There was once a country called Ireland

Some news regarding Ireland, albeit from Breibart:

The Irish government has been slammed for paying journalists to write good news stories about Project Ireland 2040.
Unveiled by the government last week with a commitment to spend €116 billion, the document outlines plans to boost the Irish nation’s 4.7 million population by another million using mass migration.

Tell me more about that hard border, I’m warming to the idea.

Share

46 thoughts on “There was once a country called Ireland

  1. I seem to recall that the Irish diaspora (of which I am a passport carrying member) is something like 4 times the current population of Ireland.

    So making a decent tax / economic case for the diaspora to “come home” would get those numbers up without the welfare costs of the Muslim hordes.

  2. The question to be asked is ‘Why does Ireland need another million people?’

    Another question that I can’t get a straight answer to is ‘why are Western Leaders so committed to mass immigration above all else?’

  3. The question to be asked is ‘Why does Ireland need another million people?’

    …because the welfare state is a Ponzi scheme which will collapse in on itself if there aren’t more compulsory new entrants at the bottom.

    Sorry, was that not the answer you were looking for?

  4. Andy:

    “Another question that I can’t get a straight answer to is ‘why are Western Leaders so committed to mass immigration above all else?’”

    In this particular case, it might have something to do with the surname and ethnic heritage of the PM. (“It was right for my family, so it must be right!”). In all other cases, I refer you to John Galt’s answer above.

  5. There was once a country called Ireland
    Whose prognosis became rather dire and
    They lost “Ave Maria”
    Gained the joys of Sharia
    And made it a “so-cheap-to-hire-land”.

  6. I seem to recall that the Irish diaspora (of which I am a passport carrying member) is something like 4 times the current population of Ireland.

    Yup, and they left because there was no work at home. Yet somehow they need immigration. Well, nobody said the Irish were smart.

    So making a decent tax / economic case for the diaspora to “come home” would get those numbers up without the welfare costs of the Muslim hordes.

    There is no economic case, and it was never about economics, it’s about eliminating European culture as much as possible as part of some demented, catastrophic multi-cultural experiment the reasons for which baffle me.

  7. There is no economic case, and it was never about economics, it’s about eliminating European culture as much as possible as part of some demented, catastrophic multi-cultural experiment the reasons for which baffle me.

    It baffles me, too. But multiculturalism really took off as a political force after the fall of the Soviet Union, and I don’t think that’s a coincidence. It seems like the Cold War era ideological infrastructure within the west that had been dedicated to pro-Soviet stuff like supporting the Sandinistas, getting Pershing II missiles out of West Germany, etc simply switched over to the cause of demographic transformation once the Cold War ended.

    When the utopia they were pursuing didn’t pan out, they just switched over to pursuing a different utopia.

  8. But multiculturalism really took off as a political force after the fall of the Soviet Union, and I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

    I think a lot of is is filling the void created by the decline of Christianity.

  9. The only time in history when there was a country called Ireland was under the Crown of Ireland, or more recently when the Irish republic styled itself “Ireland” as an implicit claim to the territory of Northern Ireland.

    You could argue that there was a country called Ireland under the Lordship of Ireland but most (all?) of the time great chunks of the island weren’t under its control so that the same objection obtains: it was a claim to some other buggers’ territory.

    This is quite ordinary: after all there was never a country called India until 1947 or Australia until 1901.

  10. “part of some demented, catastrophic multi-cultural experiment the reasons for which baffle me”

    I’d like to know which successful European politicians (ie actually reached the highest rungs of power) in the last 50 actually went out and actively campaigned on this platform. Maybe it is one of those things that “just happened” – nobody in power planned it or particularly wanted it but that’s the way that various trends started to head and there was too much inertia or too much political cost to turn the ship around. Maybe it was something that was considered a fantastic idea by politicians but they decided not to tell us because we were not clever or sophisticated enough to accept it. Maybe in fact it was an open plan that successful politicians have always proclaimed as brilliant, and the voting population of the societies that were told they were to be reshaped all gleefully voted for it, but if it is the last one I don’t remember it. (I will add, though, that if it was something the voting population felt extremely strongly about they did have ways of stopping it, but largely didn’t take that route.)

    The trend toward more migration isn’t just a European phenomenon incidentally, plenty of Asian migrants are heading to Africa (a surprising number of Lebanese in West Africa and Chinese and to a lesser extent Indians turning up all over the shop), on the flip side India has developed a substantial Nigerian population. The Gulf states have taken things to a whole new level though of course they are not so accepting of the idea of migrant “rights”.

