Why is it wrong to oppose mass immigration?

Nodin · 28-10-2013 10:01PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

I
It has to do with social welfare rates, both having to be able to endure the cost of living while also inflating it.

.....yes, that's lovely, but what has it to do with immigration specifically?

clairefontaine · 28-10-2013 10:04PM

Nodin wrote: »

.....yes, that's lovely, but what has it to do with immigration specifically?

I'm adding to your contributions on social welfare and immigration,that's all. You guys brought it up, I didn't.

K-9 · 28-10-2013 11:49PM

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.

Yet Rent Allowance was cut over the last few budgets and rents are now rising in Dublin.

An Coilean · 29-10-2013 12:31AM

djpbarry wrote: »

I don't understand the question?

Well I am assuming that a world with no borders implys some form of world Government instead of the multiplicity of national Governments we have now, which would require the West taking a significant reduction in wealth and living standards. Of course if you are talking about some form of all inclucive whole world Schengen area that leaves the various nation states in place then that is a different story, seems quite unlikely though.

jank · 29-10-2013 08:23AM

alastair wrote: »

Or the third option of course - open borders and a common degree of welfare support globally. .

And who gets to set this 'global' welfare package? National governments? The UN? The World Bank? Who pays for it?

If one is living in a country with a very low cost of living do they get less than someone living in a richer and more expensive country? Can you imagine the bureaucracy involved?
What currency would it be paid out in and what rules and regulations will be put in place? Who will enforce said rules?

You will need to define what you mean by 'common degree of welfare support here' as the idea is as pie in the sky as you will get.

alastair wrote: »

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..

Throw out that chestnut sure why dont you. If you are anyway in favour of immigration control, then you by definition a racist at the very least by guilt of association.

alastair wrote: »

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'.

What are you on about? Did you read my post?

I said that those who favour a version of utopian internationalism yet don’t want to curtail any of the states generous welfare allowances is a neo-Marxist. The hypocrisy is that because a sovereign state has a say who can become a legal resident of their state that they are then inherently racist. Therefore ALL states on earth are racist.

jank · 29-10-2013 08:34AM

djpbarry wrote: »

Aren’t they? I’m not British, but I’m entitled to the same welfare benefits as Britons here in the UK.

There are rules one must follow usually and the usual grace period applies.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/homelessness/eu_and_eea_nationals/eligibility_for_housing_and_benefits

All European nationals with citizenship of an EU or EEA country have an automatic right to live in the UK for three months after arriving in the UK.

But, if you are not working during these three months, you will not be eligible to:
get emergency or settled housing from the council if you become homeless
apply to go on the council's waiting list for social housing
claim UK social security benefits.

Racist policy or common sense?

With figures like this coming out of the Home office one can expect the government to increase the usual 'racist' pragmatic restraints such as minimum residency requirments.

jank · 29-10-2013 08:41AM

djpbarry wrote: »

Things could be a lot worse. Like, two World Wars worse.

So because we are not in WWIII mode the EU is A OK in your opinion and there is nothing to worry about! Riiiiight!

jank · 29-10-2013 08:48AM

K-9 wrote: »

Yet Rent Allowance was cut over the last few budgets and rents are now rising in Dublin.

Correlation does not imply causation.

The main reason for rents rising in some dublin suburbs is due to lack of volume in sales in the housing market, no credit availability for those that want to buy and defensive cashed up investors buying up decent middle class homes to rent for a yeild.

Rent allowance cuts has nothing to do with rent increases and I would like to see the reasoning behind that claim.

djpbarry · 29-10-2013 10:11AM

An Coilean wrote: »

Well I am assuming that a world with no borders implys some form of world Government instead of the multiplicity of national Governments we have now, which would require the West taking a significant reduction in wealth and living standards. Of course if you are talking about some form of all inclucive whole world Schengen area that leaves the various nation states in place then that is a different story, seems quite unlikely though.

