Would you be ok with white Irish becoming a minority?

RandomName2

RandomName2 wrote: »

I can't quite work out the rationale for the current situation. Is Germany hoping to increase the economic burden on Greece and Italy in order to keep them closer (in terms of EU unity). Maybe seen as a solution to aging population of Europe to replace with African/ Asian migrants? I don't really get it.

Fun fact - Kosovo is the second highest exporter of refugees to Europe, even though it's actually got a higher level of development than some other European countries.

Germany has a very low birth rate, and has needed to "import" workers for years now.

So, when Merkel decided to throw open the floodgates, she was probably looking to expand the labour pool.

I doubt very much if she had any clue just how many people would show up on the doorstep - but what the rationale is for keeping the charade going that Europe has room, housing, and money for everyone is totally beyond me.

It's beginning to look like a (driverless) runaway train - and some controls need to be put in place now, imo.

fyfe79

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

But he supports one and for all we know he might have been about to. His family history is far from clean.

They are the worrying facts

True. How many of the suicide bombers/terrorists in the UK who have carried out attacks in the last 10 years were found guilty of terrorism before committing their attacks? None, I'd imagine.

Sometimes when it walks, acts and looks like a duck - it's a duck. You don't need to wait for it to quack.

A Little Pony

The poll tells the story and yet governments try to force it on the people constantly.

Danzy

Deleted User wrote: »

Germany has a very low birth rate, and has needed to "import" workers for years now.

So, when Merkel decided to throw open the floodgates, she was probably looking to expand the labour pool.

I doubt very much if she had any clue just how many people would show up on the doorstep - but what the rationale is for keeping the charade going that Europe has room, housing, and money for everyone is totally beyond me.

It's beginning to look like a (driverless) runaway train - and some controls need to be put in place now, imo.

Germany needs highly educated people and with automation, it too will have a severely reduced need for workers.

Their own head of migration services said that in 5 years time he expects 75% of them to be still unemployed. That is the optimistic spin.

Add in family reunification in years to come and you can add at least another million. Goodbye the Welfare State and public services.

When you have a neoliberal approach to migration it ensures a neoliberal approach to everything else, even if you view yourself as a Socialist etc.

The_Kew_Tour

Danzy wrote: »

Their own head of migration services said that in 5 years time he expects 75% of them to be still unemployed. That is the optimistic spin.
.

That is a disgrace

Ulysses Gaze

Deleted User wrote: »

Germany has a very low birth rate, and has needed to "import" workers for years now.

So, when Merkel decided to throw open the floodgates, she was probably looking to expand the labour pool.

I doubt very much if she had any clue just how many people would show up on the doorstep - but what the rationale is for keeping the charade going that Europe has room, housing, and money for everyone is totally beyond me.

It's beginning to look like a (driverless) runaway train - and some controls need to be put in place now, imo.

The facts remain though that few, if any, of the 300,000 migrants that had registered for work by 2016, are going to be of any use in the 21st Century economy.

How many Kebab sellers, taxi drivers, street sweepers and toilet cleaners do the Germans need?

RandomName2

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

The facts remain though that few, if any, of the 300,000 migrants that had registered for work by 2016, are going to be of any use in the 21st Century economy.

How many Kebab sellers, taxi drivers, street sweepers and toilet cleaners do the Germans need?

Ironically if the migrants in Germany were Syrian refugees they would be much more likely to be well educated and likely to find suitable work. However, it's likely that there's going to fewer jobs in the future anyway, in the west at least, because of technological disruption, so there isn't really a long-term problem in terms of access to a well educated work-force in the first place.

FraR

Don't know why anyone would be happy to see the natives of any country become a minority in their own land.

FraR

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ironically if the migrants in Germany were Syrian refugees they would be much more likely to be well educated and likely to find suitable work. However, it's likely that there's going to fewer jobs in the future anyway, in the west at least, because of technological disruption, so there isn't really a long-term problem in terms of access to a well educated work-force in the first place.

The majority of them will remain on welfare.

German minister warns on refugees’ jobs prospects

Prediction of long-term unemployment as hopes fade of boost to workforce skills

Guy Chazan in Hamburg

Up to three quarters of Germany’s refugees will still be unemployed in five years’ time, according to a government minister, in a stark admission of the challenges the country faces in integrating its huge migrant population.

Aydan Özoğuz, commissioner for integration, refugees and integration, told the Financial Times that only a quarter to a third of the newcomers would enter the labour market over the next five years, and “for many others we will need up to 10”.