    Port cities have almost always welcomed the establishment of foreign trading communities; many rulers have welcomed the arrival of a prosperous class for funding purposes (the arrival of the Chinese in Africa may not be so dissimilar to the welcome medieval kings occasionally gave to the Jews) but I’m not sure that this form of migration ever was intended to radically change the country’s culture and society. The Russians were happy to bring in large scale settlement by Germans who were encouraged to maintain their own cultural traditions, though my rather weak understanding is that they were intended to stay out in the sticks on their farms and improve agricultural capacity rather than to germanise Russian culture. Plenty of societies have practised a kind of multiculturalism where diverse local groups learned to rub along without engaging in incessant culture and language wars. But the idea of permanently altering your own society and culture by deliberately absorbing large numbers of people from non-local backgrounds might be more specifically modern European.

    (I’m leaving the New World countries of the West out of this as countries formed by colonisation in which the natives were largely driven out and a new population was founded by immigration are a different kettle of fish. But there is some sense in which, say, the German people are indigenous to Germany – enough that an art historian might say of a Roman statue that it “looks like a German” or “has Germanic features” without feeling terribly racist about it – even if the gene pool has been shaped by centuries of migration, and there is a sense in which current German government policy is to radically alter those demographics within a timescale of decades or even years. The matters of “why?” and “when did the voters say they agreed with this?” seem pertinent and valid questions even if you were comfortable with the consequences of the policy.)

  11. I think another reason for mass immigration is the social scientists who work in bureaucracy are creating long term jobs for themselves. Capable polish plumbers don’t need much help from state but bring in muslim immigrants and all sorts of social services can be provided to people who have no intention of assimilating.

  12. ‘Maybe it is one of those things that “just happened”‘: that was initially a part of it in Britain. I don’t suppose much thought was given to the immigration implications of the Nationality Act of 1948. Unless perhaps some farsighted Marxists in the Labour government had an inkling.

  13. In the Indy, Ed Balls is quoted this:

    In government you have to deal with four kinds of things: crises; big timetabled events; things politicians really care about; and the things the machine thinks you should care about. The single currency was a ‘category four’ subject. That meant we had the kind of meetings about it which are incredibly dangerous, because nobody had thought about it and prepared and people might say what they think.

    I suspect category 4 is increasingly important.

  14. @dearieme

    ‘Maybe it is one of those things that “just happened”‘: that was initially a part of it in Britain. I don’t suppose much thought was given to the immigration implications of the Nationality Act of 1948.

    Yes that’s actually one of the things that went through my mind when including it in my list of possibilities.

    Another example that belongs in the list, an obvious one really but it hadn’t been in my mind when I wrote that, was the way Britain did not impose any transitional restrictions on free movement from EU accession countries after 2004, uniquely among the large western EU countries. The Labour government wasn’t hoping for the scale of central and east European migration that followed. They just believed that the migration flows would be tiny. According to a BBC news report from 2003:

    A report indicated that up to 13,000 extra economic migrants could come to Britain each year as a direct result of 10 new countries joining the organisation.

    The Conservatives have expressed fears that expanding the EU would result in large numbers of people from the former Communist countries looking for a more prosperous future in countries like the UK.

    But Home Office Minister Beverley Hughes told MPs: “The number coming here for employment will be minimal.”

    EU enlargement is due to come into effect on 1 May 2004 and the so-called AC-10 countries due to join are Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.

    According to the report: “The net immigration from the AC-10 to the UK after the current enlargement of the EU will be relatively small, at between 5,000 and 13,000 immigrants per year up to 2010.”

    In reality the flows were over 100,000 per year. Migration into agricultural areas of Norfolk, Suffolk and Lincolnshire completely changed local demographics – areas which had seen relatively small amounts of migration (a small number of e.g. Portuguese migrant workers, plus adult East Europeans on seasonal visas coming to Britain only over summer) suddenly had schools where 50%+ of kids spoke English as their second language. In a place that would only ten years earlier have been considered part of the stereotypical “traditional English hinterland” (the kind of place you’d see pictured as a piece of living nostalgia in This England magazine) I once taught a class of kids who were entirely Polish, Lithuanian or Latvian with the exception of one Brazilian and one white English lad who must have felt completely out of place.

    I went for a walk around Boston a few months ago, and in its bustling tracksuited town centre I didn’t hear anybody speaking English. It can be no surprise that Boston was one of the Brexiest towns come the referendum. Yet once it “just so happened” these numbers were flowing, it was too late to bring in transitional controls – a measure that would almost certainly have either swung the referendum for Remain or stopped it taking place altogether.

    Professor Christian Dustmann, who came up with the 5,000-13,000 estimate (but believed that MPs had misunderstood it, that the press had misrepresented it, and had warned that the results were uncertain and that they depended on Germany opening its door to Polish labour) must wake up every day wondering whether it was he who brought Brexit about. Which must be a nightmare for him, poor sod. I doubt it is any consolation that I would very happily indeed raise a glass to him!!

