FAS proposes Green-card-type system for non-EU workers

arcadegame2004

Regarding FAS's report a few days ago saying that we should introduce a US-style Green Card system allowing non-EU workers to move from whatever job they like to any other job they like without restriction, I am curious as to what you people here think of this.

We should oppose this idea. FAS's urging for this is based on a vague assumption that the influx from the new EU member-states in Eastern Europe MIGHT not be sufficient to fill vacancies caused by supposed Irish labour shortages. The FAS spokesman on RTE News the other day was asked this question i.e. did he believe that immigration from the new Eastern European states would be insufficient to fill the vacancies, and interestingly, he replied that FAS wasn't sure/certain.

Thus, for this, and other reasons which I will now outline, the introduction of a Green Card would be premature. Expectations have proven unfounded in the past. When I voted for the Nice Treaty, I expected the Government to implement the same controls on immigration as other EU states. The fact that this has not happened has led to 50,000 people from the new EU states coming here in the 6 months since enlargement. We know now from media coverage that most of these most certainly were not already here when Enlargement started. They were not just people already here regularising their status. 50,000 per six months = 100,000 per annum. 100,000 per annum for 34 years = 3.4 million. 3.4 million + the 300,000 non-nationals here now = 3.7 million. Thus, Irish people would become a minority in their own country in 34 years. This is NOT acceptable to the Irish people.

Yet despite these statistical facts, there is still pressure from the Irish Left and those in Irish business clamouring for cheap, sweatshop labour from the poorer regions of the world. Bertie said he was opposed to a "race to the bottom" some time ago. If this is so, then I urge him to stand up to the pressure of the Leftists and fatcats! Our unemployment rate has been stuck on 4.3% since we started this policy of mass migration via work-permits. 40,000 per annum have been let in that way for the last 3 or 4 years. Is Michael Martin going to continue Mary Harney's policy of handing out work-permits like there's no tommorrow? He should not. It will only further dilute our national identity and lead to yet more foreign workers being treated like slaves by some Irish employers.

Also, remember that the US Green card system allows foreigners to enter the job market for all jobs, not just those where Irish skill-shortages pertain. This is particularly unacceptable to me, since it would certainly cause many Irish people to lose out to foreigners from outside the EU who would naturally work for less than Irish workers. We have to put Irish people first in terms of jobs vacancies. Charity begins at home. Let's oppose this daft proposal. The ethnic tensions in Ukraine, with Russian-speaking regions threatening to break away, should act as a reminder that multiculturalism can be a double-edged sword.

Hobbes

I don't think you know what a green card is. GC is a preamble to becoming a US citizen (for example you can't spend most of your time in Ireland if you have a green card). Also you can't get a green card that easy. Barring lottery you generally have to have good skills/resources to give the US to get the green card (or spend X amount of years in the US). You certainly wouldn't get an influx of cheap unskilled labour.

I think you are more referring it to a work visa which allows people to change jobs.

So which are you talking about? Have you the actual bill details in question?

sovtek

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Thus, Irish people would become a minority in their own country in 34 years. This is NOT acceptable to the Irish people.

Oh jesus christ on a rubber crutch...not this again. :eek:

Also, remember that the US Green card system allows foreigners to enter the job market for all jobs, not just those where Irish skill-shortages pertain. This is particularly unacceptable to me, since it would certainly cause many Irish people to lose out to foreigners from outside the EU who would naturally work for less than Irish workers.

If these foreignors are legally working in the country then why would they be working for less than an Irish person?

arcadegame2004

If these foreignors are legally working in the country then why would they be working for less than an Irish person?

Because even earning less than an Irish person is still earning a fortune compared to these poor countries. They would be vastly better off but still earning less than us. Why do you think these businesses are wanting them so badly?

I don't think you know what a green card is. GC is a preamble to becoming a US citizen (for example you can't spend most of your time in Ireland if you have a green card). Also you can't get a green card that easy. Barring lottery you generally have to have good skills/resources to give the US to get the green card (or spend X amount of years in the US). You certainly wouldn't get an influx of cheap unskilled labour.

Hobbes, as I understand it, the kind of Green card being requested for introduction by FAS would allow people to change jobs irrespective of whether or not a skills-shortage pertained in that employment sector.

We are already getting an influx from Eastern Europe. 50,000 per 6 months = 100,000 a year = 3 million in 30 years. I bet that if that happens the usual suspects will be whining again about the 'need' for more foreign labour.

Do you approve of allowing non-EU nationals unrestricted access to the Irish labour market?

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Because even earning less than an Irish person is still earning a fortune compared to these poor countries.

If they are here legally they can't be earning less then minimum wage and even then work visas still require that the job in question is filled by a local first (except for certain kinds).

Hobbes, as I understand it, the kind of Green card being requested for introduction by FAS would allow people to change jobs irrespective of whether or not a skills-shortage pertained in that employment sector.

Which is what a green card allows you to do. However I will say again, a green card cannot be compared to a work visa, even if that work visa allows the movement to other jobs.

Anyway if they are here legally then they are paying taxes. Whats the problem?

We are already getting an influx from Eastern Europe. 50,000 per 6 months = 100,000 a year = 3 million in 30 years. I bet that if that happens the usual suspects will be whining again about the 'need' for more foreign labour.

I am pretty sure you got debunked on this before, but mind posting where you dug that total out?

Do you approve of allowing non-EU nationals unrestricted access to the Irish labour market?

If they are here legally, pay taxes then sure why not? People aren't going to come here to be pay the price they were in their own country.

I am more worried that work would be outsourced out of the country then more work then we can fill in the country.

Nuttzz

What about Australians or Americans or Canadians, do they not work here? They are non eu citizens too. This just sounds like Xenophobia to say that the workforce of "insert poor countries name here" will appear on our shore in mass.

Captain Trips

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Also, remember that the US Green card system allows foreigners to enter the job market for all jobs, not just those where Irish skill-shortages pertain.

No it isn't anything to do with migration for jobs, it's mostly for citizenship purposes as there are plenty of other visa categories for jobs and work.

1. US Green Card:
This allows the carrier permanent residency - they can stay and work and live as long as they want, without any restrictions bar some voting limitations. They do not have to become US citizens.

2. Work Visa:
In the US this is either of the H1B type or J type (there are many, these are the most common). The H1B is a preferential employment type of visa where the employer applies for the visa on behalf of the non-citizen/resident worker. That H1B is valid for 3 years, renewable for another 3 max and is only valid as long as the employee worker stays with that company who sponsored it. This gave rise to the "slave labour" idea that the worker cannot leave his job even with bad conditions as then within 10 days he becomes visa invalid and must depart US or get 10 year ban on entry.

Getting a Green Card:
There are many methods.
1. Lottery: 55,000 every year (apply now! 2006 expires by Dec 31st!)
2. Work: preferntially based on level of qualification and needs of the state/US. E.g., Cateogory 1 is like STephen Hawking, reknowned pHDs, etc., . Level 2 is high postgraduate qualifications and so on down to actor, musician (yes, great as they are there are already plenty there!).
3. Family and so on.

Up until 1990 GC were attributed on work needs - doctors, etc., were given preference. It's more neutral now.

I would think that the idea of a longer term e.g., 5 year work visa for Ireland would be a good idea. It would possibly allow for the worker to move jobs and stop slave labour/indentured visa servants, allow for proper control of immigration and also perhaps lead to a more stabilised pathway to permanent irish residency without the current fiasco.

arcadegame2004

What about Australians or Americans or Canadians, do they not work here? They are non eu citizens too. This just sounds like Xenophobia to say that the workforce of "insert poor countries name here" will appear on our shore in mass.

