Immigration - the taboo subject. Some thoughts...

seabhac siulach

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
412
So, immigration. The taboo subject.

I write my thoughts below, having been disappointed by the level of discussion of this topic on this site.

Where to begin?

We know in Ireland that the numbers of non-nationals has jumped in the last number of years to 12.5% of the population (and to some 17% in the workforce) (figures from the CSO). These are percentages above those found in the UK and the US, countries with long histories of immigration. The speed at which this change has occurred, principally since 2004, has been dizzying (and, I know, for many older citizens unsettling as their neighbourhoods have changed rapidly in character). These percentages are, of course, a lot higher in Dublin and certain suburbs, in particular, given the clustering of immigrants within that city.

Immigration in many ways is a good thing. For example, it can improve the host country by bringing in new skills (needed by the economy), force beneficial changes to a staid status quo (e.g. in schooling, etc), inspire different ways of looking at things (an outsider’s perspective), improve the variety of food available and provide a new energy, in previously stagnating communities, with an influx of young people, e.g. in the West.

In the end, people are people, behind the labels we might use for them: immigrant; asylum seeker, foreigner, etc. It is a strange person indeed who, on meeting another, does not feel a connection, cannot empathise on a human level. I know I do, working and living with foreign people every day.

And, yet, even though I say all of the above, I feel there are many troubling, undiscussed problems with immigration into Ireland. Or, rather, I should say, I feel a nagging sense of unease with the present state of affairs.
I have a sense the government, society is muddling through, with no planning, even though, plainly, a significant demographic and social change has and is occurring. It is debatable whether the status quo ante (in political, social terms) is still appropriate, not representing as it does the present Ireland. And, yet, in response to these challenges...silence.

In short, one must also acknowledge some down sides to what is occurring, no matter how favorably one views immigration in general. I shall discuss some of my thoughts below.

In the UK, for instance (where there is a slightly more open discussion of this topic), there has been a recognition that immigration, even in an era of historically low unemployment is helping to drive wage growth down below the rate of inflation (as well as fuelling a ‘gig’ economy of zero hour contracts). This has socially destructive consequences in the medium to long-term as workers standards of living decline.
While immigrants do not cause wages to decline (perhaps), there is plenty of evidence that they stall their growth. Indeed, anecdotally, one must take note of and ask why so many service industries employ immigrants if not to take advantage of lower wage bills? To state a tautology: where supply (staff) is over abundant, prices (wages) do not rise (and can shrink). Where the supply of workers is abundant, for low wage service jobs (becoming the dominant employment type in developed economies), clearly wages will not grow. This pattern of sluggish wage growth is mirrored in Ireland even where full employment is being reached (unemployment at a level of 6.8% and projected to drop to c.5% in a year). In fact, there was a decrease of 0.2% in wages in the service industry in Ireland in the year to Q1 2017 (CSO earnings data). How does one explain this, if it is not oversupply in the labour market? To whose advantage is this long-term beyond the owners and shareholders of firms. What of the wider social consequences where a society of under-paid, precarious jobs are being created and maintained? Again, in Ireland, there is no discussion of this.

Additionally, and more economically importantly, perhaps, a plentiful source of cheap non-unionised labour is allowing companies to delay necessary investment in new equipment, business practices, as it is easier, and, in the short term cheaper. Why invest in new machinery if 10 imported workers, costing a fraction of a new machine’s initial cost can do the same work? In this way, productivity and investment is stalled. In the short to medium term profits can be maintained but without investment, over time, an economy will stall and decline. There are long-term consequences to short-term thinking. How much of this delayed investment is happening in Ireland (outside of the large multinationals)?

There are additional social problems when it comes to the wider society. In Ireland we live with the legacy of a religiously ordered (sectarian) society, largely built around the beliefs of the Catholic, and, to a lesser extent, Protestant churches. This is seen in our schools and hospitals in particular (not to mention the Constitution). When the country was predominantly Christian this was not an issue (beyond the obvious negative effects of such Church control). What about now, however, when the numbers of other faiths (principally Islam) is increasing? For example, as we have a largely religious educational system, will we see, in the future the further ghettoisation of our schooling into separate religious schools? Is this desirable?

