Let's have a debate about immigration (3 Viewers)

[nlgbbbblth]

i think i have a couple of kevin burke lps, i could bring them to the party/ceili

He's on Arlo Guthrie's LP Last of The Brooklyn Cowboys. It's very good.

 

[billygannon]

What is the opinion on new people migrating in to Thumped?

 

[nofunchee]

was this thread sparked off by that documentary on channel four at the start of the week by any chance? it involved john snow meandering around britain talking to people to find out the the supposed 'truth' about immigration and it's reation to public services, housing, and healthcare.

did anyone see it? shocking stuff. he visited a british family who have been waiting 7 years for a house who reckoned forigners were taking their gaff off them, followed by an interview with a disabled single mum refugee who he basicly accused of taking the british family's gaff. no look at policies, no critique of ecomomic ideologies, no real consideration of people's circumstances, no theories on media representation of the issue or politics, or the nature of myths.

 

[jane]

was this thread sparked off by that documentary on channel four at the start of the week by any chance? it involved john snow meandering around britain talking to people to find out the the supposed 'truth' about immigration and it's reation to public services, housing, and healthcare.

did anyone see it? shocking stuff. he visited a british family who have been waiting 7 years for a house who reckoned forigners were taking their gaff off them, followed by an interview with a disabled single mum refugee who he basicly accused of taking the british family's gaff. no look at policies, no critique of ecomomic ideologies, no real consideration of people's circumstances, no theories on media representation of the issue or politics, or the nature of myths.

I think it was sparked off by the 'Is Kevin Myers Racist?' thread that was sparked off by KEvin Myers's racism.

Didn't see the doc, think I'd have flipped out totally demented like.

I wonder why so many people who claim to want an immigration debate (and claim that they aren't happening) don't know anything about policies, let alone about how ineffective they are in practice? All they seem to know is 'there are a lot of foreigns about' and they want to debate based on that.

 

[Space]

In any case, there is no open-door policy. It's not all that easy to get a work visa here. Applications for asylum are extremely difficult to make. As soon as the jobs go, people will eventually stop coming.

I really think this is the point people are missing. Also a lot of the boom in our economy is due to large multinationals coming here on huge tax breaks. Once they leave (and they will) we'll be seeing huge changes round here that are way more significant than anything caused by immigration.

We've got a foreigner in the band though, and the father of a half foreign/half Irish child. It's a fucking disgrace!

Is that not what integration is all about? Anyway at least the kid's got an Irish name.

Actually that's a good policy: "all kids born on this fair Isle must be given an Irish name".

 

[billygannon]

was this thread sparked off by that documentary on channel four at the start of the week by any chance? it involved john snow meandering around britain talking to people to find out the the supposed 'truth' about immigration and it's reation to public services, housing, and healthcare.

did anyone see it? shocking stuff. he visited a british family who have been waiting 7 years for a house who reckoned forigners were taking their gaff off them, followed by an interview with a disabled single mum refugee who he basicly accused of taking the british family's gaff. no look at policies, no critique of ecomomic ideologies, no real consideration of people's circumstances, no theories on media representation of the issue or politics, or the nature of myths.

Channel 4 is basically a Tory station.

 

[egg_]

Are immigrants who are already here part of the 'we'? ... Making a list and weighing up the pros and cons of the existence of the person standing in front of you (and I mean the impersonal 'you', not you in particular) is something that really isn't going to help ... because what I'm trying to say is that while Irish people can sit around debating from a detached perspective rather than understanding and debating the contents of particular policies and bills, people's human rights are being and will continue to be undermined.

Do you find it offensive that we're talking about whether different levels of immigration and different ways of dealing with it will make the place where live better or worse? Do you not think we should talk about that in front of you, seeing as you're an immigrant? Or do you want to be involved in the conversation? Or do you think we should shut up talking and go out and protest against unfair laws? I'm confused

 

[snakybus]

ooh yeah here we go

 

[Unclealo]

ooh yeah here we go

Shut it Frenchy!

 

[egg_]

My point is that economic forces - labour or capital - follow economic opportunities. It's unrealistic to accept foreign investment with a view to creating national wealth while at the same expecting that the labour market will not try to follow that investment. I agree that people will welcome investment from abroad but will also try to protect it from being shared with immigrants, but if people think that will stop labour following the investment they will be disappointed.

You are right of course.

 

[jane]

I really think this is the point people are missing. Also a lot of the boom in our economy is due to large multinationals coming here on huge tax breaks. Once they leave (and they will) we'll be seeing huge changes round here that are way more significant than anything caused by immigration.



Is that not what integration is all about? Anyway at least the kid's got an Irish name.

Actually that's a good policy: "all kids born on this fair Isle must be given an Irish name".

Let's remember that there *is* an open door policy for companies from outside the EU, so long as they give the government a minimum of 300,000€ in tax. Which, considering the tax break they're offered, the actual profits must be pretty big if that's the final sum after the tax break. I mean, I'm sure you have to be a fair bit bigger to benefit from the corporate tax relief, but whatever.