But there is no overwhelming economic incentive for vast numbers of migrants to come here from those and other rich countries in the vast majority of cases, and you should know that.

Again the X word is used. But using it is just emotional blackmail whererby anyone opposed to liberal immigration policies is tarred with the Nazi/KKK/BNP brush. This was tried in the Citizenship referendum when those on the "Yes" side were constantly called racists, and those doing that got their answer from the people!

We are not opposed to SOME immigration, but the process most be regulated and strictly controlled. The ethnic problems of other countries defy the routine fairytale from the do-gooders who tell us that intentional policies of mass-migration will "enrich our society" and that the immigrants will "integrate". Look at the problems in Ukraine, where the Russian-speaking population is 40%+, and is threatening civil war and the breakup of the country if Yanuckovych is not elected president in a few days. Look also at Sudan, and note that those who carried out the Madrid terror attacks in March this year were Moroccan immigrants. It doesn't take very many people to carry out a Madrid, but we are being pressured into accepting mass-migration from the Islamic world, in spite of the support for Islamofascist terrorism among a large minority of that population. Remember the opinion poll recently where Muslims called Osama Bin Laden one of their most admired 'statesmen"? Remember the TV pictures of tens of thousands of Pakistanis demonstrating and carrying pictures of OBL?

Oil and water does not mix well, and neither, unfortunately, do certain cultures. The ex-wife of a member of the Bin Laden family gave an interview on a program some time ago talking about the hatred of Western cultural values within the Islamic world. Of course there are some exceptions, but on balance I feel that most of the Muslim world is currently in a phase similar to Europe hundreds of years ago when everyone was obsessed with religion and people were persecuted on religious grounds. Hence, is it really such a good idea to invite people with this mindset into our country? It only takes 1 to carry out a terrible attrocity. Enriching is not the word that springs to mind. Reckless idealism flying in the face of logic is a better description I surmise. The spread of democracy across the Muslim world would seem to be to be a prerequisite for liberalising immigration policy significantly with respect to Islamic immigration. Such a spread should ultimately lead to the flowering of Western, democratic, liberal values. Unfortunately, there are only 3 Muslim democracies in the whole world now. So we'll be waiting a long time.

Regarding non-Islamic immigration, I have always stated my belief that where necessary to fill vacancies caused by Irish labour-shortages, they should be let in. My concern about the Green Card system is that it will lead to foreign competition for jobs in parts of industry not experiencing labour-shortage problems, thereby keep Irish wages lower than would otherwise be the case.

Regarding someone here asking me for statistical evidence to back up what I am saying, we KNOW that 50,000 came here from the applicant states. There is no way that most of those could be persons simply "regularising" their status who were here already. I heard this on RTE Fivesevenlive recently (I think in the last week or 2).

Memnoch

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Because even earning less than an Irish person is still earning a fortune compared to these poor countries. They would be vastly better off but still earning less than us. Why do you think these businesses are wanting them so badly?



Hobbes, as I understand it, the kind of Green card being requested for introduction by FAS would allow people to change jobs irrespective of whether or not a skills-shortage pertained in that employment sector.

We are already getting an influx from Eastern Europe. 50,000 per 6 months = 100,000 a year = 3 million in 30 years. I bet that if that happens the usual suspects will be whining again about the 'need' for more foreign labour.

Do you approve of allowing non-EU nationals unrestricted access to the Irish labour market?

this foreigner thinks you are a racist bigot, get a clue, and come out of the cave you are living in.

You just seem horribly self-centered. What is the problem? YOu can't compete for jobs with other people because they are more hard working or skilled than you?

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Regarding someone here asking me for statistical evidence to back up what I am saying, we KNOW that 50,000 came here from the applicant states.

If WE KNOW I would not of asked you would I? Dig out an official count there, seeing as you KNOW.

Frank Grimes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The ex-wife of a member of the Bin Laden family gave an interview on a program some time ago talking about the hatred of Western cultural values within the Islamic world.

So that makes her an expert on the entire Islamic world then?

Of course there are some exceptions

Of course there is, there's over 1 billion Muslims spread across the world, if you thought any different you'd just be stereotyping them. And I'm sure you're not sterotyping, right?

but on balance I feel that most of the Muslim world is currently in a phase similar to Europe hundreds of years ago when everyone was obsessed with religion and people were persecuted on religious grounds.

What are you basing this on? Have you ever met a Muslim, let alone been to a Muslim country?

Hence, is it really such a good idea to invite people with this mindset into our country?

How do you propose doing that? Ask on the visa application "Are you a terrorist?" Or should we just stop all Muslims coming into the country? But that would be a racist stance to take wouldn't it? And you're not racsist, right?

It only takes 1 to carry out a terrible attrocity.

So we should activley discriminate against 1/6th of the world's population just in case?

Enriching is not the word that springs to mind. Reckless idealism flying in the face of logic is a better description I surmise.

I think paranoia bordering on bigotry is a better description really.

Redleslie2

arcadegame2004 wrote:

It only takes 1 to carry out a terrible attrocity.

That's what I said to Vlad Putin in the pub the other day when he asked me for advice on his Chechnya policy. Take the gloves off Mr.P!!

Redleslie2

Frank Grimes wrote:

Or should we just stop all Muslims coming into the country? But that would be a racist stance to take wouldn't it?.

Technically, no it wouldn't be.

Frank Grimes

Redleslie2 wrote:

Technically, no it wouldn't be.

Technically no, but it would certainly be against our "Western, democratic, liberal values" (his words) would it not?

arcadegame2004

Memnoch wrote:

this foreigner thinks you are a racist bigot, get a clue, and come out of the cave you are living in.

You just seem horribly self-centered. What is the problem? YOu can't compete for jobs with other people because they are more hard working or skilled than you?

Then you are wrong. Restricting immigration is not racist or bigoted. It simply recognises:

A:The problems certain ethnic groups have with each other, e.g. Kashmir, Ukraine, Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo.

B:The duty of all governments to look after their own first.

I am not saying that foreigners would or wouldn't work harder. That isn't my point. My point is that foreigners from poor countries are bound to be more atractive to an employer in Ireland based on them being cheaper to employ than Irish workers. And that threatens Irish jobs unless such immigrants are specifically matched with parts of industry experiencing genuine labour-shortages. Sadly, what FAS is calling for seems to amount to taking the question of labour-shortages out of the equation by letting non-EU immigrants work in whatever job they like.

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
it would certainly be against our "Western, democratic, liberal values" (his words) would it not?

No. The recent assassination of a Dutch filmaker who exposed the massive violations of women's rights in Islamic culture has made many Dutch people question their traditionally liberal immigration policy. Also, look at the situation in Britain where Sikh extremists have forced a play to be cancelled. And let's not forget the fatwah calling on Muslims across the world to kill Salman Rushdie for writing a book. I feel that our liberal, democratic Western tradition will come under threat if we let into our midst too many of those for whom Western values are repugnant. When they get the vote here politicians of a fundamentalist bent may come to power. We MUST prevent this because it took centuries for us to get the democratic liberal society we now reside in.

Frank Grimes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Restricting immigration is not racist or bigoted.

