Why is it wrong to oppose mass immigration?

alastair

jank wrote: »

So when I mention the current problems with the euro which is an example unsustainable policy, first you say that this 'files on the face of reality on the ground' then you say in a nut shell 'well change will happen anyway'. Having your cake and eating it?



So the Euro, the single most important economic development and policy of the the EU's history is 'sustainable' as things stand now? Wow! Again… Wow! Single monitory unions have been tried before and all of them have failed. Not a great record to be fair.

Well, let me look to see what currency I've got in my wallet. Yep - still Euros. So, we've got a single currency that shows no sign of going away. Seems like a sustainable scenario in my book. As to the straw man of pretending that any economic policy can be inflexible - nice try, but no dice. There's no contradiction between gradual change and sustainability - it's quite the opposite.

jank wrote: »

That is the boards.ie argument of 'you can't spell'. Please leave my personal location out of the argument as it makes you look petty.

Just trying to tease out this unfamiliarity with the actual realities. You asked where I'd been the last five years - I've been here, unlike you.

jank wrote: »

So border controls are OK but question actually policies and rules that go into governing of these borders, thats racist… hmmm ok! This is an example of the usual left wing defamation of an opposite opinion which tries to shut down discussion of policy that should be open for discussion. Again, having your cake and eating it.

More straw man arguments? Not really your debate, is it?

djpbarry

jank wrote: »

Yet the UK are doing just this under rules written by a left wing Labor government. Therefore they must be racists!?

Because?

jank wrote: »

A bit rocky would state a temporary adjustment of sorts.

Yep. That’s pretty much what we’re seeing.

jank wrote: »

What we are seeing is systemic issues that have been bubbling under the radar for the best part 3 decades...

I think what we’re seeing is flaws in the construction of monetary union, not so much the EU itself. But that’s obviously not to say that the EU is flawless.

jank wrote: »

How bad does it have to get before we recognise that the current setup can't go on? 'Stick head in sand and ignore everything unless bullets start flying' That is your mantra.

Is it? Despite the fact that I have acknowledged, several times now, that the EU is not perfect?

I find your argument against “the setup” of the EU particular difficult to comprehend given that many of the problems currently being experienced by the likes of Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland are almost entirely of their own making.

jank wrote: »

Answer the question. Do you think Labor were pandering to the same electorate as the UKIP?

Obviously, yes. I think you underestimate how strong anti-EU sentiment is in the UK. A recent survey suggested that a significant number of voters didn’t even realise that the UK was already a member of the EU – that’s the level of ignorance we’re dealing with here:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/29/quit-eu-dont-know-britain-member-referendum-uk

jank wrote: »

So the Labor government at the time of Tony Blair pandered to xenophobia.

Of course they did! You really think British politics is so black and white that labour voters could not possibly be xenophobes?!?

Amirani

One of the criticisms of the EU monetary union that gets levelled a lot by US economists such as Krugman and others is that the European population isn't socially mobile enough. A lot of this is due to language and cultural barriers that don't exist in the US. Yes, youth unemployment is high in Spain, but it's not massively high in Germany. In an effective monetary union, young Spanish workers would be migrating to Germany, just like workers in Detroit might move to Portland.

If we're living in a globalised economy, with ever decreasing trade barriers (all the more so in a monetary union), then migration is absolutely necessary.

djpbarry

NiallSparky wrote: »

One of the criticisms of the EU monetary union that gets levelled a lot by US economists such as Krugman and others is that the European population isn't socially mobile enough. A lot of this is due to language and cultural barriers that don't exist in the US. Yes, youth unemployment is high in Spain, but it's not massively high in Germany. In an effective monetary union, young Spanish workers would be migrating to Germany, just like workers in Detroit might move to Portland.

Does that actually happen though? My experience of the US is that people are incredibly reluctant to leave their home state. For example (and I accept this is purely anecdotal), I met a very large number of people in Southern Maine who had never even visited Boston, about 90 minutes away.

Amirani

djpbarry wrote: »

Does that actually happen though? My experience of the US is that people are incredibly reluctant to leave their home state. For example (and I accept this is purely anecdotal), I met a very large number of people in Southern Maine who had never even visited Boston, about 90 minutes away.

It's certainly not as common as Krugman seems to think. However, among "business-type" people I'd say it's far more prevalent. Just look at how many people go to university outside their home state versus the number of Irish people who study somewhere other than Ireland/UK. I'd say a CEO based in New York would be far more willing to move to a similar job in San Francisco than a Dublin CEO moving to Rome.

walshb

I don't think it's wrong to oppose it. Lax controls is the problem. Strict Health and Criminal checks should be a standard.

djpbarry

walshb wrote: »

I don't think it's wrong to oppose it. Lax controls is the problem. Strict Health and Criminal checks should be a standard.

