Immigration-too strict?

estebancambias · 27-04-2008 2:14am #1

I brought this up somewhere else on this site(maby the dublin forum) but anyway just thought I would put it here.

Do you think we should be more lenient to immigration? Like Ireland is very underpopulated.....I believe it could easily sustain a further 5 million people and probably more(for example Belgium is smaller yet has 10 million people living here)

Although our immigration rate is high, many of the immigrants are not going to stay here, so would it not be better to allow access to people(africans mainly) who probably have the full intentions of remaining in Ireland)

johnnyskeleton · 27-04-2008 11:17am

It's a matter of degree. I think at the moment there are a lot of people who should be allowed to live here being refused/deported, so our immigration system should definately be made more transparent and fair.

I suppose in relation to your suggestion of letting 5 million people in, the problem there would be that Irish people would be a minority in their own country, and it would happen almost overnight, which might create problems.

Besides, I don't think Ireland is that attractive a place to come to now (what with less jobs and all).

estebancambias · 27-04-2008 11:47am

Oh yeah, obviously you couldn't just like suddenly transfer 5 million people over the space of like a short period. It would be interesting to see though.:D

You say Ireland is not attractive at this time, I agree in relation to highly skilled workers, but I think people would just be willing to settle here for refuge. One particular example that sort of shocked was that Kunle kid, I understand he did some stupid things but he was fully assimilated into Irish society, and they deport him.:eek: To me that makes no sense.

I think in the long run high immigration will benefit Ireland in like a tangible sort of way. I understand why people would object, but surely the more people in a country the more likely it is that industry will be stimulated.

Also if this country had more people the goverment would also be forced to really stick its finger out in relation to infrastructure.

johnnyskeleton · 27-04-2008 5:48pm

estebancambias wrote: »

I think in the long run high immigration will benefit Ireland in like a tangible sort of way. I understand why people would object, but surely the more people in a country the more likely it is that industry will be stimulated.

People coming in doesn't stimulate industry, industry comes for other reasons. For the last few years we have attracted large multinational companies due to tax breaks, highly skilled & educated work force and membership of the EU. This has created lots of jobs, and consequently people have been coming to Ireland to work. These industries did not come here because there were people here looking for work. So more people coming in will not stimulate industry, and given that we are on the cusp of recession, more people coming into the country may well mean more mouths to feed.

To be honest, I expect Ireland to see net emigration over the next few years as people who originally came here to work from eastern europe etc will return when out of a job and/or when more jobs become available in their home countries, and there will be less people coming into the country as the easy money is no longer available in the construction industry.

estebancambias wrote: »

Also if this country had more people the goverment would also be forced to really stick its finger out in relation to infrastructure.

If the country had more tax payers and voters it might, but again the majority of immigrants want to live in cities, and are less likely to move to small towns unless there is a specific reason to do so. As such, the people who want better infrastructure are people in the commuter belt, not people who have recently moved here.

Dades · 28-04-2008 12:44pm

estebancambias wrote: »

Also if this country had more people the goverment would also be forced to really stick its finger out in relation to infrastructure.

Of course someone would have to pay for that infrastructure, so the 'new' population would have to be making a real contribution.

tbh · 28-04-2008 2:00pm

I think it is. I think that people should be free to live wherever they want, for whatever reason they want. People talk about economic immigrants as if they are second-class citizens, but I say fair play to them, if they are willing to get off their asses and travel half-way round the world to make a better life for themselves, what right have I got to stop them?

The reason I believe this is because I believe that we're all in this together really, and the "send them back home" brigade are in effect sweeping the problem under the carpet. I remember a thread about the Afghan hunger strikers in Dublin, someone said "it's just their bad luck they were born in a bad country, it's not our problem". Fair enough, I can see why someone would feel like that, but my own belief is that it is all of our problem.

I also realise that a free movement policy would have huge effects on the world economy, but I think that in the end, the world would be a fairer place.
For example, if the US or UK, or us for that matter, knew that this time next year 60 million <whatevers> would be free to come live here, then they would probably take more effort into making sure that <whereever> was a better place to live.

anyway, that's just my belief, I know that the majority wouldn't agree. Still, I may be a dreamer, but I'm not the only one

uptherebels · 28-04-2008 4:33pm

I have no problem with peolpe coming to live and work in this country regardless of where they are originally from.I do believe that there should be mandatory health and security screening for all immigrants.

estebancambias wrote: »

One particular example that sort of shocked was that Kunle kid, I understand he did some stupid things but he was fully assimilated into Irish society, and they deport him.:eek: To me that makes no sense.

.

