Population and Migration 2019 - CSO figures

Harvey Weinstein

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You can't have it both ways.

We need more migration to the country because Irish women are not having enough children. It's as blunt as that.

There is no argument to be had unless we all have more children.

Obviously not all will be well meaning workers. Most who come here do work and contribute though and put down roots.

To replace Irish people in other words...

is_that_so

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

To replace Irish people in other words...

A new generation will be Irish or is your concern here about skin hues?

circadian

For those giving out about immigration and the great replacement theory quackery or whatever else.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-49481726

The Central Statistics Office (CSO) said the number of non-Irish nationals living in Ireland increased from 593,600 to 622,700, which is 12.7% of the total population.

Of the non-Irish nationals an estimated 115,000 are from the UK, 340,000 from elsewhere in the EU and 169,000 from elsewhere in the world.

circadian

circadian wrote: »

For those giving out about immigration and the great replacement theory quackery or whatever else.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-49481726

Elsewhere in the world is less than half of the number of immigrants from EU or UK. All this banging on about some Muslim invasion or whatever is just guff spouted off by the likes of Justin Barrett/Gemma O'Doherty to try and justify their incoherent ramblings of hate and inability to deal with change.



Hit quote instead of reply *facepalm.png*

recedite

is_that_so wrote: »

A new generation will be Irish or is your concern here about skin hues?

Certainly the next generation would be Irish citizens. So lets suppose after another generation these differently coloured Irish who perhaps are followers of Islam or some African Pentecostal church are living reasonably happily alongside their more traditionally Irish brethren.
What advantage is it? What would we actually have achieved, as opposed to going the way we always went before, which was to rear a sufficient number of replacements from our own population?


Maybe the most recently arrived populations would live in the worst areas, while the most long established (and the most white) people would inhabit the best areas and have the best jobs. But these rich white people would be so focused on their careers that they would have very few offspring. So society would be like a conveyor belt, moving from newly arrived asylum seeker all the way up to the top.
It all seems a bit dystopian to me.

is_that_so

recedite wrote: »

Certainly the next generation would be Irish citizens. So lets suppose after another generation these differently coloured Irish who perhaps are followers of Islam or some African Pentecostal church are living reasonably happily alongside their more traditionally Irish brethren.
What advantage is it? What would we actually have achieved, as opposed to going the way we always went before, which was to rear a sufficient number of replacements from our own population?


Maybe the most recently arrived populations would live in the worst areas, while the most long established (and the most white) people would inhabit the best areas and have the best jobs. But these rich white people would be so focused on their careers that they would have very few offspring. So society would be like a conveyor belt, moving from newly arrived asylum seeker all the way up to the top.
It all seems a bit dystopian to me.

This is based on very shaky foundation of your first two odd claims and how people worship their deity is their business. There is no evidence of either taking place in the kind of numbers you're suggesting. As the CSO shows the vast majority are EU nationals.
The asylum seeker route is a red herring. We don't have huge numbers there either and this thesis really presumes that the status quo will be maintained into perpetuity vis a vis the root causes of such migration.

rossie1977

Ireland's population has increased by 1 million since 2002

Harvey Weinstein

is_that_so wrote: »

A new generation will be Irish or is your concern here about skin hues?

What does this mean exactly?
If 'anyone' can be Irish then 'Irish' means nothing at all, and there is no such thing as 'Irish'
And all 'irishness' really describes is having been born in a particular geographic location, and nothing more beyond that.

My concern is that Irish people are being replaced with peoples from any and all parts of the world, skin colour is entirely irrelevant.

recedite

is_that_so wrote: »

This is based on very shaky foundation of your first two odd claims and how people worship their deity is their business. There is no evidence of either taking place in the kind of numbers you're suggesting. As the CSO shows the vast majority are EU nationals.
The asylum seeker route is a red herring. We don't have huge numbers there either and this thesis really presumes that the status quo will be maintained into perpetuity vis a vis the root causes of such migration.

You haven't answered the question though.

To put it bluntly, I'm asking what is the advantage of using other countries as our future breeding stock, as opposed to having family friendly policies for people already living here?


BTW the CSO figures are concerned with "net migration" not with numbers of what most of us understand to be immigrants. So Irish people returning to live here are classified as "immigrants". Its not clear whether asylum seekers are classified as immigrants before their applications are decided.


I mention religion, culture and race because these things do have a bearing when you are talking about society, social cohesion and the nation state as a concept.

jay0109

is_that_so wrote: »

A new generation will be Irish or is your concern here about skin hues?

Doesn't seem to work like that in the UK for example where so many immigrants live in their own communities with no integration and bring all their customs/traditions/way of life with them.

is_that_so

jay0109 wrote: »

Doesn't seem to work like that in the UK for example where so many immigrants live in their own communities with no integration and bring all their customs/traditions/way of life with them.

The UK tends to be a bad example for lots of things.
A lot of them came from places far further afield and the UK made little effort to encourage integration and it was the 1950s. Most of the kids in the family have friends amongst the new Irish. They just see them as friends.

jay0109

is_that_so wrote: »

The UK tends to be a bad example for lots of things.
A lot of them came from places far further afield and the UK made little effort to encourage integration and it was the 1950s. Most of the kids in the family have friends amongst the new Irish. They just see them as friends.

