Olivia Mitchell "We should expand our gene pool"

Reekwind

bb1234567 wrote: »

Its not like theyre all going to marry irish people though. In britain and america there are plenty of non white adults who grew up in those counries since birth and most married other members of their own ethnic group still

Actually, in the UK it's the white population that has the lowest rates of marriage with other ethnic groups. There's obvious and understandable reasons for this but it does highlight that there's plenty of mixing across other groups. To quote the article: "People from an African background are five and a half times as likely to be in a mixed relationship as white people, while those of Indian ancestry are three times as likely."

reprise

First Up wrote: »

I'm not talking about the sh*tholes, of which I agree there are many. I'm not a fan of the US as a place to live but one of the reasons it leads the world in technology, finance, education and much more is the energy from the 1 million immigrants it takes in each year and the legacy bestowed by earlier waves of immigrants.

The prevailing culture is positivity and ambition. Yes, I know that sometimes results in grossly inflated and unjustified self-belief but a "can do" culture is so much more attractive - and successful - than the bitch, whinge and blame atmosphere which you get a lot here.

Welfare State a factor no?

reprise

Reekwind wrote: »

Actually, in the UK it's the white population that has the lowest rates of marriage with other ethnic groups. There's obvious and understandable reasons for this but it does highlight that there's plenty of mixing across other groups. To quote the article: "People from an African background are five and a half times as likely to be in a mixed relationship as white people, while those of Indian ancestry are three times as likely."

I think the current statistics make it very difficult for white British to have the highest rates of cross ethnic marriage within their own country. Not that they have done much to preserve that ratio.

First Up

reprise wrote: »

Welfare State a factor no?

Not sure what you are asking - or saying - here but it is worth noting that the million immigrants who come to the US each year do so looking for opportunity rather than benefits.
That said, I think the "welfare tourism" aspect here is overstated. In my experience the immigrants who come here are ready, willing and able to work. The same in the UK. UKIP's core vote is older, white, less educated, less skilled and therefore most threatened by motivated and skilled immigrants.
I think Olivia Mitchell is on to something.

RobYourBuilder

First Up wrote: »

Not sure what you are asking - or sying - here but it is worth noting that the million immigrants who come to the US each year do so looking for opportunity rather than benefits.

Most immigrants to America are from South America. Of they course they will work hard. Even if they are illegal, they will earn multiples that they would back home.[/quote]

That said, I think the "welfare tourism" aspect here is overstated. In my experience the immigrants who come here are ready, willing and able to work.

The stats showing their over reliance on welfare and social housing would probqbly surprise you so.

The same in the UK. UKIP's core vote is older, white, less educated, less skilled and therefore most threatened by motivated and skilled immigrants.

Nope. Middle class and middle aged. They also tend to live in areas with less immigrants.

I think Olivia Mitchell is on to something.

Yeah. But you are also waffling on about the American Dream. Which hasn't existed since the early 90s.

reprise

First Up wrote: »

I think Olivia Mitchell is on to something.

Specifically what is Mitchell "on to"? please quote.

First Up

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Most immigrants to America are from South America. Of they course they will work hard. Even if they are illegal, they will earn multiples that they would back home.

The stats showing their over reliance on welfare and social housing would probqbly surprise you so.



Nope. Middle class and middle aged. They also tend to live in areas with less immigrants.



Yeah. But you are also waffling on about the American Dream. Which hasn't existed since the early 90s.[/QUOTE]

Immigrants contribute more in taxes than they take in benefits - in Ireland as elsewhere in Europe.
You need to do your homework on the UKIP demographic.
I am not extolling any virtues about the American dream, just pointing out that immigrants continue to drive the economy, as they have done for two hundred years.
Mitchell was talking mostly about the physical attributes immigrants bring to our gene pool. I am more interested in the energy and positivity of people prepared to get off their arses and take a risk. More with that attitude would be a big help.

Mountainlad

First Up wrote: »

Mitchell was talking mostly about the physical attributes immigrants bring to our gene pool. I am more interested in the energy and positivity of people prepared to get off their arses and take a risk. More with that attitude would be a big help.

