Migration Megathread

Sand · 21-09-2018 7:36pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Theresa May.

There's little evidence Theresa May has any deeply held views on any topic that do not extend to her current task or function. Sure, back in 2015 she was calling asylum seekers "foreign criminals" and driving a "hostile environment" for undocumented migrants, but that was her job then. And its her job now to implement Brexit despite voting Remain.

Its revealing you cant think of any European politician with a genuine view of their own that can pass your litmus test.

I never denied that lobbying exists or that it exerts influence. I was disputing that the EU is being run in the interests of corporations. Proving that lobbying exists doesn't disprove my point.

You disagreed with me stating that EU corporations 'thrive behind EU trade barriers' as opposed to the plight of European workers. I never stated EU corporations run the EU as a whole. I presume having reminded you of my original point we can move past this tangent?

Regarding immigration from outside the EU, isn't this the job of individual nation states? Why should the EU be doing anything about it when its members have full control over their borders when it comes to non-EU migrants?

Yes, that's why I stated 'primarily its member states' twice, and stated the EU *should* protect Europeans as zealously as it protects the corporations. After all, you're clearly in favour of the EU intervening into domestic Hungarian politics and legislation which ought to be the remit of the individual member states. So you clearly understand the ability to leverage 'European values' to impose EU power against member-states.

ancapailldorcha · 21-09-2018 7:42pm

Sand wrote: »

There's little evidence Theresa May has any deeply held views on any topic that do not extend to her current task or function. Sure, back in 2015 she was calling asylum seekers "foreign criminals" and driving a "hostile environment" for undocumented migrants, but that was her job then. And its her job now to implement Brexit despite voting Remain.

This is someone who gave one pro-Remain speech during which she insisted on bringing up her obsession with limiting immigration to tens of thousands per year and was the sidelined.

Sand wrote: »

Its revealing you cant think of any European politician with a genuine view of their own that can pass your litmus test.

In what way?

Sand wrote: »

Yes, that's why I stated 'primarily its member states' twice, and stated the EU *should* protect Europeans as zealously as it protects the corporations. After all, you're clearly in favour of the EU intervening into domestic Hungarian politics and legislation which ought to be the remit of the individual member states. So you clearly understand the ability to leverage 'European values' to impose EU power against member-states.

Not what I said at all. I'm in favor of the EU imposing whatever sanctions it legally can. Hungary is of course free to leave. Anyway, the case is moot given that Poland will not vote for such sanctions.

Sand · 21-09-2018 9:40pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In what way?

May is your version of acceptable anti-migration politics because shes clearly not a conviction politician. In your eyes she can call asylum seekers "foreign criminals" because we both know she's just a jobsworth. You don't even believe she was genuinely pro-Remain.

Not what I said at all. I'm in favor of the EU imposing whatever sanctions it legally can. Hungary is of course free to leave. Anyway, the case is moot given that Poland will not vote for such sanctions.

So I'm not misrepresenting you then? Member-state policies on media or university funding is not the remit of the EU anymore than non-EU migration is. However, you accept the EU *should* intervene to protect vague European values in those cases. So you accept EU intervention in areas that is not is specific areas of responsibility.

Why is it so incomprehensible to you that the EU *should* intervene into an area not directly allocated to it to protect European interests when it comes to mass migration?

I fully accept its not the EU's fault that the UK opened its borders to mass migration. But the EU could be a positive force in protecting European interests in a real sense, rather than merely arguing with Orban about university funding.

ancapailldorcha · 21-09-2018 10:00pm

Sand wrote: »

May is your version of acceptable anti-migration politics because shes clearly not a conviction politician. In your eyes she can call asylum seekers "foreign criminals" because we both know she's just a jobsworth. You don't even believe she was genuinely pro-Remain.

Saying that May isn't prejudiced doesn't mean that I approve of everything she's said, something I thought was obvious. She's been consistently anti-mass migration for a long time.

Sand wrote: »

So I'm not misrepresenting you then? Member-state policies on media or university funding is not the remit of the EU anymore than non-EU migration is. However, you accept the EU *should* intervene to protect vague European values in those cases. So you accept EU intervention in areas that is not is specific areas of responsibility.

Why is it so incomprehensible to you that the EU *should* intervene into an area not directly allocated to it to protect European interests when it comes to mass migration?

I fully accept its not the EU's fault that the UK opened its borders to mass migration. But the EU could be a positive force in protecting European interests in a real sense, rather than merely arguing with Orban about university funding.

Article 7 is supposed to prevent member states from enacting policies which threaten democratic institutions. Hungary and Poland ratified the treaty meaning that they acceded to its terms so I would argue that it is relevant.

Do you want the EU to be setting policy regarding immigration from outside? That's an idea that would end badly given the current climate.

Sand · 21-09-2018 10:15pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Saying that May isn't prejudiced doesn't mean that I approve of everything she's said. I didn't think that this needed to be pointed out but it evidently it does.