I’ll never understand why some people believe that opening borders to free trade and free movement of people will necessarily lead to a reduction in living standards (and/or the collapse of civilisation).

djpbarry · 29-10-2013 10:12AM

jank wrote: »

There are rules one must follow usually and the usual grace period applies.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/homelessness/eu_and_eea_nationals/eligibility_for_housing_and_benefits

Racist policy or common sense?

But restrictions apply to everyone, both British and non-British. Same in Ireland – for example, you can’t claim Jobseeker’s Benefit if you haven’t been working, regardless of nationality.

jank wrote: »

So because we are not in WWIII mode the EU is A OK in your opinion and there is nothing to worry about! Riiiiight!

Did I say the EU was perfect? No.

But is it better than what preceded it? Hell yes.

alastair · 29-10-2013 10:18AM

jank wrote: »

And who gets to set this 'global' welfare package? National governments? The UN? The World Bank? Who pays for it?

If one is living in a country with a very low cost of living do they get less than someone living in a richer and more expensive country? Can you imagine the bureaucracy involved?
What currency would it be paid out in and what rules and regulations will be put in place? Who will enforce said rules?

You will need to define what you mean by 'common degree of welfare support here' as the idea is as pie in the sky as you will get.

I don't need to define anything, thanks. I'm simply pointing out that there's a third option you failed to mention in your possibilities (along with the situation that applies within the EU, where borders are open, and varying models of welfare apply) - it's not the either/or scenario you imply.

jank wrote: »

Throw out that chestnut sure why dont you. If you are anyway in favour of immigration control, then you by definition a racist at the very least by guilt of association.

I said no such thing. Try reading that again.

jank wrote: »

What are you on about? Did you read my post?

I said that those who favour a version of utopian internationalism yet don’t want to curtail any of the states generous welfare allowances is a neo-Marxist. The hypocrisy is that because a sovereign state has a say who can become a legal resident of their state that they are then inherently racist. Therefore ALL states on earth are racist.

No you didn't.

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...

Now, aside from the nonsense of any shade of neo-Marxism extant in EU politics, you're implying that the current laws of the EU are 'utopian' and unsustainable - a claim which clearly flies in the face of the reality on the ground.

You live, as an immigrant, in a state that was actually built on mass immigration (unlike any EU state), and operated a welfare system from the start of the 1900's. This is the crux of the argument - we have a society that is not subject to mass immigration, it's one of limited inward migration - indeed, we're back to our typical model of an emigrant nation, and yet, we're told by the scare-mongers of the immigration control platforms, that there's a major problem, that, once the bogus economic arguments are exposed, eventually comes down to 'cultural' concerns. The reality is that Ireland has strict immigration criteria already, as is the case with the rest of the EU - there's no 'neo-Marxist' utopian agenda at play - it's a closed shop, unless you meet pretty stringent criteria. Those who claim otherwise have their own agendas, and it doesn't take a huge amount of investigation to establish what their real concerns are.

An Coilean · 29-10-2013 11:07AM

djpbarry wrote: »

I’ll never understand why some people believe that opening borders to free trade and free movement of people will necessarily lead to a reduction in living standards (and/or the collapse of civilisation).

Lets say that you are one of several hundred million poor people living in Africa. If there were no restrictions to migration, would you stay put or move to a more prosperous part of the world?

What are the likely consequences of hundreds of millions of poor people moving to the more prosperous countries with no restrictions?
If they can't find work are they to be left on the streets to starve, or will their new host state be obliged to provide for them?

djpbarry · 29-10-2013 11:10AM

An Coilean wrote: »

Lets say that you are one of several hundred million poor people living in Africa. If there were no restrictions to migration, would you stay put or move to a more prosperous part of the world?

Bulgaria is the poorest member of the EU - how many Bulgarians live in Ireland?

An Coilean · 29-10-2013 11:28AM

djpbarry wrote: »

Bulgaria is the poorest member of the EU - how many Bulgarians live in Ireland?