Will the consequence be a fracturing of society as different cohorts hunker down, isolated in their own communities?

That is, one can go further and imagine (perhaps fancifully) a situation where adherents of a particular faith would, over time, cluster and live nearby their own school, their own hospitals, their own churches. Society would fragment, and one would see whole areas become isolated from each other, separated by religion belief. One can already see some evidence for this in Dublin, with a significant clustering of Muslim families in the Dundrum area, close to the Clonskeagh mosque and school. Fanciful or not, we have seen such things happen in our nearest neighbour, the UK. For example, it is known that towns like Bradford and Blackburn have citizens, from a Pakistani background, who live lives separated from the larger British culture, many not even needing to learn or speak english, such is their separation from the wider cultural milieu.
Again, one must ask, as this is foreseeable, whether this is desirable.

My point is, where we have immigration, like Ireland at present, it must bring changes to the very structure of that society. It is not sufficient to believe the old ways of doing things will suffice. And, yet, in Ireland there does not appear to be any thinking along these lines. There is cheerleading for these changes in most print media, but little or any critical engagement with any potential consequences. For example, should the present societal structures (schools, hospital, government etc) survive? Should they survive if we must accommodate new arrivals? That is, are the old structures still fit for purpose? One may or may not be “for” immigration, but clearly if it occurring on a large scale then it must be properly engaged with. Hoping for the best will lead us to the social problems seen in the US, UK and the Netherlands (among others), if these have not already arrived due to the indolence of our political classes in dealing with the issue.

Assuming immigration is here to stay (and seemingly it is), there is clearly a need to move to a secular society (and with some haste, given the rapid changes that have already taken place in our society). While some of this is already occurring naturally (witness the furore over the new maternity hospital) it must be codified in a new constitution.

Indeed, immigration must force us to consider what it means to be Irish at all. What does 1916 mean, for example to those who have recently made Ireland their home? Anything? If not, how can these people share in the life of their new country? If people are alienated, resentments can grow as we have seen in foreign states.
This problem is accentuated when those who arrive our actively unwilling, for reasons of ingrained culture or religion, to take a full part in their new country
Indeed, immigration makes one question whether what a country is? Is it more than an economic entity that exists no matter who lives in it? Are the inhabitants of that country no more than atomised economic entities, replaceable at any time with other economic entities from overseas? Or do we value the natives for their own sake in terms of an indigenous culture, history and, dare I say it, ethnicity? What value does the native population have? What happens to a state when the numbers of non-nationals rises to larger percentages? We can imagine a situation where non-nationals make up a majority of the population, say 51% of the population. Once it said that a country, a nation, was made up of those who shared history, heritage, religion and ethnicity. If one dilutes a country of its native population, those who shared similar heritage, and invite in non-nationals (and this can be a good thing, remember), to a level where natives are a minority, what shared characteristics of that nation that state exist? What is the purpose then of that state other than an economic entity, existing indistinguishable from others? Clearly if one wishes (as it seems the establishment does) to convert Ireland, and Europe, to a multicultural society, is it not required to establish what such a society will be like, and work out how all can have a share in this society, a belief in why the society exists and to where it is going? To put in place a vision of what that state will be? I believe so. Otherwise, what is the future? Many separate cultures siloed in a state, working and living but owing no allegiance and perhaps even nursing grudges. And, I believe such alienation leads inevitably to acts such as we've seen recently in Manchester and London. And yet it seems as if none of this planning is taking place. Native populations are asked to take in large numbers of non-nationals with no certainty that there is a long-term plan underpinning these population movements.
It is not sufficient to believe in good intentions, that it will all work out in the end.