Oh, I'm not basing this on Theresa May. She has no convictions, and therefore no prejudice. I'm pointing out that shes you're example of a European politician strongly and publicly against mass migration who is not doing so because of prejudice. I'm pointing out your bias, not TM's.

Article 7 is supposed to prevent member states from enacting policies which threaten democratic institutions. Hungary and Poland ratified the treaty meaning that they acceded to its terms so I would argue that it is relevant.

Do you want the EU to be setting policy regarding immigration from outside? That's an idea that would end badly given the current climate.

Really, Hungary and Poland's democratic institutions are seriously under threat because certain university programs are de-funded and politicians have a role in appointing judges? You're aware that in Ireland, like most democracies, the government approves the appointment of judges? Are we a non-democracy?

Hungarian and Polish reforms of their judiciary are not the remit of the EU and there is zero evidence that there is any loss of democratic accountability in either country. You even acknowledge the whole endevour is pointless as Poland will veto any actions against Hungary and vice versa.

Again, I'm highlighting your bias in that you consider it entirely acceptable, indeed admirable, that the EU extend its technical remit in this imagined crisis to no practical end or benefit. But you play the rulebook and pretend the EU has no tools or role in protecting Europeans from reckless mass migration. The EU's hands are tied unfortunately, right?

Entirely the wrong set of priorities.

splashuum · 25-10-2018 11:13pm

Sinead O'Connor now flying the Islamic flag

4068ac1elhodqr · 26-10-2018 12:37am

splashuum wrote: »

Sinead O'Connor now flying the Islamic flag

She says: “This is the natural conclusion of any intelligent theologian’s journey". :pac:

Would question whether she is indeed an intelligent theologian in the first place, and capable of logical, and well thought out, considered life decisions.

It's more likely that she is a very troubled soul, that maybe needs professional mental services of some sort. Her new name henceforth is 'Shuhada' Davitt, catchy...

BabyCheeses · 31-10-2018 10:52pm

wakka12 wrote: »

I don't see the big deal. And I don't like the tone 'muslim takeover' it sounds as if muslims are deliberately coming here with the sole purpose of replacing europeans, europeans are the ones who grant them permission to move here, and europeans are the ones with low birth rates that don't want to have anymore babies

If it matters that much to you, have a clatter of bible loving babies and try to reclaim your european homeland from the invaders

But that requires doing something. Cultural marxism has made it so that if I have 4-5 children my wife will want me to help out. How am I supposed to go on about my doomsday cult online if I'm expected to help raise children?

Eric Cartman · 31-10-2018 11:16pm

splashuum wrote: »

Sinead O'Connor now flying the Islamic flag

its Grenade O'Connor now.

Funny how one of her most infamous stunts was tearing up a picture of the pope in protest against sexual abuse, and now she's joined a religion that believes its a womans fault for being sexually abused.

Sand · 08-11-2018 10:10pm

The Irish Times has drawn attention to the economic performance of non-EU migration in Ireland, specifically African migrants. As we have seen in the UK, non-EU migrants are an economic cost, not a benefit. That same story appears to be playing out in Ireland too.

The ESRI reports that:

- EU migration is positive. Western EU migrants are only 4% unemployed, compared to 7% of Irish people.
- Non-EU migration is not economically positive. The employment rate for African nationals in particular is just 45%, and the unemployment rate is over twice the Irish rate. Their economic performance is not catching up with the Irish average. It actually worsened between 2016 and 2017.
- Non-EU nationals as a whole were much more likely to live in consistent poverty, affecting 29% of the group as opposed to 8% of Irish people.

While there is not yet detailed figures to the level identified in the UK, the indications are non-EU migrants contribute less economically, and demand more in social spending than the average Irish person. Statistically, migrants will be younger so wont yet reflect the pension and health costs of older Irish people. Yet. They will grow old too though.

Despite all the claims that mass migration is an absolute economic benefit, the reality is non-EU migrants will not pay the pensions of Irish people. Irish people (and indeed EU migrants) will work longer and harder to pay the pensions of the non EU migrants. At some point policies on mass migration has to take account of the evidence, not the feel good myths.

anotherfinemess · 08-11-2018 11:09pm

I have been reading 'Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam' by Mark Curtis. It explains a lot of how this all came about and gives nuts and bolts details of how UK/US meddling in muslim countries to control oil etc has morphed into the mess we are not supposed to notice today. No solution offered unfortunately.

Midlife · 08-11-2018 11:49pm

Sand wrote: »

The Irish Times has drawn attention to the economic performance of non-EU migration in Ireland, specifically African migrants. As we have seen in the UK, non-EU migrants are an economic cost, not a benefit. That same story appears to be playing out in Ireland too.

The ESRI reports that:

- EU migration is positive. Western EU migrants are only 4% unemployed, compared to 7% of Irish people.
- Non-EU migration is not economically positive. The employment rate for African nationals in particular is just 45%, and the unemployment rate is over twice the Irish rate. Their economic performance is not catching up with the Irish average. It actually worsened between 2016 and 2017.
- Non-EU nationals as a whole were much more likely to live in consistent poverty, affecting 29% of the group as opposed to 8% of Irish people.