At least several thousand, quite possibly more, and certainly many times more than when Ireland joined the EEC.

But really you have avoided the question, even the poorest part of the EU is quite afluent when compared to much of the world.

Permabear · 29-10-2013 11:34AM

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry · 29-10-2013 12:13PM

An Coilean wrote: »

At least several thousand, quite possibly more, and certainly many times more than when Ireland joined the EEC.

According to the last census, there were less than 2,000. So even if several thousand more arrived in Ireland since, which seems very unlikely, we’re talking about an absolute maximum of, what, 0.1% of the total population of Bulgaria? Yet people are arguing that removing restrictions on the movement of people will result in people moving en masse from relatively poor countries to relatively rich countries. The evidence suggests otherwise.

An Coilean wrote: »

But really you have avoided the question, even the poorest part of the EU is quite afluent when compared to much of the world.

I haven’t avoided the question at all. I’ve given a real world example of borders effectively being removed and the overwhelming majority of the population of a relatively poor country staying put.

An Coilean · 29-10-2013 01:20PM

djpbarry wrote: »

According to the last census, there were less than 2,000. So even if several thousand more arrived in Ireland since, which seems very unlikely, we’re talking about an absolute maximum of, what, 0.1% of the total population of Bulgaria? Yet people are arguing that removing restrictions on the movement of people will result in people moving en masse from relatively poor countries to relatively rich countries. The evidence suggests otherwise.

Ireland is not the only relativly rich country in Europe? I did not suggest that removal of all barriers to economic migration will result in all the worlds poor comming here specifically.

Are you denying that removing barriers to migration will see people from poor countries moving in large numbers to more prosperous countries?

K-9 · 29-10-2013 01:46PM

jank wrote: »

Correlation does not imply causation.

The main reason for rents rising in some dublin suburbs is due to lack of volume in sales in the housing market, no credit availability for those that want to buy and defensive cashed up investors buying up decent middle class homes to rent for a yeild.

Rent allowance cuts has nothing to do with rent increases and I would like to see the reasoning behind that claim.

The initial comment I was replying to was:

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

So logic would suggest Government reducing subsidies would lead to pressure to reduce rents and the cost of living.

You've rightly pointed out the pressures in the market, pressures existed a few years ago when rents were high, largely the inverse of the causes you listed.

djpbarry · 29-10-2013 02:40PM

An Coilean wrote: »

Ireland is not the only relativly rich country in Europe? I did not suggest that removal of all barriers to economic migration will result in all the worlds poor comming here specifically.

Are you denying that removing barriers to migration will see people from poor countries moving in large numbers to more prosperous countries?

Ireland is a relatively rich country. It has open borders with a number of relatively poor countries. Yet, Ireland is currently experiencing net emigration - what gives?

Icepick · 29-10-2013 07:34PM

Chicken Ryan wrote: »

I discovered during the week that 20% of all social welfare recipients are non-Irish nationals. I also discovered that a disproportionately large amount of all social welfare fraud is committed by non-Irish nationals. One example is this guy who is a former Garda reserve who fraudulently obtained 30,000 euro social welfare payments. So why is it that I cannot oppose mass immigration on these grounds and not been branded a racist?

You made that up.

Chicken Ryan wrote: »

Every time I pass the dole office there are many times more immigrants there than Irish nationals. Some even appear to be outside the Eurozone which amazes me.

You already said it's 20%. So what is this anecdotal nonsense supposed to imply?

SupaNova2 · 30-10-2013 06:00AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Caplan does recognize the need for welfare restrictions if you remove those barriers though.

jank · 30-10-2013 12:56PM

djpbarry wrote: »

But restrictions apply to everyone, both British and non-British. Same in Ireland – for example, you can’t claim Jobseeker’s Benefit if you haven’t been working, regardless of nationality.

However, if you are from certain countries in the EU one cannot claim this benefit. Bulgaria and Romain comes to mind as are other countries.

djpbarry wrote: »

Did I say the EU was perfect? No.

