Why is it wrong to oppose mass immigration?

Scofflaw

alastair wrote: »

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

AKA they're free to do as they like (as are we, because we also have a dualist legal system, with the Constitution & people supreme), but where their decisions are not compatible with honouring their agreements they thereby are not honouring their agreements.

Freedom doesn't mean no consequences, it just means freedom to take the consequences.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pro Hoc Vice

hbilly wrote: »

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

Incorrect, EU have a right from the start to bring family members who are EU with them or to Apply for non EU spouse, but again its a right based on the workers rights. If a non EU person has got a passport they have no automatic right to have family join them, but can apply like any Irish Citizen (its not automatic). A student on Stamp 2 has no right to have family here, but a spouse or child may be given a permission, but like the students permission it is for a max of 7 years. A person granted Asylum is the only one who has a right to family reunification, but it is restricted to spouse and close relatives who are dependent. Illegals have no right to be here not to mind any of their family.

Pro Hoc Vice

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

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

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

Link on parliamentary sovereignty.

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

Ireland and UK in relation to Poland etc. did not impose the 7 year moratorium on free movement. But that would have run out in 2011 in any event.

Pro Hoc Vice

djpbarry wrote: »

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

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

Access could only be restricted for 7 years, with a possible extension in exceptional circumstances.

walrusgumble

Geuze wrote: »

Personally, I say we joined the EEC in 1973, free movement of labour, rules of the club, so we can't and shouldn't oppose EU people from coming and working here.

Plenty of Poles, etc. would have lost jobs in construction, etc., so you would expect them to be receiving JSB.



Now, non-EU workers should be severely restricted, as we have 13-14% unemployment. I can't understand how lots of shops in Dublin seem to employ Asians/Arabs. This should be explained.

I support very strong restrictions on non-EU workers.

Face Palm

The rules of the European Union, as interpreted by the European Courts, as oppose to the Commission and Council, has got crazy in the past 5-6 years, compared to 20 years ago.

The rules, unwittingly are of more benefit to Non EU Citizen Family members of EU Citizens; in particular in the area where the Non EU Citizen is no longer part of a relationship with the EU citizen. Secondly the laws have greatly helped non EU migrants dodge deportation orders by marrying EU Citizens.

The issue is that it is the Court, an unelected and unaccountable Institution that has pushed alot of the agenda, and not the politicians. The Theory on EU Citizenship Concept is nothing like what the theory use to hold to, and MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT A THEORY THAT THE MAJORITY OF MEMBER STATES WOULD AGREE TO AND MOST CERTAINLY NOT THE TYPE OF THEORY THAT THEY HAD SIGNED UP FOR.

EU law is suppose to be about people actually exercising their Treaty Rights in another country. That means ACTUALLY WORKING! If you are not working, how can you say that your exercising Treaty Rights? You are not. THe law of course, via Courts have established the concept of work seeking, not a bad thing. It becomes bad however when it is accepted that 1-3 years "job seeking" and NO signs of getting another job still allows the Treaty to operate. That is crazy. It is one thing if that EU person had 2-5 years service in the host country; but in many cases, that is not the case.

walrusgumble

djpbarry wrote: »

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

A sign that Immigration of the low skilled are not needed or wanted, that we have a big enough work force to cater for

That still does not give immigrants an excuse to come here on bogus asylum applications or student visas

Knob Longman

Chicken Ryan wrote: »

I discovered during the week that 20% of all social welfare recipients are non-Irish nationals. I also discovered that a disproportionately large amount of all social welfare fraud is committed by non-Irish nationals. One example is this guy who is a former Garda reserve who fraudulently obtained 30,000 euro social welfare payments. So why is it that I cannot oppose mass immigration on these grounds and not been branded a racist?
Every time I pass the dole office there are many times more immigrants there than Irish nationals. Some even appear to be outside the Eurozone which amazes me.

Ye'er economic and political heroes wanted them all here during the cough* boom, Sure t'would be awfully impolite to tell them to leave after ye wrecked and mismanaged the economy..

More immigration/Less gombeenism

Pro Hoc Vice

walrusgumble wrote: »

Face Palm

The rules of the European Union, as interpreted by the European Courts, as oppose to the Commission and Council, has got crazy in the past 5-6 years, compared to 20 years ago.