Can you please reference or cite the document where it says this.

I think you might be adding a bit of your own take on things here.

You can't cite an ESRI study by just cherry picking things in fairness.

Sand · 09-11-2018 12:59am

Midlife wrote: »

Can you please reference or cite the document where it says this.

I think you might be adding a bit of your own take on things here.

You can't cite an ESRI study by just cherry picking things in fairness.

You're only challenging the bits in bold?

James Brown · 09-11-2018 3:47pm

Won't be long now before the alt-right move on to the poor, (more so) and get bored of the whole Muslim menace.

Sand · 16-11-2018 11:25pm

It is the poorest who have suffered the most from mass migration. They have not had the money to join the flight from diversity to the suburbs. They have been forced to compete for their wages with the third world labour whilst their employers are protected from third world manufacturers by tariffs and regulations. It is their daughter's who have been exposed to the sexual morality imported from the hill tribes of Pakistan. It was their traditional political representatives who abandoned them for the lure of new voters.

The richest have done well from mass migration. Who cares who serves their coffee so long as they do it for the least possible price? The poor have suffered.

Midlife · 17-11-2018 9:02am

Sand wrote: »

It is the poorest who have suffered the most from mass migration. They have not had the money to join the flight from diversity to the suburbs. They have been forced to compete for their wages with the third world labour whilst their employers are protected from third world manufacturers by tariffs and regulations. It is their daughter's who have been exposed to the sexual morality imported from the hill tribes of Pakistan. It was their traditional political representatives who abandoned them for the lure of new voters.

The richest have done well from mass migration. Who cares who serves their coffee so long as they do it for the least possible price? The poor have suffered.

Haha,

Had a few drinks last night?

Nice to see your true colours. You drop in once a week, don't answer questions and are basically bordering on hate speech above with the 'daughter's...hill tribes of pakistan' comment.

I mean really? Lock up your daughters?

cryptocurrency · 17-11-2018 9:28am

Calling someone hate speech here seems a bit of a stretch

Midlife · 17-11-2018 10:18am

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Calling someone hate speech here seems a bit of a stretch

My comments are a bit of a stretch?

cryptocurrency wrote: »

It is their (poor people's) daughters who have been exposed to the sexual morality imported from the hill tribes of Pakistan

Really. The above quote is thanked multiple times but saying it's bordering on hate speech is a stretch?

Guess I must have it all backwards so.

Fr Tod Umptious · 17-11-2018 10:28am

Sand wrote: »

It is the poorest who have suffered the most from mass migration. They have not had the money to join the flight from diversity to the suburbs. They have been forced to compete for their wages with the third world labour whilst their employers are protected from third world manufacturers by tariffs and regulations. It is their daughter's who have been exposed to the sexual morality imported from the hill tribes of Pakistan. It was their traditional political representatives who abandoned them for the lure of new voters.

The richest have done well from mass migration. Who cares who serves their coffee so long as they do it for the least possible price? The poor have suffered.

Thats why i can never figure out the left.
They are supposed to be there to support the rights of the working class (well that's what their origins were based on)

Yet they totally allow the local working class be undermined by favouring loose immigration laws.

Midlife · 17-11-2018 10:32am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Thats why i can never figure out the left.
They are supposed to be there to support the rights of the working class (well that's what their origins were based on)

Yet they totally allow the local working class be undermined by favouring loose immigration laws.

So Jeremy Corbyn is right up your alley then?

As an aside, do not you feel that right wing politicians championing the cause of poor people brings a similar level of irrationality?

Wanderer78 · 17-11-2018 10:33am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote:

Thats why i can never figure out the left. They are supposed to be there to support the rights of the working class (well that's what their origins were based on)

The political left have been nothing but a disaster for decades now, but I'd be more concerned for the relatively free movement of capital than the free movement of people, I do think this has far more damage to our economies

ancapailldorcha · 17-11-2018 11:46am

Mod: Cut out the personal attacks and sloganeering please.

Midlife · 17-11-2018 12:22pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: Cut out the personal attacks and sloganeering please.

Apologies.

Midlife · 17-11-2018 12:28pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The political left have been nothing but a disaster for decades now, but I'd be more concerned for the relatively free movement of capital than the free movement of people, I do think this has far more damage to our economies

Agree 100%.

And while the wealthy take more and more for thelselves, they convince people that it's all the fault of other poor people

I keep coming back a very prophetic final line in the movie 'the big short'. this was before the lurch to the right and before Trumpism in the states but it goes 'I've a feeling when this (the downturn) all blows over that we'll just end up blaming poor people and immmigrants'

Relatively speaking the lower-middle class and down in the UK and the US is doing worse thena their parents with a smaller share of the national GDP.

That is not the fault of immigrants.

fly_agaric · 17-11-2018 6:36pm

Midlife wrote: »

Had a few drinks last night?

You drop in once a week, don't answer questions and are basically bordering on hate speech above with the 'daughter's...hill tribes of pakistan' comment.

I mean really? Lock up your daughters?