Isnt that Kunle kid still in the country?As far as im concerned if they do some"stupid things",break the law,or otherwise give cause for themselves to be deported then thats their problem.Its not this countries job to look after trouble makers from other countries.

LaVidaLoca · 29-04-2008 12:31pm

is that if the gates to our nice rich Western countries were fully opened, they wouldnt remain nice rich Western countries for very long.

There are so many billions of people living in poor countries who would like to live in the West that we'd be inundated. Suddenly we'd have a huge population we couldnt feed or house - rather like most 3rd World countries.

The reason that Australia for example is a rich country and it's neighbour Indonesia isnt, is cause Australia was able to develop at it's own pace, turning on a tap of immigrants when they were needed to fill the country, and turning it off again as required. Even today they will offer inducements to certain professions to emigrate there.

Wheras Indonesia is a country with a limited amount of land and resources and a population that has grown exponentially since independance, with no way of curbing the huge amount of babies that poor people need to have to work the land and look after them when they're old. Thus it's a poor country.

tbh · 29-04-2008 12:38pm

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

is that if the gates to our nice rich Western countries were fully opened, they wouldnt remain nice rich Western countries for very long.

I did say that, and I said that I thought the world would be fairer after everything had settled down. Why should I have a comfortable life just because I was born here rather than in Indonesia. BTW - I've been to Indonesia, and it's not as poor as you suggest. There are undoubtedly areas and people in extreme poverty, but I'd say that's the (Indonesian) governments fault rather than a lack of resources.

There are so many billions of people living in poor countries who would like to live in the West that we'd be inundated. Suddenly we'd have a huge population we couldnt feed or house - rather like most 3rd World countries.

We could feed them. We could also house them. Maybe not here, but certainly where they come from. We just don't want to. People who say "Make Poverty History" invariably mean that the poorest people in the world should become wealthier without the richest people in the world being affected. My argument is that if I have to have a worse standard of living so that the vast majority of the world can have a better standard of living, I'm ok with that.

The reason that Australia for example is a rich country and it's neighbour Indonesia isnt, is cause Australia was able to develop at it's own pace, turning on a tap of immigrants when they were needed to fill the country, and turning it off again as required. Even today they will offer inducements to certain professions to emigrate there.

So basically, Australia got rich off the backs of poor immigrant workers? Is that what you are saying?

Wheras Indonesia is a country with a limited amount of land and resources and a population that has grown exponentially since independance, with no way of curbing the huge amount of babies that poor people need to have to work the land and look after them when they're old. Thus it's a poor country.

Indonesia is pretty huge, with a lot of natural resources. It's no different to, say, France or Spain. In Western countries, children don't necessarily look after their parents, the State does, through pensions. It's all about the governments.

LaVidaLoca · 29-04-2008 1:57pm

I would like to live in this fairer world too. But until this fairer world arrives, having no bar on immigration would be a seriously bad idea.

Rather as if I asked you to leave your front door wide open every night cause wouldnt it be a nice world if nobody stole from anybody?

Why should I have a comfortable life just because I was born here rather than in Indonesia.

Well ideally we'd all have comfortable lives. You got any suggestions as to how that could be brought about?

We could feed them. We could also house them. Maybe not here, but certainly where they come from.

Sounds good. What Im arguing against is rich Western countries simply throwing open their gates to absorb the problems of the rest of the world. I think it would be better to make, Nigeria, say, a nice healthy democratic place to live, than to bring millions of Nigerian immigrants into Western Countries.

So basically, Australia got rich off the backs of poor immigrant workers? Is that what you are saying?

Well in a sense, yes. Australia (and the U.S.) are wealthy because they had more ability to design the contents of their population than old world countries did. They could, as they were developing, say "Ok, we need labour for the railroads, get me 10,000 Irish and 10,000 Chinese." Whereas Indonesia is stuck with 120,000,000 Indonesians to feed and house whether it can or not.

Indonesia is pretty huge, with a lot of natural resources. It's no different to, say, France or Spain. In Western countries, children don't necessarily look after their parents, the State does, through pensions. It's all about the governments.

It is a LOT different to France or Spain. France and Spain developed as countries while soaking up a huge amount of wealth from their colonies overseas, and went through an Industrial revolution 200 years ago. Indonesia is only going through it's industrial revolution now, except that it's got a population of 222 million people to feed - France and Spain would have had populations of about 15 million when they were first industrialising.

LaVidaLoca · 29-04-2008 1:59pm

222 million is the population of Indonesia.

tbh · 29-04-2008 2:00pm

Vida - we're both making the same point, except I'm saying that throwing open world borders will ultimately make the world a fairer place, and you're saying that we cannot open borders until the world is a fairer place. I see where you are coming from.