But is it better than what preceded it? Hell yes.

Yet, you refuse to any critique of current EU economic or political policy as 'its better than WWIII'. That is the basis of your argument.
Remember my initial argument was thus

We have a light form of it (internationalism) in the EU and most people would think, 'yea good idea but not really working out as intended'...

Your answer to this can be summed up as 'well its better than WWII' which is not an argument at all. It is the equivilant of 'don't complain cause someone in Africa has no food' style of aruging.

jank · 30-10-2013 01:22PM

alastair wrote: »

I don't need to define anything, thanks. I'm simply pointing out that there's a third option you failed to mention in your possibilities (along with the situation that applies within the EU, where borders are open, and varying models of welfare apply) - it's not the either/or scenario you imply.

Yes, there are always options, like aliens giving us all free money and wealth but one must stick to realistic alternatives. I was just pointing out the obvious flaws in this 'global welfare plan' of yours, questions in which you have no answer to. That was all

alastair wrote: »

Now, aside from the nonsense of any shade of neo-Marxism extant in EU politics, you're implying that the current laws of the EU are 'utopian' and unsustainable - a claim which clearly flies in the face of the reality on the ground.

Really? The Single European Monitory Union, more simply known as the euro, in its current form is going to survive as is and will not change at all given the new needs of the times? Where the **** have you been the last 5 years? Honestly!!

We have at the moment one currency which has its interest rates set in Frankfurt by the German controlledinfluenced ECB where states can spend and tax what they want while the tab is being picked up by the more frugal and disciplined Germanic/Scandinavian members of the Union. There is no oversight of national budgets nor any power to curb members of the Euro from over spending. Hence we are in this mess as now the Greek problem is everyones problem and so on an on…

Now in the case of Ireland we have this imposed oversight by the Troika which is welcomed by some as Ireland really doesn't do responsible macro economics. However, to remedy the situation with the euro overall we will see across the union a push to subvert national sovereign government influence on economic and budgetary matters within the state and have that control pass over to the more 'responsible' more 'disciplined' stronger member states which will of course be sold as the best thing to do for the 'greater good' of the EU.
So, yes in its current present legal form the Euro cannot survive so this will have to change unless we see people go back to using Franc's, Lira's and Punts.
EU is accountable enough as it is, I am just not personally over the moon with handing yet more power to them as it is.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/boblutz/2012/06/16/the-euro-zone-crisis-for-dummies/

alastair wrote: »

You live, as an immigrant, in a state that was actually built on mass immigration (unlike any EU state), and operated a welfare system from the start of the 1900's. This is the crux of the argument - we have a society that is not subject to mass immigration, it's one of limited inward migration - indeed, we're back to our typical model of an emigrant nation, and yet, we're told by the scare-mongers of the immigration control platforms, that there's a major problem, that, once the bogus economic arguments are exposed, eventually comes down to 'cultural' concerns. The reality is that Ireland has strict immigration criteria already, as is the case with the rest of the EU - there's no 'neo-Marxist' utopian agenda at play - it's a closed shop, unless you meet pretty stringent criteria. Those who claim otherwise have their own agendas, and it doesn't take a huge amount of investigation to establish what their real concerns are.

Ireland sets its own immigration policy as does Australia. My assertion is that each country has a right to set its own policy. That is all. I never said that Ireland is being over run or even that it is a problem. In fact I have expressly said that it is a benefit to a country once it is controlled. So you take one point I make and try and smear me with all the others who just don't like different people.

Answer me this. Do you think Ireland has a right to set its own immigration policy? Do you think any immigration policy short of an open border is racist?

jank · 30-10-2013 01:28PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Bulgaria is the poorest member of the EU - how many Bulgarians live in Ireland?

