Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Migration Megathread
Options
Comments
-
Deaths, injuries and security costs resulting from 'home grown' Islamic terrorism. Increased criminality - particularly sex crimes against the young and vulnerable. Increased pressure on housing stock and services. Increased economic costs to subsidise migrants and their descendants. Increased economic insecurity. Reduced civic trust and engagement. Diversion of political leadership from productive ends to completely self inflicted issues like FGM in Ireland. Increased repression and loss of freedom. All entirely avoidable without mass migration.
You can look back at my posts through this thread for further details. Maybe you're willing to trade the girls of Rotherham to predators for a greater availability of kebabs. I am not.
What about the benefit of a future workforce?
Being cynical, it seems to be the obvious reason countries are engaging in large scale migration. I mean providing the bedrock for future economic growth while propping up pensions and health care seems a decent benefit.0 -
What about the benefit of a future workforce?
If you're worried about a future workforce address the housing costs and economic insecurity that contributes to falling birth rates amongst Europeans. Those policies would firstly benefit Europeans, and secondly provide a future workforce without the ethnic strife caused by mass migration. Win win.Being cynical, it seems to be the obvious reason countries are engaging in large scale migration. I mean providing the bedrock for future economic growth while propping up pensions and health care seems a decent benefit.
It really isnt. Non-EEA migrants and their descendants are a burden on the indigenous people, being consistently underrepresented in employment, and over represented in welfare costs and criminality compared to the indigenous people. They cant pay for themselves, let alone indigenous Europeans.
It also has to be noted that trends in automation mean that there simply isnt and wont be increasing demand for unskilled labour. Even white collar work will be increasingly threatened by automation of tasks. 21st century Europe is not 19th century America.
The advocates for mass migration have to move past the naive fables they have been told.0 -
If you're worried about a future workforce address the housing costs and economic insecurity that contributes to falling birth rates amongst Europeans. Those policies would firstly benefit Europeans, and secondly provide a future workforce without the ethnic strife caused by mass migration. Win win.
It really isnt. Non-EEA migrants and their descendants are a burden on the indigenous people, being consistently underrepresented in employment, and over represented in welfare costs and criminality compared to the indigenous people. They cant pay for themselves, let alone indigenous Europeans.
It also has to be noted that trends in automation mean that there simply isnt and wont be increasing demand for unskilled labour. Even white collar work will be increasingly threatened by automation of tasks. 21st Europe is not 19th century America.
The advocates for mass migration have to move past the naive fables they have been told.
So you think these developed western economies are being entirely altruistic?
Surprisingly I think you're perhaps not being cynical enough. Sure there's an initial and economic impact of taking in large amounts of people but long term people are betting it will benefit them.
It's self interest, nothing more.
How bumpy the process is depends on how successful and focused integration is.
This is where I feel the developed Western economies will fall short. They just want employment numbers and I would imagine don't particularly care about how many parallel societies exist within a nation0 -
This was likely the intention back in the 80's when ok, many hands made light work: putting down breezeblocks in Berlin or steel from Sheffield.This is where I feel the developed Western economies will fall short. They just want employment numbers and I would imagine don't particularly care about how many parallel societies exist within a nation
Sure retail is currently being smashed to peices, but onwards, even the semi-skilled are at a high risk from automation. Next on the horizon is white collar clerical/officer workers, even Accountants.
The future for the unskilled, that jump inside trailers or distressed in dingies is largely on to the scrapheap (eu-welfare), the states that offer the best fiscal security, or blackmarket viability will appeal the most.0 -
So you think these developed western economies are being entirely altruistic?
I think you're revealing the answer to your own question. I speak repeatedly about the interests of people. You speak about economies. The policies pursued by European governments are not driven by the long term interests of their people and they are certainly not driven by evidence. Mass migration policy has often been made on the hoof, informed by post-imperial hubris, neoliberal impulses, narrow and short term lobby group interests and overall denial and stupidity.
So its naive to think that European governments are making some sort of long term, hard headed calculation to achieve the optimal outcome for their people. Increasingly, they're in denial that their people even exist in any meaningful sense.Surprisingly I think you're perhaps not being cynical enough. Sure there's an initial and economic impact of taking in large amounts of people but long term people are betting it will benefit them.