Where are the answers to come from when those in power and with influence are not willing to even ask these basic questions?

In conclusion, I believe it should be possible to have a discussion on immigration, and its negative consequences, without resorting to racism or bigotry. There are clearly issues for a society when large population movements occur. Whether one is positively predisposed to immigrants, or not, there is a debate to be had about what type of Ireland we want into the future we given such immigration seems inevitable. Is Ireland more than an economy? Denying such a debate leaves legitimate concerns in the shadows, and may in the long term lead to a growing resentment. Who really is afraid of such a necessary debate?
 


PBP voter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2015
Messages
9,242
Up to three quarters of Germany’s refugees will still be unemployed in five years’ time, according to a government minister, in a stark admission of the challenges the country faces in integrating its huge migrant population.
https://www.ft.com/content/022de0a4-54f4-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f?mhq5j=e1

I hope we put in place the services need to help refugees be able to work from the middle east.

Without proper planning they will just end up in ghettos.
 

Fullforward

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
7,862
There are clearly issues for a society when large population movements occur.
I assume it includes the hundreds of thousands forced to leave due to FF/FG and Labour policies.

Good OP.
 

PeaceGoalie

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
3,459
The good news is anotheer mega mosque is being mooted for Blanchardstown by the same hcaps who gave us the Clonskeagh mosque. Farmers are happy to have cheap labour, landlords are happy to pack them in six to the bed, the bin companies like the minimum wage skivvies, Sinn Fein likes the diversity and easy pickings of Dublin Pride Day, Panti Bliss is fumbling in a greasy till and all is good.
 

Niall996

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
11,823
You ask what does 1916 mean to immigrants. What does it mean to the Irish? We have no such thing as a national independence day. Every year Easter comes around the Indo and IT roll out the 1916 haters to undermine any positivity towards Irish nationhood, identity and history. We are unique amongst Western nations in our awkwardness around terms like Patriot, Freedom, Independence, Victory. Where other nations have chosen their historical icons and symbols of statehood, the Southern Protestants/Unionists who never went away continue to do everything they can to diminish Ireland's sense of achievement, pride and independence. Numerous articles about the Jihadists of 1916, the madness of leaving the union, the destruction of Dublin, the murder of 450 civilians, the evil of these people all in contrast to the glorification of Washington, Mandela, Churchill et al in all countries. Nonsense articles about rejoining the union or the Commonwealth or 'well you gave up your sovereignty by doing the EU anyway so what was 1916 about' pollute our society. There is a toxic PUL residue in our midst and any immigrant who is committed to making a better life in Ireland is a thousand times more desirable than that whinging bunch of traitors we've had to put with for 100 years and who should have been thrown out of Ireland.
 

PeaceGoalie

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
3,459

toughbutfair

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
9,906
African immigrants tend to be men, which is very bad (men are more violent, and African men have a poor record). I think female immigration makes more sense as they are more likely to integrate ( Irish men like foreign women but Irish women are unlikely to choose a poor immigrant as a husband and provider)

A friend of mine is coming back from Venezuela in a few weeks with his Venezuelan wife , who hardly speaks English,she is young and pretty and already has a bar job lined up (once stamp 4 received ) . A man has higher barriers to integrate.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
Good to see somebody put a bit of effort into an OP, especially on a contentious topic.
There would be no contention at all on the very normal event of immigration if Irish govts and the EU operated a normal quota policy.

They have not done so and flooded both Ireland and Europe with truly massive numbers of immigrants.

The problem is then compounded further when large numbers of immigrants from non European and Islamic backgrounds are thrown into the mix.

The latter cohort tend not to integrate and the Islamic cohort will never integrate because real integration depends upon intermarriage with the mainly Christian host population and this is forbidden by Islam.

All in all an utter dogs dinner of a policy and of course now the entire subject of inward foreign migration is a hot button issue and controversial.


You can thank the federalist scum in the EU and their lapdogs here in Ireland who seek to destroy utterly all and every concept of the nation state for this atrocious state of affairs.
 