Foreign companies come in, pay very little tax, kill local business, provide a few middle-management jobs, and take the profits elsewhere = HOORAY!
Foreign people come in, pay tax, pay for stuff, live in communities=DEY TAKED OUR JOBZZZZZ!

Gah.

So in short, if you wanna live in Ireland freely, be a corporation.

Oh, and also, the only non-EU people entitled to work permits now are those who make over 30k a year within a very limited list of jobs. And you can only bring your family if you make over 60k.

Work permits are generally only available to multinationals who have people who can handle this sort of thing and whose job descriptions are more compartmentalised and in keeping with the government's criteria. NGOs and small businesses can almost never get them, no matter how badly they want to hire the person.

The advantage is that for these people working for these multinationals, once the multinationals go, one of the following happens:
1. They are out on their arses pretty much immediately if they have not been granted long-term residency or citizenship (very, very hard to come by if you actually live here and contribute -- eazy peazy if you're the grandchild of an Irish citizen and have never even seen the place).
2. They have residency and can stay, but can't get another job because EU citizens have priority. They can technically collect the dole if they fulfil those criteria, HOWEVER, they are unlikely ever to become naturalised, as reliance on public funds is taken into account in citizenship applications (and they can turn you down because you were once doley scum after you lost your job). Not entitled to FAS training or any other resources that Irish people are allowed, so no government money is spent on them
3. Multinationals go away, leave decaying office park, and most of the foreign staff they employed either leave or get fucked.

Essentially, the government would very much like to give some of these jobs to foreigns because they know the jobs won't be here forever, and they won't have to support the foreigns like they do the Irishers.

But the point is, people blame immigrants for coming here for a better life, when the government's economic policies look like they've been developed with a view to using whatever they can -- multinationals, foreign labour, etc -- to fuck over everyone, foreign AND Irish.

So while everyone's debating rhetoric, the multinationals' pals in government are weeing themselves with glee. Everyone's fightin' so hard that they don't notice what's happening.

 

[egg_]

Jesus. A few weeks ago I saw literally hundreds of people forming a queue that stretched from The Bleeding Horse to Harcourt street, just opposite Crawdaddy, leading into the offices of the Northern Rock bank which had just been in the news the day before seeking a bail out from the Bank of England after going bust. Do you think they were all foreigners?

Ah jaysis
No dude

Are trying to infer that immigrants, in general, come from uncivilised states and are therefore uncivilised themselves, and that through some contagion effect Ireland will become less civilised.

"Civilised" and "uncivilised" effectively mean "good" and "bad" so no. But there are societies in the world that are very different to ours. A society is built on a set of unspoken agreements and ideas (like money, or the banking system, both of which are just ideas, aren't they?) - and if there are enough people in an area who don't subscribe to those ideas, then the society can no longer function as it did. Priests aren't as powerful here as they once were because people don't believe that they should have

Does that not make sense?

 

[RSJ]

"Civilised" and "uncivilised" effectively mean "good" and "bad" so no. But there are societies in the world that are very different to ours. A society is built on a set of unspoken agreements and ideas (like money, or the banking system, both of which are just ideas, aren't they?) - and if there are enough people in an area who don't subscribe to those ideas, then the society can no longer function as it did.

You make it sound like there's an imminent influx of ancient aztecs on the way.

 

[snakybus]

Shut it Frenchy!

!cheezyle fromage! le fromage!

 

[jane]

Do you find it offensive that we're talking about whether different levels of immigration and different ways of dealing with it will make the place where live better or worse? Do you not think we should talk about that in front of you, seeing as you're an immigrant? Or do you want to be involved in the conversation? Or do you think we should shut up talking and go out and protest against unfair laws? I'm confused

But who is 'we'? You seem to think that Irish people shoudl sit down as a nation and decide what it is you want from those of us who've come from elsewhere, rather than how EVERYONE -- no matter where they were born -- can live on the same island without creating a hierarchy of rights based on national origin, which is what is happening. Which would be much clearer if immigration debates were centred on policy, not rhetoric.

I'm asking who 'we' are? Am I a 'we', or should I only speak when asked direct questions about my experience here as a foreigner? Should foreigners' experiences of the system and of immigration (both here, and experiencing it as a 'native' where we/they come from) count for anything, or shoudl we just wait to hear back if we've got what it takes to get the 'job' of living in Ireland?

I'm asking if you think foreigners should be part of the conversation because if we are, then yes, it's absolutely offensive to sit there and say, "Right, we're going to have a conversation about whether you're any good. What do you have to show for yourself and we'll decide whether you're worth keeping in 'our' country?" That's a debate that's only gonna upset people because it's patronising, it's humiliating, and it creates, from the get-go, an inequity between the participants.