As a "lurker" more honest description would be the poster laid out his arguments, often in the face of very thinly veiled insults like above and spent a large amount of time composing detailed replies and explaining his position. The thread is pretty much "over" at this point. There are (probably) no new arguments after 40 odd pages.

As for "daughters", going by the news over the sea would be telling them to be somewhat leary of Pakistanis/Bangladeshis bearing gifts if I had any tweenage/teenage ones and lived in one of the north England towns + cities that have been in the news for all the wrong reasons!

Midlife · 17-11-2018 11:21pm

fly_agaric wrote: »

As a "lurker" more honest description would be the poster laid out his arguments, often in the face of very thinly veiled insults like above and spent a large amount of time composing detailed replies and explaining his position. The thread is pretty much "over" at this point. There are (probably) no new arguments after 40 odd pages.

As for "daughters", going by the news over the sea would be telling them to be somewhat leary of Pakistanis/Bangladeshis bearing gifts if I had any tweenage/teenage ones and lived in one of the north England towns + cities that have been in the news for all the wrong reasons!

Well the last time he laid out 'his arguments' he didn't reply to questioning about them. I feel this is because he knows his arguments are thin, as i mentioned he cherry picked from the ESRI report last time out, while ignoring clear statistics that aren't on his side.

That's one problem i have. The second I have is to judge a billion or so people to be child abusers due to the acts of some gangs in the north of England. I have a real problem with that.

Maybe you can explain how you rationalise it so easily but i really can't see it as anything but racism.

Eric Cartman · 18-11-2018 1:27pm

Midlife wrote: »

Agree 100%.

And while the wealthy take more and more for thelselves, they convince people that it's all the fault of other poor people

I keep coming back a very prophetic final line in the movie 'the big short'. this was before the lurch to the right and before Trumpism in the states but it goes 'I've a feeling when this (the downturn) all blows over that we'll just end up blaming poor people and immmigrants'

Relatively speaking the lower-middle class and down in the UK and the US is doing worse thena their parents with a smaller share of the national GDP.

That is not the fault of immigrants.

People blame the muslims for the increase in rape, violence against women , extremism and terrorism , that 'blaming the immigrants for taking our jobs' trope is old and only really perpetuated by poor uneducated native people in countries.

However economically , explain to me how its the fault of rich people , the perceived ills of our economic world ? , why is it ok to tar the rich with a brush and not the poor ?

Midlife · 18-11-2018 1:38pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

People blame the muslims for the increase in rape, violence against women , extremism and terrorism , that 'blaming the immigrants for taking our jobs' trope is old and only really perpetuated by poor uneducated native people in countries.

However economically , explain to me how its the fault of rich people , the perceived ills of our economic world ? , why is it ok to tar the rich with a brush and not the poor ?

I disagree quite strongly with your first statement (though i'm not sure you blame them, just that you're saying theey are blamed). However i'm not sure there's any point in discussing it.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's the fault of rich people. Just that the system has slowly been tweaked to filter a larger and larger portion of wealth to the already wealthy.

Sand · 18-11-2018 3:40pm

Midlife wrote: »

Well the last time he laid out 'his arguments' he didn't reply to questioning about them.

I did reply. I asked you to clarify your question. You did not. You only posted again to vomit up some bitterness. However you did apologise for that, and I accept your apology.

I feel this is because he knows his arguments are thin

What I know is that you are not actually listening to anything that is stated.

That's one problem i have. The second I have is to judge a billion or so people to be child abusers due to the acts of some gangs in the north of England. I have a real problem with that.

See? Exaggerate much?

Eric Cartman · 18-11-2018 7:21pm

Midlife wrote: »

I disagree quite strongly with your first statement (though i'm not sure you blame them, just that you're saying theey are blamed). However i'm not sure there's any point in discussing it.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's the fault of rich people. Just that the system has slowly been tweaked to filter a larger and larger portion of wealth to the already wealthy.

What I mean is

"De foreigners are taking our jobs" firstly isn't true obviously, but secondly is an argument only used and perpetuated by the long term unemployed , I think you'd have more chance of winning the lotto than finding somebody on over 40k a year making that argument. As a result, I don't think the objection to muslims could be in any way economic or considered to be economic, why the debate between rich and poor has entered this thread is puzzling.

Realistically people are opposed to muslims because of the toxic elements in their culture. This really boils down to an issue of religion again, Devout muslims (as with almost any religion) are toxic to our modern free society as the countries they are coming from often lack so far behind on womens rights, LGBT rights etc.. which make integration a lot harder. Radical clerics 'helping' confused people integrate into European society have inevitably just made their followers more devout, the community more insular and allowed the seeds of resentment and hatred for western customs to flourish (even in second generation immigrants).

I think if it was all Abdul the Iranian scientist who was born muslim but is no longer coming in then everyone would be fine with it in time (aside from nutter extremist groups born out of a lack of education in primarily working class areas) but sadly its not. These pop up mosques, self declared clerics, 'community activists' and groups like the muslim brotherhood need to be scrutinised heavily, any faith based schools need to have the curriculum scrutinised heavily and the children taught from an early age to integrate into native western society and to be on guard for customs and attitudes that their parents or grandparents may harbour that are not viable in western nations.