Ok, lets skip the UK. How are things looking in say, France?

is_that_so

recedite wrote: »

You haven't answered the question though.

To put it bluntly, I'm asking what is the advantage of using other countries as our future breeding stock, as opposed to having family friendly policies for people already living here?


BTW the CSO figures are concerned with "net migration" not with numbers of what most of us understand to be immigrants. So Irish people returning to live here are classified as "immigrants". Its not clear whether asylum seekers are classified as immigrants before their applications are decided.


I mention religion, culture and race because these things do have a bearing when you are talking about society, social cohesion and the nation state as a concept.

We all have our origins somewhere, in some cases much longer ago than others. Productive members of society works for me regardless of where they come from. Your nation state is an idealistic one, steeped in what I can see is the historic notions on nationhood. That world no longer exists.

Ulysses Gaze

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You can't have it both ways.

We need more migration to the country because Irish women are not having enough children. It's as blunt as that.

There is no argument to be had unless we all have more children.

Obviously not all will be well meaning workers. Most who come here do work and contribute though and put down roots.

Automation is going to knock out a number of jobs/professions from lower level to mid-tier level - blue and white collar.

We'll need less people to employ - not more

Overheal

recedite wrote: »

You haven't answered the question though.

To put it bluntly, I'm asking what is the advantage of using other countries as our future breeding stock, as opposed to having family friendly policies for people already living here?


BTW the CSO figures are concerned with "net migration" not with numbers of what most of us understand to be immigrants. So Irish people returning to live here are classified as "immigrants". Its not clear whether asylum seekers are classified as immigrants before their applications are decided.


I mention religion, culture and race because these things do have a bearing when you are talking about society, social cohesion and the nation state as a concept.

Well you’ve hinted at it yourself: migrants integrate into the lower rungs of the economy, for many it’s a big step up, (of course some will become doctors and engineers etc) meanwhile the native population’s quality of life increases and if they choose to focus on their careers rather than breeding progeny then - that’s a personal choice. If such natives want to live their lives while producing 0~1 children then what right do they have to be upset that the demographics change over the next century, really?

Whatever family planning scheme you come up with, Recedite, will fall into the same problem white supremacists had in the 1970s United States (no, I’m not calling you anything of the ilk): the law won’t let you make a family planning policy eg. To pay people to have babies that only is eligible for white babies - there are discrimination laws against that. Their solution was to drive hard against abortions, because when you dived into the numbers white girls were electing abortions at a higher relative rate than colored folks. This banning abortion has, for decades, been seen as the panacea for forcing white girls to keep their babies (great c-c-combo with abstinence only education - I could serve up several anecdotes about how much that messes up teens).

The tl;Dr version is that middle and upper class folks (predominantly white) choose family planning options more often, and opt to have smaller families. There are exceptions of course like my colleague who is on his 9th creationist spawn, but that’s a buck in the trend. You’d have to have a damn good solution for having pro-family policies that get you the solution you want, ie. A native/white supermajority demographic till kingdom come.

is_that_so

jay0109 wrote: »

Ok, lets skip the UK. How are things looking in say, France?

Generally OK as far as I can see. The banlieue continue to be an issue but France is getting to a point of accepting multi-culturalism. Having good sport teams has helped there!

recedite

is_that_so wrote: »

Your nation state is an idealistic one, steeped in what I can see is the historic notions on nationhood. That world no longer exists.

It still exists alright.
it seems to me you would prefer Baltimore West Cork to become like Baltimore USA.

I'm just asking, whats the advantage?

recedite

Overheal wrote: »

Well you’ve hinted at it yourself: migrants integrate into the lower rungs of the economy, for many it’s a big step up, (of course some will become doctors and engineers etc) meanwhile the native population’s quality of life increases and if they choose to focus on their careers rather than breeding progeny then - that’s a personal choice.

A divided society then, with a wealthy elite employing immigrants as carers and gardeners. Such people returning to their ghetto every night.
I don't see that as an improvement over a more equal and cohesive society.

Overheal wrote: »

Whatever family planning scheme you come up with, Recedite, will fall into the same problem white supremacists had in the 1970s United States (no, I’m not calling you anything of the ilk): the law won’t let you make a family planning policy eg. To pay people to have babies that only is eligible for white babies - there are discrimination laws against that. Their solution was to drive hard against abortions, because when you dived into the numbers white girls were electing abortions at a higher relative rate than colored folks.

That's a nonsensical conspiracy theory and I'm not going down that rabbithole.

Overheal wrote: »

You’d have to have a damn good solution for having pro-family policies that get you the solution you want, ie. A native/white supermajority demographic till kingdom come.

That's a nonsensical strawman argument.


This is the kind of thing I'm referring to.

Harvey Weinstein

Overheal wrote: »

the solution you want, ie. A native/white supermajority demographic till kingdom come.

A native supermajority...yes absolutely, whats wrong with that?

