Olivia Mitchell "We should expand our gene pool"

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

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.

Feel free to read my posts before embarrassing yourself with pointless contributions.

First Up

Billy86 wrote: »

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?

I gave four links. Need more?

RobYourBuilder

First Up wrote: »

One to get you started.


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.

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

Dustmann was the lad whose report was oft cited by the nu-Labour government to back up their claims that if the UK gave the new Accession 10 EU member states nationals free access to their labour market, that only 13,000 would arrive each year. He was only out by over 1,000%. It's remarkable that he's still in a job.

The University College London economist's report was cited by Labour Home Office Minister Beverley Hughes in June 2003 as evidence to support her claim that: "The number coming here for employment will be minimal."

And the 13,000 figure the report gave became the figure that the then Labour government allowed to stick, despite the decisions of other countries to bring in transitional controls.

Professor Dustmann regrets that his conclusions, which were full of caveats about the unreliability of the available data and the difficulty of producing accurate forecasts, have since been comprehensively "rubbished".



In 2008, the then Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne argued that the "scale of the error is breathtaking. Actual immigration was 1,373% higher than the forecast.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-21682810

Forgive me if I take his reports with a bag of salt. The man on the street could have predicted that much more than 13,000 would arrive each year. I wouldn't insult your intelligence by using migration watch to back up my claims. Don't insult mine by offering up reports produced by agenda monkeys on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Billy86

First Up wrote: »

I gave four links. Need more?

I was responding to reprise there.

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

Feel free to read my posts before embarrassing yourself with pointless contributions.

I read it. You gave no precise terms, which would be handy if you wanted to dismiss whatever he came back with.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

I read it. You gave no precise terms, which would be handy if you wanted to dismiss whatever he came back with.

Try reading my post again. And if that doesn't work, try again.

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

Try reading my post again. And if that doesn't work, try again.

"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 haven't laid out what constitutes bias through funding or commission. You can therefore dismiss whatever he comes back with by alleging bias.

reprise

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Forgive me if I take his reports with a bag of salt. The man on the street could have predicted that much more than 13,000 would arrive each year. I wouldn't insult your intelligence by using migration watch to back up my claims. Don't insult mine by offering up reports produced by agenda monkeys on the opposite end of the spectrum.

I think it is worth stating that far from representing an extreme, the migration watch report was only radical in its refusal to limit it terms. For example, it realised that immigrants and their families are consumers of public services that are often entirely omitted from reports and they costed them.

I haven't looked at this recently but I vividly remember the failure the multicults, and associated had in trying to shoot it down as racist, biased or extreme and no-one is more motivated.

It was a rare victory for the unvarnished facts.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

"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 haven't laid out what constitutes bias through funding or commission. You can therefore dismiss whatever he comes back with by alleging bias.

As per my previous.

First Up

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Dustmann was the lad whose report was oft cited by the nu-Labour government to back up their claims that if the UK gave the new Accession 10 EU member states nationals free access to their labour market, that only 13,000 would arrive each year. He was only out by over 1,000%. It's remarkable that he's still in a job.



http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-21682810

Forgive me if I take his reports with a bag of salt. The man on the street could have predicted that much more than 13,000 would arrive each year. I wouldn't insult your intelligence by using migration watch to back up my claims. Don't insult mine by offering up reports produced by agenda monkeys on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Heaven forbid I would insult your intelligence.

Here's another from Harvard. Hope this one passes muster.
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/09-013_15702a45-fbc3-44d7-be52-477123ee58d0.pdf

reprise

First Up wrote: »

Heaven forbid I would insult your intelligence.

Here's another from Harvard. Hope this one passes muster.
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/09-013_15702a45-fbc3-44d7-be52-477123ee58d0.pdf

Ripping 48 page dense reports without so much as a synopsis? No insult at all.

First Up

reprise wrote: »

Ripping 48 page dense reports without so much as a synopsis? No insult at all.

Not too good at the old reading eh?
Not to worry, the UKIP press releases have you in mind.

reprise

First Up wrote: »

Not too good at the old reading eh?
Not to worry, the UKIP press releases have you in mind.

you do realise that UKIP is somewhat British based innit?

First Up

reprise wrote: »

you do realise that UKIP is somewhat British based innit?

So it is. And so is Migration Watch.

reprise

First Up wrote: »

So it is. And so is Migration Watch.

Oooooh who fell into the brainy soup:eek:

RobYourBuilder

First Up wrote: »

Heaven forbid I would insult your intelligence.