Because Ireland is currently experiencing a crime wave orchestrated by immigrants in poor health?

cerastes

djpbarry wrote: »

Because Ireland is currently experiencing a crime wave orchestrated by immigrants in poor health?

No, because it is reasonable to apply such conditions,

Relatives I had that have emigrated to anglophone countries all had to have their medicals completed, paid for at their own expense, I didn't ask but given the rigidness of their immigration I suspected that having a criminal record would have gone against them too, as they didnt they had no problem.

why should we not apply those conditions?

djpbarry

cerastes wrote: »

why should we not apply those conditions?

The implication was that the conditions, in their current form, are not strong enough. I'm questioning the justification for such a belief.

walshb

djpbarry wrote: »

Because Ireland is currently experiencing a crime wave orchestrated by immigrants in poor health?

There are folks who have entered this county who have committed heinous crimes. They have records in their home country. We don't want or need this type. Any person entering should be subject to at least a criminal check. If they cannot pass this they should be sent back. End of! I get the feeling that you would have zero controls and allow a free for all? Can't debate with that kind of approach!

cerastes

djpbarry wrote: »

The implication was that the conditions, in their current form, are not strong enough. I'm questioning the justification for such a belief.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/trafficker-jailed-for-13-year-after-soliciting-garda-to-act-as-drug-mule-26854891.html

A person does not just arrive here and decide things are lax and become a criminal,
with stronger conditions of entry in place we should be able to at least try reduce criminal entry. Now we have to pay to house that guy, I say deport the guy to serve his sentence and bar a return here. Anyone that was deported or the subject of a criminal case in another eu country should also be declined entry.

djpbarry

cerastes wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/trafficker-jailed-for-13-year-after-soliciting-garda-to-act-as-drug-mule-26854891.html

First of all, that article states that the individual in question has Irish citizenship. Secondly, it does not say which country he resided in before arriving in Ireland (assuming he was not born in Ireland). Finally, it does not state whether he had a criminal record before arriving in Ireland.

I've already asked the question on this thread, but do you have any idea how difficult it already is to gain a work permit/visa to stay in Ireland? Because I'm really struggling to think how much more stringent the conditions could be before we simply decide, "right, no more non-EU citizens".

clairefontaine

They don't need to say no more non EU citizens because they keep adding countries to the EU. They just started up talks with Turkey again, the same country who is building the Marmaray Tunnel.

What I think will happen is a tanger and stronger alliance among anglophone countries, the US, UK, Australia, while the EU becomes this gigantic quasi federalised blob of a content.

alastair

cerastes wrote: »

No, because it is reasonable to apply such conditions,

Relatives I had that have emigrated to anglophone countries all had to have their medicals completed, paid for at their own expense, I didn't ask but given the rigidness of their immigration I suspected that having a criminal record would have gone against them too, as they didnt they had no problem.

why should we not apply those conditions?

Not sure why you believe a medical cert should be a pre-requisite for immigrant status here, but the requirement on the criminality record front is pretty much that same as other 'anglophone' states - you're required to disclose any criminal record you have abroad, and if you don't, and they discover this subsequently, you're liable for deportation. Likewise, there's a list of crimes that will invalidate your application, if you disclose them. I personally applied for (and received) one of those 'Anglophone' residency visas back in the day, and, yes, I had to get a medical, but the criminal vetting was essentially a form-filling exercise, same as is applied here.

http://www.nascireland.org/parliamentary-questions/pq-immigration-policy-criminal-records/

cerastes

djpbarry wrote: »

First of all, that article states that the individual in question has Irish citizenship. Secondly, it does not say which country he resided in before arriving in Ireland (assuming he was not born in Ireland). Finally, it does not state whether he had a criminal record before arriving in Ireland.

I've already asked the question on this thread, but do you have any idea how difficult it already is to gain a work permit/visa to stay in Ireland? Because I'm really struggling to think how much more stringent the conditions could be before we simply decide, "right, no more non-EU citizens".

Firstly, its says he has joint Irish-Nigerian nationality, not citizenship, I know newspapers get it wrong, so maybe they mean citizenship? I presume joint citizenship would be possible but he cant be a national here and elsewhere, either way why mention he has Nigerian nationality? It seems he didn't start out here? although that cant be absolutely ascertained from the article, what advantage an Irish citizen of maintaining Nigerian nationality or citizenship, I'm unaware, the other way, I can see, the article says he has two children with a former Irish partner and one with his current chinese partner.
This person could for a number of reasons have his status revoked, an international drug dealing enterprise, is that not enough? It doesnt matter to me if he did or did not have a criminal record before if it wasnt known or couldnt be proved, he has one here now, but I dont believe that he was not a criminal before, the article suggest he was not at the bottom of the enterprise.