Midlife · 18-11-2018 7:47pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

What I mean is

"De foreigners are taking our jobs" firstly isn't true obviously, but secondly is an argument only used and perpetuated by the long term unemployed , I think you'd have more chance of winning the lotto than finding somebody on over 40k a year making that argument. As a result, I don't think the objection to muslims could be in any way economic or considered to be economic, why the debate between rich and poor has entered this thread is puzzling.

Realistically people are opposed to muslims because of the toxic elements in their culture. This really boils down to an issue of religion again, Devout muslims (as with almost any religion) are toxic to our modern free society as the countries they are coming from often lack so far behind on womens rights, LGBT rights etc.. which make integration a lot harder. Radical clerics 'helping' confused people integrate into European society have inevitably just made their followers more devout, the community more insular and allowed the seeds of resentment and hatred for western customs to flourish (even in second generation immigrants).

I think if it was all Abdul the Iranian scientist who was born muslim but is no longer coming in then everyone would be fine with it in time (aside from nutter extremist groups born out of a lack of education in primarily working class areas) but sadly its not. These pop up mosques, self declared clerics, 'community activists' and groups like the muslim brotherhood need to be scrutinised heavily, any faith based schools need to have the curriculum scrutinised heavily and the children taught from an early age to integrate into native western society and to be on guard for customs and attitudes that their parents or grandparents may harbour that are not viable in western nations.

Hard to disagree with any of that.

the one point I'd add is that secular Islam is hugely downplayed/fotgotten about. I've been basically laughed at for mentioning it at times but I've met a lot of new Irish citizens who observe Ramadan and wear headscarves but are equally progressive in terms of womens and LGBT rights etc.

My main problem is that all of these are lumped in with the worst stories you hear and they're all treated as one homogonous group.

As you say though, yes integration and education are mandatory.

Eric Cartman · 18-11-2018 8:04pm

Midlife wrote: »

Hard to disagree with any of that.

the one point I'd add is that secular Islam is hugely downplayed/fotgotten about. I've been basically laughed at for mentioning it at times but I've met a lot of new Irish citizens who observe Ramadan and wear headscarves but are equally progressive in terms of womens and LGBT rights etc.

My main problem is that all of these are lumped in with the worst stories you hear and they're all treated as one homogonous group.

As you say though, yes integration and education are mandatory.

And I think this needs to be brought up more that there are people from these regions that don't believe in the old book , Observing ramadan is often just done to appease parents or as a tradition that they grew up with, similar to athiests participating in christmas.

The only point id have some disagreement on is tye headscarf, I still personally see it as a representation of female opression by theocratic cultures, I do believe some choose to wear it, but theres definitely a lot of pressure from families etc.. for women to continue wearing it in western countries. The hijab not so many issues with but I do feel the burkah is a security risk and almost certainly a tool of opression and has no place in western society.

ancapailldorcha · 20-11-2018 3:24pm

Rants deleted.

dr.fuzzenstein · 20-11-2018 3:57pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

People blame the muslims for the increase in rape, violence against women , extremism and terrorism , that 'blaming the immigrants for taking our jobs' trope is old and only really perpetuated by poor uneducated native people in countries.

However economically , explain to me how its the fault of rich people , the perceived ills of our economic world ? , why is it ok to tar the rich with a brush and not the poor ?

To me the problem with "rich people" (or large companies) would be the innocent phrase "maximising profit".
It means increasing the bottom line and shareholder payouts at any cost and exploring any legal (or very grey area legal) avenue for one purpose and one purpose alone:
To spend as little money as possible making as much money as possible.
Dismanteling unions, zero hour contracts, finding THE cheapest supplier, moving production to third world countries, dismanteling pension schemes, finding every and any tax loophole to get tax to as close as zero as possible (hello Ireland), funneling profit through overseas taxhavens, asserting political influence to have health and safety as well as environmental regulation watered down, getting politicians to supply dodgy grants to established companies, getting fewer people to do more work, basically what we see every day.
And this is just the legal stuff.
This has decimated entire areas in the US alone where there are no jobs and it's almost a third world country.
If it means firing people, cutting down the rain forest, poisoning the sea, the land, the air, supporting dodgy regimes to get at cheap materials, it's all fine and dandy, as long as shareholders get a few extra cent.
It's basically pissing on the planet for a few dollar more.
Global commerce has been the worst thing for the planet and it's people since the Crusades and the Black Death. All so people can fall over each other to spend €1000 on that shiny new iPhone.

The "poor" people just react badly by electing the worst possible asshole (always a right winger) into power. For some reason they don't seem to care that they knowingly are making things worse for themselves. Trump being the case in point and demonstrates nicely how the elite is fcuking everyone over and they're (i.e. everyone) fighting amongst themselves.

