Tánaiste Simon Covney Confirms 500,000 migrants for Ireland


reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.i … ief932.pdf

hell bent on giving migrants/refugees a say in our countries while silencing the incumbents


and nominal GDP masks the real economy, real GDP per capita, disposable income per capita etc.
Look at Australia:

So if that continues and GDP keeps growing what is the result? If it keeps going then eventually the average person ends up in poverty as they reach third world levels. Eventually it all blows up. Anyway its just another way to look at it. Its another, hardly talked about, potential negative consequence.


irishtimes.com/news/world/n … -1.3723972


Argentina has economically underperformed because it does not produce any goods which sell for high prices on global markets.

Even Brazil sells jets.


un.org/press/en/2000/200003 … 4.doc.html

See what the UN called in back in 2000, they must of realized you can’t be that direct


YT Video



There’s a meme that I’m particularly fond of that I can’t find at the moment . It goes along the lines of -
There is a plate with 20 cookies on it, the banker takes 19 and points at the 20th and says ‘Oh look the immigrant is trying to steal your cookie’

People are more important than borders or countries. Borders are used by the wealthy to protect their wealth and to arbitrage taxes and currencies. People are following wealth and escaping the destitution caused by the theft of their nations wealth by those accumulating it in the ‘developed’ countries (and I include those of their own countrypeople who stole their wealth and stashed it in our banks)

The problem is not immigration - it is inequality.


It’s a funny auld world.

Syrian woman giving food and clothes to Greek immigrants (refugees) in 1942.

Edit to emphasis the common conflation of terms.


This discussion gets more confused when people use terms interchangeably.
Migrant = Refugee = Economic migrant = Asylum seeker
Mass Migration = Migration = Immigration

BBC wrote some good articles on this.

The battle over the words used to describe migrants

Asylum seekers, migrants or refugees: Which word is correct?

Also, populist emotional appeals also tend to polarize the discussion and make this topic difficult to discuss and causes more confusion.

[IMHO, that’s fine for some, since in maintains the status quo.]



Since there are only about 4500 Greeks in Syria today it seems millions of “Greek refugees” didn’t settle in Syria or the Middle East in the 1940s, so why should we allow millions of Syrians just walk into Europe today ?

No, the problem is too much immigration at a time when almost all European populations are shrinking, your failure to understand demographics of this is leading you astray

It only takes a generation or two before a mismatch in birth rates and excessive immigration can totally transform a country, at this point anyone who doubts it is a fool, but of course the people pushing this agenda hardest know it well


Are you talking about immigration or refugees?

Demographics suggests that in the near future western economies will be competing against eachother for the refugees, whoops sorry, should that be immigrant?

Japan has already given up fighting their agequake.


“western economies will be competing against each other for (skilled) immigrant workers” This statement is probably true. Your original statement is imo propaganda.

It’s called a brain drain.

“Japan has already given up fighting their age quake.” Japans problems are as a consequence of their post ww2 banking system with its boom, bust and stagnation.


I don’t see much difference any more, its clear that most refugees are just economic migrants anyway, the media and the open boarders people just use the word refugess as propaganda


They will yeah, whats the unemployment rate for “Syrians” in Germany ?

The FT says its 40% but I would bet its far higher, the Germans will never make an economic return on their “Syrian” population and the social problems will only increase


Well that’s because they’re displaced people, refugees. Immigrants, and I am one myself go to engage an economic need.

I don’t know why people who flee war in Syria are branded immigrants.


immigrant: a person who comes (by choice) to live permanently in a foreign country.

A refugee, generally speaking, is a displaced person who has been forced to cross national boundaries and who cannot return home safely.

IMHO, once conditions return to normal. Refugees who have been granted asylum should be assisted in returning to their countries of origin. If this doesn’t occur then a refugee effectively becomes an immigrant.

There are I think very good reasons for keeping the asylum process separate from the immigration process. There are also ideological, political and financial reasons why some special interest groups seek to blur the boundaries between these processes.


Probably one of the main reasons why economic migration is so bad for many “developing” nations, those countries will never be able to develop properly is all their best people keep leaving, it’s little wonder the remaining (unskilled but) motivated people want to leave.


That’s somewhat mitigated by a a reverse flow in remittances.

Which anti-immigration people will bemoan as “money leaving the economy” or whatever.

It’s also a bit of a lazy generalisation. Would it make sense applied to Ireland in the 1980s? That everyone who stayed in the country either wanted to leave or lacked motivation?

To invoke another lazy generalisation, a common pattern in “developing” countries (aren’t all countries developing?) was to send rich/connected kids abroad for their education so that they can return with a broader view and work in the government or civil service. I don’t know to what extent that pattern still exists.

Syria is an interesting case though. Who are going to be the people in personal danger (and seeking foreign asylum) if and when Assad properly restores power?


What’s a ‘lazy generalization’?
When you say ‘anti-immigration’, what do you mean?


The problem is the fact that for every Indian doctor working here, there is one less doctor in India, something that clearly puts the “home” country at a disadvantage. As for wealthy people sending their children abroad to be educated, as far as I know that practice is still very much alive, mainly due to the lack of local educational facilities with the highly trained educators (they’re abroad).

After being educated in Europe/US, they often remain and the home country doesn’t benefit from their education.