It's self interest, nothing more.
No, they're betting in the short term that it benefits them. They couldn't care less about the long term. You're giving these people entirely too much credit. Non-EEA migrants can still be a massive windfall to narrow interests, even as they are an overall cost to everyone else.How bumpy the process is depends on how successful and focused integration is.
And we know its completely unsuccessful when home grown Islamic terrorism is part and parcel of living in the UK after 70 years of trying to integrate.This is where I feel the developed Western economies will fall short. They just want employment numbers and I would imagine don't particularly care about how many parallel societies exist within a nation
Good, we agree that in practise it has failed and the policy of mass migration should be ended.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think you're revealing the answer to your own question. I speak repeatedly about the interests of people. You speak about economies. The policies pursued by European governments are not driven by the long term interests of their people and they are certainly not driven by evidence. Mass migration policy has often been made on the hoof, informed by post-imperial hubris, neoliberal impulses, narrow and short term lobby group interests and overall denial and stupidity.
So its naive to think that European governments are making some sort of long term, hard headed calculation to achieve the optimal outcome for their people. Increasingly, they're in denial that their people even exist in any meaningful sense.
No, they're betting in the short term that it benefits them. They couldn't care less about the long term. You're giving these people entirely too much credit. Non-EEA migrants can still be a massive windfall to narrow interests, even as they are an overall cost to everyone else.
And we know its completely unsuccessful when home grown Islamic terrorism is part and parcel of living in the UK after 70 years of trying to integrate.
Good, we agree that in practise it has failed and the policy of mass migration should be ended.
I don't think you're too well informed on government policy tbh, especially if you think he policies of European gvts aren't evidence based at all.
Also saying integration in the UK is completely unsuccessful is obviously incorrect and a massive exaggeration of the issues that exist.0 -
I don't think you're too well informed on government policy tbh, especially if you think he policies of European gvts aren't evidence based at all.
Brexit.Also saying integration in the UK is completely unsuccessful is obviously incorrect and a massive exaggeration of the issues that exist.
You can argue the degree of failure, but we agree it has failed.0 -
Brexit.
Oh yeah. That mistake where a significant number of people voted from a less education position where they were in a substantial part swayed by a thin anti-immigration cultural protectionism argument that stoked fear.You can argue the degree of failure, but we agree it has failed.
Lol. I remember you had a specific habit of finishing your arguments by telling someone they just agreed with you.0 -
Deaths, injuries and security costs resulting from 'home grown' Islamic terrorism. Increased criminality - particularly sex crimes against the young and vulnerable. Increased pressure on housing stock and services. Increased economic costs to subsidise migrants and their descendants. Increased economic insecurity. Reduced civic trust and engagement. Diversion of political leadership from productive ends to completely self inflicted issues like FGM in Ireland. Increased repression and loss of freedom. All entirely avoidable without mass migration.
You can look back at my posts through this thread for further details. Maybe you're willing to trade the girls of Rotherham to predators for a greater availability of kebabs. I am not.
You have the neck to accuse me of creating a strawman argument and then post this?
It is not a binary choice. Believe or not we can have kebabs and safety for women.they/them/theirs
And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek
0 -
If you're worried about a future workforce address the housing costs and economic insecurity that contributes to falling birth rates amongst Europeans. Those policies would firstly benefit Europeans, and secondly provide a future workforce without the ethnic strife caused by mass migration. Win win.
It really isnt. Non-EEA migrants and their descendants are a burden on the indigenous people, being consistently underrepresented in employment, and over represented in welfare costs and criminality compared to the indigenous people. They cant pay for themselves, let alone indigenous Europeans.
It also has to be noted that trends in automation mean that there simply isnt and wont be increasing demand for unskilled labour. Even white collar work will be increasingly threatened by automation of tasks. 21st century Europe is not 19th century America.
The advocates for mass migration have to move past the naive fables they have been told.
1. The descendants of non EU immigrants born in the EU are EU citizens. They are now the indigenous population.
2. No one is advocating for uncontrolled mass migration. That’s the straw man you keep
Repeating.they/them/theirs
And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek
0 -
Advertisement
-
How bumpy the process is depends on how successful and focused integration is.