  15. The people who learned in school that whites were bad and that colored races were magical people in touch with the earth are now old enough to be in policy setting positions. They are simply following their indoctrination.

  16. “Chester Draws on March 3, 2018 at 8:58 pm said:
    Well, if they open their doors to white South Africans it might work.”

    I wonder how many white South Africans there are with the right to an Irish passport or already in possession of one. They might end up getting some.

  17. Bloody Soros is funding all these underhand attempts to destroy Western civilisation and usher in the new world order: globalisation, multiculturism, socialism-cum-Markism and all the other attempts to destroy our culture, which was stable and based on a loose understanding of Christianity.
    He’s the personification of evil – will the 87 year old bastard ever die?

  18. Douglas Murray. The Strange Death of Europe.

    Read it. It won’t make you happy but it has the detailed evidence.

    Am also reading whilst on holiday trip to Brazil, the book by Tom Bowers on Blair. He portrays Blair as incompetent at government but great at self promotion. That got thinking this Varadeker (?) and Trudeau PMs to be a similar types.

  19. The recent Dellingpole interview with Kevin Myers goes some way to explaining modern day Ireland and its passionate embrace of all progressive dogma.

    If Brexit doesn’t deliver a hard border immediately, there will be one in place eventually.

  20. Are none of you able to use Google? You’re just going to read a story and analysis from bloody Breitbart (Oh and repeated by Infowars… great!) and accept it without question?

    Right then, let’s dispatch this Newmann style:

    “the document outlines plans to boost the Irish nation’s 4.7 million population by another million using mass migration”
    This is not the plan. The plan mostly concerns infrastructure spending, and an extra million people is what the government is expecting to serve with said infrastructure.

    “Tell me more about that hard border, I’m warming to the idea.”
    Perhaps somebody should warn the UK about how much extra tax it is going to cost them if the Northern Ireland economy sinks any further…

    “Why does Ireland need another million people? … why are Western Leaders so committed to mass immigration above all else?”
    Irish unemployment is currently at 6.1% and is pointed firmly downwards. Already there are chronic shortages of nurses and experience says that other professions won’t be far behind. And like many countries, the citizens aren’t so keen on lower-paid jobs, especially when they can all easily find something better paid. So the choices are either: Reduced economic growth, more immigration or an unprecedented level of automation.

    Keep in mind we are discussing an increase of less than 20% over 22 years. This is not the kind of huge and sudden immigration that rural Brexit-land saw.

    Also keep in mind that the huge immigration (of mostly Poles) during the 2000s went well for all involved: They got jobs, we got much needed labour, everybody enjoyed beers and potatoes and then many of them went home. Those who stayed contribute to society.

    “Yup, and they left because there was no work at home. Yet somehow they need immigration”
    Yes, because the economy is now growing rapidly. Circumstances change and one has to plan for that.

    “Well, nobody said the Irish were smart”
    Said the Welshman? 🙂

    “it was never about economics, it’s about eliminating European culture as much as possible”
    Funnily enough, we Irish have some experience with violent, organised campaigns to eliminate our native culture and heritage. They were not perpetrated by muslims.

    “an implicit claim to the territory of Northern Ireland”
    No, this was entirely explicit until the Good Friday agreement.

    “it was a claim to some other buggers’ territory”
    Not really. The Celts got on reasonably well and had a rotating position of “High King of Ireland”. After occupation, a desire for an independent island never lost a commanding majority (Except in the north, but not in all of it, interestingly…).

    “people who learned in school that whites were bad and that colored races were magical”
    I can’t speak for other countries, but I learned nothing of the sort in school in the 90s.

    “Bloody Soros is funding all these underhand attempts to destroy Western civilisation”
    I know! Funding independent universities around the world… what a bastard. And somehow he has forced the Irish government to unveil an infrastructure investment plan – does his treachery know no bounds?!

    “modern day Ireland and its passionate embrace of all progressive dogma”
    You mean one of the last countries in the first-world to still ban abortion?

    In summary, the Breitbart article starts with a willful disregard for the content of the proposed plan, then launches into a racist tirade about “black youths” and then tops it all off with a bunch of outright lies about the supposed elimination of native culture. To quote president Trump: “Sad”.

  21. You’re just going to read a story and analysis from bloody Breitbart (Oh and repeated by Infowars… great!) and accept it without question?

    I put a caveat in the first sentence. And there were only two sentences in the post, which ought to have given you some idea as to how seriously I took it. My main point stands, though: if the people of any given country want to curb immigration, they need hard borders.

  22. “Already there are chronic shortages of nurses”

    Dunno anything specifically about Ireland, but “chronic shortage of X” in an economy is only possible when the government fucks up the normal economic resource allocation mechanisms through price signals. The correct answer is to hang the bastards. Bringing in poor sods from even more fucked-up places just kicks the can down the road and decreases the chances of normalizing the situation.