Can you elaborate on that a bit more?

reprise

First Up wrote: »

Immigrants contribute more in taxes than they take in benefits - in Ireland as elsewhere in Europe.

Mars bar anyone?

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/148

Should we just take your word for the rest of Europe?

What baffles me about statements like this is the current environment. Here we have a Government hell bent on trying to attract inward investment vis a vis tax breaks etc and rebuild the economy. You on the other hand seem to to think that unlimited immigration = unlimited financial upside. What am I missing?

First Up

Mountainlad wrote: »

Can you elaborate on that a bit more?

People with the drive, determination and positivity to leave their familiar places and seek a new and better life are good for a country. Some of the initial immigrants may struggle, but they bring good genes that usually manifest themselved through their children and beyond.

bb1234567

First Up wrote: »

People with the drive, determination and positivity to leave their familiar places and seek a new and better life are good for a country. Some of the initial immigrants may struggle, but they bring good genes that usually manifest themselved through their children and beyond.

Bit of a generalisation..its not like a determined hardworking immigrant will give birth to children who are all just as hardworking. Its more the lifestyle and conditions in the country that form peoples work ethics rathern than genetics, like a lot of immigrants come from poorer places where you have to work harder for a good thing in life. Whereas many irish people live privileged lives without putting much work in themselves. The immigrants children will act similarly to native irish children in most cases probably when they grow up here.

reprise

First Up wrote: »

People with the drive, determination and positivity to leave their familiar places and seek a new and better life are good for a country. Some of the initial immigrants may struggle, but they bring good genes that usually manifest themselved through their children and beyond.

Amongst those so driven and motivated could be rapists paedophiles, welfare spongers, criminals etc.

What was your point about their genes again?

Mountainlad

First Up wrote: »

People with the drive, determination and positivity to leave their familiar places and seek a new and better life are good for a country. Some of the initial immigrants may struggle, but they bring good genes that usually manifest themselved through their children and beyond.

And at the same time, the exact same profile of Irish people are leaving the Country to seek out opportunities/experience life outside of Ireland.

I think her point was a poor one but even worse in how it was formed. To say that all immigrants would have the traits you express would be incorrect.

How she can equate immigration directly with greater IQ and better looking (and most baffling of all, but least important, increased height) is beyond me. No doubt, a certain amount of immigration is a good thing. That was about the only thing she said that was true and she should have stopped there and refused to elaborate because she's talking through her hat from the quotes attributed in the rest of the article.

First Up

bb1234567 wrote: »

Bit of a generalisation..its not like a determined hardworking immigrant will give birth to children who are all just as hardworking. Its more the lifestyle and conditions in the country that form peoples work ethics rathern than genetics, like a lot of immigrants come from poorer places where you have to work harder for a good thing in life. Whereas many irish people live privileged lives without putting much work in themselves. The immigrants children will act similarly to native irish children in most cases probably when they grow up here.

Ask any Irish school teacher who has a mix of native and immigrant children in their classes.

bb1234567

First Up wrote: »

Ask any Irish school teacher who has a mix of native and immigrant children in their classes.

See I didnt say immigrant children. Immigrant children werent born in ireland, and are used to their home country culture. Im talking about naturalised children, the off spring of immigrants. These children of immigrants arent genetically more hard working than native irish children. Thats my point. I would agree that immigrant children who moved from their home country to ireland are more hard working generally, but their GENES arent any different to irish childrens

First Up

reprise wrote: »

Mars bar anyone?

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/148

Should we just take your word for the rest of Europe?

What baffles me about statements like this is the current environment. Here we have a Government hell bent on trying to attract inward investment vis a vis tax breaks etc and rebuild the economy. You on the other hand seem to to think that unlimited immigration = unlimited financial upside. What am I missing?

I suggest you do a bit more research into the topic than seize on a selective, seven year old article from a less than objective source. If you can't find the proper research yourself, I'll point you to it when I get a chance.
Why do you see a conflict or contradiction between attracting foreign investment and attracting hard working and skilled immigrants? They are complementary to each other.
I'm not saying "unlimited" benefits. I'm saying net benefits in both the short and especially longer term.