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

I would like to live in this fairer world too. But until this fairer world arrives, having no bar on immigration would be a seriously bad idea.

it won't just arrive, we have to make it happen. As I said originally, if the UK knew that in five years everyone in, say, Darfur would be able to move to London, I think they'd be more pro-active about sorting it out. At the moment, they can turn a blind eye.

Well ideally we'd all have comfortable lives. You got any suggestions as to how that could be brought about?

The rich give more, the poor get more. For example, and this is real blue-sky stuff, if we took defense budgets and instead spent the money on food. Why can't that happen?

Sounds good. What Im arguing against is rich Western countries simply throwing open their gates to absorb the problems of the rest of the world. I think it would be better to make, Nigeria, say, a nice healthy democratic place to live, than to bring millions of Nigerian immigrants into Western Countries.

exactly my point

Governments are not going to do that by themselves, they'll have to be forced into doing it.

It is a LOT different to France or Spain. France and Spain developed as countries while soaking up a huge amount of wealth from their colonies overseas, and went through an Industrial revolution 200 years ago. Indonesia is only going through it's industrial revolution now, except that it's got a population of 222 million people to feed - France and Spain would have had populations of about 15 million when they were first industrialising.

I meant more in terms of physicality. You could argue that indonesia suffered because at the time when western countries were developing, Indonesia was being "raped" by Holland, who are now ok, but Indonesia isn't. Kind of

LaVidaLoca · 29-04-2008 2:35pm

making similar arguements, along those lines. I.e "If capital now flows freely across borders, why shouldnt people?"

While I have a certain sympathy with the idea of it, as I would see it a world with totally open borders would result in a world that would be more unequal and dilled with strife and ethnic hatred than the one we have now.

For one thing, only the relatively rich and clever people would be able to afford to emigrate. So we would see the phenomenon (as we already have in some countries) where all the compentent doctors, lawyers and administrators bugger off, leaving the 3rd world country they've come from in even worse shape than before. The poor farmers aren't ever going to be able to afford the price of a plane ticket to London or Dublin.

We certainly could and should spend defense budgets on food. However, and to me this is the problem with so much left-wing thinking, that probably isn;t going to happen. Although it might be possible to get some of the money spent that way.

We have to be more pragmatic in what we lefties demand for the world, otherwise the more practical, hard-headed right will always get their way: Notice how while neo-liberalism was in the ascendant in the 80's and early 90's, lefties were more interested in whether or not iwe should should be using the term "Chairwoman" or "Chairperson."

I meant more in terms of physicality. You could argue that indonesia suffered because at the time when western countries were developing, Indonesia was being "raped" by Holland, who are now ok, but Indonesia isn't. Kind of

Most certainly. It is no accident that the rich countries tend to be European in origin. They got rich (us not included) by going around the world stealing other people's stuff, no arguement there. And the economic system we live in today has its roots in that. Where before they would have sent a gunboat, now they send an 'economic adviser'.

However, I dont think that emigration is a solution for this. The solution is far more complicated and involves a fairer system of trade between rich and poor countries and many other things.

Secondly, there's the cultural aspect of it, which is murkier water. However, sufffice it to say, that though it may not be that important to you (or me to be honest) that you are part of a nation with a certain history and culture and set of values, for many people this is very important - and if they see too many immigrants come in, that culture changes, and those people get pissed off: Remember that we live in an Island in which, until recently, people up North were content to blow each other to bits for being from a different branch of the same religion. How do you think those people would react if , say, 50% of the Irish population was Muslim, for example?

tbh · 29-04-2008 2:47pm

I just want to say that I think you're making some great points, I'm learning from you and I'm enjoying the discussion. Sorry, I'm just used to posting more on AH than here, so don't want to get caught up in a whole ding-dong

For one thing, only the relatively rich and clever people would be able to afford to emigrate. So we would see the phenomenon (as we already have in some countries) where all the compentent doctors, lawyers and administrators bugger off, leaving the 3rd world country they've come from in even worse shape than before. The poor farmers aren't ever going to be able to afford the price of a plane ticket to London or Dublin.

well, poor people are already travelling - but it's a good point - I think my idea has more potential as a spur to governments to spread the wealth around the world more fairly. I myself believe that people want to live around their families, friends etc, and if they can do that, they will.

We certainly could and should spend defense budgets on food. However, and to me this is the problem with so much left-wing thinking, that probably isn;t going to happen. Although it might be possible to get some of the money spent that way.