The rules, unwittingly are of more benefit to Non EU Citizen Family members of EU Citizens; in particular in the area where the Non EU Citizen is no longer part of a relationship with the EU citizen. Secondly the laws have greatly helped non EU migrants dodge deportation orders by marrying EU Citizens.

The issue is that it is the Court, an unelected and unaccountable Institution that has pushed alot of the agenda, and not the politicians. The Theory on EU Citizenship Concept is nothing like what the theory use to hold to, and MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT A THEORY THAT THE MAJORITY OF MEMBER STATES WOULD AGREE TO AND MOST CERTAINLY NOT THE TYPE OF THEORY THAT THEY HAD SIGNED UP FOR.

EU law is suppose to be about people actually exercising their Treaty Rights in another country. That means ACTUALLY WORKING! If you are not working, how can you say that your exercising Treaty Rights? You are not. THe law of course, via Courts have established the concept of work seeking, not a bad thing. It becomes bad however when it is accepted that 1-3 years "job seeking" and NO signs of getting another job still allows the Treaty to operate. That is crazy. It is one thing if that EU person had 2-5 years service in the host country; but in many cases, that is not the case.

Can you back this up with reference to case law. I know of cases where non EU spouse had permission withdrawn as EU spouse was not working. The Court can only interpret the treaties and the Directive, which is very clear. There have been interesting cases from Luxembourg recently on citizenship Zambrano a citizen child has a right to reside in the Union, and a illegal parent must be allowed remain if the deportation would result in the citizen child having to leave. he recent case involving an English women who also had a right to Irish passport, the court said as she never lived in Ireland she was not exercising treaty rights and so her spouse could not get the benifit of same.

oscarBravo

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

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

...unless those immigrants join the union.

walrusgumble wrote: »

That still does not give immigrants an excuse to come here on bogus asylum applications or student visas

Asylym seekers and students are not immigrants.

djpbarry

walrusgumble wrote: »

A sign that Immigration of the low skilled are not needed or wanted, that we have a big enough work force to cater for

Who said anything about “low skilled”?

walrusgumble wrote: »

That still does not give immigrants an excuse to come here on bogus asylum applications or student visas

Ignoring for a moment that the above statement doesn’t make a lick of sense, who has said that it is ok for immigrants to arrive in Ireland with fraudulent papers?

View

walrusgumble wrote: »

The Theory on EU Citizenship Concept is nothing like what the theory use to hold to, and MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT A THEORY THAT THE MAJORITY OF MEMBER STATES WOULD AGREE TO AND MOST CERTAINLY NOT THE TYPE OF THEORY THAT THEY HAD SIGNED UP FOR.

That's a bold statement - have you any evidence to back it up?

You do realise that any EU member state can formally propose changes to the EU Treaties at any time? The European Council meets 11 times a year, how many formal proposals has the head of any EU member state made for EU treaty change in relation to EU citizenship (and/or immigration) in the last 5 years?

djpbarry

View wrote: »

That's a bold statement - have you any evidence to back it up?

Who needs evidence when you've got Caps Lock?

Frank Lee Midere

oscarBravo wrote: »

...unless those immigrants join the union.

Asylym seekers and students are not immigrants.

They have to get a job to join the union.

This is actually why very few polish people went to Sweden and not that many go to Germany given they could commute.

Frank Lee Midere

Scofflaw wrote: »

AKA they're free to do as they like (as are we, because we also have a dualist legal system, with the Constitution & people supreme), but where their decisions are not compatible with honouring their agreements they thereby are not honouring their agreements.

Freedom doesn't mean no consequences, it just means freedom to take the consequences.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It's harder for us because we have to appeal the amendments to the constitution which are binding on parliament. So an Irish Supreme Court could declare any immigration restriction unconstitutional.

In the UK however the parliament is supreme over courts so Westminster can ignore a European court judgement declaring any restrictions illegal -- restrictions which are being seriously considered. Then it's up to the rest of Europe to penalise transgressions of the treaty. I remind you this is a body where countries are treaty bound to keep the deficit at 3%.

It's easier to seek forgiveness than permission.

djpbarry

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

This is actually why very few polish people went to Sweden and not that many go to Germany given they could commute.

I'm sorry, Poles don't go to Germany? Are you kidding?