Sand · 21-11-2018 9:07pm

Midlife wrote: »

the one point I'd add is that secular Islam is hugely downplayed/fotgotten about. I've been basically laughed at for mentioning it at times but I've met a lot of new Irish citizens who observe Ramadan and wear headscarves but are equally progressive in terms of womens and LGBT rights etc.

Surely secular Islam is seen in its proper context? Pew Research has found that Muslim acceptance of LGBT in Islamic/middle eastern countries only exceeds single digits in a single country, Lebanon. Homosexuality remains punishable by death in many Islamic/Middle Eastern countries. If you're claiming your anecdotes are a contradiction of that reality, then you'll have to get used to being laughed at.

As you say though, yes integration and education are mandatory.

Mandatory? You would force them to integrate? What would you do if they say no?

Das Reich · 22-11-2018 6:56pm

Sand wrote: »

Surely secular Islam is seen in its proper context? Pew Research has found that Muslim acceptance of LGBT in Islamic/middle eastern countries only exceeds single digits in a single country, Lebanon. Homosexuality remains punishable by death in many Islamic/Middle Eastern countries. If you're claiming your anecdotes are a contradiction of that reality, then you'll have to get used to being laughed at.

Mandatory? You would force them to integrate? What would you do if they say no?

In Lebanon christians went from 80% a hundred years ago to 40% now. I am sure it will get more radicalized as the christians become smaller.

Midlife · 22-11-2018 10:58pm

Sand wrote: »

Surely secular Islam is seen in its proper context? Pew Research has found that Muslim acceptance of LGBT in Islamic/middle eastern countries only exceeds single digits in a single country, Lebanon. Homosexuality remains punishable by death in many Islamic/Middle Eastern countries. If you're claiming your anecdotes are a contradiction of that reality, then you'll have to get used to being laughed at.

Mandatory? You would force them to integrate? What would you do if they say no?

Before we get into another report (which i think maybe you've selected the favourable bits from), I think you shuold answer the questions from the last time you cited something.

I believe this is the third time I've asked.

If you want to debate with me, then fine. I'm not really up for you dropping in every so often, posting replies to comments I made to others and then swiftly moving on. I think you have to back up your own stuff first.

I'm not having a go at you. I just think that the kind of debate where we just bang out soundbytes every week is a bit pointless.

Sand · 23-11-2018 1:07pm

Midlife wrote: »

Before we get into another report (which i think maybe you've selected the favourable bits from), I think you shuold answer the questions from the last time you cited something.

I believe this is the third time I've asked.

If you want to debate with me, then fine. I'm not really up for you dropping in every so often, posting replies to comments I made to others and then swiftly moving on. I think you have to back up your own stuff first.

I'm not having a go at you. I just think that the kind of debate where we just bang out soundbytes every week is a bit pointless.

You say that, but you practise that sort of approach. I remember you flounced out of this thread a few weeks back loudly announcing you had no interest whatsoever in discussing anything with me. Now, in between the insults and personal attacks, you are back claiming you want a high minded debate again.

Whereas I've always been willing to discuss the evidence, you're clearly not. I can understand why, the evidence is clear that mass migration is a negative policy for Europeans. If you're in favour of mass migration, the last thing you want to discuss is the evidence.

So to clarify your question, again: you only challenge the bits in bold from your post 664? I ask because you're simultaneously challenging that mass migration is positive but also that it is negative, which if accurate is a unique view on mass migration. You're apparently accepting that the ESRI finds non-EU immigrants, particularly Africans have higher unemployment and less labour participation but at the same time rejecting that this is a economically negative outcome. Which is a unique view on economic outcomes. I've been asking you to clarify what your question is because that's what I am taking from 664, and it doesn't make sense. So either clarify your question, or flounce off again.

James Brown · 23-11-2018 5:03pm

I think the thread title is long overdue a change. This is a thread about immigration and not bigoted scaremongering about Muslims...I think.

Midlife · 23-11-2018 10:50pm

Sand wrote: »

So to clarify your question, again: you only challenge the bits in bold from your post 664?

There may be more but please explain them for the moment.

Just to quote again...

Sand wrote: »

The Irish Times has drawn attention to the economic performance of non-EU migration in Ireland, specifically African migrants. As we have seen in the UK, non-EU migrants are an economic cost, not a benefit. That same story appears to be playing out in Ireland too.

The ESRI reports that:

- EU migration is positive. Western EU migrants are only 4% unemployed, compared to 7% of Irish people.
- Non-EU migration is not economically positive. The employment rate for African nationals in particular is just 45%, and the unemployment rate is over twice the Irish rate. Their economic performance is not catching up with the Irish average. It actually worsened between 2016 and 2017.
- Non-EU nationals as a whole were much more likely to live in consistent poverty, affecting 29% of the group as opposed to 8% of Irish people.

While there is not yet detailed figures to the level identified in the UK, the indications are non-EU migrants contribute less economically, and demand more in social spending than the average Irish person. Statistically, migrants will be younger so wont yet reflect the pension and health costs of older Irish people. Yet. They will grow old too though.