You need to come into the real world - integration does not work. The vast majority of people do not want to integrate. They want essentially want their old country in their new country.
Hasn't worked in England, France, Germany or the us. And before you start talking about failed integration systems it has nothing to do with the system. People do not want to integrate. It really is that simple.0 -
Here's a load of Muslims in Luton protesting the arrest of the wife of a suicide bomber . The protesters look to have integrated well into British society.
https://youtu.be/b2nlIfn8tNA
My uncle moved to Birmingham in the 60s , he said it was a lovely area when he first there , but then all the Muslims started moving in. Gradually the natives started moving away and when we visited him in the late 90s he was the only white person on his road . The local pubs shut down as none of them drank, and they bought up all the shops , I could have been standing in the middle of Pakistan for all I knew. He got his pension and moved back to Ireland .
He said they don't integrate , they build their own communities, mosques , shops , community centres so why would they bother integrating .0 -
Oh yeah. That mistake where a significant number of people voted from a less education position where they were in a substantial part swayed by a thin anti-immigration cultural protectionism argument that stoked fear.
No, the policy carried out by a European government on the hoof, in the face of all available evidence and against the long term interests of the British people. But to the benefit of narrow interest groups. Thus disproving your unsupported assertion that European governments make policy to achieve the optimal outcome for their economy, let alone their people.Lol. I remember you had a specific habit of finishing your arguments by telling someone they just agreed with you.
I haven't much patience for quibbling over degrees of failure. Its a failure. If you have a definition of successful integration that includes children being suicide bombed at an Ariana Grande concert...well...okay.You have the neck to accuse me of creating a strawman argument and then post this?
It is not a binary choice. Believe or not we can have kebabs and safety for women.
You're right, we can end mass migration and keep the recipe for kebabs.1. The descendants of non EU immigrants born in the EU are EU citizens. They are now the indigenous population.
When I referred earlier to the denial by governments that their people even exist in any meaningful sense, it was this type of argument I was referencing. Its another way European's live are made worse by mass migration. Brian wouldn't deny the indigenous peoples of the Americas or Australia or New Zealand their identity. One of the core reasons there is such distrust of the government and politics in Europe and the US is that political ideology such as Brian is expressing is rampant. Why should people trust politicians will represent them when they deny they even exist or that they are owed any special consideration?
Putting all that (which is a matter of opinion) to one side if Brian was right and second generation migrants were indistinguishable from indigenous population, we wouldn't see statistical trends in economic performance, criminality or membership of ISIS. But we do. That is a matter of fact.2. No one is advocating for uncontrolled mass migration. That’s the straw man you keep
Repeating.
Yes, no one is advocating for climate change. They just keep advocating for short sighted, stupid and self interested policies that cause climate change. But they don't mean to cause it, so that's alright.
What you have to realise is that your intentions only matter to yourself. The outcomes are what counts. The outcome from the past 70 years of policy making has been negative for Europeans. Europeans are entitled to expect that their government should make policy that priorities *their* interests.0 -
So you think these developed western economies are being entirely altruistic?
Surprisingly I think you're perhaps not being cynical enough. Sure there's an initial and economic impact of taking in large amounts of people but long term people are betting it will benefit them. It's self interest, nothing more.
I don't think overall immigration policy is planned out like that in Western democracies. They are not run by the likes of a soviet politburo or the chinese communist party.
Having large numbers of immigrants coming in benefits alot of people immediately especially wealthier people who vote and get involved in politics. It will grow the economy (even just by pure expansion of numbers of young adult potential customers & workers) and benefits business who fund political parties. It is self interest alright, in the hear & now, not as some generational project.
There are also people who just ideologically support large amounts of immigration for more left wing reasons bound up with picking up a 21st century "white mans burden", helping the less fortunate, opening up opportunities for others etc.
That's all it is - tangible economic benefits for today or political ideology & beliefs, not some master plan looking at how it all plays out in the end (edit: if such a thing were even possible...).
Have to say it seems to have played out not so well in the UKs political system, which has become decidedly unstable and irrational of late.