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

In the UK however the parliament is supreme over courts so Westminster can ignore a European court judgement declaring any restrictions illegal -- restrictions which are being seriously considered.

But it's all just baseless rhetoric, designed to placate the UKIP types.

If the UK really can just do whatever the hell it wants and to hell with the consequences, then why don't they? Why are they only "seriously considering" it? Because they're bluffing, that's why.

Frank Lee Midere

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm sorry, Poles don't go to Germany? Are you kidding?

Recent polish immigration. As in from 2004. There is an historical community of course.

But it's all just baseless rhetoric, designed to placate the UKIP types.

If the UK really can just do whatever the hell it wants and to hell with the consequences, then why don't they? Why are they only "seriously considering" it? Because they're bluffing, that's why.

That's a strange argument. I was correcting people on facts - the parliament is supreme. And logically the freedom to do domething is not the requirement to.

Theresa May has suggested limits of 75K. That is because of UKIP I suppose, however UKIP can - given the FPTP system - decimate the Tories. She may or may not be bluffing.

alastair

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

That's a strange argument. I was correcting people on facts - the parliament is supreme. And logically the freedom to do domething is not the requirement to.

One more time with the real facts of the matter. EU law has precedence over UK law - the only way this will change is with the withdrawal of the UK from the EU.

Nodin

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm sorry, Poles don't go to Germany? Are you kidding?
But it's all just baseless rhetoric, designed to placate the UKIP types.

If the UK really can just do whatever the hell it wants and to hell with the consequences, then why don't they? Why are they only "seriously considering" it? Because they're bluffing, that's why.

Bluffing in a manner which - along with sections of the press - creates a hostile view towards Europe, and the Romanian and Bulgarian population.

Pro Hoc Vice

alastair wrote: »

One more time with the real facts of the matter. EU law has precedence over UK law - the only way this will change is with the withdrawal of the UK from the EU.

Only in matters of EU competence.

It is true that Parliament is supreme, but Parliament has passed all the various legislation to give certain powers to Europe. Until Parliament passes a law that contradicts or clashes with EU law there is no issue. If Parliament passes a law that does clash and refuses to remove the law then we have a European constitutional issue. How will that work out, no one knows all the legal and political scholars would only be guessing.

Even in the UK there is divided opinion on Legislative Entrenchment, the accepted view is that one parliament can not bind another, but as we all know legal interpretation changes, remember once the King ruled supreme and Parliament only acted with his approval.

jank

djpbarry wrote: »

Probably because “mass immigration” is an entirely arbitrary term? For example, the example of the UK has been bandied about on this thread, but net migration into the UK is not especially high:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25135418

Natural population increase is considerably higher, but I don’t hear many people suggesting restrictions be placed on the number of children that UK residents should be allowed to have.

Nice of you to post figures from only from 2004 onwards, when immigration to the UK was abnormally high by historical standards, so it seems that that was the historical average trend however when you look a back longer than 10 years you will see current immigration well above long term trends.





Example from 1994 to 2004 it more or less doubled. So your assertion that "net migration into the UK is not especially high" is muddying the waters. Immigration now is double than it was 20 years ago

even a longer term view will show immigration increasing. No wether some think its right to term that 'mass' immigration is another thing as the term is arbitrary. However the facts clearly show a rise in net immigration given the historical norms.

jank

alastair wrote: »

There's your dishonesty on a plate.

Now that is amusing, ignore facts presented and claim that I am the person being dishonest. Tell me were you quick to tell those calling anyone who wanted to have a dialogue on immigration racists or anti-immigrants? Never heard a word from you claiming that they were dishonest in their debate……. double standards all round so.

alastair

infosys wrote: »

Only in matters of EU competence.

Lucky then that the EU only draft laws in the area of EU competence. Which is what's under discussion.

jank

djpbarry wrote: »

Probably because nobody really gives a toss?

Look at the rise in popularity of the eurosceptic UKIP. On one hand you are saying that nobody gives a toss. Then the same people will come out and say that UKIP are basically a racist party pandering to populism for cheap 'topic of the day' support. Maybe people do give a toss? Isn't the evidence this thread?? Or maybe the 'right' people don't give a toss?

Frank Lee Midere

alastair wrote: »

One more time with the real facts of the matter. EU law has precedence over UK law - the only way this will change is with the withdrawal of the UK from the EU.