We have to be more pragmatic in what we lefties demand for the world, otherwise the more practical, hard-headed right will always get their way: Notice how while neo-liberalism was in the ascendant in the 80's and early 90's, lefties were more interested in whether or not iwe should should be using the term "Chairwoman" or "Chairperson."

a good point, and well made. It's probably not going to happen now, because there is no great swell of public opinion towards that point of view. However, politicians do what the public want them to do, otherwise they don't stay politicians.

Secondly, there's the cultural aspect of it, which is murkier water. However, sufffice it to say, that though it may not be that important to you (or me to be honest) that you are part of a nation with a certain history and culture and set of values, for many people this is very important - and if they see too many immigrants come in, that culture changes, and those people get pissed off: Remember that we live in an Island in which, until recently, people up North were content to blow each other to bits for being from a different branch of the same religion. How do you think those people would react if , say, 50% of the Irish population was Muslim, for example?

again, fair point. However, I think that people are afraid of the unknown. Lock 'em in a room together and let them sort it out

santry_goonshow · 29-04-2008 10:25pm

This thing about the Irish being a minority in their own country is a myth. Say immigration continued as it is until a 51% Immigrant and 49% Native situation pertained. By my estimation that would take another 80 years (i.e the % overseas people was 0.5% in 1986 and took 20 years to get to 10.1%! Assuming that the economy and the rate of immigration continued as is (which it wont) it would be 2088. Buck Rogers will be walking around New New York:D

Anyway say it eventually happens -- the Irish would still be the largest and most coherent block. How could 20 different types of Africans and Poles, Russians, Croats and Brazilians all conspire to impose their culture on the rest of us? Especially when they are as different from one another as we are from any one of the 100 groups of people who are present here.
It would never happen. Its just a paranoid delusion on the part of people who wish to classify our immigrants as "not us", therefore out to do us down. Sad really

Anyway what irish people should start copping on to is that the advent of radio in the 1930s, tv in the 1970s and the internet in the naughties have had more profound effects on "Irish Culture" than ever immigration could. The loss of the irish language in the 1800s was one of the biggest things that could happen, and our immigrants are more likely to save that than our natives (ironically).

santry_goonshow · 29-04-2008 10:25pm

This thing about the Irish being a minority in their own country is a myth. Say immigration continued as it is until a 51% Immigrant and 49% Native situation pertained. By my estimation that would take another 80 years (i.e the % overseas people was 0.5% in 1986 and took 20 years to get to 10.1%! Assuming that the economy and the rate of immigration continued as is (which it wont) it would be 2088. Buck Rogers will be walking around New New York:D

Anyway say it eventually happens -- the Irish would still be the largest and most coherent block. How could 20 different types of Africans and Poles, Russians, Croats and Brazilians all conspire to impose their culture on the rest of us? Especially when they are as different from one another as we are from any one of the 100 groups of people who are present here.
It would never happen. Its just a paranoid delusion on the part of people who wish to classify our immigrants as "not us", therefore out to do us down. Sad really

Anyway what irish people should start copping on to is that the advent of radio in the 1930s, tv in the 1970s and the internet in the naughties have had more profound effects on "Irish Culture" than ever immigration could. The loss of the irish language in the 1800s was one of the biggest things that could happen, and our immigrants are more likely to save that than our natives (ironically).

Holsten · 29-04-2008 10:28pm

I had to look twice at the title of this thread.

You think immigration in Ireland is too strict!??! WTF?!

Our immigration system is a total joke, there should be way more tigher controls for anyone entering the country, not make it easier for anyone to just walk in... jesus.

tbh · 30-04-2008 8:49am

Holsten wrote: »

I had to look twice at the title of this thread.

You think immigration in Ireland is too strict!??! WTF?!

Our immigration system is a total joke, there should be way more tigher controls for anyone entering the country, not make it easier for anyone to just walk in... jesus.

this is the humanities forum Holsten, you can't make a statement like that without explaining why

LaVidaLoca · 30-04-2008 11:43am

two schools of thought permissable on this issue:

(a) There's "send 'em all back where they came from, comin' over here takin' our jobs and our women" (Usually said by a guy who's been happily living on the dole for 20 years and has a wife with a face like a rottweiler chewing a wasp)

or

(b) Just let everyone in and we'll all naturally learn to get along, cause we're all human beings man.

Both positions seem to me to be equally boneheaded. Ethnic and religious hatred has been and still is the norm for the world as a whole: Open an atlas, point at a country at random and Ill show you somewhere that has had to struggle through countless wars/massacres/pogroms and tribal feuds.

