Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why is it wrong to oppose mass immigration?

12467…26

Comments

  • #92
    mandrake04
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,435 ✭✭✭mandrake04


    joseph brand wrote: »

    There was a report earlier this year I think, on RTE news, documenting the struggle facing the Irish in Australia, who claimed they were treated like second class citizens.

    And what's wrong with that?

    Unless they have a blue passport or Permanent Residency (which gives you 90% rights of a citizen) then they are not even a second class citizen, they are foreign citizens.


  • #93
    first doyle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 42 ✭first doyle


    The new social welfare rates are likely to have an adverse effect on immigration. Jobs once considered below Irish people will become more attractive and the void which exists to fill these jobs will soon be replaced by Irish workers and not migrant workers.

    High social welfare rates are the main reason why there are so many migrant workers here because people will not take a job which pays in the same region as what you can get on social welfare.

    Believe it or not, 1200 euro a month for a minimum wage job is still good. The majority of places in Europe will not pay that for minimum wage workers. The level of migrant workers here demonstrates that point.

    Ireland had a golden opportunity to eradicate unemployment during the boom but greedy Fianna Fail thought it better to raise social welfare rates so as to flood Ireland with non skilled EU workers. That's the reason why there is a disproportionate amount of foreign workers in Ireland: both employed and unemployed. I've been to many places around the world but Ireland takes the biscuit in that respect.


  • #94
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    fianna saor wrote: »
    and you really believe they are only receiving that amount?


    You've proof to the contrary?


  • #95
    crockholm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭crockholm


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    This is an example of the kind of common argument I covered that tries to avoid the appearance of discrimination by talking about 'pragmatic constraints', but is actually based on assigning reduced rights to an 'out' group in the usual way:



    In this case the 'out' group are distinguished by the accident of not having been born here. This is a position fundamentally indistinguishable from racism, although notionally at the top of the gradient.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    By this form of reasoning,opposing sets of sports supporters are notionally at the top of the racism gradient too,as there are them vs us,in vs out themes running through sport.

    By using the term "accident" you are also conferring a sort of supremacy on Irish citizenship,it somehow suggests that being born outside of Ireland is an accident,QED,inferior.

    You would not be wrong to veiw the above as babble,as I believe your linking of racism to border security was equally fluffy.If Ireland has a policy of keeping out a particular race or religion,that would undoubtably constitute racism/bigotry. However,I don't believe this happens.

    If you think that Ireland would be better served without borders or citizenship,I would be interested in hearing your reasons.


  • #96
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    crockholm wrote: »
    By this form of reasoning,opposing sets of sports supporters are notionally at the top of the racism gradient too,as there are them vs us,in vs out themes running through sport.

    By using the term "accident" you are also conferring a sort of supremacy on Irish citizenship,it somehow suggests that being born outside of Ireland is an accident,QED,inferior.

    You would not be wrong to veiw the above as babble,as I believe your linking of racism to border security was equally fluffy.If Ireland has a policy of keeping out a particular race or religion,that would undoubtably constitute racism/bigotry. However,I don't believe this happens.

    If you think that Ireland would be better served without borders or citizenship,I would be interested in hearing your reasons.

    It is a ridiculous statement to make. Otherwise the entirety of Europe is racist because it has borders, so is Canada, the US and any other country by virtue of the fact they are a country.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Yet when I ask simple practical question of the above.. *tumbleweeds*..

    In my opinion, internationalism of this type is a crock of ****e peddled by neo-marxists. We have a light form of it in the EU and most people would think, 'yea good idea but not really working out as intended'; (I am talking about the context of economics, EU 'politics' and bureaucracy rather than immigration)


  • #98
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    jank wrote: »
    We live everyday with pragmatic constraints in the real world. Why does one get the Pension at 65 (or is it 67 today, can't remember), why are we allowed to vote and drink at 18, why cant we have sex with children, why are there borders in the first place?

    Do you think that a immigrant who arrives today should be able to claim job seekers benefit from that moment. I know that is not the case as one has to be living here for a number of years, two I think but that is an example of the state putting in a 'pragmatic constraint' on welfare 'cheating'. You don't agree with this I presume?

    [...]

    As I said immigration can be hugely beneficial to a country but one can't have a carte blanche unless we demolish the welfare state. The only reason immigration has tightened up in the west is because of the ever expanded welare state that western citizens continue to enjoy (whatever about sustainability).

    +1 to all of this. And the response is deafening. You can't be pro mass immigration without taking an axe to the welfare state.


