Yet another problem arising from Mass Immigration

[FutureTaoiseach]

From all the foreign languages you hear on the street you know well you are hearing foreigners - regardless of skin colour. Here in Wexford every 3rd person seems to be speaking Polish or something. I was in an amusement arcade and Eastern Europeans always seem to hang around there.

[sackville]

Most people who discuss mass immigration think in terms of the immigrants as coming from an age-group of perhaps 20-40. Those of us in the majority who oppose mass immigration also worry about the cultural and social effects of large numbers of children being born to these non-nationals. There is already extraordinary stress on the educational system in many primary schools in Dublin. Just in yesterday's Irish Times we read that there are over 150 languages being spoken in our schools--the great majority of them of no importance to anyone except their speakers, but a huge problem for our schools.

Yet there is one aspect of mass immigration which I don't think has been addressed. That is the increasing numbers of entire families who are moving into our country. During an hour spent in a Dublin shopping centre yesterday I must have seen between a dozen and twenty cases of middle-aged to elderly foreigners from some of the countries that are supplying mass immigration. These people did not appear to be of an age likely to be participating in the work force.

Now before the usual brigade jump in to ask me how I know they are immigrants rather than holiday-makers, well, I have no way of knowing. The fact is that this slovenly government and its even more servile opposition (from FG to SF and Green) has never bothered to ask the basic statistical questions about mass immigration. In fact I suspect that our sloppy and slovenly government would be unable to supply the figures of how many parents of immigrant workers have come into the country.

If we could establish these figures, we might begin to calculate the extra pressure these people will put on our health care and other services in the years to come. Despite never having contributed in any way to our country--and I don't mean just paying taxes--they will take their place among those entitled to free health care and care for the elderly.

It's yet one more reason to challenge the Madness of Mass Immigration. The situation is truly critical.
GD

Yes, of course you’re right (regardless of the muticult obstructionists here try to obscure). The aging families are not an asset to the host country( more the opposite) And as Migration Watch UK point out on their website:

Immigrants themselves grow older. To maintain the present population of working age to pensioners would require over 1 million immigrants a year up to 2050. That would double the population to 120 million and leave us with the same problem. This is why the Turner Commission on pensions dismissed the argument saying that “Only high immigration can produce more than a trivial reduction in the projected dependency ratio over the next 50 years.

The house of cards for supporting mass immigration starts to collapse under any amount of serious honest scrutiny.
The reality is the majority in West who support it have motives which aren’t with the interest of the native People at heart (no matter how they profess otherwise) They are not to be trusted.

[St Disibod]

Immigrants themselves grow older.

The house of cards for supporting mass immigration starts to collapse under any amount of serious honest scrutiny.

Yes, but until then they contribute to the economy, and they do so without us having to pay for their training (think of the 18 years of schooling and perhaps more beyond we have to invest in the indigenous workforce). Also, very few of them arrive with dependents. When an Irish worker contributes to the economy it is far more likely that we are paying a pension to a member of their family. It's your house of cards argument that doesn't stand up.

By the way sackville, sorry to badger you about this. But the Hosea quote should read "They...".

[sackville]

Immigrants themselves grow older.

The house of cards for supporting mass immigration starts to collapse under any amount of serious honest scrutiny.

Yes, but until then they contribute to the economy, and they do so without us having to pay for their training (think of the 18 years of schooling and perhaps more beyond we have to invest in the indigenous workforce). Also, very few of them arrive with dependents. When an Irish worker contributes to the economy it is far more likely that we are paying a pension to a member of their family. It's your house of cards argument that doesn't stand up.

according to A recently published study "Unskilled immigrants generate few benefits for the economy"

Unskilled immigrants generate few benefits for the economy

20 August 2005

Immigration policy pits the interests of native skilled workers against those of unskilled workers, the 2005 World Congress of the Econometric Society, which is hosted by UCL, will hear today.