The admission could prove awkward for Angela Merkel as she seeks a fourth term as chancellor in Bundestag elections this September.

Ms Merkel saw her poll ratings plummet in 2015 when she responded to Europe’s gathering refugee crisis by throwing open Germany’s borders. The migrant issue no longer dominates the country’s nightly news bulletins, but pollsters say the question of how it will absorb the 1.3m migrants who have arrived here since the start of 2015 is still one of voters’ key concerns.

That explains the continuing popularity of the Alternative for Germany, an anti-immigrant party that is now represented in 12 of Germany’s 16 regional parliaments. The AfD’s poll ratings have fallen in recent months but the party is still expected to pick up seats in the Bundestag for the first time in this year’s election. Initially, the influx of so many working-age, highly-motivated immigrants spurred optimism that they would mitigate Germany’s acute skills shortage and solve the demographic crisis posed by its dangerously low birth rate. Dieter Zetsche, chief executive of carmaker Daimler, said the refugees could lay the foundation for the “next German economic miracle”.

But those hopes have faded as a new realism about the migrants’ lack of qualifications and language skills sinks in. “There has been a shift in perceptions,” Ms Özoğuz told the FT. Many of the first Syrian refugees to arrive in Germany were doctors and engineers, but they were succeeded by “many, many more who lacked skills”. A recent report by the Institute for Employment Research (IAB) found that only 45 per cent of Syrian refugees in Germany have a school-leaving certificate and 23 per cent a college degree.

Statistics from the Federal Labour Agency show the employment rate among refugees stands at just 17 per cent. It said 484,000 of the refugees are looking for work, up from 322,000 last July — an increase of 50 per cent.

Of those, 178,500 are officially unemployed, meaning they not only have no work but are not enrolled in any training programmes or language courses — up 27 per cent on last July.

Researchers are noting a slight improvement in the refugees’ employment prospects. A study by the Ifo Institute found 22 per cent of companies had hired a refugee in the past year compared with just 7 per cent at the end of 2015. However, they were mainly being employed as interns, support staff and apprentices, with only 8 per cent hired as skilled workers.

Ms Özoğuz said the authorities’ main priority was not to find employment for the refugees as soon as possible but to ensure they learnt German and had access to training to acquire the skills needed for an advanced industrial economy.

“In the past, we put people very quickly into jobs where they didn’t need to speak, and 40 years later people asked them — how come you still can’t speak German?” she said. “We don’t want to repeat that mistake.”
She said authorities had speeded up asylum procedures, so migrants did not have to wait “years or even decades” for a decision on their status, and were getting better at recognising foreign professional qualifications so it was easier for refugees to seek employment in Germany.

Bureaucracy continues to be a problem for firms trying to hire refugees. In the Ifo survey, 45 per cent of companies said the workers’ residence status was the biggest hurdle while 36 per cent named the long duration of asylum procedures.

Federal Employment Agency statistics show that only 6,500 refugees are enrolled in work training programmes. Around 12,000 applied but were not awarded a place.

Ms Özoğuz insisted that the new immigrants shouldn’t be seen primarily as an economic resource.
“We don’t take in refugees according to their skills set,” she said. “The only criteria should be to help people fleeing war and political persecution.”

FraR

dav3 wrote: »

Lads, ethno-nationalism isn't happening in this country, ever.

This country was founded on ethno-nationalism. Do you think people fought so that Irish people would become a minority in their own country?

Ronaldinho

RandomName2 wrote: »

However, it's likely that there's going to fewer jobs in the future anyway, in the west at least, because of technological disruption, so there isn't really a long-term problem in terms of access to a well educated work-force in the first place.

Exactly! So you can imagine how disenfranchised a lot of these people are going to be in the years to come, unable to find work. Easy pickings for radicalisation.

Danzy

Danzy wrote: »

Germany needs highly educated people and with automation, it too will have a severely reduced need for workers.

Their own head of migration services said that in 5 years time he expects 75% of them to be still unemployed. That is the optimistic spin.

Add in family reunification in years to come and you can add at least another million. Goodbye the Welfare State and public services.

When you have a neoliberal approach to migration it ensures a neoliberal approach to everything else, even if you view yourself as a Socialist etc.

Agreed. I still think Merkels initial offer was a PR exercise, to improve her image after she made the headlines worldwide for "making the little refugee girl cry". The other option is that Merkel is pursuing a policy of deliberately pushing down wages in low skilled jobs to compete with Companies in Taiwan and China, etc.

