nationals. The present Member States may continue to apply such measures until the end of the five year period following the date of the accession.

    ....
    (That's a small part of a longer article)

    Germany's and Austria's conditions - which are too long to quote as they include tables - follow in point 13 behind that. Poland too has its conditions - you can forget about buying agricultural or forestry land there until 2017 or so. :)
    Pittens wrote: »
    The easiest allegation I have to prove is that the entire Maastricht treaty, one of the cornerstones of the modern EU is being ignored. Why dont you disprove that one.

    Well, the onus is on you to prove an allegation. I am not the one alleging that the TFEU (i.e. the now-much modified Maastricht Treaty) is being ignored in its entirety.
    Pittens wrote: »
    Tell you what, I will withdraw the France is giving preferential treatment to their own companies. ( YOu have latched on to that one as the easiest one to prove, precisely because it is the hardest one to prove. ).

    I did actually pick this as the easiest one to prove. Companies could easily sue either government if they act illegal and discriminate against them. True, the legal fees would be high to do so but so also are tendering costs for a contract. Having lost a tender due to discrimination, there should probably be a lot of companies prepared to take their chances on "a day in court".

    Likewise, you claimed "...the accounts of the European commission cannot be investigated. All of this is illegal" - this DG does investigate the Commission's accounts, as indeed the Court of Auditors does for the entire EU budget that the Commission and (frequently) the member states handles.

    As for your claim concerning the legal prohibition on deficits and possible fines. This only happens at the end of the Excessive Deficit Procedure as it mentions. Currently - given the trauma of the financial crisis - such procedures are ongoing against a large number of states as can be seen here.
    Pittens wrote: »
    We seem to be taking at cross purposes. I am saying the ECJ is never invoked to challenge countries when they ignore provisions in treaties, like for instance - the entire Maastricht treaty - you are asking me to prove my case with reference to ECJ rulings.

    Determinations on whether something is legal or illegal are ultimately matters for courts to rule on. If there are ECJ rulings backing up your claims about illegal actions or inactions - i.e. that the entire Maastricht Treaty (or specific clauses therein) are being ignored - your case stands. If not it fails.


  • Options
    #100
    opo
    Registered Users Posts: 746 ✭✭✭opo


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I'm not sure I understand the question - you're implying that a large number of asylum seekers have fled state care and are 'making their own way'?
    Why do you assume they can 'simply work illegally'?
    The economy's been on the slide since 2002? News to me.

    I am implying no such thing. I am stating that there are as many "asylum seekers" outside direct provision as are in.

    I am not assuming they work illegally. I know many are. I have met them.

    The economy has been on the slide - however, there has also been a citizenship referendum. All factors that have nothing to do with factors - as I have already stated; such as FGM in Nigeria.

    To what do you attribute the declining numbers of asylum seekers since 2002?

    (let me guess)

    Racism?


  • Options
    #101
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    opo wrote: »
    I am stating that there are as many "asylum seekers" outside direct provision as are in.

    I am not assuming they work illegally. I know many are. I have met them.
    I see. So you've done a head count, have you?
    opo wrote: »
    The economy has been on the slide - however, there has also been a citizenship referendum. All factors that have nothing to do with factors - as I have already stated; such as FGM in Nigeria.

    To what do you attribute the declining numbers of asylum seekers since 2002?
    The citizenship referendum undoubtedly had an impact, but the UK has experienced a similarly sharp decline in the number of asylum applications received over the same time period, so there would appear to be other factors involved.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    opo wrote: »
    Please explain.............

    It would be nice if you could develope your posts every now and then.

    No, they don't have immediate access to "welfare". Its not really worth getting into the details of something they don't have.
    opo wrote: »
    I am not assuming they work illegally. I know many are. I have met them.

    Unless thats as part of a peer reviewed bit of research you've had published, i'm afraid it hardly counts as evidence of anything, save proof of the fact that nearly any immigration post is merely one away from another containing an anecdote.


  • Options
    #103
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    Determinations on whether something is legal or illegal are ultimately matters for courts to rule on. If there are ECJ rulings backing up your claims about illegal actions or inactions - i.e. that the entire Maastricht Treaty (or specific clauses therein) are being ignored - your case stands. If not it fails.

    Ok, then, lets stick the this: the major financial provisions of the Maastricht treaty are being ignored and nobody is challenging said provisions in the ECJ - the only way to apparently make them illegal. You are clearly hair-splitting.