    “Reduced economic growth, more immigration or an unprecedented level of automation”

    Paying those nurses higher salaries never crossed anyone’s mind, I suppose?

  23. Said the Welshman?

    We’re not daft enough to think we can run our own affairs entirely. 😉

  24. @HibernoFrog

    “This is not the plan. The plan mostly concerns infrastructure spending, and an extra million people is what the government is expecting to serve with said infrastructure.”

    In the context of a country with as low a population as Ireland, that’s still a substantial demographic shift. And since it won’t be applied evenly across the entire country, some places will experience a sharper change. Perhaps the plan isn’t for anywhere to experience a Boston-style transformation but that wasn’t the plan in the UK either – once they’ve arrived, migrants can generally head where they like, which often leads to concentration in specific areas. (You could in principle have region-specific working visas for non-EU migrants, and asylum seekers can be sent to wherever there is the housing, but migrants under other schemes can build a new home where they please.)

    I’m afraid it will remain mystifying to outsiders that a country and culture that struggled for centuries to survive British efforts to suppress and replace it through the plantations, might decide as a matter of national strategy to self-impose a demographic alteration of similar magnitude over a historically short period of time. I’m not as immigration-sceptic as many people on this site but you still have to ask “to what end?” Were second-order consequences thought through? Has there been democratic consent?

    “We’re short of nurses” doesn’t cut it; that’s a reason to build more training capacity, to increase student support for nursing courses if students aren’t signing up, to improve pay and working conditions if the problem is attrition of the work force, and to offer some nursing visas in the meanwhile. “A shortage of key workers to support the population” doesn’t mean you have to take on hundreds of thousands of new arrivals. If anything that is going to make the problem circular – you start needing key workers to support the new population.

    And it is true that a larger population means that politicians now run a bigger country with bigger GDP but it is also true that empire-building by self-interested managers increases corporate turnover (a problem familiar to anyone who studied the principal-agent problem in economics). But the desirability of such a change surely relates more to GDP per capita, where the effects will inevitably be subdued by the larger denominator. In terms of the self-interest of the existing population, what matters more (in pure economic terms) is how their own income is affected. In many but not all cases it is actually likely to be improved, but the benefits are nowhere near so steep as the headline boost to GDP. The greatest benefits tend to belong to the migrants – after all, something had to tempt them to travel in the first place, and if they came from a poorer country the improvement in their standards can be substantial – but migration policy, perhaps with the exception of humanitarian/refugee issues, ought to be run for the explicit benefit of those already living there.

    If there is a public clamour for their pale monoculture to be rapidly diversified and some understanding of what the knock-on consequences will be, then fine, go for it. It is your country not mine after all, and I say that as a Brit of Irish extraction. If this transformation is a managerial, technocratic “solution” being imposed from above with little chance for public scrutiny, then I’m not really sure it is “your” country so much as it your politicians’ country, to play with like a child’s train set.

  25. The IRA goes head to head with Hezbollah in suburban Dublin in a few years’ time?

    I’ll make sure I have the popcorn ready.

  26. “So the choices are either: Reduced economic growth, more immigration or an unprecedented level of automation.

    Having spent the afternoon in Little Somalia, I’d recommend you choose either “reduced economic growth” or “an unprecedented level of automation.”

  27. EDIT: I’ve just noticed how long this post is. Sorry, I’ll stop now…

    “which ought to have given you some idea as to how seriously I took it”
    Fair enough – I was mostly aiming at the commenters, but you are still presenting it as dubious news, rather than an almost complete fabrication (which it is).

    ” if the people of any given country want to curb immigration, they need hard borders.”
    Or simply to secure those borders (please take note, EU). (Not counting UK in that, which has indeed had very high EU-migration).

    “but “chronic shortage of X” in an economy is only possible when the government fucks up the normal economic resource allocation”
    That they did: For almost 10 years the hardly hired any public servants, including nurses. One could write a book on the cause of that situation and how it was handled, but the upshot is that few people entered Nursing degrees and those who graduated in the meantime emmigrated.

    “Paying those nurses higher salaries never crossed anyone’s mind, I suppose”
    They tried. Not only that, but they’re even offering a bonus to those returning from abroad. But state finances limit what can be offered. I don’t really know how the private healthcare industry is doing, but my guess would be that they have similar, if less severe, issues. But anyway, it is not limited to nurses: The economy is capabable of growing rapidly and will need many people with many skills. Immigration (most of it either hard-working or skilled) has been good so far.

    “you start needing key workers to support the new population.”
    Otherwise known as economic growth. And in such an entreprenurial country, the benefits are shared widely (Ireland has a better Gini Coefficient than France!). Everybody benefits.

