|
|
Rights, Freedoms and Repression
Blog Feeds
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland
Lockdown Skeptics
|
Putting 'Ireland of the Welcomes' to the Test national |
rights, freedoms and repression |
feature
 Wednesday September 15, 2004 20:55 by seedot
 campaigns begin to regularise immigration laws and give security to those already here A report on the campaigns to regularise our immigration laws and provide residency / work rights to some of those currently in Ireland.
The recent referendum on citizenship may have changed the constitution but in many ways this is only the start of a debate on immigration in Ireland as legislation on the issue is still in the pipeline. Currently under Irish law any child born on the island is still an Irish citizen, the status of migrants on work visas is starting to be an issue for the trade union movement and the promise by Michael McDowell to 'deal with those currently here' has yet to be fulfilled. A number of campaigning groups have now started to look at the reality for migrants currently in Ireland.
Indeed the impact of immigrants has been found to be universally positive from an economic point of view with growth and wealth having a direct correlation to levels of immigration. John Fitzgerald from the ESRI in a paper delivered last month to the Merriman Summer School (Ireland – an Ageing Multicultural Economy: Aug 2004) warned that “If Ireland fails to embrace and build on the benefits of becoming a multicultural economy, through allowing appropriate migration in and out, it will rapidly fall behind its competitors.” He points to the inefficiencies of the current system of work visas and calls for a transparent, open system both for skilled and unskilled workers. Given that the ESRI is not known as the most radical of groups it is surprising to see that his conclusions open up the possibility that the 'No Borders' policy of those campaigning on Mayday, dismissed at the time by all mainstream political commentators, has an economic justification. This argument should be pursued by all regardless of their positions on the political spectrum. Even those who view the economic sphere as all important have to admit that immigration is good for this country. For those driven by social or moral concerns there can be no excuse for tolerance of the cowardly, insular and economically illiterate policies of our supposedly socially and economically liberal Minister for Justice.
|
(photo by redjade - 'Tomso is an Irish Citizen in Hiding' - the irish state has recently deported his mother to nigeria - 
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (37 of 37)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37I agree the referendum is a disgraceful piece of racism, but your tactics are wrong. What you should be doing is:
a) compiling a list of illegal Irish in America and sending it to the US Department of Immmigration, Customs and Homeland Security. having them shipping back to McDowell's country.
b) prosecuting the masters of maternity hospitals in Ireland for collecting data on race and violation of data collection and privacy laws by then disclosing it to others.
"Evidence from the US suggests that an open door policy on unskilled immigration would probably enhance the growth potential of the economy and would be good for skilled Irish citizens.."
1. Most illegal immigrants that I knew personally in New York intentionally lived in squalor so that they could send every untaxed cent earned back to their homeland for their families to build houses to which they would eventually return. Every day, there were 2 bedroom apartments in New York discovered with up to 20 illegal immigrants living on top of each other. My first wife entered the US from Columbia illegally, but we applied for residency (quite a complicated procedure in the States...and she was granted a Green Card along with her youngest son that was living with us.)
While most illegal immigrants that I knew were hard working, up at 4 or 5 each morning and on the corner waiting for employer trucks to come by and select a few workers for some cheap labour at the construction site; their hard work was NOT to the benefit of the US economy or labour force. Untaxed earnings not spent in the country don't do much for the economy. Neither does illegal, low wage labour do anything for the national workforce (unless, of course, you are one of the employers benefiting by paying peanuts to an illegal worker for a 14 hour shift.)
2. A country the size of Ireland requires control of its borders for obvious reasons...space and resources are finite. We can speculate all we want that if the border is open altogether that it won't be taken advantage of, but national policy can't be based on such hope or speculation. Humanity, I'm afraid, is far from being able to operate on the honour system.
Furthermore, fair, unbiased and consistent immigration and naturalisation policy is not racist by any stretch of the imagination. There are procedures in place in which people can apply for residency or refuge legally (like in the US or other countries), and while this system may be in need of serious improvement on practical levels, a system is required nonetheless.
Peace out...
......is the current situation that exists in a country that makes it illegal to work unless you are one of the lucky ones selected by the fair, unbiased system. The US itself disproves your thesis.