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

The facts remain though that few, if any, of the 300,000 migrants that had registered for work by 2016, are going to be of any use in the 21st Century economy.

How many Kebab sellers, taxi drivers, street sweepers and toilet cleaners do the Germans need?

Nowhere near as many as they have, I suspect.

But wasn't Merkels "solution" to train them as truck drivers?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ironically if the migrants in Germany were Syrian refugees they would be much more likely to be well educated and likely to find suitable work. However, it's likely that there's going to fewer jobs in the future anyway, in the west at least, because of technological disruption, so there isn't really a long-term problem in terms of access to a well educated work-force in the first place.

All true. So, what is the motivation?
As another poster said earlier, I'm inclined to "follow the money" - and the money isn't going to end up in your pocket, or mine.

On the other hand, there is a nice profit margin in providing services to refugees, from accommodation, to language courses, to advice and counseling, etc.

At the end of a very long period of native populations paying for all this, we get to accept increasing competition for low skilled employment, which will drive down wages, and increase the welfare bill.

Ask yourself who gains from this?

FraR wrote: »

The majority of them will remain on welfare.

That seems to be an accurate description of the facts.

What has not been addressed is the fact that people who are forced onto long term welfare will resent it.

They come here with the impression that they are arriving in the land of milk and honey. When the next generation grows up, they see others with more money, and a better lifestyle than they have, and that is where the resentment is likely to set in, imo.

The truth is, it will take several generations for the most ambitious of these migrants/refugees to establish themselves - and the generations in between are going to consider that no host Country is doing enough to integrate them, or provide them with the services they've been told they're entitled to.

No-one is telling them this in advance.
It's all about "We can do this". The truth is, we might be able to do this, for a limited number of people, if it were properly planned in advance, but we don't have the infrastructure in place, from housing to school places, to hospital beds, and the people who are paying for it, ie the taxpayers, are often struggling to make ends meet themselves, so telling them they're not doing enough, or they're engaging in racial discrimination etc., will only breed resentment in the Native populations, while a perception of broken promises will breed resentment among our new Europeans.

The only future I see as a result of this is one where pretty much everyone is unhappy, and resentful.

So the question is, why are our politicians bulldozing on, regardless?

FraR wrote: »

German minister warns on refugees’ jobs prospects

Prediction of long-term unemployment as hopes fade of boost to workforce skills

Guy Chazan in Hamburg

Up to three quarters of Germany’s refugees will still be unemployed in five years’ time, according to a government minister, in a stark admission of the challenges the country faces in integrating its huge migrant population.

Aydan Özoğuz, commissioner for integration, refugees and integration, told the Financial Times that only a quarter to a third of the newcomers would enter the labour market over the next five years, and “for many others we will need up to 10”.

The admission could prove awkward for Angela Merkel as she seeks a fourth term as chancellor in Bundestag elections this September.

Ms Merkel saw her poll ratings plummet in 2015 when she responded to Europe’s gathering refugee crisis by throwing open Germany’s borders. The migrant issue no longer dominates the country’s nightly news bulletins, but pollsters say the question of how it will absorb the 1.3m migrants who have arrived here since the start of 2015 is still one of voters’ key concerns.

That explains the continuing popularity of the Alternative for Germany, an anti-immigrant party that is now represented in 12 of Germany’s 16 regional parliaments. The AfD’s poll ratings have fallen in recent months but the party is still expected to pick up seats in the Bundestag for the first time in this year’s election. Initially, the influx of so many working-age, highly-motivated immigrants spurred optimism that they would mitigate Germany’s acute skills shortage and solve the demographic crisis posed by its dangerously low birth rate. Dieter Zetsche, chief executive of carmaker Daimler, said the refugees could lay the foundation for the “next German economic miracle”.

But those hopes have faded as a new realism about the migrants’ lack of qualifications and language skills sinks in. “There has been a shift in perceptions,” Ms Özoğuz told the FT. Many of the first Syrian refugees to arrive in Germany were doctors and engineers, but they were succeeded by “many, many more who lacked skills”. A recent report by the Institute for Employment Research (IAB) found that only 45 per cent of Syrian refugees in Germany have a school-leaving certificate and 23 per cent a college degree.

Statistics from the Federal Labour Agency show the employment rate among refugees stands at just 17 per cent. It said 484,000 of the refugees are looking for work, up from 322,000 last July — an increase of 50 per cent.