    “a country and culture that struggled for centuries to survive British efforts to suppress and replace it through the plantations, might decide as a matter of national strategy to self-impose a demographic alteration of similar magnitude over a historically short period of time … Has there been democratic consent?”

    The Eastern Europeans have a surprisingly similar culture to ours (religion, alcohol, potatoes (I’m not even joking…), economics, social attitudes) that there has been little reason to see it as a negative. I’ve been gone for 9 years now, but I’m not aware of any significant public pressure against all the immigration during the boom years nor afterwards (since so many of them left again, the issue never really came up). Plus, there is a massive gulf between choosing to do something and having it imposed on you at the tip of a British rifle. But again, it isn’t a national strategy to import a million people: One particular branch of the government just doesn’t want to end up with under-sized infrastructure, so they have made this estimation.
    Also worth noting that non-EU migration is quite low, and migration from poor countries even lower still. That last element is very controversial, and no government with an interest in being re-elected is going to seek out a million assylum seekers.
    A Reddit member also makes a good point: Although the Irish birth rate is below replacement level, increasing longevity means that the native population will continue rising for the next 20 years. So this mythical million poor, radicalised immigrants is just that, a myth.

    “how their own income is affected. In many but not all cases it is actually likely to be improved … migration policy, perhaps with the exception of humanitarian/refugee issues, ought to be run for the explicit benefit of those already living there.”
    I agree entirely, but that seems (to me at least) to be how the Irish view our recent immigration history.

    “a public clamour for their pale monoculture to be rapidly diversified”
    I don’t think the Poles are going to do much for us on that front 🙂 I’m not sure if people have given much thought to the long-term consequences, but experience and attitudes so far have been mostly positive.

    ” then I’m not really sure it is “your” country so much as it your politicians’ country, to play with like a child’s train set”
    Well, the property boom/bust and the banking crisis show this to be true. Ironically, the infrastructure plan we’re debating is actually an attempt to avoid the worst excesses of this past mismanagement.

  28. @hibernofrog

    Thanks for taking time to reply.

    “But again, it isn’t a national strategy to import a million people: One particular branch of the government just doesn’t want to end up with under-sized infrastructure, so they have made this estimation.”

    That does at least suggest it is the anticipated outcome of current government policies though, even if it isn’t an explicit objective. It does put me in mind of the “by accident or by design” discussion earlier.

    Don’t want to unnecessarily detail you with my reply to other bits, but there is a difference between “growth” and “growth per capita” and moreover “lack of nurses” has always struck me as a stupid, trite and often disingenuous reason to support mass migration (if your public services are stretched now, then what is increasing your population going to do to demand for nurses, even if some of the newcomers are nurses?), though possibly a sensible reason to support targeted migration.

    I can think of some situations in which mass migration, possibly encouraged but under tight controls, and demographic self-transformation might be a plausible, considered, maybe even popular, policy. If you’ve just lost a huge chunk of your population in a war. If your dependency ratio is scary and you want to deponzify your pension scheme. If you’re reuniting kindred spirits from across the diaspora as a key part of your national story-telling, Israeli-style. If you’re a big, open, low-density country with a long history of successfully absorbing immigration – and particularly if you’re concerned about neighbours/rivals with far larger populations and rapidly rising GDP per capita that may soon geo-strategically outshine or even dominate you. (Perhaps a prospect for Australia; I know if I was a US leader I might be trying to pivot the country towards a population of 600+ million by the middle of the century to try to preserve national hegemony.) If you’ve got fed up with your local monoculture and think additional diversity might make your society more resilient or creative. If you’re a liberal who believes in the right to roam the world without borders. If you’re a small-government type who recognises that government efforts to control the migration of skills and talent will generally be restrictive, uninformed, tardy and economically harmful – perhaps it’s better to just leave migration the free market.

    I’m sure there are others I haven’t listed. But if politicians really believe in this stuff that their policies are imposing on their countries, I wish they’d get out there and make their case more often. And spare us the “for the nurses” guff, unless they’re actually announcing a visa scheme for nurses.

  29. @TimN

    My main point stands, though: if the people of any given country want to curb immigration, they need hard borders.

    I think this might be a non-sequitur actually. In terms of illegal migration, for all the horror stories of people sneaking on the back of lorries, the easiest route in has always been to overstay one’s visa. Strict passport control at borders can’t do anything to prevent people coming in with valid short-term visas, or even from visa-free countries (not all of which are terribly pleasant places to live and work). The problem is how to stop them overstaying, which is what the border can’t do.

    Incidentally I’m told the Swiss government is very good at managing this, making it very hard to live and work in the country illegally. Perhaps you know a bit about how they achieve it? If you’ve got that problem nailed, then the question settles down to “who do we accept in, on what terms, and for how long?” If you’ve lost control of who is staying in your country, then such questions are merely academic.