Here's another from Harvard. Hope this one passes muster.
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/09-013_15702a45-fbc3-44d7-be52-477123ee58d0.pdf

You didn't read that. It's 48 pages. You googled it up. If you didn't read it, don't post it expecting me to.

But since you brought up Harvard.

Here's a synopsis of a study from Robert Putnam, a political scientest and Professor at Harvard, titled Diversity and trust within communities;

In recent years, Putnam has been engaged in a comprehensive study of the relationship between trust within communities and their ethnic diversity. His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30 000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both between and within ethnic groups. Although limited to American data, it puts into question both the contact hypothesis and conflict theory in inter-ethnic relations. According to conflict theory, distrust between the ethnic groups will rise with diversity, but not within a group. In contrast, contact theory proposes that distrust will decline as members of different ethnic groups get to know and interact with each other. Putnam describes people of all races, sex, socioeconomic statuses, and ages as "hunkering down," avoiding engagement with their local community—both among different ethnic groups and within their own ethnic group. Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates, two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining inter-ethnic group trust, more diversity is still associated with less communal trust.

Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:

Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one's own influence.Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.
Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
Less likelihood of working on a community project.
Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
Fewer close friends and confidants.
Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
More time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment".

Putnam published his data set from this study in 2001[4][5] and subsequently published the full paper in 2007.[6]

He definitely can't accused of being biased;

Putnam has been criticized for the lag between his initial study and his publication of his article. In 2006, Putnam was quoted in the Financial Times as saying he had delayed publishing the article until he could "develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity" (quote from John Lloyd of Financial Times)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and_trust_within_communities

Mahogany

She's right.

Constantly hearing "oh he/she is my cousin" talking about 10 different people.

This to me speaks inbreeding. And I never hear it in other countries.

First Up

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

You didn't read that. It's 48 pages. You googled it up. If you didn't read it, don't post it expecting me to.

But since you brought up Harvard.

Here's a synopsis of a study from Robert Putnam, a political scientest and Professor at Harvard, titled Diversity and trust within communities;



He definitely can't accused of being biased;



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and_trust_within_communities

Your point being?

MRnotlob606

Using this as a way to justify mass Immigration ? We have been expanding our gene pool since the Celtic times, and have had a lot of racial mixing from the Vikings (Norwegian ,Danish) Normans, (Cambro-Normans, Anglo-Normans, )etc

We are all ready a diverse group. I don't understand this we need to expand our gene pool, Unless the blueshirts wan't to implement a Eugenics Policy which wouldn't of be unpopular in the party in the 1930s.

RobYourBuilder

First Up wrote: »

Your point being?

The more diversity in a community, the less trust and more tension.

Nodin

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

Using this as a way to justify mass Immigration ? We have been expanding our gene pool since the Celtic times, and have had a lot of racial mixing from the Vikings (Norwegian ,Danish) Normans, (Cambro-Normans, Anglo-Normans, )etc

We are all ready a diverse group. I don't understand this we need to expand our gene pool, Unless the blueshirts wan't to implement a Eugenics Policy which wouldn't of be unpopular in the party in the 1930s.

It was a stupid comment, and had more than a whiff of snobbery about it I thought. Clearly she hasn't a clue.

First Up

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

The more diversity in a community, the less trust and more tension.

Which is more than offset by the dynamism and wider experience it brings.

Nobody is saying that immigration doesn't bring its problems. The challenges to the education and social services are well documented. However the serious analyses shows that the balance is overwhelmingly positive.

Personally I prefer living in a society that reflects and includes more of the world than in a tribal enclave.

Grayson

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

Using this as a way to justify mass Immigration ? We have been expanding our gene pool since the Celtic times, and have had a lot of racial mixing from the Vikings (Norwegian ,Danish) Normans, (Cambro-Normans, Anglo-Normans, )etc

We are all ready a diverse group. I don't understand this we need to expand our gene pool, Unless the blueshirts wan't to implement a Eugenics Policy which wouldn't of be unpopular in the party in the 1930s.

Depends where you live. We were blow ins where I lived. Everyone in my school was related to other people in the school. It was probably about 20 families that had been marrying for generations.

Of course that doesn't mean anything with regards to immigration. A lot of my friends from school would have moved away to dublin, galway etc. And a lot more people moved into the area because it's cheaper than dublin. That's down to better communication, transport and technology.

But back to my original point, there wasn't a lot of internal or external population movement in ireland for a while.