Of those, 178,500 are officially unemployed, meaning they not only have no work but are not enrolled in any training programmes or language courses — up 27 per cent on last July.

Researchers are noting a slight improvement in the refugees’ employment prospects. A study by the Ifo Institute found 22 per cent of companies had hired a refugee in the past year compared with just 7 per cent at the end of 2015. However, they were mainly being employed as interns, support staff and apprentices, with only 8 per cent hired as skilled workers.

Ms Özoğuz said the authorities’ main priority was not to find employment for the refugees as soon as possible but to ensure they learnt German and had access to training to acquire the skills needed for an advanced industrial economy.

“In the past, we put people very quickly into jobs where they didn’t need to speak, and 40 years later people asked them — how come you still can’t speak German?” she said. “We don’t want to repeat that mistake.”
She said authorities had speeded up asylum procedures, so migrants did not have to wait “years or even decades” for a decision on their status, and were getting better at recognising foreign professional qualifications so it was easier for refugees to seek employment in Germany.

Bureaucracy continues to be a problem for firms trying to hire refugees. In the Ifo survey, 45 per cent of companies said the workers’ residence status was the biggest hurdle while 36 per cent named the long duration of asylum procedures.

Federal Employment Agency statistics show that only 6,500 refugees are enrolled in work training programmes. Around 12,000 applied but were not awarded a place.

Ms Özoğuz insisted that the new immigrants shouldn’t be seen primarily as an economic resource.
“We don’t take in refugees according to their skills set,” she said. “The only criteria should be to help people fleeing war and political persecution.”

Yes, we should help people fleeing war and persecution - but that help including permanent residence is a bridge too far, imo.

I'd love to be able to save the world - but the truth is there will always be wars, there will always be more refugees - and Europe is not big enough to take in limitless numbers of refugees for all time.

So, if we want to be in a position to always be able to take the most needy - we need to change from granting citizenship status, to "leave to remain" status.

That's harsh, and in many ways, it's cruel - but so is saying to the next batch of refugees "Sorry, but we took in X number of refugees, and we let them stay permanently, so now we have no room for you, so you'll have to take your chances where you are".

That's not really an option, either, tbh.

FraR

How many refugees are we taking?

Sand

FraR wrote: »

How many refugees are we taking?

4,000 is the stated EU quota by the end of 2017. By last reports someone is playing a decent game at delaying and sidestepping it though. By the end of 2016 only a few hundred had been taken.

The risk is that there's a rush at the end to make up the numbers with a drop off in scrutiny. Ireland of course operates an asylum system outside the 'Bail Out Germany' EU quota scheme.

AnGaelach

Sand wrote: »

4,000 is the stated EU quota by the end of 2017. By last reports someone is playing a decent game at delaying and sidestepping it though. By the end of 2016 only a few hundred had been taken.

Fitzgerald has been very adamant about not taking a single refugee unless we vet them in Italy first. The Italians have been quite resistant to that, they want us to take them from Italy and then vet them. You can see the impasse. Fitzgerald might want to take in refugees, but you can't say she isn't thorough.

Widdershins

AnGaelach wrote: »

Fitzgerald has been very adamant about not taking a single refugee unless we vet them in Italy first. The Italians have been quite resistant to that, they want us to take them from Italy and then vet them. You can see the impasse. Fitzgerald might want to take in refugees, but you can't say she isn't thorough.

Do you happen to know what became of the proposal to relocate men/boys (they were stating their ages as 16/17/18 at the time iirc) who were at Calais?

rgossip30

Sand wrote: »

4,000 is the stated EU quota by the end of 2017. By last reports someone is playing a decent game at delaying and sidestepping it though. By the end of 2016 only a few hundred had been taken.

The risk is that there's a rush at the end to make up the numbers with a drop off in scrutiny. Ireland of course operates an asylum system outside the 'Bail Out Germany' EU quota scheme.

They should also allow family reunification for the refugees accepted to bring that number to 4k . This is better than just take 4k and have a larger number from family reunification later . Coveney estimated it would be 12K with family reunifications .

Danzy

rgossip30 wrote: »

They should also allow family reunification for the refugees accepted to bring that number to 4k . This is better than just take 4k and have a larger number from family reunification later . Coveney estimated it would be 12K with family reunifications .

Family reunification needs to be stopped for refugees.

It could be 20k with family reunification.

rgossip30

Danzy wrote: »

Family reunification needs to be stopped for refugees.

It could be 20k with family reunification.

