Is Ireland to replace its Emigrants with Immigrants?

Polo_Mint · 09-06-2015 9:05am #1

Considering we have a really bad track record in housing people in ireland, Im not sure if this is a good idea

Ms Fitzgerald is bringing proposals to Cabinet in response to the growing migrant crisis in the Mediterranean.
Sources said she will seek resettlement for at least 520 migrants - more than double the figure announced earlier this year.

Defence Minister Simon Coveney is also expected to brief colleagues on the work of the crew abroad LÉ Eithne, which has been involved in a number of rescue missions in recent days.

Since its deployment in the last month, the naval ship has rescued more than 1,150 people.
Most migrants embark from Libya in unsuitable crafts.
Irish Independent

wendell borton · 09-06-2015 9:27am

Is crossing the med the modern equivalent of the crossing the Rhine?http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_of_the_Rhine

The Diabolical Monocle · 09-06-2015 9:29am

Libya needs to start getting billed for their lax border controls.
If there's no deterrent it will just be rising annual numbers.

PARlance · 09-06-2015 9:31am

They'll love Mosney.

Buona Fortuna · 09-06-2015 9:34am

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Libya needs to start getting billed for their lax border controls.
If there's no deterrent it will just be rising annual numbers.

The more I hear about Libya the more I think failed state.

Is there even such a mechanism? Its not like they're in any clubs with other nations that have those rules.

somesoldiers · 09-06-2015 9:39am

wendell borton wrote: »

Is crossing the med the modern equivalent of the crossing the Rhine?http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_of_the_Rhine

and Crossing the rubicon

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/cross+the+Rubicon

Bob24 · 09-06-2015 9:48am

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Libya needs to start getting billed for their lax border controls.

Good luck with billing a foreign State, let alone one that is in total anarchy and cannot even maintain its territorial integrity or have a clear political leadership.

Grayson · 09-06-2015 10:28am

It's strange how people who are otherwise charitable can have a double think on issues like this. I was discussing the migrants with my family and they were against us taking them.

Every year my family puts candles in every window of the house on christmas eve. It's supposed to be a welcome for any travellers/homeless people who are wandering with no place to stay. So that unlike Mary and Joseph they will not be turned away everywhere and will have somewhere to stay.

That's what this is. These people need help. What kind of people would we be if we said no.

500 people is nothing. It's hardly compared with barbarian hoards crossing the Rhine or the Rubicon for that matter. We can afford 500. We couldn't afford 500,000 or even 50,000.

(The Rubicon is a false analogy. It refers to Roman troops crossing the Rubicon. The legions were never allowed in Rome itself. They always had to stay on the other side of the Rubicon This was to prevent a general from taking over Rome with his troops. Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his troops when he took over Rome)

Tefral · 09-06-2015 10:31am

Grayson wrote: »

It's strange how people who are otherwise charitable can have a double think on issues like this. I was discussing the migrants with my family and they were against us taking them.

Every year my family puts candles in every window of the house on christmas eve. It's supposed to be a welcome for any travellers/homeless people who are wandering with no place to stay. So that unlike Mary and Joseph they will not be turned away everywhere and will have somewhere to stay.

That's what this is. These people need help. What kind of people would we be if we said no.

500 people is nothing. It's hardly compared with barbarian hoards crossing the Rhine or the Rubicon (The Rubicon is a false analogy. It refers to Roman troops crossing the Rubicon. The legions were never allowed in Rome itself. They always had to stay on the other side of the Rubicon This was to prevent a general from taking over Rome with his troops. Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his troops when he took over Rome) for that matter. We can afford 500. We couldn't afford 500,000 or even 50,000.

What about the homeless in the country?? True they probably are not in mortal danger like those crossing the Med, but these people need our help too..

I have no issue with 500, but I think this is just the beginning. I lived in london, ive seen first hand what happens, integration seems to to be a problem.

We are giving money hand over fist to keep our own citizens in this country. We are paying for a warship that could be keeping our territorial waters safe. They should be towed back to Africa every time to be honest. Let them apply to be a member of our state when they can prove they have something to give and contribute.

xhoundx · 09-06-2015 10:32am

Grayson wrote: »

It's strange how people who are otherwise charitable can have a double think on issues like this. I was discussing the migrants with my family and they were against us taking them.