Niall996

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
11,823
One has to commend an overseas individual who leaves his home, his country, his culture, travels to a foreign country, learns a new language, gets work, sends money home, raises his family on the back of sheer effort etc. versus the Irish guy sitting in his state funded house in his grey track suit bottoms, celtic jersey and stack of tinnies beside him as he watches the Man U v Chelsea game and wouldn't in a million years get off his arse and work. The reason we have lots of immigration is because there are loads of work to be done and if your dole pays you almost as much as a full time job, you won't work. Thus enabling hundreds of thousands of job openings that we as a nation want filled. Who is much more valuable to this nation, the immigrant worker or the layabout sponge? Who's complaining most about immigrants. The spongers? Who do nothing.
 

Talk Back

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
6,439
So, immigration. The taboo subject.

I write my thoughts below, having been disappointed by the level of discussion of this topic on this site.

Where to begin?

We know in Ireland that the numbers of non-nationals has jumped in the last number of years to 12.5% of the population (and to some 17% in the workforce) (figures from the CSO). These are percentages above those found in the UK and the US, countries with long histories of immigration. The speed at which this change has occurred, principally since 2004, has been dizzying (and, I know, for many older citizens unsettling as their neighbourhoods have changed rapidly in character). These percentages are, of course, a lot higher in Dublin and certain suburbs, in particular, given the clustering of immigrants within that city.

Immigration in many ways is a good thing. For example, it can improve the host country by bringing in new skills (needed by the economy), force beneficial changes to a staid status quo (e.g. in schooling, etc), inspire different ways of looking at things (an outsider’s perspective), improve the variety of food available and provide a new energy, in previously stagnating communities, with an influx of young people, e.g. in the West.

In the end, people are people, behind the labels we might use for them: immigrant; asylum seeker, foreigner, etc. It is a strange person indeed who, on meeting another, does not feel a connection, cannot empathise on a human level. I know I do, working and living with foreign people every day.

And, yet, even though I say all of the above, I feel there are many troubling, undiscussed problems with immigration into Ireland. Or, rather, I should say, I feel a nagging sense of unease with the present state of affairs.
I have a sense the government, society is muddling through, with no planning, even though, plainly, a significant demographic and social change has and is occurring. It is debatable whether the status quo ante (in political, social terms) is still appropriate, not representing as it does the present Ireland. And, yet, in response to these challenges...silence.

In short, one must also acknowledge some down sides to what is occurring, no matter how favorably one views immigration in general. I shall discuss some of my thoughts below.

In the UK, for instance (where there is a slightly more open discussion of this topic), there has been a recognition that immigration, even in an era of historically low unemployment is helping to drive wage growth down below the rate of inflation (as well as fuelling a ‘gig’ economy of zero hour contracts). This has socially destructive consequences in the medium to long-term as workers standards of living decline.
While immigrants do not cause wages to decline (perhaps), there is plenty of evidence that they stall their growth. Indeed, anecdotally, one must take note of and ask why so many service industries employ immigrants if not to take advantage of lower wage bills? To state a tautology: where supply (staff) is over abundant, prices (wages) do not rise (and can shrink). Where the supply of workers is abundant, for low wage service jobs (becoming the dominant employment type in developed economies), clearly wages will not grow. This pattern of sluggish wage growth is mirrored in Ireland even where full employment is being reached (unemployment at a level of 6.8% and projected to drop to c.5% in a year). In fact, there was a decrease of 0.2% in wages in the service industry in Ireland in the year to Q1 2017 (CSO earnings data). How does one explain this, if it is not oversupply in the labour market? To whose advantage is this long-term beyond the owners and shareholders of firms. What of the wider social consequences where a society of under-paid, precarious jobs are being created and maintained? Again, in Ireland, there is no discussion of this.