    I am saying the free movement provisions will happen if immigration is seen to be the cuase of a permanent unemployed sub-strata. The fact that Germany has already asked for, and has gotten, a special case sets a precedent.


  • Options
    #104
    PapaQuebec
    Registered Users Posts: 555 ✭✭✭PapaQuebec


    Pittens wrote: »
    Ok, then, lets stick the this: the major financial provisions of the Maastricht treaty are being ignored and nobody is challenging said provisions in the ECJ - the only way to apparently make them illegal. You are clearly hair-splitting.



    I am saying the free movement provisions will happen if immigration is seen to be the cuase of a permanent unemployed sub-strata. The fact that Germany has already asked for, and has gotten, a special case sets a precedent.

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=462


  • Options
    #105
    opo
    Registered Users Posts: 746 ✭✭✭opo


    Nodin wrote: »
    No, they don't have immediate access to "welfare". Its not really worth getting into the details of something they don't have.

    News to me....

    We are throwing asylum seekers onto the streets since when?
    Nodin wrote: »
    Unless thats as part of a peer reviewed bit of research you've had published, i'm afraid it hardly counts as evidence of anything, save proof of the fact that nearly any immigration post is merely one away from another containing an anecdote.

    LOL

    You wouldn't believe your own existence without a link.


  • Options
    #106
    opo
    Registered Users Posts: 746 ✭✭✭opo


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I see. So you've done a head count, have you?
    The citizenship referendum undoubtedly had an impact, but the UK has experienced a similarly sharp decline in the number of asylum applications received over the same time period, so there would appear to be other factors involved.

    Over there - they deport people and also make real efforts to stop them coming in from safe countries, and transit zones such as Sangatte.

    http://ncadc.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/uk-asylum-statistics/
    Enforcement and compliance [Deportations/Removals] • Key findings for Q3 2009:
    • In Q3 2009, 17,055 persons were removed or departed voluntarily from the UK, 6 per cent fewer than in Q3 2008 (18,080).

    This neck of the woods - a deportation flight of 25 people qualifies in the media and on the lunatic fringe as a "mass deportation".


  • Options
    #107
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    opo wrote: »
    We are throwing asylum seekers onto the streets since when?
    You seem to live in a world of strange absolutes. If someone isn't thrown out into the street, they have "instant and comprehensive access to welfare".

    I'm not sure where you stand on this. Either you believe that being confined to a refugee camp with less than twenty quid a week is the soul of generosity (should we offer unemployed people and pensioners similar treatment?), or you believe that there is no such thing as a genuine asylum seeker, and that anyone who comes here claiming persecution should be deported without investigation.

    Unless there's a middle ground that you've failed to articulate.


  • Options
    #108
    PapaQuebec
    Registered Users Posts: 555 ✭✭✭PapaQuebec


    [/QUOTE]This neck of the woods - a deportation flight of 25 people qualifies in the media and on the lunatic fringe as a "mass deportation".[/QUOTE]

    But not if the deportees are Georgians, Ukrainians or Moldovans!


  • Options
    #109
    daithicarr
    Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭daithicarr


    its amazing the amount of people who think asylum seekers/refugees are entitled to welfare and free houses, cars etc. I have heard this opinion from many supposedly well educated people.

    Do people just take their uniformed sources of this mis-information at face value (co workers, Friends family etc ) or do they really care if its true or not as they dont like the idea of refugees and this is a handy way to demonise them.

    refugees arent entitled to social welfare they get food and board etc from the state and a mear pittance in an allowance which wouldn't even buy a round of drinks in the pub.

    As for immigrants in general to this country, we have sent out many times our current population in people. should we stop allowing them to migrate to other country's or is it ok for irish born to become immigrants.

    immigrants have always been coming to this country, granted in the past they never outnumbered those leaving, but their presence adds to the country not detracts, they bring skills and different ideas and labour which is beneficial to our nation, not to mind new blood to stop us becoming anymore inbred.

    having researched my family tree back quite a bit i found one great great grand father came from italy in about 1905 and opened a tile company, another ancestor came from England and another from scotland, doesn't make me any less irish, nor were they a part of any 5th column for their respective nations. the present wave will be much the same those that stay will contribute and become apart of this nation, which is lets face it a fairly underpopulated place.