Every year my family puts candles in every window of the house on christmas eve. It's supposed to be a welcome for any travellers/homeless people who are wandering with no place to stay. So that unlike Mary and Joseph they will not be turned away everywhere and will have somewhere to stay.

That's what this is. These people need help. What kind of people would we be if we said no.

500 people is nothing. It's hardly compared with barbarian hoards crossing the Rhine or the Rubicon for that matter. We can afford 500. We couldn't afford 500,000 or even 50,000.

(The Rubicon is a false analogy. It refers to Roman troops crossing the Rubicon. The legions were never allowed in Rome itself. They always had to stay on the other side of the Rubicon This was to prevent a general from taking over Rome with his troops. Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his troops when he took over Rome)

I doubt many people would have any problems with 500 people that were genuine refugees.

You and me both know that it won't stop at 500 and few of them will be genuine refugees.

Valetta · 09-06-2015 10:33am

cronin_j wrote: »

What about the homeless in the country?? True they probably are not in mortal danger like those crossing the Med, but these people need our help too..

I have no issue with 500, but I think this is just the beginning. I lived in london, ive seen first hand what happens, integration seems to to be a problem.

There is more than enough help for the Irish homeless.

The vast majority of them do not want to avail of it.

Chris_Heilong · 09-06-2015 10:33am

There is plenty of room outside of Dublin for them, outside of maybe the 3 major cities the rest of Ireland is sparsely populated.

Valetta · 09-06-2015 10:34am

PARlance wrote: »

They'll love Mosney.

Better than floating around in the Med, or drowned.

Tefral · 09-06-2015 10:36am

Valetta wrote: »

There is more than enough help for the Irish homeless.

The vast majority of them do not want to avail of it.

Well thats absolute horse manure anyway!! We have a huge homeless crisis in this country.

The most recent statistics on homelessness in Ireland are from the Special Census report on homeless persons in Ireland. Of the 4.5million persons in Ireland on Census night (10th April 2011), 3,808 were in accommodation providing shelter for homeless persons or were sleeping rough. 62% (or 2,375) were living in Dublin on Census night, and 644 (17%) were under the age of 20. 15% or 553 people were non-Irish, compared to 12% of the total population. Almost one-third of homeless persons had health which was ‘Fair’, ‘Bad’ or ‘Very bad’, compared with 10% of the general population.

here is a large waiting list for local authority housing in Ireland. Over 98,000 households were in need of social housing in 2011, and 2,348 (or 2.4%) of these households were in need of housing due to homelessness.

Bob24 · 09-06-2015 10:40am

xhoundx wrote: »

I doubt many people would have any problems with 500 people that were genuine refugees.

You and me both know that it won't stop at 500 and few of them will be genuine refugees.

That is the thing.

Also taking them should mean having a plan to ensure the will be spread out in Irish society and expected to blend into local culture so that their kids are fully integrated rather than living all in the same ghetto where they keep their parent's culture while being frustrated themselves and rejected by a large part of the population.
Problem is that making the decision to bring them into the country is easy. What is more difficult is keeping focus on integration programs which are both generous to give people a real chance but also firm and demanding to make it clear they (and especially their kids) need to blend into local culture if this is the country they choose to live in.

Grayson · 09-06-2015 10:43am

xhoundx wrote: »

I doubt many people would have any problems with 500 people that were genuine refugees.

You and me both know that it won't stop at 500 and few of them will be genuine refugees.

I'm sure most are genuine. They know how bad the crossing is. They've heard about the deaths. How many people risk their family making that kind of crossing? How desperate would you have to be to bundle your child into one of those overcrowded boats.

As for people who think we're binging over future terrorists. well that's bollocks. Most of these people are fleeing from places like Syria, Libya and Somalia. They know what the west is like, they want to be here.

Bob24 · 09-06-2015 10:47am

Grayson wrote: »

As for people who think we're binging over future terrorists. well that's bollocks. Most of these people are fleeing from places like Syria, Libya and Somalia.

Yeah it's true there are no terrorists in these countries ...

And even if there were, none of them could possibly think of hiding in the middle of a group of genuine refugees in order hit a target in Europe, right? Terrorists are so stupid ...

xhoundx · 09-06-2015 10:47am

Grayson wrote: »

I'm sure most are genuine. They know how bad the crossing is. They've heard about the deaths. How many people risk their family making that kind of crossing? How desperate would you have to be to bundle your child into one of those overcrowded boats.