Additionally, and more economically importantly, perhaps, a plentiful source of cheap non-unionised labour is allowing companies to delay necessary investment in new equipment, business practices, as it is easier, and, in the short term cheaper. Why invest in new machinery if 10 imported workers, costing a fraction of a new machine’s initial cost can do the same work? In this way, productivity and investment is stalled. In the short to medium term profits can be maintained but without investment, over time, an economy will stall and decline. There are long-term consequences to short-term thinking. How much of this delayed investment is happening in Ireland (outside of the large multinationals)?

There are additional social problems when it comes to the wider society. In Ireland we live with the legacy of a religiously ordered (sectarian) society, largely built around the beliefs of the Catholic, and, to a lesser extent, Protestant churches. This is seen in our schools and hospitals in particular (not to mention the Constitution). When the country was predominantly Christian this was not an issue (beyond the obvious negative effects of such Church control). What about now, however, when the numbers of other faiths (principally Islam) is increasing? For example, as we have a largely religious educational system, will we see, in the future the further ghettoisation of our schooling into separate religious schools? Is this desirable?

Will the consequence be a fracturing of society as different cohorts hunker down, isolated in their own communities?

That is, one can go further and imagine (perhaps fancifully) a situation where adherents of a particular faith would, over time, cluster and live nearby their own school, their own hospitals, their own churches. Society would fragment, and one would see whole areas become isolated from each other, separated by religion belief. One can already see some evidence for this in Dublin, with a significant clustering of Muslim families in the Dundrum area, close to the Clonskeagh mosque and school. Fanciful or not, we have seen such things happen in our nearest neighbour, the UK. For example, it is known that towns like Bradford and Blackburn have citizens, from a Pakistani background, who live lives separated from the larger British culture, many not even needing to learn or speak english, such is their separation from the wider cultural milieu.
Again, one must ask, as this is foreseeable, whether this is desirable.

My point is, where we have immigration, like Ireland at present, it must bring changes to the very structure of that society. It is not sufficient to believe the old ways of doing things will suffice. And, yet, in Ireland there does not appear to be any thinking along these lines. There is cheerleading for these changes in most print media, but little or any critical engagement with any potential consequences. For example, should the present societal structures (schools, hospital, government etc) survive? Should they survive if we must accommodate new arrivals? That is, are the old structures still fit for purpose? One may or may not be “for” immigration, but clearly if it occurring on a large scale then it must be properly engaged with. Hoping for the best will lead us to the social problems seen in the US, UK and the Netherlands (among others), if these have not already arrived due to the indolence of our political classes in dealing with the issue.

Assuming immigration is here to stay (and seemingly it is), there is clearly a need to move to a secular society (and with some haste, given the rapid changes that have already taken place in our society). While some of this is already occurring naturally (witness the furore over the new maternity hospital) it must be codified in a new constitution.

Indeed, immigration must force us to consider what it means to be Irish at all. What does 1916 mean, for example to those who have recently made Ireland their home? Anything? If not, how can these people share in the life of their new country? If people are alienated, resentments can grow as we have seen in foreign states.
This problem is accentuated when those who arrive our actively unwilling, for reasons of ingrained culture or religion, to take a full part in their new country
Indeed, immigration makes one question whether what a country is? Is it more than an economic entity that exists no matter who lives in it? Are the inhabitants of that country no more than atomised economic entities, replaceable at any time with other economic entities from overseas? Or do we value the natives for their own sake in terms of an indigenous culture, history and, dare I say it, ethnicity? What value does the native population have? What happens to a state when the numbers of non-nationals rises to larger percentages? We can imagine a situation where non-nationals make up a majority of the population, say 51% of the population. Once it said that a country, a nation, was made up of those who shared history, heritage, religion and ethnicity. If one dilutes a country of its native population, those who shared similar heritage, and invite in non-nationals (and this can be a good thing, remember), to a level where natives are a minority, what shared characteristics of that nation that state exist? What is the purpose then of that state other than an economic entity, existing indistinguishable from others? Clearly if one wishes (as it seems the establishment does) to convert Ireland, and Europe, to a multicultural society, is it not required to establish what such a society will be like, and work out how all can have a share in this society, a belief in why the society exists and to where it is going? To put in place a vision of what that state will be? I believe so. Otherwise, what is the future? Many separate cultures siloed in a state, working and living but owing no allegiance and perhaps even nursing grudges. And, I believe such alienation leads inevitably to acts such as we've seen recently in Manchester and London. And yet it seems as if none of this planning is taking place. Native populations are asked to take in large numbers of non-nationals with no certainty that there is a long-term plan underpinning these population movements.
It is not sufficient to believe in good intentions, that it will all work out in the end.