Why are you categorising Irish people as White?

recedite

is_that_so wrote: »

Generally OK as far as I can see. The banlieue continue to be an issue but France is getting to a point of accepting multi-culturalism. Having good sport teams has helped there!

And entertainers.

4068ac1elhodqr

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Waiters, retail and bar staff could be replaced now (with vending machines or self service, that’s all you need) but they aren’t to any large extent.

Japan is a few years ahead of most the world and is awash with retail vending machines (for anything and everything). The even have retail stores with zero staff (Amzn is trialing on in Ldn at the moment). Even many McD (now) have service kiosks.

A single investment purchase of cameras, RFID and technology negates the need ever again, for human staffing in the transcation process.
So once the price point of removing human assets from services (and investment purchase of automation/robotics) becomes attactive, that's it no return for human resources.

Take a look at the uk last year, to a large extent the high street is becoming decimated, 2.2% loss of staff, 70,000 removed. 2.8% reduction in total hours worked. Sales dropped 1.9% all in 1yr.

Again estimates are 30-40% job losses by the 2030's. Most impacted will be young males without degrees or experience.

recedite

Kristopher Great Signpost wrote: »

They even have retail stores with zero staff

Not sure it would work here right now.
Apart from being tech savvy and well educated, they are also very honest over there in Japan. Crime rates are low.
That's the advantage of a very cohesive society. Society looks after the individual, and the individual respects the society they live in. Many towns and villages in Ireland were like that only one or two generations ago.

Overheal

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

A native supermajority...yes absolutely, whats wrong with that?

Why are you categorising Irish people as White?

Just the language from the post I responded to in this case.

Overheal

recedite wrote: »

A divided society then, with a wealthy elite employing immigrants as carers and gardeners. Such people returning to their ghetto every night.
I don't see that as an improvement over a more equal and cohesive society.

thats fair

That's a nonsensical conspiracy theory and I'm not going down that rabbithole.
That's a nonsensical strawman argument.

no not as nonsensical as you allege, makes a lot of sense tbh; but indeed there’s a forum to expand on that.

This is the kind of thing I'm referring to.

most child items are tax free in most places anyway aren’t they?

Those breaks would be available to migrants and resident foreign nationals though as well.

recedite

Overheal wrote: »

most child items are tax free in most places anyway aren’t they?

A tax credit is not the same as zero rated VAT on the product, its on top of that...

tax breaks for baby products. Parents would be able to deduct up to €1,800 a year per child for purchases of essentials including nappies and baby milk.

Then there is also the cash payment.
And there could be free creche places, tax credits or payments for toddlers.
Child support for school going kids could be increased, and continued (not stopped) for those reaching 18 but going to college.
Because these educated young people are the ones who will be paying the pensions in future, including the pensions of the childless. Not some guy who has drifted in from sub-saharan Africa and feels entitled to live out the rest of his life on benefits just because he survived his journey.

Overheal wrote: »

Those breaks would be available to migrants and resident foreign nationals though as well.

I'd have no problem with that.

suicide_circus

jay0109 wrote: »

Let's see what the next census throws up? If I recall correctly, the CSO had to make a big adjustment upwards at the last census to their quarterly figures...turns out there were a lot more immigration into the country then they had previously 'guessed'.
Stunned I was!

from a number of conversations i had with the census taker who covered the apartment building i was living in in 2016, the participation rate by non EU residents is tiny. most of my neighbours were from outside the EU, none...NONE of them returned a census form. Most wouldn't open the door to her. This was Dublin city centre. I know its anecdotal but if this pattern is in any way common then we really have no idea who lives here.

Topgear on Dave

suicide_circus wrote: »

from a number of conversations i had with the census taker who covered the apartment building i was living in in 2016, the participation rate by non EU residents is tiny. most of my neighbours were from outside the EU, none...NONE of them returned a census form. Most wouldn't open the door to her. This was Dublin city centre. I know its anecdotal but if this pattern is in any way common then we really have no idea who lives here.

Same here, I shared with a few foreigners and none would fill it in.

Dutch girl absolutely refused to open the door to the census staff, I doubt we have a clue who is really in the country.

recedite

suicide_circus wrote: »

I know its anecdotal but if this pattern is in any way common then we really have no idea who lives here.

I know of instances where the census person had to go back to the house a few times, and eventually got the form back. But it was filled in as only 2 or 3 people living there when it was obvious that there were 10 or more. Only anecdotal, of course.

suicide_circus

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Same here, I shared with a few foreigners and none would fill it in.

Dutch girl absolutely refused to open the door to the census staff, I doubt we have a clue who is really in the country.

i'm not saying this is an issue unique to ireland, i'd imagine its the same everywhere

Del.Monte

suicide_circus wrote: »

from a number of conversations i had with the census taker who covered the apartment building i was living in in 2016, the participation rate by non EU residents is tiny. most of my neighbours were from outside the EU, none...NONE of them returned a census form. Most wouldn't open the door to her. This was Dublin city centre. I know its anecdotal but if this pattern is in any way common then we really have no idea who lives here.

Welcome to Ireland 2019 - I had the same conversation with my census taker here in the sunny south east where natives are in danger of becoming a minority - certainly in the town itself.