Making work illegal creates illegal labourers who work for a pittance.
Unfortunately this _is_ good for the economy and it is good for businesses owners, but it's not good for the rest of us.
The best way to regularise immigration (which I agree needs to be done) is certainly not to persue an open door strategy, which would be chaotic and disasterous for the economy and probably make the welfare and education systems unsupportable. It's no coincidence that absolutely NO developed country follows this policy. Also its time for people here to recognise that the referendum has passed and will not be unpassed, whether you like it or not. Its called democracy, a 20% minority cannot overrule 80% of the electorate no matter how right they think they are.
If you look at Seedot's article, it says that an open door policy on UNSKILLED immigration can benefit the economy, not an open door for ILLEGAL immigration. They are not the same thing.
The negative consequences that you describe are a result of illegal immigration. Seedot never made a call for more illegal immigrants. Quite the opposite, I think.
A more relaxed immigration policy would actually help to alleviate the problems you use to justify your argument. Dramatically increasing the numbers of legally-employed unskilled immigrants by issuing them with visas affords them the protection of labour laws, the minimum wage etc.
Of course there has to be limits, practically speaking. As you rightly point out, the resources of the country are finite. This is where the argument, for the sake of it's own effectiveness, needs to be separated from the libertarian ideology (no borders, no countries etc.) that drives most pro-immigration groups.
But nevertheless, it is quite correct that mass, but controlled, immigration, can benefit the economy, and is probably RAR's trump argument, as long as it is kept separate from the ideology.
Like it or not, the governemnt will only ever make changes to immigration laws based upon the mood/wishes of the majority of the electorate. The Irish people don't have the stomach at the moment for a complete open door policy. Convincing them that increased immigration can benefit the economy may be the best move.
QUOTE: The best way to regularise immigration (which I agree needs to be done) is certainly not to persue an open door strategy, which would be chaotic and disasterous for the economy and probably make the welfare and education systems unsupportable.
Support this statement please. What studies do you base this opinion on? If you read the last link in the article you'll see that people that have done some research on this challenge that conclusion based on the evidence they found.
QUOTE: It's no coincidence that absolutely NO developed country follows this policy.
Yes, all developed countries are run by capitalists that recognise the profit-increasing potential of exploitable illegal labour as a way to undermine legal unionised labour that wants higher wages.
QUOTE: Also its time for people here to recognise that the referendum has passed and will not be unpassed, whether you like it or not. Its called democracy, a 20% minority cannot overrule 80% of the electorate no matter how right they think they are.
Ah, obviously a foreigner. In Ireland we run referenda until we get the right answer.
Which means that he's probably thought about it. But, if he managed to think about it then how, oh how, did he manage to miss the gaping hole in the logic?
"If you look at Seedot's article, it says that an open door policy on UNSKILLED immigration can benefit the economy, not an open door for ILLEGAL immigration. They are not the same thing."
If there is an open door policy on unskilled immigration, there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. You see nobody is illegal. People are made 'illegal' because there is not an open-border policy.
Yes, Tom misconstrued the article. But so did you. If pro-immigration groups want to have any positive effect, they need to ditch the ideology on this one, and focus on the practical benefits. This 'nobody is illegal' slogan might very well make sense to you and people who think like you. But to the majority of the country it ignores the patent reality that immigration numnbers are controlled by law, and thus this ideology-driven approach helps no-one, including immigrants.
Why are libertarians so averse to a discussion on tactics. Tactics are not the holy grail, results are. Focus on the trump card - that immigrants can help the economy!
"their hard work was NOT to the benefit of the US economy or labour force."
but both irish and american politicians and people alike recognise that our economy coudn't run without these immigrant workers evening if the earings are untaxed the hospitals and hotels and buildings sites of Ireland would grind to a halt without workers from abroad...
"...there is simply no economic reason to import foreign workers...