    Obviously there is a role for border security, but the solution for Northern Ireland is more likely to resemble the US-Canadian border than that between Ceuta and Morocco…

  30. This is not the plan. The plan mostly concerns infrastructure spending, and an extra million people is what the government is expecting to serve with said infrastructure.

    That’s some specious bullshit you’ve got there. There is no plan to increase the population by a fifth but we’re building for it, you know, just in case.

    Of course, if Ireland’s immigration policies for people outside the EU is extremely strict, then an extra million hard working and easily assimilated fellow Europeans might be all to the good. Unless – perish the thought – that the EU’s borders with the Middle East and Africa remain entirely porous and what you get is 995,000 semi-literate unskilled peasants and a few Filipina nurses.

    we Irish have some experience with violent, organised campaigns to eliminate our native culture and heritage

    You also have plenty of experience of unthinking submission to religious dogma, so Sharia should be a doddle to deal with.

  31. That’s some specious bullshit you’ve got there. There is no plan to increase the population by a fifth but we’re building for it, you know, just in case

    And apparently, people believe it! No wonder politicians treat the voters like they’re stupid.

  32. “if your public services are stretched now, then what is increasing your population going to do to demand for nurses, even if some of the newcomers are nurses?”
    Most of the newcomers are relatively young and not in need of much healthcare but I’m being too narrow here: Your point remains valid for other services. But being a capitalist country, the market will sort this out: If the newcomers aren’t doing something economically useful, they will rapidly find themselves being very uncomfortable and have to leave. Ireland is not a “live outside” kind of country…

    “That does at least suggest it is the anticipated outcome of current government policies though”
    You may be overestimating the capacity of the Irish government for strategic and coherent thinking 🙂

    “Having spent the afternoon in Little Somalia”
    “The IRA goes head to head with Hezbollah in suburban Dublin in a few years’ time?”
    Yes, those CRAZY Polish extremists are nothin’ but trouble… (Hey, look! You’re not the only one who can deliberately mis-interpret things!)

    “I can think of some situations in which mass migration…”
    Very thoughtful paragraph. If only more people were as open to evaluating ideas this way…

    “That’s some specious bullshit you’ve got there. There is no plan to increase the population by a fifth but we’re building for it, you know, just in case … Unless – perish the thought – that the EU’s borders with the Middle East and Africa remain entirely porous and what you get is 995,000 semi-literate unskilled peasants and a few Filipina nurses”
    For a start, the native population in Ireland is still growing, there is a large diaspora that might come home and finally, history, economics and social acceptance leads us to expect plenty of EU migration. So yes, there is no particular plan but also yes, the infrastructure is being built to cope with it because it is likely to happen. Better that way around than the reverse, given the long lead times on such projects.
    Second, a million illegal immigrants are going to find themselves being cold and wet unless they have jobs… which they won’t because there will be plenty of people to employ legally (Contrary to the USA and soon, the UK).

    “You also have plenty of experience of unthinking submission to religious dogma, so Sharia should be a doddle to deal with”
    A shameful period in our history, if you ask me, but we have woken up to it and will never repeat it.

  33. HibernoFrog; “Most of the newcomers are relatively young and not in need of much healthcare”

    Apart from the young who do rash, youthful things like drugs and other social fun events like stealing cars so they are chased by the bobbies then of course there may be a demand for medical attention. Average stuff, perhaps, but most of these young newcomers bring a chain of many elderly people in their wake. You only have to go to a place like Leicester or Bradford or (whisper it) Rotherham to see huge numbers of elderly people being treated by the NHS.

    The newcomers may be young but twenty or thirty parents, uncles, aunts, grandparents and so on following on may just overwhelm the ability of the health service eventually.

    By the way, for those who care, my comment about Hezbollah and the IRA was admittedly a poor joke. But as they say, many a true word spoken in poor jest. After all I hear that gang warfare has been known to follow with large migrant populations, one way or another.

  34. The question to be asked is ‘Why does Ireland need another million people?’

    Yeah, well. A similar question could have been asked back in the 80s when the government of our neighbouring Emerald Isle had f***ed up its economy to the extent a sizeable portion of its population were headed to the UK to get themselves on its Sosh & get their names on its housing lists. Despite it having its own unemployment problems at the time. So in honour of the cultural contribution they’ve made to my country (no, not the bombs) I’ll take this very small fiddle & bash out a few bars of that excuse for music they all seem to like..

  35. “(Hey, look! You’re not the only one who can deliberately mis-interpret things!)”

    Not sure where you see misinterpretation.

    You said “So the choices are either: Reduced economic growth, more immigration or an unprecedented level of automation.”

    I pointed out that, having spent the day in the area of Minneapolis called variously Little Somalia and Little Mogadishu – where close to fifty thousand Somalis have been brought in to a city that’s not that large – it was my opinion that “more immigration” turns out to be a worse choice than the other two.

