20% foreign people in Ireland now - highest in Europe

gurramok

bonkey wrote:

There is precious little in Ireland as a "host country" that isn't an imported foreign culture. We're as Americanised as the next developed nation, and what we haven't taken from the US, we've taken from the British. Western Europe has had its own influence, but to a lesser degree.

The difference seems to be when one gets to cultural influences from outside the developed (Western) nations. Then, all of a sudden, we can't be having any of that.....

The problem seems to be a distinction between what is alien/unfamiliar, and what is familiar. Familiar foreign cultural influences...they're fine.


I made the point that Terry's connection between Multiculturalism and ghettoism was at least partly an assumption of correlation equalling causation.

Where from this, and my quoting of Switzerland as a counter-point did you get the impression that I was suggesting that there were no issues of any sort relating to immigration and/or asylum?
.

If we're Americanised, its OUR choice to adopt that part of the culture here, we were not forced.
Its a difference than from having separate cultures here.
If we decide for arguments sake to adopt Timibuktu's culture, fair enuff, we chose it and its mono-cultural.!

There was an impression where multi-culturalism=ghetto's from your post, if i was wrong, i hold my hands up
But...multi-culturalism=ghetto's is sadly true in many countries, the likes of France/Britain/Germany/Holland springs to mind and yes i have been to those countries to see whats it like.

Regarding the Swiss, one must ask if the right-wring party can garner votes by playing the immigration card, there are obviously concerns among the Swiss populace as to which direction their country is going.
This has been displayed in many countries across Europe, obviously the ones with assimilation have less of a worry from such worries.
As an outsider of Swiss politics, you should have a better view of Swiss matters than most of us here but it ain't looking pretty when we read whats happening!

OPENROAD wrote:

I know I am still amazed by some of the Irish in London, still drinking in Irish pubs and GAA clubs, still playing GAA.

Nice try, out of millions of Irish that have settled in UK and assimilated, you pick out a tiny minority of past emigrant Irish who didn't integrate.

If the Irish didn't truly integrate into British culture, you would find Irish only areas with Irish practicing culture in every town/city like the Asians have but oh wait, there are no Irish areas bar Kilburn which itself is mostly non-Irish.

OPENROAD

[

If the Irish didn't truly integrate into British culture, you would find Irish only areas with Irish practicing culture in every town/city like the Asians have but oh wait, there are no Irish areas bar Kilburn which itself is mostly non-Irish.[/QUOTE]

Times have changed but believe you me Kilburn/Camden was mostly Irish at one stage. Even Hammersmith was. Nothing but Irish bars and clubs. Fact. Don't get me wrong when you go to a host country you have to completely integrate. My point is that in the past we did not have a good record of integrating. Even some of friends now when they go to America or London will find out where the nearest Irish bar is:mad:

gurramok

Which is a fault if that part of emigrants who choose not to integrate which is wrong.
I'd agree the Irish certainly in the likes of USA have a hard time adapting to American ways of life but i wouldn't lob them in the same boat as the ones that went to UK where in my view its a minority of Irish who haven't integrated.

The Irish went to every city and town in the UK, it must be only a handful of places where they still try to retain their culture considering the huge numbers that went(talking millions over maybe 150yrs?)

My own relations who emigrated 30-40yrs ago have integrated into British society with 2 cousins even serving her majesty overseas!

Of course if those same people who didn't integrate in their host countries chose to come back, i wouldn't object to them settling here.

Without generalising, all nationalities have a degree of the same problem, some integrate better than others in their host countries.

bonkey

gurramok wrote:

If we're Americanised, its OUR choice to adopt that part of the culture here, we were not forced.

We're not forced to adopt any other foreign culture.

Its a difference than from having separate cultures here.

No, its not.

You have a seperate culture to your parents, who in turn have a seperate culture to their grandparents. You mightn't acknowledge that its all that different, but it still is.