Yes that is likely if they change the rules to include Grandparents,Uncles ,Aunts and cousins which has been proposed !

Kivaro

Sand wrote: »

4,000 is the stated EU quota by the end of 2017. By last reports someone is playing a decent game at delaying and sidestepping it though. By the end of 2016 only a few hundred had been taken.

I happen to believe that we already have taken in a great deal more than the few hundred mentioned above. The Government will never tell us the truth about these numbers; they'll keep skewing the stats to make it appear low.

The_Kew_Tour

Kivaro wrote: »

I happen to believe that we already have taken in a great deal more than the few hundred mentioned above. The Government will never tell us the truth about these numbers; they'll keep skewing the stats to make it appear low.

Oh no question anyone who believes the official figure would believe anything.

FraR

AnGaelach wrote: »

Fitzgerald has been very adamant about not taking a single refugee unless we vet them in Italy first. The Italians have been quite resistant to that, they want us to take them from Italy and then vet them. You can see the impasse. Fitzgerald might want to take in refugees, but you can't say she isn't thorough.

She's no longer the Minister for Justice.

A Little Pony

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Kivaro wrote: »

I happen to believe that we already have taken in a great deal more than the few hundred mentioned above. The Government will never tell us the truth about these numbers; they'll keep skewing the stats to make it appear low.

Oh no question anyone who believes the official figure would believe anything.

You only need to take a look around you to see most official statistics are actually far worse than they portray.

AnGaelach

FraR wrote: »

She's no longer the Minister for Justice.

You should read about Charlie Flanagan's father when he was in the Dáil. He was quite the colourful character.

troyzer

Remove the word white from the question and I'd agree.

Being Irish was never about race, it's about a particular cultural mindset. A mindset which is changing rapidly from within the "white Irish". I'm okay with Ireland getting a bit more colourful, too many pasty gingers as it is (me among them). 

As long as a person grows to become part of, and contribute to Irish culture and values then I don't care if the whole island turns black.

AnGaelach

troyzer wrote: »

Remove the word white from the question and I'd agree.

Being Irish was never about race, it's about a particular cultural mindset. A mindset which is changing rapidly from within the "white Irish". I'm okay with Ireland getting a bit more colourful, too many pasty gingers as it is (me among them). 

As long as a person grows to become part of, and contribute to Irish culture and values then I don't care if the whole island turns black.

Except for those couple hundred years where it was? "The poor old Duke! what shall I say of him? To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse."

Hechter defined nationalism as a "biologically-driven, racial need" to support the "in-group".

knipex

end of the road wrote: »

wrong the irish state has obligations to irish citizens. those obligations operate equal to all as that is the fairist way.

Not really. I understand he retains Egyptian citizenship and indeed traveled on his Egyptian passport.

If he traveled on his Egyptian passport then the Irish government have no obligation to provide diplomatic support.

In addition anyone with dual citizenship (lets just say of country A & is not entitled to diplomatic support from country B while in country A and vice versa.

Kivaro

knipex wrote: »

Not really. I understand he retains Egyptian citizenship and indeed traveled on his Egyptian passport.

If he traveled on his Egyptian passport then the Irish government have no obligation to provide diplomatic support.

In addition anyone with dual citizenship (lets just say of country A & is not entitled to diplomatic support from country B while in country A and vice versa.

Why, oh why are "we" paying so much money for his cause then?
How much money was spent sending a doctor over to Egypt to see him, on diplomatic efforts to free him and attending the many court dates, ministerial interventions etc.?

And I see that Sinn Fein now wants to know the governments plans to get him "home". That's right Sinn Fein, ignore the country's rule of law and the due process system.

Don't forget that Ibrahim Halawa Muslim's Brotherhood was founded on the belief that Islam is not simply a religion, but a way of life and one of the group's stated aims is to create a state ruled by Sharia Law.

And Irish politicians are falling over themselves for his cause?
It's a strange world; it's like our politicians are trying to act more liberal than those in Sweden/Germany/France.

fyfe79

Kivaro wrote: »

Don't forget that Ibrahim Halawa Muslim's Brotherhood was founded on the belief that Islam is not simply a religion, but a way of life and one of the group's stated aims is to create a state ruled by Sharia Law.

And Irish politicians are falling over themselves for his cause?
It's a strange world; it's like our politicians are trying to act more liberal than those in Sweden/Germany/France.

Oh, there's nothing we do better than trying to out-do some other country in hope of an 'aul pat on the head.