First Up

bb1234567 wrote: »

See I didnt say immigrant children. Immigrant children werent born in ireland, and are used to their home country culture. Im talking about naturalised children, the off spring of immigrants. These children of immigrants arent genetically more hard working than native irish children. Thats my point. I would agree that immigrant children who moved from their home country to ireland are more hard working generally, but their GENES arent any different to irish childrens

Yes they are, and the research in countries like the US, France, Australia and Germany shows that the genetic advantages become even stronger in the 2nd and even 3rd generations. Look at the number of successful people in business, the arts and politics who are the children and grandchildren of impoverished and in some cases illiterate immigrants.

RobYourBuilder

First Up wrote: »

Immigrants contribute more in taxes than they take in benefits - in Ireland as elsewhere in Europe.
You need to do your homework on the UKIP demographic.
I am not extolling any virtues about the American dream, just pointing out that immigrants continue to drive the economy, as they have done for two hundred years.
Mitchell was talking mostly about the physical attributes immigrants bring to our gene pool. I am more interested in the energy and positivity of people prepared to get off their arses and take a risk. More with that attitude would be a big help.

Can you back any of your claims up or are you just spoofing?

Shakespeare's Sister

Satriale wrote: »

Blueshirt trying to kickstart Aryan race shocker...

Endorsement of a mixed race society = trying to kickstart Aryan race? The polar opposite surely.

reprazant wrote: »

Half the treads in AH are about how foreigners are better looking that Irish yet a politician says something similar and you have the same people foaming at the mouth.

The same people?

First Up wrote: »

our stock of good looking women (and probably our soccer and rugby teams)

Likening people to cattle - I likes.

The part about taller and better-looking children is particularly idiotic. It's like some airhead from some dumb women's magazine is in politics.

"The latest in a line of useless idiots, whose attempts at being fashionably "unracist" actually implies racism towards a group (in this case the Irish).
Though... I understand that racism against Irish people is acceptable."

Whoever said the above nails it. Some "right-on" Irish people have no problem tearing strips off Irish people/society (exempting themselves of course). Not constructive criticism but just stupid insults. But that's ok - shur Ireland is really backwards and unsophisticated anyway.

I welcome diversity but she's not really focusing on that, she's just focusing on whether people are good-looking or not. What a bimbo.

reprise

First Up wrote: »

I suggest you do a bit more research into the topic than seize on a selective, seven year old article from a less than objective source. If you can't find the proper research yourself, I'll point you to it when I get a chance.
Why do you see a conflict or contradiction between attracting foreign investment and attracting hard working and skilled immigrants? They are complementary to each other.
I'm not saying "unlimited" benefits. I'm saying net benefits in both the short and especially longer term.

I'd love to see your research.

The reason mine is so out of date is because the conclusion was so unwelcome, it was not highly sought in the first place. Compare and contrast to the studies that selectively suggest otherwise with the explicit (and often financial) backing of those with the most to gain. Big business, employers, ruling classes, professionals, quangoes etc etc.

Like you, I don't see any contradiction between attracting foreign investment and attracting hard working and skilled immigrants provided Irish people are not cast aside to do so. Just no evidence it happens on any great scale. Plenty of evidence of unskilled immigration mind.

As for long term genetic benefits, I think it has already been mentioned with regression to the mean and moreover, the tendency of the immigrants to keep their genes to themselves.

So lets consider that covered and irrelevant too.

bb1234567

First Up wrote: »

Yes they are, and the research in countries like the US, France, Australia and Germany shows that the genetic advantages become even stronger in the 2nd and even 3rd generations. Look at the number of successful people in business, the arts and politics who are the children and grandchildren of impoverished and in some cases illiterate immigrants.

Im sure the number of succesful people who dont come from impoverished backgrounds is higher

Young Blood

Olivia Mitchell should resign in shame.

Young Blood

bb1234567 wrote: »

Im sure the number of succesful people who dont come from impoverished backgrounds is higher

Let him have his moment.

petronius

So Olivia is racist against irish people - who are ugly.
Maybe we should only allow beautiful into our country and exclude those with suspect genes
so ethnic diversity would be negative if it was uglier genes - Olivia you're a fool

First Up

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Can you back any of your claims up or are you just spoofing?