If the supply of foreign workers were to dry up (say, through actually enforcing the immigration law, for starters), employers would respond to this new, tighter, labor market in two ways. One, they would offer higher wages, increased benefits, and improved working conditions, so as to recruit and retain people from the remaining pool of workers. At the same time, the same employers would look for ways to eliminate some of the jobs they now are having trouble filling. The result would be a new equilibrium, with blue-collar workers making somewhat better money, but each one of those workers being more productive.
Many people fear the first part of such a response, claiming that prices for fruits and vegetables would skyrocket, fueling inflation. But since all unskilled labor — from Americans and foreigners, in all industries — accounts for such a small part of our economy, perhaps four percent of GDP, we can tighten the labor market without any fear of sparking meaningful inflation. Agricultural economist Philip Martin has pointed out that labor accounts for only about ten percent of the retail price of a head of lettuce, for instance, so even doubling the wages of pickers would have little noticeable effect on consumers.
But it's the second part of the response to a tighter labor market that people just don't get. By holding down natural wage growth in labor-intensive industries, immigration serves as a subsidy for low-wage, low-productivity ways of doing business, retarding technological progress and productivity growth.
That this is so should not be a surprise. Julian Simon, in his 1981 classic, The Ultimate Resource, wrote about how scarcity leads to innovation:
It is important to recognize that discoveries of improved methods and of substitute products are not just luck. They happen in response to "scarcity" — an increase in cost. Even after a discovery is made, there is a good chance that it will not be put into operation until there is need for it due to rising cost. This point is important: Scarcity and technological advance are not two unrelated competitors in a race; rather, each influences the other.
As it is for copper or oil, this fact is true also for labor; as wages have risen over time, innovators have devised ways of substituting capital for labor, increasing productivity to the benefit of all. The converse, of course, is also true; the artificial superabundance of a resource will tend to remove much of the incentive for innovation..."
To read the entire article, go to http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/markoped010704.html
QUOTE: If the supply of foreign workers were to dry up (say, through actually enforcing the immigration law, for starters),
Enforcement of the immigration laws happens all the time on the US-Mexico border states. The braceros get deported and they come right back over the wall or across the river or desert: again, and again and again.
Ranchers line up to shoot them illegally in some places, they face death, rape and exploitation, la migra is the least of their worries and yet still they come.
Try enforcing "the immigration law" and see how far you get. Containers of dead bodies, illegal, exploited labourers drowned at sea, involuntary prostitution and lower wages for all the rest of us is what will result.
Julian Simon is a "controversial" figure, to say the least. The musings of this professor of Business Administration in the areas of ecology and economics are not accepted by a huge number of economists and ecologists. That doesn't mean that he's wrong, just that you'd be foolish to base any argument solely upon his ideas.
The Impact of Immigrants on Native Earnings
"Striking evidence for this aggregate effect of immigration is given by the deteriorating economic conditions for native workers with less than a high school education. During the eighties the wage of native high school dropouts fell by 10 percent relative to the wage of workers with more schooling. About a third of this decline is attributable to the increase of unskilled immigrants in the work force, who went from 13 percent of the high school-dropout work force in 1980 to 26 percent by 1988. Thus, a good case can be made that immigration reduced unskilled wages in the United States by about 3 percent (one-third of 10 percent)."
Economic Impact of Immigration
"Although the entry of immigrants reduces the wage of comparable native workers, it produces a slight increase in the income of U.S. natives overall. Using a well-known formula in economics, we can estimate that immigration increases the real income of natives, but only by about 0.1 percent. (This calculation is based on what is called the Harberger triangle.) That 0.1 percent increase translates to about a $5 billion a year gain from immigration for U.S. natives. [Editor's note: the data in this section are from 1991.] Of course, not everyone benefits equally from immigration; workers with competing skills lose, while OWNERS OF LAND AND CAPITAL GAIN."
Go to http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Immigration.html for full paper.
"From the U.S. perspective, importing large numbers of Mexican workers, even temporarily, is a long-term drag on our economy. Some sectors of our economy want the kind of low-cost, unskilled labor that Mexico can provide, but satisfying those desires will come at a heavy cost. We need less unskilled labor, not more. Imported unskilled labor has allowed nonviable industries like the garment industry to hang on for a few more years, impeded investment in mechanization in vital industries such as agriculture and shifted costs in many sectors of the service industry. Today's economic reality is that low-wage jobs in the United States must be heavily subsidized by taxpayers--in payments for education, health care and other human services.