I'm sure you are wrong, they are mostly young men and are economic migrants.

somesoldiers · 09-06-2015 10:51am

Grayson wrote: »

It's strange how people who are otherwise charitable can have a double think on issues like this. I was discussing the migrants with my family and they were against us taking them.

Every year my family puts candles in every window of the house on christmas eve. It's supposed to be a welcome for any travellers/homeless people who are wandering with no place to stay. So that unlike Mary and Joseph they will not be turned away everywhere and will have somewhere to stay.

That's what this is. These people need help. What kind of people would we be if we said no.

500 people is nothing. It's hardly compared with barbarian hoards crossing the Rhine or the Rubicon for that matter. We can afford 500. We couldn't afford 500,000 or even 50,000.

(The Rubicon is a false analogy. It refers to Roman troops crossing the Rubicon. The legions were never allowed in Rome itself. They always had to stay on the other side of the Rubicon This was to prevent a general from taking over Rome with his troops. Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his troops when he took over Rome)

Rubicon in terms of a point of no return, where does it end, if more keep coming do we let more in

Grayson · 09-06-2015 10:52am

cronin_j wrote: »

What about the homeless in the country?? True they probably are not in mortal danger like those crossing the Med, but these people need our help too..

I have no issue with 500, but I think this is just the beginning. I lived in london, ive seen first hand what happens, integration seems to to be a problem.

We are giving money hand over fist to keep our own citizens in this country. We are paying for a warship that could be keeping our territorial waters safe. They should be towed back to Africa every time to be honest. Let them apply to be a member of our state when they can prove they have something to give and contribute.

What about our homeless? It's not a one or another decision.

And I don't think integration will be a problem. Not with 500. We have had a pretty good track record with that. We already have hundreds of thousands of non nationals here and they're fitting in fine.

As for the slippery slope argument about where it stops, well there are problems with that that most people realise. Taking 500 doesn't mean we'll take 50,000. And even if we do, so long as it's staggered, that's ok.
50,000 at once would be a problem. We all realise that. The number of people who advocate unlimited emigration is about the same as the number who advocate a zero tolerance policy and want to kick out every foreign national. They are very few and exist on the fringes. As for taking more, that's a decision that needs to be taken at a later stage, not now.

Grayson · 09-06-2015 10:54am

somesoldiers wrote: »

Rubicon in terms of a point of no return, where does it end, if more keep coming do we let more in

Taking 500 isn't a point of no return. If it was then we crossed it the first time we allowed a foreigner into the country. Saying it's like crossing the Rubicon is like saying that biscuit will make you into a tubby bastard.

Grayson · 09-06-2015 10:59am

Bob24 wrote: »

Yeah it's true there are no terrorists in these countries ...

And even if there were, none of them could possibly think of hiding in the middle of a group of genuine refugees in order hit a target in Europe, right? Terrorists are so stupid ...

Ahhh... so when Europe has a problem with people going to Syria to fight for Isis, for some reason Isis have decided to send troops to fight in Europe. And they choose to send them on rickety boats that might sink. Boats that might be picked up by the military where people will be searched and then processed.

Bob24 · 09-06-2015 11:09am

Grayson wrote: »

And they choose to send them on rickety boats that might sink. Boats that might be picked up by the military where people will be searched and then processed.

And then be sent to Ireland after being "processed".

Do you have a better way to suggest they could use to spread-out some of their people to various European countries?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the boats are only loaded with terrorists, but saying no potential terrorist will be boarding them is as stupid as saying all migrants are terrorists. It is a genuine and very serious concern.

professore · 09-06-2015 11:09am

Grayson wrote: »

It's strange how people who are otherwise charitable can have a double think on issues like this. I was discussing the migrants with my family and they were against us taking them.

Every year my family puts candles in every window of the house on christmas eve. It's supposed to be a welcome for any travellers/homeless people who are wandering with no place to stay. So that unlike Mary and Joseph they will not be turned away everywhere and will have somewhere to stay.

That's what this is. These people need help. What kind of people would we be if we said no.

It's called being a hypocrite. It's wanting to be seen to be generous and giving where in actual fact you don't give a f**k. And you'll hear the cries of "what about our own homeless" etc where the ones going on about that would drive over a homeless person, Irish or otherwise, in their 151-D SUV.