Despite all the claims that mass migration is an absolute economic benefit, the reality is non-EU migrants will not pay the pensions of Irish people. Irish people (and indeed EU migrants) will work longer and harder to pay the pensions of the non EU migrants. At some point policies on mass migration has to take account of the evidence, not the feel good myths.

Midlife wrote: »

Can you please reference or cite the document where it says this.

I think you might be adding a bit of your own take on things here.

You can't cite an ESRI study by just cherry picking things in fairness.

Rather than answering with a question, can you maybe answer with an answer?

I think the bits in bold are your words rather than the report. I'm just asking you to explain or justify them.

Sand · 06-12-2018 2:06pm

Midlife wrote: »

I think the bits in bold are your words rather than the report. I'm just asking you to explain or justify them.

Didn't my points immediately following those bits in bold explain and justify them? I'd just be repeating myself. Either you accept an outcome which increases unemployed dependants over employed productive people is negative and the reverse is positive, or you don't. Either way, its entirely reasonable for me to class it as such.

Midlife · 06-12-2018 7:30pm

Sand wrote: »

Didn't my points immediately following those bits in bold explain and justify them? I'd just be repeating myself. Either you accept an outcome which increases unemployed dependants over employed productive people is negative and the reverse is positive, or you don't. Either way, its entirely reasonable for me to class it as such.

I don't think so.

You've basically said that because African unemployment is higher, non-EU migration is not economically positive? What did the report say about Asian, north or Central American employment. Especially Asian given the topic.

Also what's the unemployment rate when a community starts being economically negative. What's the ratio of unemployed to employed? Did you just work it out from average tax rates or something?

Sand · 06-12-2018 8:54pm

Midlife wrote: »

I don't think so.

That doesn't mean anything to me.

You've basically said that because African unemployment is higher, non-EU migration is not economically positive?

No, I'm saying because non-EU migrants are less likely to be employed, less likely to be economically active and more likely to be living in persistent poverty than Irish people non-EU migration is not economically positive. The common myth that all migration is economically positive, but even the ESRI acknowledge in this report that the origin of the migrant is important when considering the outcomes.

To the extent Ireland needs migrants, the evidence is its better to source them from within the EU under existing freedom of movement - which we have no choice in anyway. This echoes the studies in the UK specifically on the lifetime benefits & costs of EU and non-EU migration to the UK.

What did the report say about Asian, north or Central American employment. Especially Asian given the topic.

You could just read the report and educate yourself. I provided you with the link for that purpose. See Table 2.1, it breaks it down in the categories you are seeking.

Also what's the unemployment rate when a community starts being economically negative. What's the ratio of unemployed to employed? Did you just work it out from average tax rates or something?

Its a relative measure, being relative to the native Irish outcomes. There is no absolute figure.

Midlife · 06-12-2018 9:20pm

Sand wrote: »

No, I'm saying because non-EU migrants are less likely to be employed, less likely to be economically active and more likely to be living in persistent poverty than Irish people non-EU migration is not economically positive. The common myth that all migration is economically positive, but even the ESRI acknowledge in this report that the origin of the migrant is important when considering the outcomes.

Yes, and with due respect, you're wrong to say that. It's a massive generalisation that the report does not allude to.

For example, from the same report, Irish nationals unemployment is 7.1%, UK is 7.2%, East EU is 8% and Asia is 8.7%.

But you summerise that Asia is not economically beneficial whereas the others are? How do you come to this conclusion.

As I said originally, I think you're putting your own spin on things which is basically anti anyone not white-european.

Your explination is that...

Its a relative measure, being relative to the native Irish outcomes. There is no absolute figure.

But you're content that a foreign national group with 8.7% unemployment (coincidentally non-white) costs the country money and are essentially economically bad, whereas a group with 7% or 8% unemployment is fine?

Like I said, I don't think the report states that.

Sand · 06-12-2018 10:16pm

Midlife wrote: »

Yes, and with due respect, you're wrong to say that. It's a massive generalisation that the report does not allude to.

For example, from the same report, Irish nationals unemployment is 7.1%, UK is 7.2%, East EU is 8% and Asia is 8.7%.

But you summerise that Asia is not economically beneficial whereas the others are? How do you come to this conclusion.

The report makes those distinctions by region, whereas I made the distinction between EU and non-EU. If you take the EU-West and EU-East unemployment figures as a whole, its lower than the Irish unemployment rate.

In any case, Ireland has no policy response to EU citizens moving here. Its freedom of movement. Nothing we can do about it if we wish to remain part of the single market. The benefits of which far outweigh the alternative.

Non-EU migration is entirely in the remit of the Irish government and we can make policy on it. And the evidence is non-EU migration is not economically positive as a whole, and there is no single market equivalent which demands we accept it. You can get more precise and differentiate between non-EU migrants by region or specific countries if you wish. But it doesn't change the validity of the statement on non-EU migration as a whole.

As I said originally, I think you're putting your own spin on things which is basically anti anyone not white-european.

Well, I cant do anything about your biased thinking. The evidence shows that non-EU migrants contribute less through employment and cost more through unemployment and persistent poverty. It is not a benefit for Irish people.