This, of course, doesnt mean we shouldnt try to overcome it: But you dont dispense with centuries of human behaviour simply by saying 'let everybody in and it'll be OK."

You have to guide it: Organise it and above all , do it slowly. Make sure the incoming immigrants integrate into the host culture, and dont get ghettoised.

It's rather like having a successful party in your house: Sure you want people you dont know to come, otherwise what's the point in having a party? But if a bunch of people were to come, not bring any booze and sit in the corner talking amongst themselves, it's likely to bring the party down. Plus you dont simply leave the front door open and allow Anto and de Boyz in with their cans of Stonehouse.

So whaddya do? You allow some people in but not others, and when they get there you introduce them to everybody and try and get a little conversation going. These things dont simply happen by themselves.

santry_goonshow · 30-04-2008 10:27pm

You are right, and thanks for giving me a laugh there with your house party analogy! Anyway I want to take slight issue with a few tiny bits of your post. Don't get steamed up and let's keep all this rational.

1. Ok so ppl shouldn't have to abandon their culture. That's called assimilationism (not integration) and it has never ever worked in the history of immigration. Examples - insistence that irish ppl and culture were inferior dropped off in the UK in the 1970s and 80s. Latterly Irishness became cool, including English ppl all owning up to irish grannies. Suddenly the artifice of irish culture - the Irish club - dropped off in popularity. The more you force it on them the more immigrants will cling grimly to all the bits of their culture. The more you allow them some latitude the more they will be curious to combine the host and parental culture of their free will. So chill.

2. There are plenty of examples of pretty massive culturally diverse societies where there is relative harmony. India has 100 million muslims, 700 m Hindus, 100 m Christians and a host of smaller religions and language groups co-existing relatively peacefully and democratically. Brazil is famed for ethnic mixing between white Europeans, Africans and Amer-indians. Yes both societies have their problems but it is not caused by mixing, it is caused by poverty and/or overpopulation

3. How can we force Irish culture on anyone when there is no consensus on what that means. How is irishness distinctive from other cultures? Linguistically - no, religiously- no, foodwise- no. So the danger is that people who back assimilationsim want the immigrants to be stopped doing whatever they are doing but with nothing coherent to replace that...

johnnyskeleton · 30-04-2008 10:42pm

tbh wrote: »

We could feed them. We could also house them. Maybe not here, but certainly where they come from. We just don't want to. People who say "Make Poverty History" invariably mean that the poorest people in the world should become wealthier without the richest people in the world being affected. My argument is that if I have to have a worse standard of living so that the vast majority of the world can have a better standard of living, I'm ok with that.

The problem with that is that capitalism requires people to want to be wealthy for it to work. If we all decided that we wanted to share the wealth equally, that's fine. That's communism though, with its own attendant problems.

tbh wrote: »

So basically, Australia got rich off the backs of poor immigrant workers? Is that what you are saying?

And convicts.

johnnyskeleton · 30-04-2008 10:43pm

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Well ideally we'd all have comfortable lives. You got any suggestions as to how that could be brought about?

Change the nature of human beings so that we don't want to fight any wars any more.

johnnyskeleton · 30-04-2008 10:49pm

santry_goonshow wrote: »

This thing about the Irish being a minority in their own country is a myth. Say immigration continued as it is until a 51% Immigrant and 49% Native situation pertained. By my estimation that would take another 80 years (i.e the % overseas people was 0.5% in 1986 and took 20 years to get to 10.1%! Assuming that the economy and the rate of immigration continued as is (which it wont) it would be 2088. Buck Rogers will be walking around New New York:D

A myth eh? No one is saying it has already happened, or that it will happen, but it is the logical conclusion from the OP's argument that "we could use another 5 million people in this country, why not get them from other countries" that this would result in Irish people being a minority in the country.

santry_goonshow wrote: »

Anyway say it eventually happens -- the Irish would still be the largest and most coherent block. How could 20 different types of Africans and Poles, Russians, Croats and Brazilians all conspire to impose their culture on the rest of us? Especially when they are as different from one another as we are from any one of the 100 groups of people who are present here.
It would never happen. Its just a paranoid delusion on the part of people who wish to classify our immigrants as "not us", therefore out to do us down. Sad really

I'm guessing that you have made some massive assumptions about conspiracy theories, racisim and extreme demographics, because it's either that or I have completely misread the rest of this thread.

santry_goonshow wrote: »

Anyway what irish people should start copping on to is that the advent of radio in the 1930s, tv in the 1970s and the internet in the naughties have had more profound effects on "Irish Culture" than ever immigration could. The loss of the irish language in the 1800s was one of the biggest things that could happen, and our immigrants are more likely to save that than our natives (ironically).