alastair wrote: »

Not sure why you believe a medical cert should be a pre-requisite for immigrant status here, but the requirement on the criminality record front is pretty much that same as other 'anglophone' states - you're required to disclose any criminal record you have abroad, and if you don't, and they discover this subsequently, you're liable for deportation. Likewise, there's a list of crimes that will invalidate your application, if you disclose them. I personally applied for (and received) one of those 'Anglophone' residency visas back in the day, and, yes, I had to get a medical, but the criminal vetting was essentially a form-filling exercise, same as is applied here.

http://www.nascireland.org/parliamentary-questions/pq-immigration-policy-criminal-records/

Not sure? well to ensure that someone that intends to enter the country isn't going to do so where they may transport or transmit something that will end up costing this country money, presumably the same reason people I know that have travelled to Australia, New Zealand and the US are being asked for it? Simply so as not to use resources for medical treatment which there already isnt enough resources to go around to deal with people's concerns here already. I'm thankful and I cross my fingers when I say it, that I dont need to avail of medical treatment here, but often enough I couldnt even afford to see a GP.

As for the criminal aspect, Im sure its difficult to prove, but I would suggest that if anyone commits a crime here after being admitted to the country, whether they have been approved residence here or whether nationality status has been granted, Id suggest such permissions are revoked, especially where there is a very serious crime, anything involving drugs, or any form of assault or even defrauding the State or an individual.

el pasco

clairefontaine wrote: »

Its not immigration when the people are coming from within the EU.

Yes it is

el pasco

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.

If you want to oppose mass immigration then that is your choice
You can have many valid points and if you like debate it with someone who has opposing view points

View

el pasco wrote: »

Yes it is

If you note in the link below "immigration" is used to refer to non-EU citizens.

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/

Since all EU citizens have a common citizenship (of the EU) it doesn't make sense to refer to our fellow EU citizens who exercise their rights as EU citizens to free movement within the EU as "immigrants" (although no doubt the press do so on a regular basis).

clairefontaine

el pasco wrote: »

Yes it is

They don't have to go through an immigration process, there is free travel.

crockholm

clairefontaine wrote: »

They don't have to go through an immigration process, there is free travel.

Not entirely true. I am an immigrant living in Sweden,Irish by birth and by passport,self defined as an Irish immigrant in Sweden.

All non-swedes must report to the migration service for processing if you wish to be legit,from there you ferry back and forth between them and the tax authority and finally get your I.D. cards.

You must re-apply for the cards every 2 years,until after 5 years you get a permanent resident card

dlouth15

View wrote: »

If you note in the link below "immigration" is used to refer to non-EU citizens.

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/

Since all EU citizens have a common citizenship (of the EU) it doesn't make sense to refer to our fellow EU citizens who exercise their rights as EU citizens to free movement within the EU as "immigrants" (although no doubt the press do so on a regular basis).

There seems to be some confusion about the meaning of the word immigrant here.

alastair

cerastes wrote: »

Firstly, its says he has joint Irish-Nigerian nationality, not citizenship, I know newspapers get it wrong, so maybe they mean citizenship?

They mean citizenship. The joint aspect of nationality clearly implies nationality in a legal sense.

cerastes wrote: »

As for the criminal aspect, Im sure its difficult to prove, but I would suggest that if anyone commits a crime here after being admitted to the country, whether they have been approved residence here or whether nationality status has been granted, Id suggest such permissions are revoked, especially where there is a very serious crime, anything involving drugs, or any form of assault or even defrauding the State or an individual.

That's already the case. Anyone who isn't an Irish or UK citizen, can be deported, if found guilty of criminality within the state.

cerastes

alastair wrote: »

That's already the case. Anyone who isn't an Irish or UK citizen, can be deported, if found guilty of criminality within the state.

And thats the problem, this guy clearly was not an Irish citizen first, it was granted to him, he was then caught as a criminal, so that citizen status should be revoked, why should deportation apply only to a non citizen, no smart replies necessary, meaning this person has had a second citizenship granted, he has dual nationality status in the legal sense, so revoke the Irish citizenship and send him home why should the State (taxpayers) here have to foot the bill on top of fighting these activities and bringing them to justice, now we house him courtesy of the Irish State. I'd be happy if we had some agreement with other nations where we could send home criminals, let them serve half the sentence out of here or nothing, once they are gone who cares, never to be allowed return, certainly to Ireland, preferably to the EU.

alastair

cerastes wrote: »

And thats the problem, this guy clearly was not an Irish citizen first, it was granted to him, he was then caught as a criminal, so that citizen status should be revoked.