Your explination is that...

But you're content that a foreign national group with 8.7% unemployment (coincidentally non-white) costs the country money and are essentially economically bad, whereas a group with 7% or 8% unemployment is fine?

Are you familiar with the definition of relative? Because you're clearly struggling with it.

Like I said, I don't think the report states that.

Its the purpose of the report. To measure the integration of migrants into Ireland over multiple 'Zaragoza indicators' of which employment is one. Divergence in outcomes relative to the natives is viewed as a negative for the purposes of integration between migrants and natives.

I also view it as a negative, and as an additional drain on Irish workers.

Midlife · 06-12-2018 11:29pm

Sand wrote: »

The report makes those distinctions by region, whereas I made the distinction between EU and non-EU. If you take the EU-West and EU-East unemployment figures as a whole, its lower than the Irish unemployment rate.

In any case, Ireland has no policy response to EU citizens moving here. Its freedom of movement. Nothing we can do about it if we wish to remain part of the single market. The benefits of which far outweigh the alternative.

Non-EU migration is entirely in the remit of the Irish government and we can make policy on it. And the evidence is non-EU migration is not economically positive as a whole, and there is no single market equivalent which demands we accept it. You can get more precise and differentiate between non-EU migrants by region or specific countries if you wish. But it doesn't change the validity of the statement on non-EU migration as a whole.

Well, I cant do anything about your biased thinking. The evidence shows that non-EU migrants contribute less through employment and cost more through unemployment and persistent poverty. It is not a benefit for Irish people.

Are you familiar with the definition of relative? Because you're clearly struggling with it.

Its the purpose of the report. To measure the integration of migrants into Ireland over multiple 'Zaragoza indicators' of which employment is one. Divergence in outcomes relative to the natives is viewed as a negative for the purposes of integration between migrants and natives.

I also view it as a negative, and as an additional drain on Irish workers.

So you can't justify the comment that 'non EU migration is not economically positive'?

You made this judgement, no-one else. Just explain please.

Not why you made the distinction, or what is in the remit of politicians today, but just your evidence for the statements.

Or to put it another way. Is there anything else in the document you quoted rather than african migrant unemployment rates that lead you to the conclusion that non-EU immmigration is an economic drain on the country?

Midlife · 06-12-2018 11:35pm

Sand wrote: »

Are you familiar with the definition of relative? Because you're clearly struggling with it.

I'm not so sure 'economically positive' and 'ecomomically negative' can be called 'relative' terms.

To be honest, I think that just suits your argument. Or rather means you don't have to admitt any error on your part.

Sand · 07-12-2018 8:20pm

Midlife wrote: »

So you can't justify the comment that 'non EU migration is not economically positive'?

You made this judgement, no-one else. Just explain please.

Not why you made the distinction, or what is in the remit of politicians today, but just your evidence for the statements.

I did. I cant help it if you cant comprehend the evidence.

Or to put it another way. Is there anything else in the document you quoted rather than african migrant unemployment rates that lead you to the conclusion that non-EU immmigration is an economic drain on the country?

Table 2.1, which I previously directed you to? It has economic outcomes by group.

Midlife wrote: »

I'm not so sure 'economically positive' and 'ecomomically negative' can be called 'relative' terms.

To be honest, I think that just suits your argument. Or rather means you don't have to admitt any error on your part.

You keep presenting your opinion as if it had some value of its own.

Midlife · 08-12-2018 6:16pm

Sand wrote: »

I did. I cant help it if you cant comprehend the evidence.

Table 2.1, which I previously directed you to? It has economic outcomes by group.

You keep presenting your opinion as if it had some value of its own.

Unfortunatly, Sand, no-one can comprehend the evidence in this case. If you find a single other person that understands you and is willing to explain it to me, please have them post here. Start with the economics forum and see how you get on.

In respeonse to my questioning, a signle question, you've twice clarified the question, then said you'd only be repeating yourself, then said you meant something other than what you said, and are now back to 'you don't understand'. You've added in that 'not-economically positive' is a relative term. Like i said, try the economics forum.

All in all, you really should be ashamed of yourself. not for jumping to conclusions and making a mistake but for this three week long subterfuge where you basically refused to explain yourself because you would have to admit you're wrong. Grow up ffs. You're supposed to be engaging in adult debate, everyone's wrong from time to time.

So one last time. Can you please explain how african unemployment being at 14% leads you to the conclusion that migration from outside the EU is not economically positive. Please explain how you judge South America, Asia and the restof the world. Please also explain how a singleunemployment figure leads you to the conclusion that a group of people are not profitable for a country.

splashuum · 09-12-2018 4:04pm

Very sad news during the week regarding the Irish uni teacher who was murdered by a Pakistani national in France.

Many media reports stating that the Irish teacher was knifed to death for showing a picture of the prophet Mohammed in class.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishmirror.ie/news/world-news/john-dowling-paris-stabbing-murder-13699636.amp

Migration Megathread

Comments