It is when you are proposing to limit/restrict certain groups from coming here based on their religion/ethnicity/race.
You are proposing 2 out of those 3 are you not?

arcadegame2004

Frank Grimes wrote:

It is when you are proposing to limit/restrict certain groups from coming here based on their religion/ethnicity/race.
You are proposing 2 out of those 3 are you not?

No I am proposing restricting immigration based on skills, i.e. on the basis of whether or not the immigrants have the skills needed due to labour-shortages. The Green card idea (whatever about the US version of it) by FAS seems to want immigration for its own sake.

Frank Grimes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

No I am proposing restricting immigration based on skills, i.e. on the basis of whether or not the immigrants have the skills needed due to labour-shortages. The Green card idea (whatever about the US version of it) by FAS seems to want immigration for its own sake.

You're contradicting yourself now, do you need to have what you've just posted earlier in thread quoted back at you?
The actions of a handful of extremists can hardly be justification for mass discrimination.
Western people commit crimes too you know.
[OPINION]And btw. that short by Van Gogh hardly "exposed" anything, it just rehashed centuries of sterotypical views of Muslims and their religion.[/OPINION]

arcadegame2004

Frank Grimes wrote:

You're contradicting yourself now, do you need to have what you've just posted earlier in thread quoted back at you?
The actions of a handful of extremists can hardly be justification for mass discrimination.
Western people commit crimes too you know.
[OPINION]And btw. that short by Van Gogh hardly "exposed" anything, it just rehashed centuries of sterotypical views of Muslims and their religion.[/OPINION]

Van Gogh was actually exposing the endemic persecution of women in many Islamic societies, with their barbaric practices of wifebeating and honour-killings. For this he paid with his life. It shows how alien the Western ideas of freedom of speech, gender-equality, and democracy are to so many Muslims. Most Turks are probably an exception because of the massive secularisation drive of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and his successors in the 20th century, but even there you will find widespread support for so-called "honour-killings" in the southeastern Kurdish areas. The fact that most Muslim states are tyrannies where women have little or no rights, where there are no elections or else rigged ones, and where you can be executed for changing religion, illustrates that our values are very different to theirs, and it illustrates the problems that make integration of Muslim immigrants into Western societies so difficult.

Frank Grimes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

It shows how alien the Western ideas of freedom of speech, gender-equality, and democracy are to so many Muslims

No it does not, it shows that one extremist decided he was judge, jury and executioner.
You're using extreme examples and overused/outdated sterotypes to justify state sponsored bigotry. If we went down the lines you're suggesting what would differentiate us from all those "unenlightened" countries you're so worried about?
Maybe you should try looking at Muslims as people rather than a threat.

Memnoch

arcadegame2004 wrote:

No I am proposing restricting immigration based on skills, i.e. on the basis of whether or not the immigrants have the skills needed due to labour-shortages. The Green card idea (whatever about the US version of it) by FAS seems to want immigration for its own sake.

really so your restriction also applies to EU? Irish people then?

No? I didn't think so.

Using country of origin instead of skin colour is a very thin veil, and really no different. You are trying to discriminate against people based on something beyond their control, i.e. their place of birth. THis is no different than discriminating against someone because of their skin color.

You are most certainly a narrow-minded bigot. But its okay, I dont' expect you to admit it. When was the last time a racist was happy to admit his bigotry when confornted with it? Those who discriminate never think they are doing wrong.

You sicken me to my very core. You are born with a silver spoon in your mouth so you want to deny less fortunate people the opportunity to raise themselves, to maintain your status quo? How much more selfish can one get?

If "foreigners" are working honestly and paying taxes I see no reason why they should not be entitled to the same benefits, rights and protection by the government when compared to anyone else.

I mean what have you got over them? that you are BORN here? And you say this is NOT discrimination?

It must be wonderful to be so blissfully ignorant and miopic at the same time. But as with all racists throughout history, I'm simply wasting my time on you, so I won't even begin to tear down your ill founded generalisations about muslims.

sovtek

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The fact that most Muslim states are tyrannies where women have little or no rights, where there are no elections or else rigged ones, and where you can be executed for changing religion, illustrates that our values are very different to theirs, and it illustrates the problems that make integration of Muslim immigrants into Western societies so difficult.

It might demonstrate our very different STATED values to theirs had it not been for the historic and continuing support of our much vaunted western leaders for said oppressive Muslim states. But I guess you just "forgot 'bout all that".

arcadegame2004

Memnoch wrote:

really so your restriction also applies to EU? Irish people then?

No? I didn't think so.

Well with respect to the EU-15, there is no need to restrict on citizens of those countries from coming here, since they are economically at least as well off or close to our level of prosperity here in Ireland, hence there is not going to be a stampede of people from those countries heading for Ireland. With respect to the new EU member states, I actually do want to see Ireland impose the same restrictions that 13 of the original 15 EU member states have done. If you think that is racist and "bigoted" then you must also accuse these countries of being racist too. Are you making that accusation? You can't believe one without the other.

Using country of origin instead of skin colour is a very thin veil, and really no different. You are trying to discriminate against people based on something beyond their control, i.e. their place of birth. THis is no different than discriminating against someone because of their skin color.

Having any restrictions at all on immigration must then be racist by your definition of that term. After all, you are saying there should be no discrimination against foreigners with respect to attaining entry into Ireland, access to our labour-market, and access to our services, including the state-provided services of health-care, electricity etc. Thus, every country in the world is apparently racist as far as you are concerned. Must be great being on higher moral ground than everyone else. :rolleyes:

You are most certainly a narrow-minded bigot. But its okay, I dont' expect you to admit it. When was the last time a racist was happy to admit his bigotry when confornted with it? Those who discriminate never think they are doing wrong.

I won't admit to being a bigot because I am not. But I will admit that I favour immigration-discrimination based on skills. The social-welfare system will collapse otherwise under the weight of those who would flock to Ireland for our social-welfare system, as would the Health-Service under the weight of endless new patients, and don't even start me about the consequences for congestion on the roads, which is already bad enough. :mad:

You sicken me to my very core. You are born with a silver spoon in your mouth so you want to deny less fortunate people the opportunity to raise themselves, to maintain your status quo? How much more selfish can one get?

No I certainly don't begrudge immigrants needed to fill job vacancies caused by GENUINE skills-shortages in the Irish economy. They can come provided someone suitable cannot be found in Ireland and the EU. It is a bit hard to believe that with 50,000 Eastern European EU citizens having come here in the past 6 months, that we can't find sufficient workers among those number, especially when that equates to 100,000 per annum. 100,000 per annum over 35 years would yield a foreign majority in Ireland - and that's BEFORE this proposed Green Card comes in! Come on man, we are entitled to be the majority in our own country!

If "foreigners" are working honestly and paying taxes I see no reason why they should not be entitled to the same benefits, rights and protection by the government when compared to anyone else.

What about the impact on the Irish man and woman looking for a job? Do you find it okay that they would lose out just because they want a decent wage, whereas the immigrants from poor countries will work for less? No wonder some in the business sector are always ranting on about wanting non-EU migrants! Let them in if, and ONLY if they are needed to address skills-shortages, but do not let non-EU migrants move into jobs where a skills-shortage does not pertain. Otherwise the dole will get a lot larger!

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

No I certainly don't begrudge immigrants needed to fill job vacancies caused by GENUINE skills-shortages in the Irish economy. They can come provided someone suitable cannot be found in Ireland and the EU.

I will say again.. you have absolutly no clue what a green card is. It is not a work visa. It is to allow you to live in the country. Yes you can work with a green card for whoever you like but you are expected to be able to not be a burden on the state. This means having the cash to maintain yourself + in most cases a job (unless your insanely rich).