I see kids adopting the various "cultures" of their midern-day style icons. Gangsta-style hip-hop culture has - in recent years - been quite prevalent. I neither adopted this nor liked it. But you know what...no-one asked me for my opinion. No-one needed my approval.

So forgive me if I don't quite swallow the "we wanted it" line of reasoning, because what it basically says is that subsets of Irish people can adopt whatever foreign culture they like, but non-Irish people can only adopt foreign cultures if "we" permit it...where "we" is some nebulously-defined group that doesn't really exist.

There was an impression where multi-culturalism=ghetto's from your post, if i was wrong, i hold my hands up
But...multi-culturalism=ghetto's is sadly true in many countries, the likes of France/Britain/Germany/Holland springs to mind and yes i have been to those countries to see whats it like.

The point I was making is that they're not inextricably bound. Obviously, a ghetto requires a multicultural environment (because of the definition of the term), but it doesn't automatically follow that if you have a multiculti nation you must end up with ghettoism.

Regarding the Swiss, one must ask if the right-wring party can garner votes by playing the immigration card, there are obviously concerns among the Swiss populace as to which direction their country is going.

There are concerns, yes. It would be as foolish for any nation not to have concerns as it would be for any nation to believe they have all the answers and all the right solutions already figured out.

but it ain't looking pretty when we read whats happening!

Allow me to wander nostalgically on a bit of a tangent here...

A good friend of mine once told me a story about when a classmate of his returned from a year in South Africa, during the end-days of the apartheid regime. On his return, he was surrounded by classmates who wanted to know the gruesome details...just how bad a war-zone was Jo'burg really...just how scary was it to live in the midst of such unrest and violence. His response was to laugh, then to explain that while he was in Jo'burg and people heard he was Irish, they wanted to know the gruesome details...just how bad a war-zone Ireland was, really...just how scary it was to live in the midst of such unrest and violence.

What the newspapers relate isn't a terribly good gauge of reality. You see a newspaper article about the Swiss tightening up their asylum laws, for example, and people commenting on how bad a problem this is. You know what they actually did with that "tightening up"??? They took the stance that after an asylum claim had failed, the government would no longer be liable to pay support monies to the failed applicant if they chose not to leave the country!!! I mean...seriously...they don't even remove failed applicants...they just changed the system so that they no longer continue to pay to support them. And yet somehow, this gets turned into the Swiss tightening up their asylum system to draconian levels, and billed as a major right-wing shift or something.

Nice try, out of millions of Irish that have settled in UK and assimilated, you pick out a tiny minority of past emigrant Irish who didn't integrate.

I think you'll find that despite all of the scaremongering regarding immigration, its almost always only small to tiny minorities who are actually causing the problems.

darkman2

bonkey wrote:

What nations have successfully managed to implement this?

I ask because everytime I question the "multiculturalism has failed" argument, I'm asked to give an example that backs up by position....so I think its only fair that those who put foward a position on what the right approach is should be able to show how its worked somewhere.



In other words...the right approach is to adopt the culture of suppression and oppression that these foreign nations are using?

So you disagree that foreign cultural influences should be kept out, then...you seem quite willing to embrace one over our historically more open approach.

bonkey wrote:

In other words...the right approach is to adopt the culture of suppression and oppression that these foreign nations are using?

Dont mis-quote me please - I said 'in some respects'. I have a strong dis-like of certain foreign regimes however that does not equate with it then being tolerable that western countries end up in an immigration horror story (note the Netherlands as the worlds foremost example of how quickly things go wrong) because we dare not immitate some of those countries strict policies on immigration because it offends the left so much.

gurramok

bonkey wrote:

We're not forced to adopt any other foreign culture.
No, its not.

You have a seperate culture to your parents, who in turn have a seperate culture to their grandparents. You mightn't acknowledge that its all that different, but it still is.