Where are the answers to come from when those in power and with influence are not willing to even ask these basic questions?

In conclusion, I believe it should be possible to have a discussion on immigration, and its negative consequences, without resorting to racism or bigotry. There are clearly issues for a society when large population movements occur. Whether one is positively predisposed to immigrants, or not, there is a debate to be had about what type of Ireland we want into the future we given such immigration seems inevitable. Is Ireland more than an economy? Denying such a debate leaves legitimate concerns in the shadows, and may in the long term lead to a growing resentment. Who really is afraid of such a necessary debate?
I'm not racist - I post the following to point out how unbelievably moronic the immigration project forced on us really is.

"As if we have a shortage of Taxi-drivers, and we need to bring them in from Africa."
 

Spirit Of Newgrange

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
4,602
housing crisis

too many men and not enough women in the country

too many long term dole spongers from abroad

Ghettoes springing up where the irish are a minority and the language on the streets is not English nor irish.

strife and conflicts on our streets. Gangs of young men all getting into trouble.

pressures on schools to meet increased demand and to assimilate newcomers at every age-level with poor language skills.

masses of unskilled immigrants with some very backwards attitudes towards women/gays/athiests/road safety/alcohol/freedom of speech/blasphemy laws.

multiculturalism doesnt work. Look at France, Sweden, England and see where we are headed to ....rapidly downhill in a handcart.

The absence of a voice for the irish who are disaffected by immigration is breathtaking
 
Last edited:

DexterGreen22

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
599
African immigrants tend to be men, which is very bad (men are more violent, and African men have a poor record). I think female immigration makes more sense as they are more likely to integrate ( Irish men like foreign women but Irish women are unlikely to choose a poor immigrant as a husband and provider)

A friend of mine is coming back from Venezuela in a few weeks with his Venezuelan wife , who hardly speaks English,she is young and pretty and already has a bar job lined up (once stamp 4 received ) . A man has higher barriers to integrate.
Gender imbalances can lead to violence, Europe has let in too many males from Africa and Asia. If we have more males than females then either European men are missing out or the more recent arrivals are missing out.

There are now an estimated 123 boys for every 100 girls in Sweden.
European migrant crisis causing dangerous gender imbalance in region, expert warns - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

That is a powder keg just waiting to go off, either Henrik from Stockholm is getting a partner or Muhammad from Somalia is, 123 into 100 will not go.

The gender imbalance could have been a factor in Cologne.
https://www.ft.com/content/184dbfda-b9dc-11e5-bf7e-8a339b6f2164?mhq5j=e1

If we continue to let predominately male invaders from Africa and Asia into our homeland, giving ourselves a gender imbalance it will not end well.

Some nations, India and China being by far the worst, simply do not have enough women due to sex selective abortions. If more men in these nations become wealthier and can travel to the West to find partners they will do this and could come at the expense of Europeans. The East's gender imbalance problem and the resulting unrest cannot become our problem.
 

feedmelies

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
2,392
Employment rates were also lower among Black African and Ethnic Minority EU individuals, 38 per cent and 51 per cent respectively compared to an average employment rate of 61 per cent for the sample population.