  • #99
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    first doyle wrote: »
    Ireland had a golden opportunity to eradicate unemployment during the boom...
    But Ireland did have virtually zero unemployment during the boom?
    first doyle wrote: »
    ...but greedy Fianna Fail thought it better to raise social welfare rates so as to flood Ireland with non skilled EU workers.
    Welfare rates were raised to buy votes, surely?


  • #100
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    jank wrote: »
    In my opinion, internationalism of this type is a crock of ****e peddled by neo-marxists. We have a light form of it in the EU and most people would think, 'yea good idea but not really working out as intended'...
    Isn't it? Europe is experiencing unprecedented peace and prosperity, but people want to argue the whole EU thing hasn't really worked out because the global economy's a bit rocky at the moment?


  • #101
    An Coilean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭An Coilean


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Why just the one border? Why not get rid of all of them? Most of them are completely arbitrary anyway.



    Are you willing to accept a significent reduction in your standard of life?


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    fianna saor wrote: »
    and you really believe they are only receiving that amount?

    Of course they are. Asylum seekers don't have any access to any other form of welfare payments.


  • #103
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    jank wrote: »
    Yet when I ask simple practical question of the above.. *tumbleweeds*..

    In my opinion, internationalism of this type is a crock of ****e peddled by neo-marxists. We have a light form of it in the EU and most people would think, 'yea good idea but not really working out as intended'; (I am talking about the context of economics, EU 'politics' and bureaucracy rather than immigration)

    The 'practical questions' you pose relate to a fictitious scenario of your own devising. It's not really surprising that no-one want's to support that fiction. And for all the actual problems within the EU economically and politically, it's still a very desirable social structure compared to many of the alternatives. Utopia is a difficult reach.


  • #104
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Isn't it? Europe is experiencing unprecedented peace and prosperity, but people want to argue the whole EU thing hasn't really worked out because the global economy's a bit rocky at the moment?

    A 'bit' rocky? If that is your definition of record unemployment especially youth unemployment (Spain over 50%, Greece over 63%), record national debt, big deficits and little or no growth than I would hate to see if things were worse. Never mind the rise of far right and far left groups in Greece, Spain and France.

    Most people see that in its current form the Euro cannot survive, so they will have to change it probably at the expense of sovereign rights and powers. For the 'betterment' of the masses…!

    Germany have been making waves again regarding Irelands Corporation tax. Do you think Ireland should not be allowed to set it own tax rates?


  • #105
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    alastair wrote: »
    The 'practical questions' you pose relate to a fictitious scenario of your own devising. It's not really surprising that no-one want's to support that fiction. And for all the actual problems within the EU economically and politically, it's still a very desirable social structure compared to many of the alternatives. Utopia is a difficult reach.

    The fictitious scenarios is actually outlined by those who favour no borders at all and who basically call all borders a display of 'inherent racism'. I presume these people want to keep the welfare state as it is. What I am then asking is what comes next? If we get rid of borders, then by the same standard and definition everyone is entitled to the same benefits regards welfare, housing and healthcare.


  • #106
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    jank wrote: »
    The fictitious scenarios is actually outlined by those who favour no borders at all and who basically call all borders a display of 'inherent racism'. I presume these people want to keep the welfare state as it is. What I am then asking is what comes next? If we get rid of borders, then by the same standard and definition everyone is entitled to the same benefits regards welfare, housing and healthcare.

    We're not getting rid of borders though - and the borders that we have effectively got rid of (internal EU ones) have not resulted in standardised benefits across open-border states. You're not shy of rolling out the fiction of instant entitlement to job-seekers benefit, etc, yourself. Which explains the reluctance of most to respond to this particular debate of fictions.


  • #107
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    alastair wrote: »
    We're not getting rid of borders though - and the borders that we have effectively got rid of (internal EU ones) have not resulted in standardised benefits across open-border states. You're not shy of rolling out the fiction of instant entitlement to job-seekers benefit, etc, yourself. Which explains the reluctance of most to respond to this particular debate of fictions.


    Not at all. I am pointing out the obvious hypocrisy in the debate of this topic. Those that are born in Germany or Greece are not entitled to the same welfare benefits as someone born in Ireland within Ireland. Using the argument put forward in this thread, that is racist! That German has to move here and work for two years before they are treated equally as an Irish person even though they pay the same tax.

    The reason that there is no standardisation of benefits across the EU is because countries with higher welfare benefits know that there is nothing stopping a few million migrants crossing the border freely and signing up for whatever benefits are available.

    That is an example of a 'pragmatic constraint'.

    Imagine if Cork had a dole of 300 euro and Sligo had a dole of 150 euro and there was nothing stopping people from taking up residency in Cork to claim the higher dole.