Reaction against perceived "too much" immigration going back to the 90s and Blair governments' decisions then has been a big factor in that. Of course we can tell ourselves the EU referendum "leave", Ukip & Brexit Party voting useful idiots are all just unreconstructed racist oiks anyway so no doubt something else would have riled them up.0 -
fly_agaric wrote: »Having large numbers of immigrants coming in benefits alot of people immediately...
Problem with these types of sweeping statements, is that you're not stating what type of migration. From the EU? Sure fine and dandy. Brilliant in fact, these are usually highly skilled graduates, and multilingual who value European culture and traditions.
Illegal, unskilled, non-fluent, economic migrants from outside the EU? e.g. Mid-East & Sub-Sahara Africa, not so much.
Also any sudden and large (un-natural patterns) of numbers will put strains of social and public services, how can that be of benefit?
Bear also in mind the unskilled will shortly (by 2030s) be replaced or redundant, thanks to the wonders of automation.0 -
Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »Problem with these types of sweeping statements, is that you're not stating what type of migration. From the EU? Sure fine and dandy. Brilliant in fact, these are usually highly skilled graduates, and multilingual who value European culture and traditions.
Illegal, unskilled, non-fluent, economic migrants from outside the EU? e.g. Mid-East & Sub-Sahara Africa, not so much.
Also any sudden and large (un-natural patterns) of numbers will put strains of social and public services, how can that be of benefit?
Bear also in mind the unskilled by shortly (2030s) be replaced or redundant, thanks to the wonders of automation.
I realise that. However even for the immigrants that are not generating wealth in the way you describe, somebody has got to clothe, feed + house all the new people + look after their needs in general. Even if it is government spending that is ultimately doing it, the money goes into pockets somewhere and economic activity is generated in the process.
More automation is coming alright but again, considering the hear & now if you can get a human to do it either cheaper or better businesses do not automate.0 -
fly_agaric wrote: »I realise that. However even for the immigrants that are not generating wealth in the way you describe, somebody has got to clothe, feed + house all the new people + look after their needs in general. Even if it is government spending that is ultimately doing it, the money goes into pockets somewhere and economic activity is generated in the process.
More automation is coming alright but again, considering the hear & now if you can get a human to do it either cheaper or better businesses do not automate.
So our tax money gets paid to these people and they spend it?0 -
stefanovich wrote: »So our tax money gets paid to these people and they spend it?
Well...yes. By the way whatever about my views on the dubious benefits of (certain types) of immigration, I have nothing at all against welfare systems & their funding by taxation :pac:0 -
fly_agaric wrote: »I realise that. I was taking a very broad view & of course some forms of immigration will be more beneficial (for growth of the economy) than others. However even for the immigrants that are not generating wealth in the way you describe, somebody has got to clothe, feed + house all the new people + look after their needs in general. Even if it is government spending that is ultimately doing it, the money goes into pockets somewhere and economic activity is generated in the process.
More automation is coming alright but again, considering the here & now if you can get a human to do it either cheaper or better businesses do not automate.
What you describe is in a nutshell 'charity'. Ireland's overseas aid budget and charitly contributions are perhaps one (if not the #1) rank in the world (per person). Charity is fine, essemtial even. It has it's place.
Some money will go into the pockets in order to feed and buy clothes (some charities exist for this already). But also, illegal (black market) work ends up supporting criminal gangs that operate. This economic activity you mention is generally for their benefit, for future expansion, and trafficking. Of course, paying taxes isn't a priority in this scenario.
In terms of automation, Wave 1 shows retail (currently) being destroyed year upon year. Wave 2/3 of job automation will take effect (as mentioned) 2030-35. Estiamte 40% of all jobs will then be lost. Yes, some new roles will come online, but there will require very high skiils, literacy and education levels.0 -
fly_agaric wrote: »I don't think overall immigration policy is planned out like that in Western democracies. They are not run by the likes of a soviet politburo or the chinese communist party.
Having large numbers of immigrants coming in benefits alot of people immediately especially wealthier people who vote and get involved in politics. It will grow the economy (even just by pure expansion of numbers of young adult potential customers & workers) and benefits business who fund political parties. It is self interest alright, in the hear & now, not as some generational project.
There are also people who just ideologically support large amounts of immigration for more left wing reasons bound up with picking up a 21st century "white mans burden", helping the less fortunate, opening up opportunities for others etc.