If he's a citizen, then he has the same rights as any other citizen. As it should be.

mandrake04

alastair wrote: »

Not sure why you believe a medical cert should be a pre-requisite for immigrant status here, but the requirement on the criminality record front is pretty much that same as other 'anglophone' states - you're required to disclose any criminal record you have abroad, and if you don't, and they discover this subsequently, you're liable for deportation. Likewise, there's a list of crimes that will invalidate your application, if you disclose them. I personally applied for (and received) one of those 'Anglophone' residency visas back in the day, and, yes, I had to get a medical, but the criminal vetting was essentially a form-filling exercise, same as is applied here.

http://www.nascireland.org/parliamentary-questions/pq-immigration-policy-criminal-records/

Emigrating to Australia and you definitely need a police Certificate for every country you have lived in for more than 12 months, plus a chest X-Ray, medical and full blood test.

cerastes

alastair wrote: »

If he's a citizen, then he has the same rights as any other citizen. As it should be.

I think that for anyone that is granted citizenship here, it should be a known condition that if you commit any crimes, especially serious crimes then you could have that benefit revoked and sent to your country of origin.
With Citizenship comes responsibilities, not just rights, the person in question here is involved in an activity that has far reaching consequneces, and is a drain on resources, send him home. Disbar him from re-entry.
If we could put drug dealers from Ireland on some island off this island I'd be happy with that scenario too, drug dealing is despicable, but any crime takes resources from law abiding good people and undermines society.

alastair

cerastes wrote: »

I think that for anyone that is granted citizenship here, it should be a known condition that if you commit any crimes, especially serious crimes then you could have that benefit revoked and sent to your country of origin.
With Citizenship comes responsibilities, not just rights, the person in question here is involved in an activity that has far reaching consequneces, and is a drain on resources, send him home. Disbar him from re-entry.
If we could put drug dealers from Ireland on some island off this island I'd be happy with that scenario too, drug dealing is despicable, but any crime takes resources from law abiding good people and undermines society.

What you're advocating is second-class citizenry. Not a particularly clever idea historically. The sanction for serious criminality is prison. In what circumstance do you believe that it's a viable alternative to ship out a convicted criminal to another state, without them serving any sentence for their crime?

cerastes

alastair wrote: »

What you're advocating is second-class citizenry. Not a particularly clever idea historically. The sanction for serious criminality is prison. In what circumstance do you believe that it's a viable alternative to ship out a convicted criminal to another state, without them serving any sentence for their crime?

Im not advocating second class citizenry, Im advocating revoking what was granted, is their not an oath taken by people granted citizenship? I think there is, sounds like this guy would have broken it.
(EDIT, iM NOT talking about traffic offenses here, I mean assault, sexual assault, drugs related crimes, fraud, anything serious)

I think its penalty enough to be thrown out, so long as we aren't paying a fortune to keep him homed, for what? to return to the streets as a criminal again?? tell me how that benefits the state? anyone here who is law abiding?? whether born here or not?

alastair

cerastes wrote: »

Im not advocating second class citizenry, Im advocating revoking what was granted, is their not an oath taken by people granted citizenship? I think there is, sounds like this guy would have broken it.
(EDIT, iM NOT talking about traffic offenses here, I mean assault, sexual assault, drugs related crimes, fraud, anything serious)

I think its penalty enough to be thrown out, so long as we aren't paying a fortune to keep him homed, for what? to return to the streets as a criminal again?? tell me how that benefits the state? anyone here who is law abiding?? whether born here or not?

If you're talking about a two-tier citizenship arrangement, you're talking about second-class citizens. No two ways about it. Either someone is a citizen, or they're not.

I'd love to know why you would expect any nation to agree to taking in a foreign (ie: Irish) citizen, who had just been found guilty of a serious crime in Ireland, but not actually served any sentence. Would you be in favour of Ireland taking in, say Kiwi criminals, rather than they serve their time in New Zealand? The mind boggles.

The state has an obligation to it's citizens, and if they break the law, it has the power to penalise them through the well-worn mechanisms of fines, community service, and imprisonment.

clairefontaine

alastair wrote: »

If you're talking about a two-tier citizenship arrangement, you're talking about second-class citizens. No two ways about it. Either someone is a citizen, or they're not.

I'd love to know why you would expect any nation to agree to taking in a foreign (ie: Irish) citizen, who had just been found guilty of a serious crime in Ireland, but not actually served any sentence. Would you be in favour of Ireland taking in, say Kiwi criminals, rather than they serve their time in New Zealand? The mind boggles.

The state has an obligation to it's citizens, and if they break the law, it has the power to penalise them through the well-worn mechanisms of fines, community service, and imprisonment.

Two tiered citizenships already exist.

For example Irish citizens abroad cannot vote.

Another example, neither can American citizens who have been convicted of a felony, whether in or out of the country. http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

And by the way, streaking is a felony in the US.