In addition to creating an economic drag, a policy of importing unskilled labor is a social time bomb. Economists and social scientist are rightly concerned about the impact of the widening wealth and income gap in the U.S. It is a problem not made easier by policies that drive down the price of labor for those unskilled and low-skilled jobs that remain."
For full article, go to: http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=1857&c=54
I'm just trying to demonstrate here that those in this discussion who believe to be advocating the only truth, are supporting only one side of a complex argument. The benefits are not so clear as you might suggest. I am the first to say that information can be found to support any argument. Liars can figure and figures can lie...
who are you using american "non-partison think tanks" as proof of your points do you think we'll swallow that?
http://www.americas.org/item_16274
http://www.politicalamazon.com/scaifefoundations.html
http://www.house.gov/cannon/press2004/Anti_immigration_connections.doc
get lost
The Border Patrol apprehension rates given in his own article are 3 times greater than the legal immigration rate. That's just the people they catch!
Further the contaminating effects of the changes in the structure of the US economy (with outsourcing and re-location) are ignored and the actual data based on cities like Los Angeles where "native" workers are found _not_ to have lower wages in the same skill-brackets as "immigrant" workers is dismissed because of capital and labour mobility.
Basically, it's not a clear or convincing study.
and what makes your reality the only reality? You have an opinion...and that opinion, like every other one, can be communicated as easily as it can be contradicted.
Hell, you might even change your mind in a year or two...
What varies is the quality of our models of reality. There is conflicting evidence and data that allows us to adjust our models. I'm calling into question the accuracy of the data that you're presenting. I'm sorry that you don't like that and find it too much of a strain to defend it, but the purpose of the "Comments" section here is to clarify information, not to have a barney or insult each other. I'll be delighted to alter my personal model of reality if you can show me some convincing evidence. As yet you haven't. So, can you present any data that doesn't come from dodgy right-wing US sources that believe that there are floods of furriners stealing jobs?
Also, would you care to comment on whether or not you support a strengthening of the unions in Ireland (closed shops, secondary picketing/blacklisting, a doubling of the minimum wage etc)?
yourselves using American examples of economic benefits regarding the same issue?
I don't see why you wouldn't consider American perspectives or research on such an issue, considering the first hand and historical experiences that the US has had with Immigration and Asylum...
To suggest that a right wing argument is somehow less authentic than a left wing argument is biased. Obviously, a person on the left will support a left wing argument as more believable as those on the right will for the right wing argument. Truth is perception, based on experience.
By the way, I don't recall insulting anyone....if I did, then I'm sorry. And, seriously, I'm not taking any of this very personally...
peace and love
you obviousy had no idea who you were quoting, read that last link I gave you fully...a press release from the American House of representatives itself...
the cis are more then just any old right wing group....
“CIS is part of an anti-immigration syndicate founded by John Tanton, a retired ophthalmologist from Michigan who also founded NumbersUSA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, and also funds American Patrol - the group that sends vigilantes to the southern border to capture illegal immigrants who sneak in.” (The Denver Post, Facts expose ‘illegal on welfare’ myth, January 16, 2004)
which apart from that has strong connections to these guys
“We should give incentives to low-income people who agree to sterilization. We should make available free abortion to low-income people on demand. And companies should cut back or deny maternity leave to women who have more than two children.” (The Record, Teaneck Group Would Limit Babies, Immigrants, August 15, 1996, pg A01)
now i don't want to go off the point of the artilce above but if you can find nearly as dangerous ideas behind the Us research offered by those above i'd love to see it... and dont' say peace and love if you don't mean it and if your quoting the cis i don't want your "non partisan" peace and love
"I'll be delighted to alter my personal model of reality if you can show me some convincing evidence."
About the Author
George J. Borjas is the Pforzheimer Professor of Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. He is also a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He was a member of the National Academy of Sciences Panel on Immigration Statistics.
You'll find a lot of statistical information, historical data, and bibliographical background in his article at:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Immigration.html
I have a feeling though, that no "evidence" will be "convincing" for you unless it supports your opinion.....