    The cultural costs of flooding in immigrants are high. The welfare costs are high. Plus, I think your alternatives are false. This influx, according to you, helps economic growth. Well, maybe, if they assimilate and are employable, but they don’t and they aren’t – they remain a huge net drain – so the economic benefits you imply simply don’t materialize.

  36. @Hibernofrog

    Most of the newcomers are relatively young and not in need of much healthcare but I’m being too narrow here: Your point remains valid for other services.

    Indeed, with that age group we’re talking maternity units, nurseries, school places.

    But being a capitalist country, the market will sort this out: If the newcomers aren’t doing something economically useful, they will rapidly find themselves being very uncomfortable and have to leave. Ireland is not a “live outside” kind of country

    But welfare and public services cast a safety net (or ought to do) that to some extent insulates people from the economic consequences of their choices. One might argue that this net is intended primarily to protect people from happenings outside, rather than within, their control. But those administering healthcare or child benefits or social security or school places can’t dissect somebody’s personal history and mental state to determine whether they are “deserving”, so it is inevitable that people can make choices (such as “come to a country where you don’t speak the language and take insecure, low-paid work”) whose economic consequences are in part shouldered by the state. As such, incentives are misaligned from true costs and you can’t appeal to economic rationality to sort things out.

    It would be interesting to know what the break-even salary is for a person in that cohort to be a net positive to the government coffers. In the UK it’s quite high because the income tax threshold is high and working tax credits are a big draw to low-earners.* My suspicion is that even in Ireland there will be a fair number of people working low-wage and possibly part-time, temporary or seasonal jobs where a more targeted migration policy would have declared that, should there be a labour shortage for it, applicants may be granted a short-term visa with no rights of extension, no path to residency, limitations on access to benefits and services (especially no right to bring kids, elderly relatives etc) and perhaps a limitation on the number of times you can come back on the same visa. Those conditions may sound harsh but are likely to be perfectly adequate to fill many low-end jobs (compare the Irish minimum wage to the Ukrainian one!) while significantly shifting the break-even point. With a free-for-all migration policy for folk from rural Poland or Romania, such measures are ineffective.

    For a start, the native population in Ireland is still growing

    Right, but how much this is due to extended life expectancy rather than the birth ratio is important, because to the extent it is mostly about having more old people then (a) they generally don’t breed so they’re only temporarily buoying up the figures, (b) while they’re still hanging about, they’re tipping the dependency ratio in a way that pushes the government into pursuing a policy of higher inwards migration.

    Migration doesn’t just tend to cluster geographically, it’s also concentrated into certain age cohorts. As you say, through a dependency ratio prism this is a feature not a bug, as the younger, healthier, tax-paying migrants pay for the elderly, hospital-using natives. But it’s worth bearing in mind just how much it masks the sheer scale of the demographic shift lower down the age pyramid, particularly in combination with differential birth rates between established inhabitants and newcomers.

    A professional obfuscator, such as a politician, activist or media commentator, may claim that “not only is the native Irish population growing but the percentage of migrants is a very small X%, which I think will surprise ignorant bigots who think there are migrants everywhere!” But if you walk around town and notice that almost nobody out at the same time as you is speaking English, and your kids’ school just hired five more bilingual Teaching Assistants to cope with the number of children who speak English as an Additional Language, then you’re not being ignorant. It’s just that those migrants are concentrated in an age bracket of people who go shopping after work and who have school-aged kids. The X% is true but somewhat disingenuous because the denominator includes all those older generations with minimal immigration and who are no longer replacing themselves.

    As an indication of scale, the 2011 census states “only” 13% of the UK population is non-white though that figure must be somewhat out of date, given the rise from 6% in 1991 and 9% 2001. Yet “Schools need 68,000 extra BME teachers to reflect population” according to the NASUWT teaching union, because “Just 13% of state-funded schools’ teachers are currently from a BME background, compared to 27% of pupils.”

    Now I actually thought that call was insidious, stupid and self-defeating. Insidious because it suggests white teachers are somehow not competent to teach ethnic minority kids. Stupid and self-defeating because of how the logic would apply to other service areas – do we send back all the Filipina care home assistants because it isn’t “culturally appropriate” for darker-skinned women to tend to frail, incontinent, confused and 95%+ white people? What about all those doctors and nurses that we’re constantly being told immigration is brilliant for, we should kick some of them them out of the NHS because too many of their patients are white? If I’d been a member of that union I reckon I would have resigned after that. But that’s really an aside.