If you think anyone can just wander in on a green card, your on crack.

100,000 per annum. 100,000 per annum over 35 years would yield a foreign majority in Ireland

Erm, that is 3.5 million which would be less then the current population. You also don't factor in Irish births and other things into your flights of fantasy that involve imaginary numbers.

You also don't factor in all the extra jobs/businesses all those extra people will bring, or do you expect the same 100,000 queuing at the same number of mcDees?

What about the impact on the Irish man and woman looking for a job? Do you find it okay that they would lose out just because they want a decent wage, whereas the immigrants from poor countries will work for less?

First up work visas normally require that the job is advertised here. Granted people get around this, but thats is what you are faced with. People on work visas make a fortune because they go back to their home country later on. Green card people move to a country because they expect the same value of living.

I hate to break it to you but Ireland is only going to grow by increasing its population. You also should be worrying less about people coming here and more about businesses leaving Ireland.

arcadegame2004

Hobbes wrote:

I will say again.. you have absolutly no clue what a green card is. It is not a work visa. It is to allow you to live in the country. Yes you can work with a green card for whoever you like but you are expected to be able to not be a burden on the state. This means having the cash to maintain yourself + in most cases a job (unless your insanely rich).

If you think anyone can just wander in on a green card, your on crack.

Why do we need a Green Card system when with 50,000 people having come here from Eastern European EU in just 6 months? If that trend continues - and with Britain and Ireland being the only 2 EU states allowing this free for all I see no reason why it wouldn't, then surely that is sufficient to address the labour-shortage issues?

Erm, that is 3.5 million which would be less then the current population. You also don't factor in Irish births and other things into your flights of fantasy that involve imaginary numbers.

Irish birth rates are expected to fall. You are also ignoring the 300,000-400,000 non-nationals already living here. It's not imaginary numbers.

You also don't factor in all the extra jobs/businesses all those extra people will bring, or do you expect the same 100,000 queuing at the same number of mcDees?

Those businesses wanting all these people are often just looking for cheap labour that will undercut Irish labour. Only the most naive deny this! :rolleyes:

I hate to break it to you but Ireland is only going to grow by increasing its population. You also should be worrying less about people coming here and more about businesses leaving Ireland.

I hate to break it to you but the Irish economic-growth rate in 1996 was 11%, long before there were anything like these numbers of immigrants in Ireland that there are now.

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Why do we need a Green Card system when with 50,000 people having come here from Eastern European EU in just 6 months?

So your against a system that actually stops influx of people here?

Irish birth rates are expected to fall. You are also ignoring the 300,000-400,000 non-nationals already living here. It's not imaginary numbers.

Again please post where you get these fantastic statistics from. If birth rates do fall then we are going to have a social security problem in the future which can only be backed up by bringing fresh meat into the mix.

Those businesses wanting all these people are often just looking for cheap labour that will undercut Irish labour. Only the most naive deny this! :rolleyes:

Again what businesses? Your under the illision that because there are more people here that business will remain the same? A greencard system would stop the undercutting of jobs because the people who apply for them would have to prove not to be a burden on the state (and no its not simply a case of "I've got meself a cleaning job").

I hate to break it to you but the Irish economic-growth rate in 1996 was 11%, long before there were anything like these numbers of immigrants in Ireland that there are now.

Which sad to say isn't because of Ireland and more to do with EU and the start of the dot.com bubble. What is it now?

arcadegame2004

A greencard system would stop the undercutting of jobs because the people who apply for them would have to prove not to be a burden on the state

I don't really understand that contribution fully. I am both opposed to immigrants becoming a burden on the state AND letting large numbers of them compete with Irish workers for jobs. Charity begins at home.

Plainly, the comparative wealth of the EU-15 means that we are not going to see such large-scale migration from their. From Eastern Europe is another matter sadly, thanks to the nonsensical approach of our Government in refusing to invoke similar restrictions on immigration from the new EU states.

Memnoch

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I don't really understand that contribution fully. I am both opposed to immigrants becoming a burden on the state AND letting large numbers of them compete with Irish workers for jobs. Charity begins at home.

Plainly, the comparative wealth of the EU-15 means that we are not going to see such large-scale migration from their. From Eastern Europe is another matter sadly, thanks to the nonsensical approach of our Government in refusing to invoke similar restrictions on immigration from the new EU states.

i think racists should require a special permit to stay in any country, and also to be able to apply for a job. Its non-sensical that the government doesn't do anything about racists and bigots like you.

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I don't really understand that contribution fully. I am both opposed to immigrants becoming a burden on the state AND letting large numbers of them compete with Irish workers for jobs. Charity begins at home.

Then simple solution!! If they can prove they won't be a burden on the state then just give them Irish citizenship. Hey presto you are no longer a minority in your own country as they would be Irish too!

Doesn't that make you feel happier?

therecklessone

Daer oh dear, how long is it since you last trotted out these tired arguments?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

When I voted for the Nice Treaty, I expected the Government to implement the same controls on immigration as other EU states. The fact that this has not happened has led to 50,000 people from the new EU states coming here in the 6 months since enlargement. We know now from media coverage that most of these most certainly were not already here when Enlargement started. They were not just people already here regularising their status. 50,000 per six months = 100,000 per annum. 100,000 per annum for 34 years = 3.4 million. 3.4 million + the 300,000 non-nationals here now = 3.7 million. Thus, Irish people would become a minority in their own country in 34 years. This is NOT acceptable to the Irish people.

You say facts, I say poor maths. Bonkey has already mentioned similar computations in Switzerland suggesting the country will be 114% Muslim by 2050 . Your sums ain't much better.

For a start you've taken a six month trend and projected into the future with no consideration of current causal factors or changing circumstances in the future. Thats like taking road deaths for a bank holiday weekend and applying them to the year as a whole. You fail to acknowledge that the other 13 countries of the EU-15 will remove their restrictions in 2011, which will have an inevitable impact on movement rates to this country. You yourself have acknowledged that the EU-15 countries have relatively similar standards of living, so the logical assumption to be make is that migrants from the accession states will be attracted to the other 13 countries as well as to Ireland (and if they've any sense, more so...)

In addition, you've failed to account for the impact that EU membership will have on the accession states and the lift it wil give to their economies in the years to come. Do you still believe that Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic States will still be experiencing crushing poverty in 30 years time? If I were you, I'd be more worried about their adoption of liberal taxation policies, coupled with lower labour costs and an increasingly well-educated workforce, which threaten foreign investment in Ireland.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Yet despite these statistical facts,

What facts? You're wonky maths? Don't make me laugh...

arcadegame2004 wrote:

We are not opposed to SOME immigration

Who is "we"? Do you represent some organisation that we need to know about? Or is it the royal "we" you are using (and judging by some of your posts on boards, I'm starting to think you may be Prince Philip...)? You don't speak for the Irish people AG, no more than I do, so drop the we please.

Finally, why the sudden concern for protecting Irish jobs? When its semi-states or trade unions up for debate you're Mr. Free Market, but now its darkies and Johnny Foreigner's at the gates, and you're all protectionist. Which is it?

arcadegame2004

You fail to acknowledge that the other 13 countries of the EU-15 will remove their restrictions in 2011, which will have an inevitable impact on movement rates to this country. You yourself have acknowledged that the EU-15 countries have relatively similar standards of living, so the logical assumption to be make is that migrants from the accession states will be attracted to the other 13 countries as well as to Ireland (and if they've any sense, more so...)