A paper to be presented by Dr Michael Ben-Gad of the University of Haifa, Israel has shown that unskilled immigrants lower incomes of unskilled native workers but raise incomes for skilled workers. Conversely, skilled immigrants lower the income of skilled natives but benefit unskilled workers.

But, skilled immigrant workers still benefit the country because though they lower wages they raise substantially the income natives can receive from the capital they own.

The findings are the result of a unique study that analysed the effect of decade-long changes to the base rate of immigration in the US. Instead of only looking at looking at one aspect of the economy, such as the labour market, Dr Ben-Gad also considered the impact on the economy as a whole.

Dr Ben-Gad has calculated, for the average household, the benefit of admitting a skilled immigrant worker is over ten times higher than the admission of an unskilled immigrant worker.

“In most countries of the developed world immigration is the dominant source of population growth,” says Dr Ben-Gad.

“The combination of low birth rates and increasing life span means governments will be faced with a stark choice: admit more working-age immigrants or cope with the economic consequences of a declining pool of work-age citizens. However, if the immigrants are largely unskilled, rather than alleviating these problems, they may exacerbate them.

“This paper is not meant to be an anti-immigration manifesto - the unskilled immigrants themselves are not to blame for the smaller contribution they make. They may work very hard, but the skills they bring do not raise the return for native-owned capital by more than a trivial amount. Furthermore, they lower wages for the unskilled and increase inequality. But of course this is not their intention - they merely want a better life for themselves and their children.”

“The paper has a strong policy element, but also a positive prediction - that governments will intuit these differences and increasingly adjust their immigration policies to reflect them. Already we see the UK, Australia and Canada adopting points systems, and the US the H1-B visa program while tightening regulations on asylum seekers and illegal immigration.”

full version here (pdf may need broadband)

By the way sackville, sorry to badger you about this. But the Hosea quote should read "They...".

thanks for the correction.

[georgedillon]

St D:

"Also, very few of them arrive with dependents."

How do you know? (And actually the most likely immigration pattern is that the dependents come six months or a year afterwards.) You don't know, and neither do I, because this lazy government (and supine opposition from FG to SF) have never bothered to monitor these things.
GD

[FutureTaoiseach]

Immigrants themselves grow older.

The house of cards for supporting mass immigration starts to collapse under any amount of serious honest scrutiny.

Yes, but until then they contribute to the economy, and they do so without us having to pay for their training (think of the 18 years of schooling and perhaps more beyond we have to invest in the indigenous workforce). Also, very few of them arrive with dependents. When an Irish worker contributes to the economy it is far more likely that we are paying a pension to a member of their family. It's your house of cards argument that doesn't stand up.

By the way sackville, sorry to badger you about this. But the Hosea quote should read "They...".

Actually the NCB study shows that most immigrant households are families - the only large number of exceptions being in Dublin and Cork.

[magic_norhan]

deleted

[St Disibod]

St D:

"Also, very few of them arrive with dependents."

How do you know? (And actually the most likely immigration pattern is that the dependents come six months or a year afterwards.) You don't know, and neither do I, because this lazy government (and supine opposition from FG to SF) have never bothered to monitor these things.
GD

Well, in part I am going by personal experience. I have worked with dozens of migrants- none of which brought dependents with them. Some became dependents while pregnant, and those children will be dependents until adulthood or until they leave- but the Irish workforce is no different in that regard. However, the migrant workers did not have to be trained by us and their parents do not have to be cared for by us.

Now I do know, as oppose to worked with, immigrant workers who have brought dependents with them. But none of them were welfare recipients.

The government could check what you are reffering to by looking at the PPS numbers applied for by foreigners and cross-referencing those paying tax against those claiming welfare. I imagine they'd find it weighted in favour of the former, far more so than Irish workers. But get onto a TD to lodge a PQ or file a Freedom of Information request yourself and you can get the answers to the questions you have asked.