And that's ok....that's why debates have survived for so many years...and will for years to come.
Maybe you're right...maybe it would be better if we opened the doors a bit and kept wages down and inhibited technological advancements...maybe having more unskilled labor than we already do in the country would be a good thing. Then again...maybe it wouldn't. There are obviously two sides to this argument or the issue wouldn't be tabled now, would it?
as opposed to?
Can you respond to why my objections to that study are wrong? I'm supplying the URI for the comment in which I point out two disastrous failings of the study if it is to be used to support your point.
QUOTE: "I have a feeling though, that no "evidence" will be "convincing" for you unless it supports your opinion....."
Well, that's a pretty insulting thing to say to someone that's taken the trouble to point out specific problems with the evidence and argument that you've made. You are evading my specific points and responding with an attack on my character. Play the ball not the player. My character isn't under question here, the assertion that criminalising immigrants is good for the workers of Ireland is what's under question.
QUOTE: "Maybe you're right...maybe it would be better if we opened the doors a bit and kept wages down and inhibited technological advancements.."
This is putting words in my mouth and just in case it doesn't stem from insincerity and a desire to avoid my points I'll make them clearly for you again: make work legal for all, raise the minimum wage, don't criminalise work for immigrants regardless of their status, support the right of workers to organise effectively. I never mentioned "technological advancements", but as it happens I'm in favour of those which use energy more efficiently for ordinary people and against those which destroy the environment in order to enrich capitalists. But that is _completely_ beside the point.
QUOTE: ".maybe having more unskilled labor than we already do in the country would be a good thing."
It's not all going to be unskilled labour either. The evidence presented above in seedot's article and in one of the sources you linked to yourself suggests that it's a benefit to the economy. Economies are not finite and aren't based upon zero-sum games.
Please try and stick to the substantive issues.
Big hugs and sloppy kisses.
i dunno i think it has relevance up to point that tom is ignoring my points about the sorta peope behind this think tank (and ireland has its on under the guise of the FREEDOM institute) which hide behind flimsy econmic statements to justify there selective hatred.
...I'll clear this path for new ideas and thoughts on the matter and concede graciously to R.Isabel and Paulc....listen to them, they really know what they're talking about.
...and you know, the more I think about it....I don't even know why I was arguing about it...I mean, I'm American, and by their suggestions a lot of my old buddies who have been thinking of ways to come over and settle down here would be able to (seriously), legally-like....and I suppose that a little American capatalist ingenuity will serve Ireland well....I always wished that there would be a Dunkin' Doughnuts over here, and an Appleby's and a healthy chain of STARBUCKS, and a Wendy's and a Chucky Cheese's for the kids....
and they're right...it will benefit the economy...there's no doubt about that, they have evidence that will guarantee it....and that's what we all want really, right....a better economy....a stronger economy...a more competetive economy...I've been unemployed for almost 3 months now...the longest time without work in my life! That's the only reason I have so much time to spend in here, discussing issues rather than working for the man. I never had that problem in the US. We could become a multicultural, economically rich country here....we could become America!
and they're right....it would be immoral really to think any other way. Multi-culturally and mulitdenominationally immoral...not just in the eyes of Jesus....but all of them....even the Tibetan guy with no hair....the Dali buddha... how could we make it more difficult for anyone to live in Ireland? I mean, how could you look in that child's eyes in the lead story and have the heart to say "ya know kid, we've been doin' some thinkin'...ahhh, you're not really an Irish citizen after all and you'll have to go back to your family and friends with your mammy and daddy to their country, where they grew up. To make his life truly valuable, in fact, his entire extended family should be invited back to stay...it would be wrong to rip a family apart and God knows the parents will need help raising him as they'll be very active in our new bustling economy."
VOTE NO when the vote comes up again!
1. the research I mentioned is not US based - they are from the European Commission and the Economic and Social Research Institute of Ireland and both deal with the Irish situation. They are not left wing (except in the US sense where CNN, Jacques Chirac and anybody else who disagrees with the one true way is left wing). They are not privately funded think tanks - both are government funded.