I have acknowledged the end of the restrictions in 2011 but the problem is that the shortfall between any shortfall would likely be filled by immigrants from non-EU countries handed out gawd-knows-how-many Green Cards by the Government if this new system comes in. And we are not even factoring asylum-seekers into this debate. As I understand it, FG, Labour and the Greens want to let asylum-seekers work. This is totally not on, because when the Government allowed them to work a few years ago the numbers coming here soared to 11,000. BTW I never mentioned 114% but I did mention that the majority would be foreigners unless we get tough.

In addition, you've failed to account for the impact that EU membership will have on the accession states and the lift it wil give to their economies in the years to come. Do you still believe that Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic States will still be experiencing crushing poverty in 30 years time? If I were you, I'd be more worried about their adoption of liberal taxation policies, coupled with lower labour costs and an increasingly well-educated workforce, which threaten foreign investment in Ireland.

Yes it will make them better off. However many are even further behind the pack economically than we were in 1972, and I think it would take 50 years to catch up rather than 30. So the incentive to emigrate will continue. BTW I am concerned about what you refer to but that is more reason to introduce further liberalisation of the Irish economy like I proposed in earlier threads.

Who is "we"? Do you represent some organisation that we need to know about? Or is it the royal "we" you are using (and judging by some of your posts on boards, I'm starting to think you may be Prince Philip...)? You don't speak for the Irish people AG, no more than I do, so drop the we please.

The 80% "Yes" in the Citizenship referendum together with the exit-polls seem to strongly indicate my views are closer to the pulse of the nation than yours, with all due respect.

Finally, why the sudden concern for protecting Irish jobs? When its semi-states or trade unions up for debate you're Mr. Free Market, but now its darkies and Johnny Foreigner's at the gates, and you're all protectionist. Which is it?

More than likely, persons losing jobs in the semi-state sector rationalisation (in so far as the unions haven't succeeded to obstruct it) will find work again soon enough, considering the 6% economic growth which is forecast to continue in coming years. That if immigrants aren't parachuted in to take their jobs of course!

Then simple solution!! If they can prove they won't be a burden on the state then just give them Irish citizenship. Hey presto you are no longer a minority in your own country as they would be Irish too!

They would still be a burden. More so in fact. Their access to social-welfare would then be on par with that of Irish people. Bad move!

i think racists should require a special permit to stay in any country, and also to be able to apply for a job. Its non-sensical that the government doesn't do anything about racists and bigots like you.

I am not a racist or a bigot. However, you seem to have a bigoted attitude to people who favour immigration controls.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I have acknowledged the end of the restrictions in 2011 but the problem is that the shortfall between any shortfall would likely be filled by immigrants from non-EU countries handed out gawd-knows-how-many Green Cards by the Government if this new system comes in.

Ah, so you acknowledge your maths were wonky then? Or do you still believe that 100,000 migrants will enter this country from accession countries every year for the next 34 years, leaving the Irish in a minority? Or are you trying to cloud the issue by talking about shortfalls between shortfalls? You're figures were misleading AG, accept it and move on.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

BTW I never mentioned 114% but I did mention that the majority would be foreigners unless we get tough.

BTW I never said you did. Read the post again, hell read Bonkey's posted that I linked to.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Yes it will make them better off. However many are even further behind the pack economically than we were in 1972, and I think it would take 50 years to catch up rather than 30. So the incentive to emigrate will continue.

And you have yet to show any evidence to suggest that new arrivals in this country (I refer specifically to EU nationals) are here for good. Care to provide?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The 80% "Yes" in the Citizenship referendum together with the exit-polls seem to strongly indicate my views are closer to the pulse of the nation than yours, with all due respect.

That was a CITIZENSHIP referendum, not a plebiscite to see if we wanted to let the darkies in or not. So when I quoted you earlier as saying "We are not opposed to SOME immigration" I expected you to shed some light on who the "we" are, not to twist the issue and try to claim that the 80% yes vote in the Citizenship referendum represents one single bloc of public opinion, with you as its intellectual champion. Cop on AG. Citizenship is not immigration. Don't try to substitute one for the other.

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

They would still be a burden. More so in fact. Their access to social-welfare would then be on par with that of Irish people. Bad move!

Your ability miss reality never ceases to amaze me. I said "PROVE THEY ARE NOT A BURDEN ON THE STATE" and your comeback is they would still be a burden? How exactly do you work that out? If it is proven they are not a burden, then with a green card they would be paying Irish taxes and contributing to Social Welfare.

I am not a racist or a bigot. However, you seem to have a bigoted attitude to people who favour immigration controls.

No your a racist. Clearly even if the person is to get Irish citizenship (there by being Irish) you are still against it. Add to that you are only picking certain races.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by therecklessone
That was a CITIZENSHIP referendum, not a plebiscite to see if we wanted to let the darkies in or not. So when I quoted you earlier as saying "We are not opposed to SOME immigration" I expected you to shed some light on who the "we" are, not to twist the issue and try to claim that the 80% yes vote in the Citizenship referendum represents one single bloc of public opinion, with you as its intellectual champion. Cop on AG. Citizenship is not immigration. Don't try to substitute one for the other.

That's certainly not what most people on the "No" side in that referendum in these forums were saying to me in our debates on that referendum, e.g. "You're a racist/bigot/xenophobe etc.". Have a read of the Citizenship referendum debates on this forum and you will see that.

Also, the vast majority of those who voted said in exit-polls that concerns over the numbers of immigrants coming to Ireland and the perceived exploitation of Ireland by illegal immigrants was the main reason for them voting "Yes" (36% of those voting Yes said it was because "the country is being exploited by immigrants" and 27% said they voted yes because "too many immigrants". Also, the vast majority of the campaigners in the "No" campaign brought up the immigration-card on almost every TV and radio debate, not to mention newspaper coverage. To deny the link between that referendum and the issue of immigration seems to me to demonstrate either amnesia, wishful thinking, or both.

Frank Grimes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Also, the vast majority of the campaigners in the "No" campaign brought up the immigration-card on almost every TV and radio debate, not to mention newspaper coverage.

Any links to prove that?
The only people I can remember playing the immigration card during the referendum were the yes side. I remember myself and many others saying that the referendum had nothing to do with stopping illegal immigrants or whatever it was people like you were trying to claim at the time.

arcadegame2004

Frank Grimes wrote:

Any links to prove that?
The only people I can remember playing the immigration card during the referendum were the yes side. I remember myself and many others saying that the referendum had nothing to do with stopping illegal immigrants or whatever it was people like you were trying to claim at the time.

Playing the immigration card is Very implicit in the name of one of the "No" campaign groups Campaign against the Racist Referendum. They accuse the referendum of being racist. As nearly everyone proportionately of an ethnic group other than Irish came here via immigration, there is no other sensible conclusion to come to than that immigration was a huge issue for CARR in this referendum.

Interestingly, on their website there is a list of some groups who opposed the yes side http://www.activelink.ie/carr/. Extraordinary how so many (for there were scores of such groups we heard it on the news remember) groups can be so unbelievable out of touch with 80% of our people. The chattering-classes have no right any longer to claim to have an automatic finger on the pulse of the Irish people.