Who are 'we', is what I'm asking? Define it, please. Be specific about who is/isn't included in 'we' and in the rhetorical debate you want to have in which you have not once in 19 pages said anything that suggests you've looked at any of hte policies, or even absorbed any of the factual statements about policy that have been made.

 

[Space]

But the point is, people blame immigrants for coming here for a better life, when the government's economic policies look like they've been developed with a view to using whatever they can -- multinationals, foreign labour, etc -- to fuck over everyone, foreign AND Irish.

So while everyone's debating rhetoric, the multinationals' pals in government are weeing themselves with glee. Everyone's fightin' so hard that they don't notice what's happening.

This is the point I'm trying to make.

Oh and egg the banks you talk about have fuck all to do with civilized society they're just there to make as much money as they can off of you. For examples of this check out the why we fight documentary or part 3 of that zeitgeist film(both in the documentaries thread).

Interestingly(to me at least) cooperatives of some sort exist in pretty much every country in the world and have done for a very long time.

 

[Pantone247]

"Civilised" and "uncivilised" effectively mean "good" and "bad" so no. But there are societies in the world that are very different to ours. A society is built on a set of unspoken agreements and ideas (like money, or the banking system, both of which are just ideas, aren't they?) - and if there are enough people in an area who don't subscribe to those ideas, then the society can no longer function as it did.

I understand the point your trying to make to an extent, but I think the vagueness of the language here is very confusing, I mean say I say

"yes, I agree we need to mantain some level of civilsed behaviour mantained here"

and you say

"good, so you agree, lets get the uncivilised Polish out!!"

uh... who's to say who is civilised and who isn't, is there a scale somewhere? If we allow some "civilised" Poles into Killbarrack (say) and they see kids riding bareback ponies thru the estates full of burnt out cars, the question quickly becomes who the hell are we to say what's civilised?

I think it's very dangerous to administer moral authority to judge who is civilised who is not, I know it's not what you mean, but it's easy enough to extrapilate some nasty stuff from the basic idea

Besisdes I don't think many grass skirt wearing canibals are trying to get into Ireland, and beyond that I can't see what group of "uncivilised" people you fear could cause the downfall or Irish society (heaven forbid).

 

[SONYMEGADRIVE]

i have no problem with the african immigrants

sure don't i think they're only savage?

 

[jane]

Ah jaysis
No dude


"Civilised" and "uncivilised" effectively mean "good" and "bad" so no. But there are societies in the world that are very different to ours. A society is built on a set of unspoken agreements and ideas (like money, or the banking system, both of which are just ideas, aren't they?) - and if there are enough people in an area who don't subscribe to those ideas, then the society can no longer function as it did. Priests aren't as powerful here as they once were because people don't believe that they should have

Does that not make sense?

How different are 'they'?

Also remember that the majority of immigrants here are from the UK, Western Europe, and people returning to Ireland after living abroad (between 2000 and 2004, they accounted for 42% of inward migration to Ireland -- FORTY TWO PERCENT). Nearly 85% of all migrant workers in Ireland are from the EU. 30% of these are from the new accession states. There are approximately 25,000 people here who are students from outside the EU, paying very prettily for being here. And way, way down the list are the brown people and the Chinese and the Yanks and Canucks. Asylum applications are tiny. The number of refugees is tiny. Asylum seekers and refugees make up something like 5% of the non-Irish demographic. Many of them will not be unfamiliar with basic human decency and will quickly pick up on the way society functions, unless they are either left so far outside of it that they don't have any interaction, or the nature of most of those interactions is someone telling them What It's Like Here In Ireland.

In 2005, there were only 966 people recognised as refugees. Between 2000 and 2005, there were only 6814 in total over the six most 'active' years. 617 of the applicants for asylum were given leave to remain.

The top 5 countries are Nigeria, Romania, Somalia, Sudan and IRan. Romania is now an EU country. The other countries freuquently appear in the media. They are not frequently featured in travel magazines or foreign property investment programmes.

Middle Eastern countries are quite well up on banking, etc. Unfortunately, several of them are having a wee bit of bother with bombs and explodey gadgets. They may be different in lots of ways,but they are very developed societies with highly developed economies. Or what *were* highly developed economies.

That's in case you don't feel like looking up any stats on foreigns.

EDIT: This is why I'm so concerned about arguing based on realities and on policies. The arguments you're making,Egg, are based on a very skewed assumption about the non-Irish demographics and there's really no way to debate on those grounds when I know for a fact that the realities don't paint the same picture. Most of them foreigns are Brits. And the Northern Rock was, in fact, *their* bank.

 

[jane]

Actually, here, Egg, why don't you look at this, where I got some of my stats:

http://www.nccri.ie/pdf/MythsMigrantWorkers.pdf

It still stays with some of the 'economic' argument and there's this sort of "Don't worry, they don't have as many rights as you do," attitude, but it still makes some really important points.