The LE Eithne in the Mediterranean last month
Ireland has taken fewer refugees than any other country in the EU. Many people are understandably concerned about the impact of a refugee influx on Irish workers.
But past experience shows that immigration, even by refugees, can be an economic win/win that benefits native workers as well. A study of Denmark’s experience with refugees fleeing the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s has shown that, far from “stealing” native jobs, low-skilled refugees created jobs and pushed up native workers’ wages by allowing for greater specialisation in the economy. Similar studies, such as of Cuban refugees to the United States, have found no harm to native workers.
Working with the rest of Europe to take a greater number of refugees need not be costly to ourselves. Unlikely as it may seem, they may prove to be an economic blessing in disguise.
Sam Bowman
Deputy Director,
Adam Smith Institute,
London.
(David Jones/RollingNews)
More fugees means more need for goods and services, more economic activity. And more international trade.
I’m getting mixed messages on this-
according to economic theory we shouldn’t have borders.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/24/open-borders-fair-wages-left-mass-immigration-britain-economy
Depends who you are.
For the global economy over a long period, it is better to have open borders.
If you are working class in a developed country, it is far worse to have open borders.
I’ve seen that here, low-wage workers on farms and in factories replaced with part-timers on rolling contracts.
A law against it would protect everyone, the playing field would be level for employers and most of the earnings go straight back into the local economy.
‘refugees means more need for goods and services, more economic activity. And more international trade.’
So how come Japan missed that trick and yet still managed to become the third largest economy in the world (second largest until quite recently)?
Didnt Japan been in a long recession in the 90s? The so called “Lost Decade”? Also pretty sure they’ve been in recession since late 2011 and only recently got out of it.
Dunno if I’d be using Japan as a good model
Ah my grammar
Should read “Wasnt Japan in a long recession in the 90s”
Japan could be a model for a sustainable declining and ageing population which is where we should be heading for the environment. It’s not either or but we don’t want to be Madagascar where 50% of the population are under 14.
Yes but we’re socialists so F-off comrade man!
That’s not what The Telegraph reckons….
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100094895/how-did-opening-borders-to-mass-immigration-become-a-left-wing-idea/
No thanks… We have No homes and No jobs for all our own people.
D1ckhead
Marxist
Groucho!
‘human’ in this case is meant in an ironic way?
Zeppo
We have 1000s of homeless people, many drug addicted unfortunates wandering the streets of the capital in a somnambulant fugue. Billions of debt. Hospitals that are broken. Schools that are paid for by the tax payer and run by the Church. Corrupt politicians.
BUT we should still play our part. As should other countries. This disaster could be ‘solved’ if all the major powers acted in concert to attack the source of the problem and assist the refugees.
The Dutch Socialist Party are against mass immigration because it harms the Dutch working class.
The left wing elsewhere in Europe no longer identify with their own working classes but they identify with the working classes of the third world. That is the big change.
No because its the perception that it hurts the working class. Politics is rarely based off real data or fact but off opinions.
Also massive tar brush there over all left wing parties in Europe, little and large as no longer identifying with “the working class”. You must have a vast knowledge of all those countries complex politics
That or you’re spoofing…
Check this out:
http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2015/08/10/why-immigration-is-a-class-issue
You are wrong, Lan. It is widely accepted that it hurts the working class in developed countries.
What is up for debate is whether this is a long-term or short-term effect? And also if it is a temporary disturbance it reasonably be mitigated by welfare etc.
Ha Joon Chang, an economist in Cambridge, has written (imo) quite convincingly on the topic. Google him.
Follow me, silently.
I hate being a person that just dismisses analysis on a topic because of who does it, but I’m gonna have to on this occasion. I’m not gonna offer an ad hominem here but I simply cannot take anything McWilliams says or publishes seriously. Any of his analysis I’ve read before have been shallow and ignore other factors e.g. claims that overpopulation caused the Great Famine and using it as a supporting example of Malthusianism
Claaster.
I will look that economist up later, I do find this whole thing interesting (if very confusing at times-hard to understand demographics when its more gray than hard science)
However I will say this I did state that a political party’s position was based on perception independent of any factual evidence. If in this case evidence backs up that perception is kinda irrelevant (stopped clock and all that).
I will stand corrected though that the strength of evidence. I wonder whether that effect could be negated by other policies (increasing living wages, strengthing workers rights etc) rather than a “working class” party HAVING to be blanket anti-emmigration
You are conflating debt collection and mental health issues.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29686248
our own people ? are you a different species ?
600 refugees, maybe more.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ireland-needs-to-take-more-than-600-refugees-says-kelly-1.2339545
Dara Murphy, god bless his cotton socks, advocates a ‘holistic approach’.
http://m.independent.ie/world-news/europe/ireland-opposes-new-eu-plan-to-impose-quota-of-international-refugees-31211362.html
Homelessness is a different issue.
http://www.homelessdublin.ie/homeless-figures
I’m not. I was making the point that even though there are many things wrong with our State, the fact that we ‘No homes and No jobs for all our own people’ shouldn’t be a reason to refuse further asylum seekers.
[Insert link to other website to support point à la dereviled]
Hi Liam.
I replied to ‘human’.
I like information.
I think on a humanitarian level we should welcome people, especially to rural areas where people are needed to make the services viable.
But transfering results from Denmark to here would be dubious. “has shown that, far from “stealing” native jobs, low-skilled refugees created jobs and pushed up native workers’ wages by allowing for greater specialisation in the economy” No doubt the strong worker rights and high minimum wage and small black market would have been some of the main reasons for seeing this result in a Danish study. In Ireland I doubt the influx would be so economically benign.
David McWillims recently made the point that poorer people do have most to loose and that normally it is the well off who benefit from globalization in general and specifically migration.
One example i can think of recently where a large inward migration did not have a bad effect on the natives was all the Polish that came during the construction boom. Because construction was largely unionised Irish people were still paid well despite the influx of Poles. However since the downturn I think its fair to say that the Eastern europeans who have stayed (many did leave) are competing and putting downward pressure on some areas in construction (especially in home improvements)
In short the Economic arguement is weak and highly variable. Better to stick with the human argument. We can help and we should.
I agree.
With regard construction and unions, Germany has collective bargaining.
(It was galling to read that if our minimum wage was increased then everyone else would want an increase too, negating that meager gain by inflation.)
When that poor homeless man dies in a doorway last year where were all the feel good factor INTERNET ac=activists offering to take homes;less people into their homes?
So you still don’t understand the homeless?
Good for you.