Black Africans recorded the highest unemployment rate (36 per cent), and were four times more likely to be unemployed than White Irish individuals.
https://www.esri.ie/news/ethnicity-and-nationality-in-the-irish-labour-market/

Blacks are a major burden on the state and more likely to be criminal. European migration is generally positive however.
 

Spirit Of Newgrange

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
4,602
a society with a surplus of unattached single men will be a violent society. Just look at the lessons from history and sociology.
 

Equinox

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
2,980
One has to commend an overseas individual who leaves his home, his country, his culture, travels to a foreign country, learns a new language, gets work, sends money home, raises his family on the back of sheer effort etc. versus the Irish guy sitting in his state funded house in his grey track suit bottoms, celtic jersey and stack of tinnies beside him as he watches the Man U v Chelsea game and wouldn't in a million years get off his arse and work. The reason we have lots of immigration is because there are loads of work to be done and if your dole pays you almost as much as a full time job, you won't work. Thus enabling hundreds of thousands of job openings that we as a nation want filled. Who is much more valuable to this nation, the immigrant worker or the layabout sponge? Who's complaining most about immigrants. The spongers? Who do nothing.
Yes that individual is commendable and you encourage such immigrants with a visa program to ensure you attract productive migrants that contribute to society, the rest of your post is just a strawman dribble of bile though. It also ignores the reality that unchecked migration creates a whole lot of immigrant spongers too. If you hate layabout spongers so much why would you want to import a ton of them tell me? Because if you look at the migrant unemployment rates then you'll see that they have a higher instance of unemployment and amongst certain groups like Nigerians it runs at 40%.
 

danger here

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
2,549
A friend of mine is coming back from Venezuela in a few weeks with his Venezuelan wife , who hardly speaks English,she is young and pretty and already has a bar job lined up (once stamp 4 received ) . A man has higher barriers to integrate.
Is she with him for his looks? :D
 
Joined
May 25, 2017
Messages
16
Ireland is different.

Multiculturalism may be a disaster elsewhere, but Ireland is immune from such pitfalls. Well, that seems to be the impression I get based on the near silence on the matter among the political classes.
 

Niall996

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
11,823
Yes that individual is commendable and you encourage such immigrants with a visa program to ensure you attract productive migrants that contribute to society, the rest of your post is just a strawman dribble of bile though. It also ignores the reality that unchecked migration creates a whole lot of immigrant spongers too. If you hate layabout spongers so much why would you want to import a ton of them tell me? Because if you look at the migrant unemployment rates then you'll see that they have a higher instance of unemployment and amongst certain groups like Nigerians it runs at 40%.
Leaving your own drivel to one side for a moment, there are two completely separate issues here. Immigrants that come to work are one thing, whether they're doctors or fruit pickers. Immigrants to come to milk the welfare state is an entirely different thing and one shouldn't blur the two. I spent many years in an Irish Community in London where for decades, the normal way of life was collecting the dole and working in the black market. So, no, we would never want the Irish to come to Ireland either, if that's what they intend to do. So let's keep the discussion on immigration about welfare or not. Let's understand the truth about how the welfare state works rather than just attack 'immigrants.' Make no mistake, Ireland absolutely has to either have immigrants to do the jobs we won't or dismantle social welfare to the bones so that our own layabouts get off their arses.
 

Felixness

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
4,397
Ireland is different.

Multiculturalism may be a disaster elsewhere, but Ireland is immune from such pitfalls. Well, that seems to be the impression I get based on the near silence on the matter among the political classes.
Did you not get the memo? We're Irish, everyone loves us because we're Irish. Because we're Irish we aren't going to have Muslim males and African men raping children, we won't have Pakistani grooming gangs or groups of men gang raping women. We won't have violent groups of Arabic men roaming around causing trouble, in short we won't have any of the problems with mass Muslim male migration that Sweden, Britain, Germany and Greece have had, nope, no siry, because we're Irish it'll all be grand shure, well that seems to be the logic from on high.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top