That's all it is - tangible economic benefits for today or political ideology & beliefs, not some master plan looking at how it all plays out in the end (edit: if such a thing were even possible...).
Have to say it seems to have played out not so well in the UKs political system, which has become decidedly unstable and irrational of late.
Reaction against perceived "too much" immigration going back to the 90s and Blair governments' decisions then has been a big factor in that. Of course we can tell ourselves the EU referendum "leave", Ukip & Brexit Party voting useful idiots are all just unreconstructed racist oiks anyway so no doubt something else would have riled them up.
There's so much I agree with regarding recent posts in this thread. There's a very strong undercurrent that recognises how entirely f**ked over the lower income brackets of society have been recently.
There's also a recognition of who is responsible in the long run and what they need to do about it.
Have new arrivals helped the working poor of somewhere like Birmingham? No.
Will their lives be improved by immigration ending? No.
There was a story on the news today about a billionaire who was going to move his money and business to Monaco if corbyn won but instead on the back of the Tory majority instead bought a 65 million London House. That's the problem and focussing your attention on those perceived as competition for the scraps from the table means you ignore the central issue at hand. Indeed it's very useful to those profiting from the current system.
I also feel you can't really say that it's immigrants fault integration isn't working in somewhere like the UK when the country is also not working for so many deprived native communities.0 -
Advertisement
-
Have new arrivals helped the working poor of somewhere like Birmingham? No.
Will their lives be improved by immigration ending? No.
Immigrants are people, who naturally take the opportunities on offer and are fighting for the best for themselves and their families. If they are able to + have courage to move to another country to try and have a better life then they do that. I'd totally agree with you about politics in the UK completely pandering to wealthy interests, income inequality etc. + the immigrants themselves not being to blame for any of that wider context.
However I can't agree that ending most immigration (i.e. people coming to live + settle down for ever as new citizens) of poor & uneducated people from parts of the world which have very different culture, history and ideas to Europe is not a good policy. (I think) that's pretty much been Sand's point in thread and I agree with it even if I would not agree with everything he posted and you or others picked holes in specific arguments he's made.
As said above such immigration was definitely a driver of Brexit & contributed to the current dangerous instability in the UK poltical system.
My argument would be UK had already had alot immigration of basically poor & uneducated people (esp. muslims) from its old colonies which had not been a success for people in those places you mention.
Then when EU accession states joined there was another new surge (without any slow down in continuing "natural" immigration from Indian subcontinent [& "rest of the world" outside Europe] to compensate).
Unlike all other large & very wealthy EU states, UK put zero transitional arrangements in place when Poland etc. joined the EU. Why so?
Guessing here but along the lines of what I posted before it was presumably a combination of the greed of UK employers and wealthy interests for immediate full access to a new young, fairly well educated labour force & new markets + the bedrock ideology of Labour itself re opening of borders, basic human equality regardless of where anyone might be born + giving all people opportunities. Unprecedented influx of people results, & becomes straw (or bale of hay) that broke the camel's back re immigration in the UK IMO + opened it up as a big issue in UK politics.
We did the same of course, but it has worked out okay for us for reasons that did not apply in the UK's case.0 -
Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »What you describe is in a nutshell 'charity'. Ireland's overseas aid budget and charitly contributions are perhaps one (if not the #1) rank in the world (per person). Charity is fine, essemtial even. It has it's place.
Some money will go into the pockets in order to feed and buy clothes (some charities exist for this already). But also, illegal (black market) work ends up supporting criminal gangs that operate. This economic activity you mention is generally for their benefit, for future expansion, and trafficking. Of course, paying taxes isn't a priority in this scenario.
In terms of automation, Wave 1 shows retail (currently) being destroyed year upon year. Wave 2/3 of job automation will take effect (as mentioned) 2030-35. Estiamte 40% of all jobs will then be lost. Yes, some new roles will come online, but there will require very high skiils, literacy and education levels.
I think you read more into my post than intended. It is a use of the tax resources of the state. Maybe a use you would not agree with but not charity. If immigrants come here & cannot (or are not allowed) earn money then they have to be looked after (unless you want to leave them die on the streets or something). My point really was just that this seems the same as any other kind of welfare spending made by a government & some parts of the economy will benefit from that (assuming the govt. can afford it all of course & doesn't go into too much debt).