Why does the UK currently have more explicit requirements for Romanians and Bulgarians moving to the UK

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/eucitizens/bulgaria-romania/work-permits/liveworkuk/

Remember this was agreed by the left wing Labour government at the time. Must be cause they are all racist!

djpbarry · 30-10-2013 01:52PM

jank wrote: »

However, if you are from certain countries in the EU one cannot claim this benefit. Bulgaria and Romain comes to mind as are other countries.

Pretty sure restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians working in Ireland have been lifted?

jank wrote: »

Remember my initial argument was thus

We have a light form of it (internationalism) in the EU and most people would think, 'yea good idea but not really working out as intended'...

Your answer to this can be summed up as 'well its better than WWII' which is not an argument at all.

Isn’t it? European integration was not sought as a remedy to the extreme nationalism that had pervaded Europe in the early 20th century and caused two world wars?

jank wrote: »

Why does the UK currently have more explicit requirements for Romanians and Bulgarians moving to the UK

To pander to the likes of UKIP.

That’s a really daft argument – the UK does something so it must be rational?

jank · 30-10-2013 02:39PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Pretty sure restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians working in Ireland have been lifted?

We were talking about the UK welfare systems as you brought that up, not Ireland.

djpbarry wrote: »

Isn’t it? European integration was not sought as a remedy to the extreme nationalism that had pervaded Europe in the early 20th century and caused two world wars?

Yes, like I said, nice idea but not being implemented too well at the moment and ironically those extreme elements you are talking about are making a rather large comeback if you have not notice.

djpbarry wrote: »

To pander to the likes of UKIP.

Why would the UK Labor party pander to the UKIP? That is just silly.

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s a really daft argument – the UK does something so it must be rational?

Didn't say it had to be rational, I asked was it racist.

alastair · 30-10-2013 02:49PM

jank wrote: »

Yes, there are always options, like aliens giving us all free money and wealth but one must stick to realistic alternatives. I was just pointing out the obvious flaws in this 'global welfare plan' of yours, questions in which you have no answer to. That was all

I've yet to see aliens provide any sort of assistance in framing economic or governance policy, but we have many examples of multi-state collaboration and abandonment of sovereignty to better regional mechanisms. No reason to believe this dynamic couldn't be applied globally, and it's rather more likely than alien intervention.

jank wrote: »

Really? The Single European Monitory Union, more simply known as the euro, in its current form is going to survive as is and will not change at all given the new needs of the times? Where the **** have you been the last 5 years? Honestly!!

I don't believe any national financial policy is going to remain unchanged over time, so why you would imagine that it could be the case for the EU is unclear. It's as if this were a straw man argument! Are the range of EU political and economic policies sustainable as they stand? I'd say they are. I've been living within the EU for the last five years - unlike yourself.

jank wrote: »

Ireland sets its own immigration policy as does Australia. My assertion is that each country has a right to set its own policy. That is all. I never said that Ireland is being over run or even that it is a problem. In fact I have expressly said that it is a benefit to a country once it is controlled. So you take one point I make and try and smear me with all the others who just don't like different people.

Answer me this. Do you think Ireland has a right to set its own immigration policy? Do you think any immigration policy short of an open border is racist?

Any state is entitled to formulate it's own immigration policy - and within that the motivation may be racist or not. I don't believe border controls by themselves are intrinsically racist. My issue is with the actual/active immigration control platforms that are out there - all of which end up drinking from the same ideological racist well. The reality is that Ireland is not subject to mass immigration, and those who claim otherwise have their own agenda.

djpbarry · 30-10-2013 03:14PM

jank wrote: »

We were talking about the UK welfare systems as you brought that up, not Ireland.

Ok, fair enough, but I’m still not sure what your point is? Is restricting access to welfare discriminatory? Not if restrictions are applied equally, regardless of nationality. Obviously in practice this is difficult to achieve, given that within a given territory, some people will enter the labour force by virtue of being born within that territory, while some enter through migration.

jank wrote: »

Yes, like I said, nice idea but not being implemented too well at the moment and ironically those extreme elements you are talking about are making a rather large comeback if you have not notice.