Also, note this from the Irish Refugee Council;s website on the Citizenship referendum:

Tens of thousands of immigrants, seeking refuge from persecution in the countries they fled or who are here as economic migrants such as nurses from the Philippines, are legitimately resident in Ireland. Many of them are of childbearing age and the carrying of the referendum would inevitably mean that increasing numbers of babies living in Ireland would not be citizens of this country. Whether or not the Constitution would protect the rights of non-citizen children will only be determined through the courts in future years but case law to date offers no such guarantees. Allowing children to be born on an equal footing promotes tolerance and lessens the 'difference' factor for the child born of immigrant parents.

http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/press04/pr21-5-04.html

I could also add Senator Brendan Ryan's accusation at the Labour Party conference that the referendum had shown that the government had chosen "racism over nationalism".

Frank Grimes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Playing the immigration card is Very implicit in the name of one of the "No" campaign groups Campaign against the Racist Referendum. They accuse the referendum of being racist. As nearly everyone proportionately of an ethnic group other than Irish came here via immigration, there is no other sensible conclusion to come to than that immigration was a huge issue for CARR in this referendum.

So in other words, you're just surmising.

Also, note this from the Irish Refugee Council;s website on the Citizenship referendum:

That's just pointing out a fact, not "playing a card".

I could also add Senator Brendan Ryan's accusation at the Labour Party conference that the referendum had shown that the government had chosen "racism over nationalism".

He's entitled to his opinion, is he not? And again, I don't see anything about an immigration card here.

AngelofFire

Arcadegame2004 can deny all he likes that it was a racist referendum, a couple of weeks ago he stated that on a thread that all no voters were unpatriotic types allowing foreginers to ''run down our country'' http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=181761 , as far as im concerned anybody that trys to link immigration control with patriotism is a racist. Before the referendum there was a radio debate between Ivana Bacik and Michael Mcdowell. Michael Mcdowelll said '' Ivana all you have to do is go into town and look around you and you see the problem'' meaning when McDowell goes into town he sees black faces and dark skinned faces and he sees that as a ''problem''. The referendum was about inplicity using racism for political points scoring, no green paper was produced, there was no submission for to all party oireachtas committee, it was rushed, it was done in the context of the european and local elections, allowing little time for rational debate furthermore it was about distracting public attention from the FF/PD governements legacy of cutbacks, and broken election promises.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

To deny the link between that referendum and the issue of immigration seems to me to demonstrate either amnesia, wishful thinking, or both.

And to continue to lash square pegs with a lump hammer in a vain attempt to fit them in round holes smacks of desperation.

Lets do some AG2004-style maths...

80% yes vote in referendum, with a 60% turnout. So 48% of the total electorate voted yes. Then apply the figures from the post-election poll. By your own admission, 63% of respondants voted yes because of concerns over immigration. Lets make that 66% for ease of calculation.

66% of 48% = 32%.

So less than 32% of the total electorate voted yes because of concerns over immigration. And you're close to the pulse of the Irish nation? :rolleyes:

By the way, I voted yes in the referendum, and you DO NOT represent my opinion in anyway.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

That's certainly not what most people on the "No" side in that referendum in these forums were saying to me in our debates on that referendum, e.g. "You're a racist/bigot/xenophobe etc.". Have a read of the Citizenship referendum debates on this forum and you will see that.

Thats a unique approach..."here's all the people who've criticised me in the past, so of course I'm right"? :eek:

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

We are not opposed to SOME immigration

I await a valid explanation of who "we" are.

arcadegame2004

AngelofFire wrote:

Arcadegame2004 can deny all he likes that it was a racist referendum, a couple of weeks ago he stated that on a thread that all no voters were unpatriotic types allowing foreginers to ''run down our country'' http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=181761 , as far as im concerned anybody that trys to link immigration control with patriotism is a racist.

AngelofFire I suspect from this remark that you have not read this contribution of mine from that thread:

I am not saying that voting "No" makes the person unpatriotic. I said that those who love running down the country all the time are unpatriotic (if they are Irish).

I was criticising those who refused to accept the result and just condemned basically all "Yes" voters as "racist/xenophobic" etc. The first post on that referendum aftermath thread is a case in point! :mad:

Before the referendum there was a radio debate between Ivana Bacik and Michael Mcdowell. Michael Mcdowelll said '' Ivana all you have to do is go into town and look around you and you see the problem'' meaning when McDowell goes into town he sees black faces and dark skinned faces and he sees that as a ''problem''. The referendum was about inplicity using racism for political points scoring, no green paper was produced, there was no submission for to all party oireachtas committee, it was rushed, it was done in the context of the european and local elections, allowing little time for rational debate furthermore it was about distracting public attention from the FF/PD governements legacy of cutbacks, and broken election promises.

Racism implies hatred of other races and and attitude that regards certain races as inferior/superior to others. I have never espoused such sentiments. Do you have to let all your friends move into your house to prove your their friends? I don't think so! So in the same sense, do we have to let every foreigner that wants to come here into our country to prove that we are not racist? Of course not! Where would you get the extra money to pay for their treatment in our hospitals? Like all humans a time would come when they would need health-care. How much would it cost ot extend the medical-card to them? How many new hospitals would have to be built to cope with the hundreds of thousands of new migrants the FAS proposal envisages? It seems to me extremely against the national interest to let in so many new people without planning for the inevitable costs and pressures they will inevitably bring, whatever about the happy clappy terminology about "new cultures enriching us and causing absolutely no problems at all". :rolleyes:

To those who say that we should let them all work and that this would pay for the above, I respond how would you make them work? How could you stop them avoiding supposed restrictions on the kind of jobs they get, with all the consequences of cheap-labour competition they would inevitably bring. Yes we have a minimum wage, but this kind of competition in parts of the economy not experiencing labour-shortages would likely at the very least stop wages rising. And because they would work for less, the tax-yield would definitely be insufficient by far to pay for the problems I mention in the previous paragraph. And what about the eventual costs of paying the pensions of the immigrants? Some here have asserted that they would return home when their countries are rich. I seriously doubt this, because only about 10% of Irish emigrants living abroad (150,000 out of about 1.5 million) returned home between 1996-2002, and anyway, with respect to the vast bulk of countries outside of the EU, which the FAS proposals refer to, they are far, far behind even the Eastern European EU members, so their countries would not likely reach Western standards of living until we are in our 70's at least (I am 24)! Would the lefties propose we let in yet more immigrants to help "pay the pensions of the immigrants"? At that rate Irish people will be a minority in their own country and when I say "we" I am confident that I speak for the majority of Irish people.

The turnout in the referendum of 59.5% is very high for an Irish referendum, being about the same as the GFA referendum. To my mind that reflected an issue that Irish people feel deeply frustrated and angry about, namely, an immigration policy that is seen as too liberal and too weighted to cheap-labour and political-correctness goals, rather than genuine economic needs of the country. Yesterday I chatted to a friend who told me that if things keep going as they are now, the day will come when Irish people become a minority in their own country. I agreed with her and I think this sticks in Irish people's craw. If we countenance such a foreign minority emerging here, then why bother having a country?

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Racism implies hatred of other races and and attitude that regards certain races as inferior/superior to others.

Which is what you are doing. Notice how you only refer to certain countries as being people we should keep out.

Where would you get the extra money to pay for their treatment in our hospitals?

Well with a greencard system you have to show you are not a burden on the state. Which means they would have to prove they could pay for medical insurance or costs. Also because they aren't a burden they would be required to pay taxes which would in turn give extra revenue to the state allowing all those people to go on medical cards (those fine up standing Irish people who always contribute to soceity that is).

How much would it cost ot extend the medical-card to them?