I wasn't trying to say anything whatsoever about "state aid" or immigrants working in the black or grey economies or committing crimes (which I wasn't counting as an economic benefit)!0 -
Again you're greying out what's legal and what is not with a vague catch-all term.fly_agaric wrote: »If immigrants come here & cannot (or are not allowed) earn money then they have to be looked after
Legal 'migrants' - yes very well looked after (inlcuding health) and can access welfare payments also after a qualification period (even for EU members, varies per state), or if other similar mutual agreements with other states. Fine and dandy.
However... Illegal economic migrants (if not genuine asylum{qualified} seekers), should ideally be returned, and this is sometimes the case, as per the other week at one of the ports.
Some are simply 'asked' to leave in 'good faith' (IPO rejections), and thus by default may enter the illegal black economy if they really choose to do so.
A prime example of this is the hand car washing business. It's a cash only, tax-exempt example of modern labour-exploitation. Whereby modern day slavery is used to pay off trafficking debts (with interest). In turn this continues the cycle again, by funding the organisers for this and wider human exploitative operations.0 -
Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »Again you're greying out what's legal and what is not with a vague catch-all term.
Legal 'migrants' - yes very well looked after (inlcuding health) and can access welfare payments also after a qualification period (even for EU members, varies per state), or if other similar mutual agreements with other states. Fine and dandy.
However... Illegal economic migrants (if not genuine asylum{qualified} seekers), should ideally be returned, and this is sometimes the case, as per the other week at one of the ports.
Some are simply 'asked' to leave in 'good faith' (IPO rejections), and thus by default may enter the illegal black economy if they really choose to do so.
A prime example of this is the hand car washing business. It's a cash only, tax-exempt example of modern labour-exploitation. Whereby modern day slavery is used to pay off trafficking debts (with interest). In turn this continues the cycle again, by funding the organisers for this and wider human exploitative operations.
I'm not trying to be vague.
The fact is, if we allow people immigrate (incl. illegally and, as you say, don't actually deport them after) and they cannot support themselves properly we/the state IMO have a duty to do that. That is what happens in effect I think.
Its funny you mention car washes. When you brought up automation earlier, I was actually going to give that as an example that seemed to me to have gone backwards (because of cheap pressure washers & ability to get low cost labour vs cost of installing and maintaining an automated car wash).0 -
fly_agaric wrote: »I'm not trying to be vague.
The fact is, if we allow people immigrate (incl. illegally and, as you say, don't actually deport them after) and they cannot support themselves properly we/the state IMO have a duty to do that.
The state has a duty to deport, and that is often what it does do as set by the law. It regularly issues deportation orders, enforcing them isn't always easy however.
If you were to turn a blind eye to these illegal actions (as you imply support for), then you'd simply send an open invite to a couple of billion people.
That means the 25% or so of homeless families in Dublin (that are non-eu), would quickly reach 90%.
It's funny you notice this issue. Not only is hand-washing of cars totally void of purpose and now redundant. It also supports a black economy. Drive your car into an automated car wash, it's often cheaper, faster, insured and you'll also contribute to taxes. Instead of into the pocket of some gangmaster availing of slave labour*. As more automated car washes appear, what shall these lads under labour exploitation do? Crime perhaps, if they have no PPS or residency.fly_agaric wrote: »Its funny you mention car washes. When you brought up automation earlier in the thread, I was actually going to give that as an example that seemed to me to have gone backwards (because of cheap pressure washers & ability to get low cost labour vs cost of installing and maintaining an automated car wash). [i.e. showing the way businesses will not automate jobs just because it is feasible. Something must drive it, cost, quality, regulations etc etc].
*Of course not all car washes are operating as cash-only labour exploitation operations, but many are:
In the UK it's estimated 10-20,000 (more recent figures are 40,000) that are involved in slave labour. "bonded labour" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-438689200 -
Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »The state has a duty to deport, and that is often what it does do as set by the law. It regularly issues deportation orders, enforcing them isn't always easy however.
If you were to turn a blind eye to these illegal actions (as you imply support for), then you'd simply send an open invite to a couple of billion people.