One to get you started.

Recent immigrants to Britain are better educated, pay more taxes and draw less state benefits than native Britons.

The findings, taken from official government data, came in a heavyweight report into the fiscal consequences of immigration to the UK, published on Monday by the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM) at University College London.

The authors of the report concluded that fears that "benefit tourists" were coming to the UK with no intention of working were "disconnected from reality". David Cameron previously suggested immigration was a "constant strain" on public services.

According to the report, immigrants who arrived after 1999 in Britain, and made up a third of the overall immigrant population in the UK in 2011, were 45% less likely to receive state benefits than native Brits. They were also 3% less likely to live in social housing.

They were also better educated than native Britons. In 2011, 32% of those from the European Economic Area (EEA) and 43% of those from outside of the region had a university degree, whereas for native Brits it was less than one in five (21%).

Recent immigrants from the European Economic Area (EEA) contributed on average 34% more taxes than they received as transfers, while those from outside of the EEA contributed 2% more.

Professor Christian Dustmann, director of CReAM and co-author of the study, said: "Immigrants who arrived since 2000 have made a very sizeable net fiscal contribution and therefore helped to reduce the fiscal burden on UK-born workers.

"Our study also suggests that over the last decade or so, the UK has benefited fiscally from immigrants from EEA countries, who have put in considerably more in taxes and contributions than they received in benefits and transfers.

"Given this evidence, claims about “benefit tourism” by EEA immigrants seem to be disconnected from reality."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/04/uk-immigration-_n_4212431.html

First Up

reprise wrote: »

I'd love to see your research.

The reason mine is so out of date is because the conclusion was so unwelcome, it was not highly sought in the first place. Compare and contrast to the studies that selectively suggest otherwise with the explicit (and often financial) backing of those with the most to gain. Big business, employers, ruling classes, professionals, quangoes etc etc.

Like you, I don't see any contradiction between attracting foreign investment and attracting hard working and skilled immigrants provided Irish people are not cast aside to do so. Just no evidence it happens on any great scale. Plenty of evidence of unskilled immigration mind.

As for long term genetic benefits, I think it has already been mentioned with regression to the mean and moreover, the tendency of the immigrants to keep their genes to themselves.

So lets consider that covered and irrelevant too.

https://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/popflows2005-6/Ch6pt3.pdf

http://www.humanosphere.org/basics/2014/03/uk-benefits-immigration/

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24813467
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/04/uk-immigration-_n_4212431.html

Plenty more where that came from. Funny you couldn't find any of it yourself.

reprise

First Up wrote: »

https://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/popflows2005-6/Ch6pt3.pdf

http://www.humanosphere.org/basics/2014/03/uk-benefits-immigration/

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24813467
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/04/uk-immigration-_n_4212431.html

Plenty more where that came from. Funny you couldn't find any of it yourself.

You might read my post before posting random rubbish.

Ill give you a second chance. Can you point to some studies, preferably Irish focused and unbiased through funding or commission, that prove your point.

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

You might read my post before posting random rubbish.

Ill give you a second chance. Can you point to some studies, preferably Irish focused and unbiased through funding or commission, that prove your point.

You might define very specifically what would constitute bias with regards to both funding and commission before he goes off looking. It would be a waste of his time if he were to come back with a list you could dismiss on terms you never laid out.

Billy86

reprise wrote: »

You might read my post before posting random rubbish.

Ill give you a second chance. Can you point to some studies, preferably Irish focused and unbiased through funding or commission, that prove your point.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but didn't you give just one link, from a UK (read: not Irish focused) source, with a bit of an obvious bias under the name MigrationWatch.co.uk?

First Up

reprise wrote: »

You might read my post before posting random rubbish.

Ill give you a second chance. Can you point to some studies, preferably Irish focused and unbiased through funding or commission, that prove your point.

That's funny, seeing as the best you could come up with was a seven year old British article from a lobby group. I'll take the University of London over that any time.