What the? How the? Who the?

santry_goonshow · 30-04-2008 11:24pm

Yeah, you misread the thread. I wasn't responding to the first thread exclusively, rather to the whole lot collectively.

There's no extreme demographics involved anywhere. I thought I clearly stated the assumption was "continued" rate of in-migration. Source CSO 1986 and 2006 Censuses.

120 different ethnic groups in ireland somehow able to impose their magically formed UN "foreigner" culture on ireland in so doing overcoming the differences between Christians, Language groups, political ideologies and skin colours among themselves.... think about it logically.

johnnyskeleton · 01-05-2008 12:01am

santry_goonshow wrote: »

Yeah, you misread the thread. I wasn't responding to the first thread exclusively, rather to the whole lot collectively.

Who was it who said that immigrants would "all conspire to impose their culture on the rest of us", who is it that "wish[es] to classify our immigrants as "not us"", who is "Sad really"?

santry_goonshow wrote: »

There's no extreme demographics involved anywhere. I thought I clearly stated the assumption was "continued" rate of in-migration. Source CSO 1986 and 2006 Censuses.

Why is that relevant to anything anyone else has said? Particularly in the context of the OP suggesting that Ireland could do with an injection of 5 million or so people, and the debate between tbh and LaVidaLoca as to the practicalities and idealism of completely open borders.

santry_goonshow wrote: »

120 different ethnic groups in ireland somehow able to impose their magically formed UN "foreigner" culture on ireland in so doing overcoming the differences between Christians, Language groups, political ideologies and skin colours among themselves.... think about it logically.

Logic, I'm afraid, has long gone out the window. You seem to be posting as if someone said "There are too many foreginers in Ireland at the moment, if this trend continues our culture will die out". So unless you can point to someone saying this, I'm completely lost as to what you are saying. The only thing that I can find that is even close to this is:

LaVidaLoca wrote:

Secondly, there's the cultural aspect of it, which is murkier water. However, sufffice it to say, that though it may not be that important to you (or me to be honest) that you are part of a nation with a certain history and culture and set of values, for many people this is very important - and if they see too many immigrants come in, that culture changes, and those people get pissed off: Remember that we live in an Island in which, until recently, people up North were content to blow each other to bits for being from a different branch of the same religion. How do you think those people would react if , say, 50% of the Irish population was Muslim, for example?

i.e. that plurality seems to lead to ethnic/social/religious clashes. This would appear to be correct world wide, unfortunately. However, I don't think he suggested that there was any possibility of a cultural genocide, he seems to be commenting on the way in which different cultures have a tendency to clash. Take, for example, the big scandals about jehovihas witnesses.

Raekwon · 01-05-2008 1:36pm

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

It's rather like having a successful party in your house: Sure you want people you dont know to come, otherwise what's the point in having a party? But if a bunch of people were to come, not bring any booze and sit in the corner talking amongst themselves, it's likely to bring the party down. Plus you dont simply leave the front door open and allow Anto and de Boyz in with their cans of Stonehouse.

LOL

Rb · 06-05-2008 1:59am

Another 5 million? Are you insane or do you just like to make absolutely ridiculous statements like that without a minutes thought?

estebancambias · 06-05-2008 2:06am

rb_ie wrote: »

Another 5 million? Are you insane or do you just like to make absolutely ridiculous statements like that without a minutes thought?

I was using a figure to make a point of the levels of immigration we could have, since our country(outside of Leinster) is quite underpopulated. I ''backed up'' my claim by saying that Belgium which is smaller than Ireland has a population of 10 million.

Obviously no country could just take 5 million people but its not like it would cause the country to be overcrowded.

LaVidaLoca · 06-05-2008 12:10pm

1. Ok so ppl shouldn't have to abandon their culture. That's called assimilationism (not integration) and it has never ever worked in the history of immigration. Examples - insistence that irish ppl and culture were inferior dropped off in the UK in the 1970s and 80s. Latterly Irishness became cool, including English ppl all owning up to irish grannies. Suddenly the artifice of irish culture - the Irish club - dropped off in popularity. The more you force it on them the more immigrants will cling grimly to all the bits of their culture. The more you allow them some latitude the more they will be curious to combine the host and parental culture of their free will. So chill. .

Yes but it depends what culture you're talking about doesnt it?

For example, if a Phillipino family emigrates here, in a matter of years the kids are speaking English and playing on the local soccer team, and dating/befriending Irish girls/guys. Sure, they're still speaking Telagu at home and eating Phillipino food and watching Soap Operas from home on their Sky Box. But they're part of the wider community outside the home. This is a model that has worked very well in the best success story there is: America.