That means the 25% or so of homeless families in Dublin (that are non-eu), would quickly reach 90%.
I didn't imply anything, definitely don't "support" illegal immigration or seek a blind eye to be turned. Thought my other posts would make clear I'm more on the other side of the argument. I'm kind of done with this back & forth now so you'll have to argue with someone else (you might not get any takers as I think I said before, it's an elderly thread now where pretty much anything that can be said on the issue has been said many times before).Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »That means the 25% or so of homeless families in Dublin (that are non-eu), would quickly reach 90%.
Would you minding sourcing that statistic?Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »It's funny you notice this issue. Not only is hand-washing of cars totally void of purpose and now redundant. It also supports a black economy. Drive your car into an automated car wash, it's often cheaper, faster, insured and you'll also contribute to taxes. Instead of into the pocket of some gangmaster availing of slave labour*. As more automated car washes appear, what shall these lads under labour exploitation do? Crime perhaps, if they have no PPS or residency.
*Of course not all car washes are operating as cash-only labour exploitation operations, but many are:
In the UK it's estimated 10-20,000 (more recent figures are 40,000) that are involved in slave labour. "bonded labour" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43868920
I don't use them myself. As I said I think* there might be fewer automated washers at garages now than in the past (90s-00s)
*(only have my own anecdotal observations to bear that out).0 -
Only 21%, but still sizable (but that was up to April '19): The Dublin Region Homeless Executive says 21% of the new families presenting as homeless last year, were non-EU citizens.fly_agaric wrote: »Would you minding sourcing that statistic?
Dublin area accounts for 68% of total. The number of homeless families increased by 58% in the two years between March 2016 and March 2018 alone. https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0401/1039821-homelessness-dublin-city-council-report/
As for carwashes, in the uk there are an estimated 20,000 sites.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-slavery-carwash/uk-launches-car-wash-scheme-to-tackle-labor-abuses-and-slavery-idUSKCN1MW01I
Workers at most of the about 20,000 hand car washes in Britain are victims of exploitation, according to a report by modern slavery experts from Nottingham University and the Office of the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner.
Usually trapped in 'debt bondage' (to pay trafficking fees to gang masters). Then there's nail bars, back of house catering, street collections, taxi fraud etc...0 -
Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »Only 21%, but still sizable (but that was up to April '19): The Dublin Region Homeless Executive says 21% of the new families presenting as homeless last year, were non-EU citizens.
Dublin area accounts for 68% of total. The number of homeless families increased by 58% in the two years between March 2016 and March 2018 alone. https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0401/1039821-homelessness-dublin-city-council-report/
Thanks. Pretty shocking figure alright, esp. given central government's unhelpfulness to local authorities in Dublin with housing and their funding etc.0 -
Yet another radical Islamist responsible for murdering the innocent today in Paris.
Bomb squad now apparently on the scene.
When will this end? The once romantic Paris has turned rotten.
You have to ask yourself the question, if France had taken a similar immigration stance to what Poland are doing now, would we have even seen a terrorist attack ?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-509860280 -
Advertisement
-
Yet another radical Islamist responsible for murdering the innocent today in Paris.
Bomb squad now apparently on the scene.
When will this end? The once romantic Paris has turned rotten.
You have to ask yourself the question, if France had taken a similar immigration stance to what Poland are doing now, would we have even seen a terrorist attack ?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50986028
Well at least the French have the right policy in regards to how to deal with , terrorist's, nutters or otherwise, i.e. shoot to kill.
But let's not fool ourselves about what the loons mean about integration. They mean that forefingers should be free to live as they always lived in their country of origin. They don't mean integration in the sense that 2 communities meld together, they mean in the sense that they solidly live as distinct from the historic culture of the host land, and should have every right to do so.
Integration to them means simply they are physically located in lands foreign to them. Integrated into the physical land as distinct from culturally/socially integrated.
And that's why you have all kinds of problems in the UK with mass immigration. And some ppl think Ireland would be better off it we have all those exact same problems here as well. For what reason I have absolutely no idea. Most likely answer - the loons think it would annoy the real racists, and use the real racists protests as an excuse to bring such cultural change about i.e. that advocating multiculturalism is an anti-racist measure.0
Advertisement