2. The mention of an 'Open Door' policy is not an ideological point I make - it is a quote from the ESRI paper where it is presented as one of the two possible, rational immigration policies.
3. Inward migration to Ireland is somewhat unusual given the high proportion of returning Irish and other high skilled workers (especially the large numbers of US immigrants). This has actually had the effect of working against income inequalities at a time in Ireland when the general trend has been the opposite.
4. An interesting conclusion from the EU report that I left out is that migration controls do not stop or lower migration - they reduce assimilation and may delay migration but otherwise do not have the intended affects.
5. Nowhere does the article call for the citizenship referendum to be overturned. It accepts that this has been passed but looks at what the next steps should be.
6. The argument that by reducing the labour supply we benefit can be used to promote Taliban policies to women and the labour market (tried them already in Ireland), Chinese style procreation policies (in a country which has only had freely available contraception for 20 years?) and depopulation as a source of wealth (we tried that as well in the 19th C). It is breathtaking in its economic illiteracy and stupidity not to mention the complete impossibility of application and makes me questions Toms objectives.
7. The article mentioned the economics of migration to counter the expected arguments of the "small country that can't afford more workers" type. The point however was to cover the campaigns to regularise the position of current residents in Ireland which is based as much on social and moral arguments. It is interesting that nobody has put forward an argument relating to the 11,000 people who the Residents against Racism campaign say should be allowed to remain in Ireland.
We need a report that isn't E.U. Bilderberg inspired to have a fair debate.
Tom you realise the detrimental effects illegal immigration is having in the usa and only implicate mexicans in your post. Now replace Usa with Ireland and mexican for nigerian. Can you see the link? I am glad though you are finally researching facts so why not go and check the racial crime statistics with Police factual statistics.
...for giving me some credit. I really do appreciate it, because sometimes I do take the time to share something that is actually backed up by supporting evidence...and that bores me...it takes time to look things up...and to be honest, in these threads, I'd much rather just voice my opinion about something. I'm lazy that way.
I'm not overly fond about citing other people's information anyway...I'd much rather express my own opinion about something than recite studies or statistics...because, in the end, every side will have some study or statistic that will support their argument. You constantly hear politicians using them contradictingly in debates, and I'm more comfortable expousing my own opinion than someone else's research findings.
The first thing you learn in Research Methodology is that studies don't PROVE anything...they only show correlation. Statistics, on the other hand, can be manipulated to support any argument. i.e. 1/3 of people who died in car accidents didn't wear their seatbelts...or...2/3 of people who died in car accidents WORE their seatbelts.
I'm not saying that I don't understand the importance in using research to develop a sound and convincing argument...just that I don't plan on doing it much here...I just enjoy following these discussions and occassionally putting my two cents in.
thanks again....
peace out...
Tom, you're missing the point of Indymedia. It's a site for the publication of news content. While we have an opinion/analysis category for articles posted and many comments often consist of nothing more than opinion, the primary function of this site is to provide news and information for readers and to encourage them to use the site as a medium to publish their own news. The comments facility exists to give contributors the opportunity to provide some extra context, to clarify an issue, to add new information or to make a relevant point which hasn't already been made in the published article.
We appreciate contributors doing their research and writing good quality original articles and we try to feature the best of these on the middle column of the front page. (The editorial collective always welcome readers making submissions on why a certain newswire article should be featured.)
Everyone has an opinion on something and if you're feeling lazy and would rather just offer your opinion without providing any information to support the opinion, perhaps a newsgroup, email discussion list, or bulletin board might be a more suitable avenue for your postings. But if you're interested in reporting on newsworthy events in your locality or researching an issue and summarising the results of your research in a well-written original article, then Indymedia is the right place.
It seems to me from observing and participating in indymedia that the structure combines news, opinion and analysis (as it should), with the initial articles normally containing some (and not always) source material and references.
This initial article is then followed by several things....counter-arguments also citing some sources, opinions on the story, and mostly partisan arguments on the issue.
Whether somebody takes the time to insert some links to support their piece or not, I think, is arbitrary....come on now...while some do, MOST contributors here aren't journalists, they don't really investigate a story with interviews of key figures, phone calls to verify information, etc. They find a relevant link and post it to support their claim.