Whereas, we all know well that a Muslim (there I said it!) immigrant from one of the more hard-line areas of Pakistan is far less likely to do that. The kids will be sent to a seperate faith-school, not permitted to date, and the women are largely not seen outside their homes, There's no point in simply pretending that that isnt the case.

The question is what to do about it. It is not healthy to have a section of your society that has no interest in joining the majority community. This doesnt mean they have to 'abandon their culture', but it does mean sending their kids to schools with Irish kids, learning English, and taking part in the community in which they live - if this means having to give up some of the extreme conservatism which is part of the culture in their home country, well so be it.

It is not desirable in my opinion, to have an atomised society where we live together peacefully but dont interact together. In the case of Ireland, we have a choice about whether or not we want this.

2. There are plenty of examples of pretty massive culturally diverse societies where there is relative harmony. India has 100 million muslims, 700 m Hindus, 100 m Christians and a host of smaller religions and language groups co-existing relatively peacefully and democratically. Brazil is famed for ethnic mixing between white Europeans, Africans and Amer-indians. Yes both societies have their problems but it is not caused by mixing, it is caused by poverty and/or overpopulation

(India - 1 million killed in 1947, another war in 1971, and an ongoing war in Kashmir, communal riots every couple of years, Muslims and Hindus hacking each other to death with machetes on a regular basis)

Im not suggesting that people from different ethnic groups cant live together - Im merely suggesting that doing so is not easy or automatic! And all cultures are not as easily assimilated as others - an American coming to live in Ireland will require very little adjustment, but an Indonesian would require a lot.

3. How can we force Irish culture on anyone when there is no consensus on what that means. How is irishness distinctive from other cultures? Linguistically - no, religiously- no, foodwise- no. So the danger is that people who back assimilationsim want the immigrants to be stopped doing whatever they are doing but with nothing coherent to replace that...[/QUOTE]

Its not about forcing "Irishness" on them. But effort needs to be made to make sure they become part of the community around them, and dont simply exist in it. They dont have to give up their food, or their religion or anything else. But I would prefer it if they were friends with the people around them, dated the people around them, and generally had a deeper connection to the country they are in than just "Well the money's good."

In suggesting this, Im merely suggesting we act like the U.S: They do pretty much have a sign at the gate that says "Accept these core values (democracy, the Bill of Rights, speaking English, industriousness, etc) and you can do whatever you like after that."

That's all I'm suggesting.

LaVidaLoca · 06-05-2008 12:20pm

1. Ok so ppl shouldn't have to abandon their culture. That's called assimilationism (not integration) and it has never ever worked in the history of immigration. Examples - insistence that irish ppl and culture were inferior dropped off in the UK in the 1970s and 80s. Latterly Irishness became cool, including English ppl all owning up to irish grannies. Suddenly the artifice of irish culture - the Irish club - dropped off in popularity. The more you force it on them the more immigrants will cling grimly to all the bits of their culture. The more you allow them some latitude the more they will be curious to combine the host and parental culture of their free will. So chill. .

Yes but it depends what culture you're talking about doesnt it?

For example, if a Phillipino family emigrates here, in a matter of years the kids are speaking English and playing on the local soccer team, and dating/befriending Irish girls/guys. Sure, they're still speaking Telagu at home and eating Phillipino food and watching Soap Operas from home on their Sky Box. But they're part of the wider community outside the home. This is a model that has worked very well in the best success story there is: America.

Whereas, we all know well that a Muslim (there I said it!) immigrant from one of the more hard-line areas of Pakistan is far less likely to do that. The kids will be sent to a seperate faith-school, not permitted to date, and the women are largely not seen outside their homes, There's no point in simply pretending that that isnt the case.

The question is what to do about it. It is not healthy to have a section of your society that has no interest in joining the majority community. This doesnt mean they have to 'abandon their culture', but it does mean sending their kids to schools with Irish kids, learning English, and taking part in the community in which they live - if this means having to give up some of the extreme conservatism which is part of the culture in their home country, well so be it.

It is not desirable in my opinion, to have an atomised society where we live together peacefully but dont interact together. In the case of Ireland, we have a choice about whether or not we want this.