Medical cards come from taxes. More people = more tax money for state = where it comes from.

How many new hospitals would have to be built to cope with the hundreds of thousands of new migrants the FAS proposal envisages?

OMG are they flying in their sick and wounded to us! :-O

How about how many jobs would be created in making and running those new hospitals. How much money would be fed back into the country from that?

To those who say that we should let them all work and that this would pay for the above, I respond how would you make them work? How could you stop them avoiding supposed restrictions on the kind of jobs they get,

Easy... Let me make it big for you.
Prove they will not be a burden on the state when they apply for the green card.

Seriously, how much of a clue do you need? You ever gone for a green card in the US? You generally have to prove that if you become sick or unemployed that you can maintain yourself for 5 years without ever asking the state for a penny (IIRC).

with all the consequences of cheap-labour competition they would inevitably bring. Yes we have a minimum wage, but this kind of competition in parts of the economy not experiencing labour-shortages would likely at the very least stop wages rising.

Green Cards are rarely used for cheap labour. But trying to explain this to you seems not to be getting in.

Assuming there were people unemployed, they would get the revenue from those that were employed. Green card holders nearly always invest back in the country where as work permits remove money from the country (beyond living expenses). But as I said Green cards are not free for all visas.

Your in lala land if you think they will work for less on a green card. The person normally comes to get the same level of cash as nationals. Work permits tend to be the cheap labour force.

what about the eventual costs of paying the pensions of the immigrants?

You think money magicall appears in the tresurary? Your state pension is generally based on how much you put into it. Anyone relaying on the state pension alone is in for a wake up call when they get older.

Again... IF THEY ARE NOT A BURDEN ON THE STATE THIS WONT BE AN ISSUE.

we let in yet more immigrants to help "pay the pensions of the immigrants"? At that rate Irish people will be a minority in their own country and when I say "we" I am confident that I speak for the majority of Irish people.

Or let in more to pay the pensions of the Irish who are currently on state pensions? After all the money they will be bringing in will be used to fund Irish pensions for a good 50 years or so based on your flawed maths.

Yesterday I chatted to a friend who told me that if things keep going as they are now, the day will come when Irish people become a minority in their own country.

Wow! So anything your friend says is fact?

Frank Grimes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

To my mind that reflected an issue that Irish people feel deeply frustrated and angry about, namely, an immigration policy that is seen as too liberal and too weighted to cheap-labour and political-correctness goals, rather than genuine economic needs of the country.

How many times does it have to be said. That referendum had nothing to do with immigration, it was about citizenship.
Just in case there's any confusion about what 'nothing' means:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nothing

Do you have to let all your friends move into your house to prove your their friends?

I wouldn't tell them to get lost if they asked though.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The turnout in the referendum of 59.5% is very high for an Irish referendum, being about the same as the GFA referendum. To my mind that reflected an issue that Irish people feel deeply frustrated and angry about, namely, an immigration policy that is seen as too liberal and too weighted to cheap-labour and political-correctness goals, rather than genuine economic needs of the country.

Jesus help me. Some people felt that way, less than 32% of the total electorate in fact (based on the back of a beermat mathematical method you so often employ). Let me remind you...

therecklessone wrote:

Lets do some AG2004-style maths...

80% yes vote in referendum, with a 60% turnout. So 48% of the total electorate voted yes. Then apply the figures from the post-election poll. By your own admission, 63% of respondants voted yes because of concerns over immigration. Lets make that 66% for ease of calculation.

66% of 48% = 32%.

So less than 32% of the total electorate voted yes because of concerns over immigration. And you're close to the pulse of the Irish nation?

enochpowell2004 wrote:

Yesterday I chatted to a friend who told me that if things keep going as they are now, the day will come when Irish people become a minority in their own country. I agreed with her and I think this sticks in Irish people's craw.

Wow, I'm surprised it didn't make a Prime Time special.

enochpowell2004 wrote:

when I say "we" I am confident that I speak for the majority of Irish people

Misplaced confidence does not an argument make.

Good God man, do you believe that the thousands of confident, well-educated Poles, Czechs, and Baltic states twentysomethings coming into this country intend sitting around doing nothing for 40+ years until they can claim a pension and medical card? What about the hard-working Chinese (who could teach the Irish a thing or two about honesty and hard work, not to mention caring for the elderly)? You're living in a dream world (or from your perspective a nightmare) where you view all immigrants as free loaders and usurpers of national heritage. The reality is quite different. Learn to deal with it.

On a final note, do I recall you pontificating in the past about how health and pension reform was necessary to solve Irelands future population imbalance? Might I suggest that such reform would help deal with the "burden" of extra non-national inhabitants of this island? If its good enough for the Irish after all...

AngelofFire

arcadegame2004 wrote:

AngelofFire I suspect from this remark that you have not read this contribution of mine from that thread:



I was criticising those who refused to accept the result and just condemned basically all "Yes" voters as "racist/xenophobic" etc. The first post on that referendum aftermath thread is a case in point! :mad:




Racism implies hatred of other races and and attitude that regards certain races as inferior/superior to others. I have never espoused such sentiments. Do you have to let all your friends move into your house to prove your their friends? I don't think so! So in the same sense, do we have to let every foreigner that wants to come here into our country to prove that we are not racist? Of course not! Where would you get the extra money to pay for their treatment in our hospitals? Like all humans a time would come when they would need health-care. How much would it cost ot extend the medical-card to them? How many new hospitals would have to be built to cope with the hundreds of thousands of new migrants the FAS proposal envisages? It seems to me extremely against the national interest to let in so many new people without planning for the inevitable costs and pressures they will inevitably bring, whatever about the happy clappy terminology about "new cultures enriching us and causing absolutely no problems at all". :rolleyes:

To those who say that we should let them all work and that this would pay for the above, I respond how would you make them work? How could you stop them avoiding supposed restrictions on the kind of jobs they get, with all the consequences of cheap-labour competition they would inevitably bring. Yes we have a minimum wage, but this kind of competition in parts of the economy not experiencing labour-shortages would likely at the very least stop wages rising. And because they would work for less, the tax-yield would definitely be insufficient by far to pay for the problems I mention in the previous paragraph. And what about the eventual costs of paying the pensions of the immigrants? Some here have asserted that they would return home when their countries are rich. I seriously doubt this, because only about 10% of Irish emigrants living abroad (150,000 out of about 1.5 million) returned home between 1996-2002, and anyway, with respect to the vast bulk of countries outside of the EU, which the FAS proposals refer to, they are far, far behind even the Eastern European EU members, so their countries would not likely reach Western standards of living until we are in our 70's at least (I am 24)! Would the lefties propose we let in yet more immigrants to help "pay the pensions of the immigrants"? At that rate Irish people will be a minority in their own country and when I say "we" I am confident that I speak for the majority of Irish people.

The turnout in the referendum of 59.5% is very high for an Irish referendum, being about the same as the GFA referendum. To my mind that reflected an issue that Irish people feel deeply frustrated and angry about, namely, an immigration policy that is seen as too liberal and too weighted to cheap-labour and political-correctness goals, rather than genuine economic needs of the country. Yesterday I chatted to a friend who told me that if things keep going as they are now, the day will come when Irish people become a minority in their own country. I agreed with her and I think this sticks in Irish people's craw. If we countenance such a foreign minority emerging here, then why bother having a country?