  • Options
    #110
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    We are not talking about refuguees but the cost to Ireland ( and other countries) of legal immigration.
    having researched my family tree back quite a bit i found one great great grand father came from italy in about 1905 and opened a tile company, another ancestor came from England and another from scotland, doesn't make me any less irish, nor were they a part of any 5th column for their respective nations. the present wave will be much the same those that stay will contribute and become apart of this nation, which is lets face it a fairly underpopulated plac

    Well that is fantastic. What we are dealing with here is the cost of immigration to the Irish working class, we - or at least I - am not arguing for a blanket ban on immigration but a controlled immigration which is clearly not the case now.


  • Options
    #111
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=462

    Of for chrissakes. A link from 2004 s in the UK showing that whites are more likely to be employed during a boom than non-white

    It is now 2010 and the question is: continuing immigration may stop the fall in the live register as employers choose immigrants over citizens regardless of colour . The immigrants will be white. Non-Eu immigration is already be curtailed.

    Has East European immigration reduced the employment opportunities of all established groups in the UK? Or not.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    We have no immigration now.

    As for all of these immigration skeptics, it always amuses me that they were probably the same people you'd get in Britain and America complaining about the Paddies and the cost to the local economy.


  • Options
    #113
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    opo wrote: »
    News to me....

    We are throwing asylum seekers onto the streets since when?

    They don't "enjoy instant and comprehensive access to welfare". You can seek to redefine that how you want, but unfortunately its not going to cut any ice.
    opo wrote: »
    LOL
    You wouldn't believe your own existence without a link.

    I'll take that as a "no" then.


  • Options
    #114
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Pittens wrote: »
    What we are dealing with here is the cost of immigration to the Irish working class, we - or at least I - am not arguing for a blanket ban on immigration but a controlled immigration which is clearly not the case now.
    We don't have controlled immigration? So absolutely anyone can come to work in Ireland and enjoy the same rights as Irish workers?


  • Options
    #115
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    notice that the only people racialising the issue - which should be an economic argument only are the anti-racist left, and that they seem to think that all non-whites are immigrants.

    Enough of the racial nonsense, and the anecdotes about your gradfather.

    Will continued immigration cause the unemployment lines to not decrease as fast as used to be the case: answer, yes.


  • Options
    #116
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    I'll take that as a "no" then.

    I'll believe you when you link to him actually saying no.


  • Options
    #117
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    We don't have controlled immigration? So absolutely anyone can come to work in Ireland and enjoy the same rights as Irish workers?


    You method of "arguing" seems to be to quote out of context something that would be clear to a 2 year old - I had been talking about immigration in Europe and the Maastricht treaty- and ignoring the other arguments you jump on a particular phrase. I think we should control European immigration, and that is what I was talking about.

    YOu ignore the substantive issues and continue to argue like a pedant.

    Ok, Uncontrolled Immigration from Eastern Europe. Happy?

    Good thing or not?


  • Options
    #118
    opo
    Registered Users Posts: 746 ✭✭✭opo


    oscarBravo wrote: »

    I'm not sure where you stand on this. Either you believe that being confined to a refugee camp with less than twenty quid a week is the soul of generosity (should we offer unemployed people and pensioners similar treatment?), or you believe that there is no such thing as a genuine asylum seeker, and that anyone who comes here claiming persecution should be deported without investigation.

    Unless there's a middle ground that you've failed to articulate.

    This - for your information is a real refugee camp.

    refugee-camp.jpg

    I know this is Mosney in your eyes but really and I mean really - it is not Mosney.

    In our direct probision centres we provide:

    A. Free bed and board, free medical, access to schools and additional allowances as required. Also, we offer legal aid, translation and a myriad of other services to process (mostly bogus) claims.

    B. We do not confine anyone to what you call a "refugee camp". We don't confine anyone full stop that is in the process of claiming asylum. There are conditions to living in direct provision centres but they are not the squalid prisons you seem to want to believe they are.

    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You seem to live in a world of strange absolutes. If someone isn't thrown out into the street, they have "instant and comprehensive access to welfare".

    Free food and a roof over your head (to begin with) doesn't qualify as welfare?

    Start here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare


  • Options
    #119
    opo
    Registered Users Posts: 746 ✭✭✭opo


    Nodin wrote: »
    They don't "enjoy instant and comprehensive access to welfare". You can seek to redefine that how you want, but unfortunately its not going to cut any ice.

    See link above iceman.


  • Options
    #120
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    OK, so you believe that asylum seekers should be kept in squalid conditions, deprived of food, shelter and medical care?

    How wonderfully humanitarian of you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    As usual the discussion about immigration gets to asylum seekers. That is not what we are talking about.


Advertisement