2. There are plenty of examples of pretty massive culturally diverse societies where there is relative harmony. India has 100 million muslims, 700 m Hindus, 100 m Christians and a host of smaller religions and language groups co-existing relatively peacefully and democratically. Brazil is famed for ethnic mixing between white Europeans, Africans and Amer-indians. Yes both societies have their problems but it is not caused by mixing, it is caused by poverty and/or overpopulation

(India - 1 million killed in 1947, another war in 1971, and an ongoing war in Kashmir, communal riots every couple of years, Muslims and Hindus hacking each other to death with machetes on a regular basis)

Im not suggesting that people from different ethnic groups cant live together - Im merely suggesting that doing so is not easy or automatic! And all cultures are not as easily assimilated as others - an American coming to live in Ireland will require very little adjustment, but an Indonesian would require a lot.

3. How can we force Irish culture on anyone when there is no consensus on what that means. How is irishness distinctive from other cultures? Linguistically - no, religiously- no, foodwise- no. So the danger is that people who back assimilationsim want the immigrants to be stopped doing whatever they are doing but with nothing coherent to replace that...[/QUOTE]

Its not about forcing "Irishness" on them. But effort needs to be made to make sure they become part of the community around them, and dont simply exist in it. They dont have to give up their food, or their religion or anything else. But I would prefer it if they were friends with the people around them, dated the people around them, and generally had a deeper connection to the country they are in than just "Well the money's good."

In suggesting this, Im merely suggesting we act like the U.S: They do pretty much have a sign at the gate that says "Accept these core values (democracy, the Bill of Rights, speaking English, industriousness, etc) and you can do whatever you like after that."

That's all I'm suggesting.

estebancambias · 06-05-2008 1:55pm

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Yes but it depends what culture you're talking about doesnt it?

For example, if a Phillipino family emigrates here, in a matter of years the kids are speaking English and playing on the local soccer team, and dating/befriending Irish girls/guys. Sure, they're still speaking Telagu at home and eating Phillipino food and watching Soap Operas from home on their Sky Box. But they're part of the wider community outside the home. This is a model that has worked very well in the best success story there is: America.

Whereas, we all know well that a Muslim (there I said it!) immigrant from one of the more hard-line areas of Pakistan is far less likely to do that. The kids will be sent to a seperate faith-school, not permitted to date, and the women are largely not seen outside their homes, There's no point in simply pretending that that isnt the case.

The question is what to do about it. It is not healthy to have a section of your society that has no interest in joining the majority community. This doesnt mean they have to 'abandon their culture', but it does mean sending their kids to schools with Irish kids, learning English, and taking part in the community in which they live - if this means having to give up some of the extreme conservatism which is part of the culture in their home country, well so be it.

It is not desirable in my opinion, to have an atomised society where we live together peacefully but dont interact together. In the case of Ireland, we have a choice about whether or not we want this.

2. There are plenty of examples of pretty massive culturally diverse societies where there is relative harmony. India has 100 million muslims, 700 m Hindus, 100 m Christians and a host of smaller religions and language groups co-existing relatively peacefully and democratically. Brazil is famed for ethnic mixing between white Europeans, Africans and Amer-indians. Yes both societies have their problems but it is not caused by mixing, it is caused by poverty and/or overpopulation

(India - 1 million killed in 1947, another war in 1971, and an ongoing war in Kashmir, communal riots every couple of years, Muslims and Hindus hacking each other to death with machetes on a regular basis)

Im not suggesting that people from different ethnic groups cant live together - Im merely suggesting that doing so is not easy or automatic! And all cultures are not as easily assimilated as others - an American coming to live in Ireland will require very little adjustment, but an Indonesian would require a lot.

3. How can we force Irish culture on anyone when there is no consensus on what that means. How is irishness distinctive from other cultures? Linguistically - no, religiously- no, foodwise- no. So the danger is that people who back assimilationsim want the immigrants to be stopped doing whatever they are doing but with nothing coherent to replace that...

Its not about forcing "Irishness" on them. But effort needs to be made to make sure they become part of the community around them, and dont simply exist in it. They dont have to give up their food, or their religion or anything else. But I would prefer it if they were friends with the people around them, dated the people around them, and generally had a deeper connection to the country they are in than just "Well the money's good."

In suggesting this, Im merely suggesting we act like the U.S: They do pretty much have a sign at the gate that says "Accept these core values (democracy, the Bill of Rights, speaking English, industriousness, etc) and you can do whatever you like after that."

That's all I'm suggesting.[/QUOTE]

Dead right. This is my only problem with people who come to the country. This is why I would support more Africans and Asian people coming in.

People from Africa are excellent to be fair. I know its only a small thing, but a lot of them wear the Irish jerseys, and just seem to be happy here.

Why I think more should come in from those continents is that there is a higher chance they will stay in the country.

Immigration-too strict?

Comments