No doubt some will claim that they are "down in the local Simon community every night" or "I once gave €10 to a homeless person, how great am I" but they are talking c**p - so they only help Irish homeless or what? Compassion is colour blind.

professore · 09-06-2015 11:11am

On a lighter note, we need some immigrants to improve the pool of players for our international football team - the current lot are dreadful.

goose2005 · 09-06-2015 11:12am

Grayson wrote: »

500 people is nothing. It's hardly compared with barbarian hoards crossing the Rhine or the Rubicon for that matter. We can afford 500. We couldn't afford 500,000 or even 50,000.

But hundreds of thousands of immigrants have arrived in recent years. Africa's population rises by 20 million every year and there's no reason to think the influx of immigrants will ever stop.

conorhal · 09-06-2015 11:35am

Grayson wrote: »

What about our homeless? It's not a one or another decision.

And I don't think integration will be a problem. Not with 500. We have had a pretty good track record with that. We already have hundreds of thousands of non nationals here and they're fitting in fine.

As for the slippery slope argument about where it stops, well there are problems with that that most people realise. Taking 500 doesn't mean we'll take 50,000. And even if we do, so long as it's staggered, that's ok.
50,000 at once would be a problem. We all realise that. The number of people who advocate unlimited emigration is about the same as the number who advocate a zero tolerance policy and want to kick out every foreign national. They are very few and exist on the fringes. As for taking more, that's a decision that needs to be taken at a later stage, not now.

We have replaced nearly a quater of our population with foreign born and the children of foreign born inhabitants. That's not a piffling number.

Grayson · 09-06-2015 11:38am

goose2005 wrote: »

But hundreds of thousands of immigrants have arrived in recent years. Africa's population rises by 20 million every year and there's no reason to think the influx of immigrants will ever stop.

That's a slippery slope argument. I'll agree that there is a limit on what we can take but we're no-where near that. If the government wanted to take 50,000 I'd be protesting. We can't afford that. Even if we could afford that we couldn't integrate that many at once.

500 a year is 20,000 over 40 years. That we can take.

Grayson · 09-06-2015 11:42am

Bob24 wrote: »

And then be sent to Ireland after being "processed".

Do you have a better way to suggest they could use to spread-out some of their people to various European countries?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the boats are only loaded with terrorists, but saying no potential terrorist will be boarding them is as stupid as saying all migrants are terrorists. It is a genuine and very serious concern.

It's very unlikely though. The 9-11 bombers all went to the US legally and weren't refugees. If you wanted to get someone here to blow up something you'd be better off giving them a forged passport and a car on the Turkish boarder.

I think there are issues that need to be addressed but terrorism isn't one.

denhaagenite · 09-06-2015 11:42am

conorhal wrote: »

We have replaced nearly a quater of our population with foreign born and the children of foreign born inhabitants. That's not a piffling number.

So? After how many generations will they actually become "Irish" to you?

People forget that Ireland took in refugees during the Kosovan crisis (who subsequently returned to Kosovo) and you know what? The country didn't burn down.

conorhal · 09-06-2015 11:47am

Grayson wrote: »

That's a slippery slope argument. I'll agree that there is a limit on what we can take but we're no-where near that. If the government wanted to take 50,000 I'd be protesting. We can't afford that. Even if we could afford that we couldn't integrate that many at once.

500 a year is 20,000 over 40 years. That we can take.

we have 60,000 immigrants to this country per annum. Obviously not all or even mostly asylum applicants (which numbers at the moment at about 4,000) but the fact remains that we are indulging in population replacement and importing thousands of people that we can't facilitate.
The current housing and homlesness crisis has been met with a promise to provide 3,000 houses in the next 3 years to address the issue, that won't even house those currently in asylum reception centers currently. An yes, pretty much all of those will be getting that housing stock.

You're numbers are disingenuous also, the refer to asylum applicants currently in UN refugee camps (who would bypass the asylum system as pre approved refugees), it has no baring on those crossing the med (90,000 so far this year) or those crosing over land which are multiples of that number. Of those the EU would like us to take a percentage. Nor does it refer to those currently here in direct provision. you need to be building 5,000 homes a year just to accomodate those currently arriving here.

Is Ireland to replace its Emigrants with Immigrants?

Comments