    So there are two options. One can have open borders and no welfare state or a welfare state and practical restraints on who can collect benefits on offer from the welfare state.


  • #108
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    jank wrote: »
    So there are two options. One can have open borders and no welfare state or a welfare state and practical restraints on who can collect benefits on offer from the welfare state.

    Or the third option of course - open borders and a common degree of welfare support globally. None of which gets past the fact that many/most of those engaged in immigration-control platforms are indeed driven by a racist motivation. That's quite clear once you peel back the arguments they make, and their hypocrisies regarding that messy history of Irish migration.

    It's also kinda strange to see an immigrant, within a state that's had a decades long policy of encouraging actual mass immigration (albeit a policy that was primarily racially constrained for most of it's existence) claim that an active, but controlled immigration policy is somehow 'neo-marxist'.


  • #109
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Isn't it? Europe is experiencing unprecedented peace and prosperity, but people want to argue the whole EU thing hasn't really worked out because the global economy's a bit rocky at the moment?

    I would say Germany is experiencing such prosperity. I wouldn't be so sure about the rest of Europe.


  • #110
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    An Coilean wrote: »
    Are you willing to accept a significent reduction in your standard of life?
    I don't understand the question?


  • #111
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    jank wrote: »
    A 'bit' rocky? If that is your definition of record unemployment especially youth unemployment (Spain over 50%, Greece over 63%), record national debt, big deficits and little or no growth than I would hate to see if things were worse.
    Things could be a lot worse. Like, two World Wars worse.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    jank wrote: »
    Not at all. I am pointing out the obvious hypocrisy in the debate of this topic. Those that are born in Germany or Greece are not entitled to the same welfare benefits as someone born in Ireland within Ireland.
    Aren’t they? I’m not British, but I’m entitled to the same welfare benefits as Britons here in the UK.


  • #113
    enricoh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,250 ✭✭✭enricoh


    australia wont let u in unless u've a few grand in the bank and wont give u residency unless u are of benifit to the country - sounds ok to me.

    the dole here is better than the min. wage in many of the accession states why return to work there for less than u get handed for free?


  • #114
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    enricoh wrote: »
    australia wont let u in unless u've a few grand in the bank and wont give u residency unless u are of benifit to the country - sounds ok to me.
    So who decides who should be allowed in? The Irish government? Don't exactly have the best track record in economic management, do they?
    enricoh wrote: »
    the dole here is better than the min. wage in many of the accession states why return to work there for less than u get handed for free?
    Why are you assuming the only two options available are working for minimum wage in their home country versus being unemployed in Ireland?


  • #115
    enricoh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,250 ✭✭✭enricoh


    djpbarry wrote: »
    So who decides who should be allowed in? The Irish government? Don't exactly have the best track record in economic management, do they?
    Why are you assuming the only two options available are working for minimum wage in their home country versus being unemployed in Ireland?


    it works for australia, canada etc so why not.
    well, if they would be better off back home, they would be gone.
    fair enough -they came over here to better themselves working, many lost the jobs in the bust, then found out our welfare rates are bananas n put the feet up- everything for free n then the svp for a top up.


  • #116
    An Coilean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭An Coilean


    enricoh wrote: »
    why return to work there for less than u get handed for free?

    Would depend on the relative cost of living I suppose, and family ties and values and many other imponderables.


  • #117
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    enricoh wrote: »
    australia wont let u in unless u've a few grand in the bank and wont give u residency unless u are of benifit to the country - sounds ok to me.

    the dole here is better than the min. wage in many of the accession states why return to work there for less than u get handed for free?

    ....but they have to live here and pay the cost of living as it is here.


  • #118
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....but they have to live here and pay the cost of living as it is here.

    This is where you get into a vicious circle.

    The government subsidizing rent costs are often what sustains inflated rents and a higher cost of living.


  • #119
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    This is where you get into a vicious circle.

    The government subsidizing rent costs are often what sustains inflated rents and a higher cost of living.


    ....whats that to do with immigration though?


  • #120
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    enricoh wrote: »
    it works for australia, canada etc so why not.
    By "works" you mean it's better than other approaches? How so?
    enricoh wrote: »
    well, if they would be better off back home, they would be gone.
    But tens of thousands are gone?
    enricoh wrote: »
    fair enough -they came over here to better themselves working, many lost the jobs in the bust, then found out our welfare rates are bananas n put the feet up- everything for free n then the svp for a top up.
    So why has the number of unemployed nationals from the new accession states decreased by about 9% over the last year?


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....whats that to do with immigration though?
    I
    It has to do with social welfare rates, both having to be able to endure the cost of living while also inflating it.


Advertisement