Arcade i never said, that i didn`t accept the result of the referendum, i respect democracy. I said that i disagreed with the result and the motivations behind it which is my democratic right. My support for a liberal humane immigration policy is not because of political correctness, its because i have a bit and solidarity with my fellow human beings. Irish people have been emigrating for the past 150 years trying to look for a better life for themselves, as soon as things get better here and people from other countries come here to do the same, we complain. Large scale Emigration abroad was a blight on irelands development for decades, the young people left beacuse there was no opportunity. Most immigrants that come in here have a role to play in our society and are important to sustaining our economy, the reason why we see lots of asian, and coloured people working in Mcdonalds and newsagents is because most irish people wont do them type of Jobs, look at the amount of immigrants working in the building trade, where there is currently a Labour shortage. . I disagree with your view that we will be the ''minority'' in our own country, you`re just revamping the ''they`re taking our jobs and our women argument''. Its a silly irrational view with no firm basis.

billy the squid

Where would you get the extra money to pay for their treatment in our hospitals?

what gives you the impression that all foreigners are sponges. If they had the Green Card system here like they do in the states wouldn't these people be working in order to stay here, hence they can pay their own way. To say that just because they are foreigners they will get a medical card is tarring all with the one brush.

To those who say that we should let them all work and that this would pay for the above, I respond how would you make them work? How could you stop them avoiding supposed restrictions on the kind of jobs they get

what jobs would you like to restrict foreign workers to, cleaning your office toilets, handing out your fast-food on a saturday night. The reason people want to come here is because there are jobs here that Irish people think are beneath them. If a person whether they be irish or not are qualified to do a job then they should be allowed to do whatever job they apply for.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by AngeloofFire
Arcade i never said, that i didn`t accept the result of the referendum, i respect democracy. I said that i disagreed with the result and the motivations behind it which is my democratic right. My support for a liberal humane immigration policy is not because of political correctness, its because i have a bit and solidarity with my fellow human beings. Irish people have been emigrating for the past 150 years trying to look for a better life for themselves, as soon as things get better here and people from other countries come here to do the same, we complain. Large scale Emigration abroad was a blight on irelands development for decades, the young people left beacuse there was no opportunity. Most immigrants that come in here have a role to play in our society and are important to sustaining our economy, the reason why we see lots of asian, and coloured people working in Mcdonalds and newsagents is because most irish people wont do them type of Jobs, look at the amount of immigrants working in the building trade, where there is currently a Labour shortage. . I disagree with your view that we will be the ''minority'' in our own country, you`re just revamping the ''they`re taking our jobs and our women argument''. Its a silly irrational view with no firm basis.

The Irish people who left for the US in the 1800's were genuine asylum-seekers in that they were fleeing famine and colonial landlordism, and foreign imperialism. You cannot say that about Romanians, Nigerians, Moldovans etc. who come here to claim asylum. If they crossed into an EU country before Ireland (which given our location is almost certain and if they didn't thaty was by choice) then they have no business as far as I am concerned claiming that their lives depend on coming to Ireland.

Regarding what you say about skills-shortages, I point out to you that I am not opposed to foreigners filling job-vacancies PROVIDED that there is a skills-shortage in the relevant industry. That is why I am opposed to letting people enter the job-market for jobs in industries where NO skills-shortage exist. That is why I am against the Green Card proposal. If you grant people citizenship at the click of a finger, and let them do whatever job they want in Ireland, then inevitably they will look for jobs where skills-shortages do not pertain, those losing Irish people their jobs because people from developing countries are inevitably prepared to work for less. This in turn would cause racial tensions and lead to an increase in racism in this country. That is in no-one's interests.

what gives you the impression that all foreigners are sponges. If they had the Green Card system here like they do in the states wouldn't these people be working in order to stay here, hence they can pay their own way. To say that just because they are foreigners they will get a medical card is tarring all with the one brush.

I didn't say they were all spongers. I actually made the point that it isn't necessarily good to let them work, if they are going to work in industries not experiencing labour shortages thus losing Irish jobs to cheap labour. This WOULD happen and denying it is just being silly. THe present work-permit system should continue keeping the work-permit in the hands of the employer, and not the employee. This is necessary A: to prevent forgery of work-permits, and B: to tue an foreign-employee to a labour-shortage industry where they wont compete with Irish workers on a cheap labour basis.

Frank Grimes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

If you grant people citizenship at the click of a finger, and let them do whatever job they want in Ireland, then inevitably they will look for jobs where skills-shortages do not pertain, those losing Irish people their jobs because people from developing countries are inevitably prepared to work for less.

So what do you propose? Just treat them like slaves and then boot them out if they speak up? Why shouldn't they be allowed apply for jobs they want? If the person's right for the job they should get it. Regardless of where they're from.
And leave out the "they're willing to work for less" crap. If you hadn't noticed, this country is a little on the expensive side, they wouldn't be able to afford to live here if they took salaries similar to "where they came from".
As a matter of interest, if an American or a German went for these hypothetical jobs you keep going on about, would they be suitable candidates? Do people just start becoming unsuitable candidates (except when applying for "menial" jobs of course) the further East they're from?

monument

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The 80% "Yes" in the Citizenship referendum together with the exit-polls seem to strongly indicate my views are closer to the pulse of the nation than yours, with all due respect.

Taking that err... people with err... “strong views” like yours about other people were A) more likely to vote, most likely to vote yes, I find your close to ‘the pulse of the nation’ thinking strange.

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

You cannot say that about Romanians, Nigerians, Moldovans etc. who come here to claim asylum.

We are not talking about Asylum, we are talking about Green Cards. Asylum/Immirgration/Work Visas are not interchangable arguments.

I am concerned claiming that their lives depend on coming to Ireland.

IIRC Ireland is required to take up some of the Asylum seekers to Europe. But again Ayslum seekers has nothing to do with green cards.

That is why I am against the Green Card proposal. If you grant people citizenship at the click of a finger,

Except that Green cards are not issued at a click of the finger. You are required to prove you are not a burden on the state as well as you will contributing to the state via your cash funds or your skills which the country needs.

Of course all this is totally lost on you, and you seem to think the government will be handing them out free at the airport.

if they are going to work in industries not experiencing labour shortages thus losing Irish jobs to cheap labour. This WOULD happen and denying it is just being silly.

No it is not would happen. It is unlikely that a person on a green card will come here to work on minimum wage for all jobs (eg, IT industry). They may work below the average wage but certainly not super cheap labour.

Also with a green card you can't just walk into this kind of job using the card. (having the job offer beforehand wouldn't help with the green card neither). The reason being is having a job isn't proof of not being a burden for X amount of years.

But what you fail to realise is the problem isn't people coming into the country, but the jobs leaving the country. Afterall why jump through hoops to get work visas/green cards (using your logic) for minimum wagers when it is easier to just move all the work to one of those countries instead.

THe present work-permit system should continue keeping the work-permit in the hands of the employer, and not the employee.

I can keep repeating myself but I think your in your own little world.

Work Permits are totally different to green cards

AngelofFire

arcadegame2004 wrote:

. You cannot say that about Romanians, Nigerians, Moldovans etc. who come here to claim asylum.

Asylum seekers are not allowed to work, they are held in detention centres and are given E20 per week to live on thats less than most welfare recipients recieve per day. There are many cases which dont allow for people to claim asylum such as femal genital mutilation, its quite horrific, its practised on single mothers and young girls in Nigeria.

The Irish people who left for the US in the 1800's were genuine asylum-seekers in that they were fleeing famine and colonial landlordism, and foreign imperialism

Are people in Africa not fleeing from something similar.