Jesus wept. You still believe that? Can you read links? I linked to the official UK PARLIAMENT website which says that parliament is supreme over courts and no parliament can bind another and that European laws don't change this. Your opinion is that of a guy on the Internet.

The uk parliament can withdraw from any treaty it wants.

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

Asylym seekers and students are not immigrants.

True, therefore emigration from Ireland is about 50% less than what is talked about in the media as the vast majority of 'migrants' are on WHV type visas in Canada, NZ, OZ. It is a temp visa with a holiday in mind, not permanent migration. Backpackers are not migrants.

alastair

jank wrote: »

Now that is amusing, ignore facts presented and claim that I am the person being dishonest. Tell me were you quick to tell those calling anyone who wanted to have a dialogue on immigration racists or anti-immigrants? Never heard a word from you claiming that they were dishonest in their debate……. double standards all round so.

Not at all. I was quite clear that there was a singular post (in 16 pages or thereabouts) that did call those holding anti-immigration opinions racist. Were they dishonest in their posts? I don't believe so - they appear to hold a view I don't share, but it's presumably an honest expression of their worldview. There's rather more evidence of posters (like yourself) arriving complete with the sort of straw man arguments and pre-emptive racist accusations - despite no-one offering either. That's the dishonestly I'm pointing to - the only dishonesty apparent in the thread.

alastair

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Jesus wept. You still believe that? Can you read links? I linked to the official UK PARLIAMENT website which says that parliament is supreme over courts and no parliament can bind another and that European laws don't change this. Your opinion is that of a guy on the Internet.

The uk parliament can withdraw from any treaty it wants.

Of course it can - but while it remains within the EU - EU laws take precedence over UK law. That's not the opinion of a guy on the internet - it's the current reality.

From your own link (you were saying something about an inability to read?):

Over the years, Parliament has passed laws that limit the application of parliamentary sovereignty. These laws reflect political developments both within and outside the UK.

They include:
...
The UK's entry to the European Union in 1972.

old hippy

jank wrote: »

True, therefore emigration from Ireland is about 50% less than what is talked about in the media as the vast majority of 'migrants' are on WHV type visas in Canada, NZ, OZ. It is a temp visa with a holiday in mind, not permanent migration. Backpackers are not migrants.

Are you a migrant, jank?

Frank Lee Midere

alastair wrote: »

Of course it can - but while it remains within the EU - EU laws take precedence over UK law. That's not the opinion of a guy on the internet - it's the current reality.

No. There is no one European constitution. It's a series of treaties agreed on by previous parliaments. Any of these individual treaties can be rescinded, or ignored, by any parliament. This does not lead to leaving the EU unless they also decide to do that, or the EU kicks them out. Also a new law restricting immigration to 75k within the EU modifies previous agreements, or treaties. I doubt if any one of those treaties just deals with labour mobility so the rest of the treaty stands.

As I said EU treaties also restrict national deficits to % and is totally ignored. In no sense does the UK have to leave the EU to ignore or rescind a law. It may be made an example of but I doubt that too.

Frank Lee Midere

alastair wrote: »

Of course it can - but while it remains within the EU - EU laws take precedence over UK law. That's not the opinion of a guy on the internet - it's the current reality.

From your own link (you were saying something about an inability to read?):

That's fairly ridiculous selective editing. The link is clear that parliamentary sovereignty still stands.


Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.
Parliamentary sovereignty and the UK constitution
People often refer to the UK having an 'unwritten constitution' but that's not strictly true. It may not exist in a single text, like in the USA or Germany, but large parts of it are written down, much of it in the laws passed in Parliament - known as statute law.
Therefore, the UK constitution is often described as 'partly written and wholly uncodified'. (Uncodified means that the UK does not have a single, written constitution.)
Developments affecting Parliamentary sovereignty
Over the years, Parliament has passed laws that limit the application of parliamentary sovereignty. These laws reflect political developments both within and outside the UK.
They include:
The devolution of power to bodies like the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.
The Human Rights Act 1998.
The UK's entry to the European Union in 1972.
The decision to establish a UK Supreme Court in 2009, which ends the House of Lords function as the UK's final court of appeal.
these developments do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, since, in theory at least, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes.

Missed the first and last paragraph did we?