    My main point is that despite being told for years that ethnic minorities make up only a couple of percent of the population, the next generation of Brits will be over one quarter ethnic minority. And this isn’t just in a “different skin colour but been brought up in the same culture as any Brit” way – nationwide, 20% of primary school students come from households that speak a foreign language at home. (Anecdotally, I suspect satellite TV and now the internet are having a profound effect here – fractured media consumption can mean growing up together without sharing cultural reference points.) Some places set the pace – London primary schools were already 40% BME by 1999, though the country as a whole is now not far from catching that up, and several boroughs are well over 80% today – so that in certain regions the face of the next generation will be almost completely unrecognisable compared to my grandparents’ generation, or even my parents’. Heck, even mine.

    These are huge changes that will transform society forever, and as Tim points out are without parallel in China, Japan, India or Africa, nor with any precedent in European history. Yet the sensitivities are such that there has been a distinct lack of openness about these changes from senior figures. And mere openness ought to be, in a democratic society, pretty much the least we’re entitled to expect. What if I mention words like “mandate” or “accountability”? I get that some social changes “just happen” and that the government can’t or shouldn’t intervene – the sexual revolution or the decline of organised religion for example. Demographic trends? Complex and multifactorial. For the decline in birth ratios the government did have some tools to intervene, particularly financially, but we don’t want to see government officials roaming the streets with turkey basters. For migration? The government sets the legal regime, the objectives and strategy, controls the enforcement agencies… with that in mind, if we are going to completely reshape our society, it would seem odd for it to happen by accident and unhealthy for it to occur without consent.

    —————–

    * On the subject of tax credits. Bulgarian mate of mine set up their own migration agency they ran for about a decade around and after the accession period; their key selling point was that they’d use their fluent English to get you sorted with the bureaucracy. They’d wrangle you the working tax credit, in return for a cut. There’s system-working for housing benefits, child benefits, maybe even a council house, that’s beyond the ken of most new migrants. A very profitable opportunity therefore existed. Perhaps their greatest achievement was getting their unskilled 50-something parents a lovely semidetached council house with small garden in London and getting them onto disability benefit (I believe dad had a “bad back”). Neither worked, and beyond “hello” and “goodbye” I don’t think either had a word of English between them even after many years in London. They just watched Bulgarian TV, read Bulgarian internet and socialised with other local Bulgarians. I don’t know how they weren’t bored out of their skulls. The agency shared office space with a family-run Indian immigration firm that set up one of those bogus “colleges” one often finds in East London above fish-and-chip shops and the like (for the visas, you see) though the Home Office shut it down. I was amused to discover this was shortly after they’d wasted thousands of pounds buying a bank of computers for aesthetic “look a bit like an actual college” purposes.

    Apologies to Tim and any readers for the length. Still, there’s crap with less thought or insight in it that gets published in the UK press, so hopefully someone finds something worth the read in it.

  37. But being a capitalist country, the market will sort this out: If the newcomers aren’t doing something economically useful, they will rapidly find themselves being very uncomfortable and have to leave. Ireland is not a “live outside” kind of country…

    Wishful thinking.

    There is a proportion of immigrants who are milking the social welfare system very thoroughly. I don’t know what proportion, but it would vary by race/country of origin.

    Some of these are from other EU member states and some are “refugees”/ “asylum seekers”. Many of these retain strong links with the countries from which they have supposedly fled.

    Obviously I cannot point you to any official document which supports this.

    You will also be aware that a substantial part of the native underclass has perfected subsistence on Social Welfare without being in any way economically beneficial to society.

  38. Wait, how many remainers are there in the UK? It’s not like they can all speak French…

  39. According to the world bank, Ireland’s current population growth rate is just under 2% which is an extra 1 million people by 2040.

    The Government is rightly planning for a future that will happen without a massive influx of black people and muslims that plan to turn Dublin and other European cities to either Lagos or Islamabad.

    In an unrealistic case where only blacks and Asians will have babies for next 22 years, I can’t see how an extra million blacks and muslims (which will make 20% of the population non-white) means Ireland will look like an African or non-oil rich Middle Eastern country.

  40. But if you walk around town and notice that almost nobody out at the same time as you is speaking English, and your kids’ school just hired five more bilingual Teaching Assistants to cope with the number of children who speak English as an Additional Language, then you’re not being ignorant. It’s just that those migrants are concentrated in an age bracket of people who go shopping after work and who have school-aged kids. The X% is true but somewhat disingenuous because the denominator includes all those older generations with minimal immigration and who are no longer replacing themselves.

    This is an excellent point: the effects of immigration tend to be highly localised.

  41. Apologies to Tim and any readers for the length. Still, there’s crap with less thought or insight in it that gets published in the UK press, so hopefully someone finds something worth the read in it.

    Not at all, on the contrary it’s been a very interesting and welcome contribution. Thanks!

  42. The anti-White revolution is succeeding and will overcome without a single shot being fired with Leo Varadkar now leading the Irish invasion.

Comments are closed.