I think the rise of extremism is being over-stated somewhat. And no, you didn’t say it’s “not being implemented too well” in your original post. What you said was...

jank wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

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.

My response was that, obviously, things could be a hell of a lot worse.

jank wrote: »

Why would the UK Labor party pander to the UKIP? That is just silly.

People said the same thing about the Lib Dems forming a government with the Tories.

jank wrote: »

Didn't say it had to be rational, I asked was it racist.

You’re asking me if the restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians working in the UK are based on anything other than xenophobia (or pandering to xenophobia)? No, I don’t believe that they are.

jank · 02-11-2013 05:10AM

djpbarry wrote: »

Ok, fair enough, but I’m still not sure what your point is? Is restricting access to welfare discriminatory? Not if restrictions are applied equally, regardless of nationality. Obviously in practice this is difficult to achieve, given that within a given territory, some people will enter the labour force by virtue of being born within that territory, while some enter through migration.

Yet the UK are doing just this under rules written by a left wing Labor government. Therefore they must be racists!?

djpbarry wrote: »

I think the rise of extremism is being over-stated somewhat. And no, you didn’t say it’s “not being implemented too well” in your original post. What you said was…

A bit rocky would state a temporary adjustment of sorts. What we are seeing is systemic issues that have been bubbling under the radar for the best part 3 decades, a lot of which has to do with the current setup of the European Union. How bad does it have to get before we recognise that the current setup can't go on? 'Stick head in sand and ignore everything unless bullets start flying' That is your mantra.

djpbarry wrote: »

People said the same thing about the Lib Dems forming a government with the Tories.

Answer the question. Do you think Labor were pandering to the same electorate as the UKIP? You really believe that or should I take your non answer as an admission that it is stupid to suggest that.

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re asking me if the restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians working in the UK are based on anything other than xenophobia (or pandering to xenophobia)? No, I don’t believe that they are.

So the Labor government at the time of Tony Blair pandered to xenophobia. Fair enough.

jank · 02-11-2013 05:34AM

alastair wrote: »

I've yet to see aliens provide any sort of assistance in framing economic or governance policy, but we have many examples of multi-state collaboration and abandonment of sovereignty to better regional mechanisms. No reason to believe this dynamic couldn't be applied globally, and it's rather more likely than alien intervention.

Yes more likely perhaps but not as ridiculous a suggestion. Having a world wide welfare system is off the charts in terms of a realistic solution to a problem.

alastair wrote: »

I don't believe any national financial policy is going to remain unchanged over time, so why you would imagine that it could be the case for the EU is unclear. It's as if this were a straw man argument! .

You said the following.

current laws of the EU are 'utopian' and unsustainable - a claim which clearly flies in the face of the reality on the ground.

So when I mention the current problems with the euro which is an example unsustainable policy, first you say that this 'files on the face of reality on the ground' then you say in a nut shell 'well change will happen anyway'. Having your cake and eating it?

Are the range of EU political and economic policies sustainable as they stand? I'd say they are

So the Euro, the single most important economic development and policy of the the EU's history is 'sustainable' as things stand now? Wow! Again… Wow! Single monitory unions have been tried before and all of them have failed. Not a great record to be fair.

I've been living within the EU for the last five years - unlike yourself.

That is the boards.ie argument of 'you can't spell'. Please leave my personal location out of the argument as it makes you look petty.

alastair wrote: »

Any state is entitled to formulate it's own immigration policy - and within that the motivation may be racist or not. I don't believe border controls by themselves are intrinsically racist. My issue is with the actual/active immigration control platforms that are out there - all of which end up drinking from the same ideological racist well. .

So border controls are OK but question actually policies and rules that go into governing of these borders, thats racist… hmmm ok! This is an example of the usual left wing defamation of an opposite opinion which tries to shut down discussion of policy that should be open for discussion. Again, having your cake and eating it.

Why is it wrong to oppose mass immigration?

Comments