Furthermore, mainstream media has room for opinion and analysis in their publications controlled by corporations....certainly an independent media that WE control can...ISN'T THAT THE POINT.
Just to make you happy though:
What Role Should News Media Serve in a Democracy? ...
... of independent bookstores that play a crucial role in maintaining ... such ideologically diverse NEWS AND OPINION stories from both mass media and independent ...
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/media/
Discussion of editorial matters takes place on the editorial list. All site users interested in contributing to editorial matters are welcome to subscribe to this list by clicking on the "Get Involved" link on the menu bar near the top of each page. This brings you to http://www.indymedia.ie/mailinglists.php where you can see a list of all the mailing lists which are used to co-ordinate the activity which goes into running this website.
The details for subscribing to the editorial list are at http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-ireland-editorial
All discussion on this list is archived in the interests of openness and transparency and to provide a historical record for those who are interested in the evolution of our editorial policy.
A record of all editorial actions, who carried them out and the reasons for carrying them out is also available at the Newswire list archives. This can also be viewed after subscribing to the list at http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-ireland-newswire
“1. the research I mentioned is not US based - they are from the European Commission and the Economic and Social Research Institute of Ireland and both deal with the Irish situation. They are not left wing (except in the US sense where CNN, Jacques Chirac and anybody else who disagrees with the one true way is left wing). They are not privately funded think tanks - both are government funded.
2. The mention of an 'Open Door' policy is not an ideological point I make - it is a quote from the ESRI paper where it is presented as one of the two possible, rational immigration policies.
3. Inward migration to Ireland is somewhat unusual given the high proportion of returning Irish and other high skilled workers (especially the large numbers of US immigrants). This has actually had the effect of working against income inequalities at a time in Ireland when the general trend has been the opposite.
4. An interesting conclusion from the EU report that I left out is that migration controls do not stop or lower migration - they reduce assimilation and may delay migration but otherwise do not have the intended affects.
5. Nowhere does the article call for the citizenship referendum to be overturned. It accepts that this has been passed but looks at what the next steps should be.
6. The argument that by reducing the labour supply we benefit can be used to promote Taliban policies to women and the labour market (tried them already in Ireland), Chinese style procreation policies (in a country which has only had freely available contraception for 20 years?) and depopulation as a source of wealth (we tried that as well in the 19th C). It is breathtaking in its economic illiteracy and stupidity not to mention the complete impossibility of application and makes me questions Toms objectives.
7. The article mentioned the economics of migration to counter the expected arguments of the "small country that can't afford more workers" type. The point however was to cover the campaigns to regularise the position of current residents in Ireland which is based as much on social and moral arguments. It is interesting that nobody has put forward an argument relating to the 11,000 people who the Residents against Racism campaign say should be allowed to remain in Ireland”
Well made argument! However it could have been made by fellows of the AEI.
Who else sees that the current left is just pre-“reality mugged” soon to be Irish Neocon movement in several decades time?
Roll on Californation!!!
RAR are going to send a letter to all TD's looking for them to support the campaign to seek residency and work rights for the non-national parents of Irish children.
How about also including a petition to ratify the UN's
International Convention on the Protection of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (ICPMWF)
http://www.unesco.org/migration/convention
- The existing policies of the Irish govt. to safeguard the rights of migrant workers and their families are "deficient and lacking in scope."
The Human Rights Commission has said there is a resistance at govt. level to protect the rights of immigrant workers.
The ICPMWF has not been ratified here.
This international human rights legislation came into force in July 2003 to protect a range of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights
but it has been ignored by the Irish govt.
********************************
Re. the economic arguments
I've been "reality mugged" by a different interpretation.
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=64586
The exploitation of foreign workers is a consequence on one hand employers’ demand for, in most cases, unskilled labour while on the other the need of the host country (and people) to protect them and their own work /work conditions. To alter this situation one of those would have to be changed. In a Capitalist society the more likely outcome is not going to be a reduction in the employers supply of foreign labour now is it?
interestingly subversive site.