I see kids adopting the various "cultures" of their midern-day style icons. Gangsta-style hip-hop culture has - in recent years - been quite prevalent. I neither adopted this nor liked it. But you know what...no-one asked me for my opinion. No-one needed my approval.

So forgive me if I don't quite swallow the "we wanted it" line of reasoning, because what it basically says is that subsets of Irish people can adopt whatever foreign culture they like, but non-Irish people can only adopt foreign cultures if "we" permit it...where "we" is some nebulously-defined group that doesn't really exist.

My parents/grandparents are Irish and practiced Irish culture, no difference to moi.
Err Bonkey, we are discussing nation cultures, not musical cultures from the charts
Non-Irish people should adopt the culture of the host country, speaking English and raising kids in English is a start.(incidentally the UK PM agrees on this part regarding policy in the UK to non-UK citizens and yes English language is part of our culture as we speak it)

bonkey wrote:

The point I was making is that they're not inextricably bound. Obviously, a ghetto requires a multicultural environment (because of the definition of the term), but it doesn't automatically follow that if you have a multiculti nation you must end up with ghettoism.

And yes, planning problems can play a part in it hence concerns here likewise which i believe is a mess here.

Regarding the rest of your post..
Yes, there is scaremongering on both sides. Genuine concern in Swiss has occurred in recent years that was never there before so it is genuine with what sounds like a political party jumping on the bandwagon.

The south africa analogy is as a result of sensationalism and ignorance, both countries are obviously not like Iraq!
If i wanted to research S.A, the murder rate ain't pretty and it would scare me if i was a prospective visitor, whether the likelihood of being a victim of random murder over there is unknown to me so the fear outweighs the facts.

It sounds like the Swiss govt don't wanna pay for deportation and don't wanna resemble Nazi-type deportations so the quick fix was, 'survive on your own if you wanna stay here' which sounds cheapest solution of them all.

Interestingly, as you are in Switzerland, have you integrated over there into Swiss culture and customs or do you retain your Irish culture & customs?

bonkey

gurramok wrote:

Non-Irish people should adopt the culture of the host country, speaking English and raising kids in English is a start.

You mean "non-host-country-nationals", as opposed to "non-Irish", I assume (or you mean "Ireland" rather than the more generic "host country".

Pedantry aside, I broadly agree with you...but only broadly. As an example, several of the people I know here in Switzerland are what they sometimes refer to as a "secondo". They are Swiss...born and bred. Their parents are foreign nationals who moved here one way or another (a bit like I have). In some cases, the parents still don't speak the local tongue, or speak it very badly despite being here 30+ years.

In a case like this, it would seem to me that the parents are somewhat open to accusations of non-integration...but beyond their generation, that accusation would hold no weight - their kids are as Swiss as any others, with exceptions like perhaps their support of two national teams come the World Cup.

At the same time, there's a fair number of Tamils in Switzerland. They have held more strongly to their own culture...but their children will still be far more integrated into Switzerland and its culture - a culture which includes tolerance towards difference culture.

At the same time, I can't honestly point to a single country which has successfully managed to identify the traits that must be adopted and a timeframe in which that must be done - which seems to be the solution being touted by many as the right way to go, albeit with a lack of detail.

Thus, I see the question of integration as being far more subtle than just "they must integrate". Of course they must...to some undefinable degree, over some undefinable period of time which could span generations.

However, when it comes to formalising such things, my concern is that while many people who support the idea, I've rarely (if ever) heard a concrete suggestion as to how this could be achieved in practice.

(incidentally the UK PM agrees on this part regarding policy in the UK to non-UK citizens and yes English language is part of our culture as we speak it)

So should we refuse asylum seekers who can't speak English, or just immigrants? Or do we let them in and give them a timeframe in which to learn? Or do we accept that their children will learn English, thus making it a short-term problem (short-term being one generation, in this perspective)?

Genuine concern in Swiss has occurred in recent years that was never there before so it is genuine with what sounds like a political party jumping on the bandwagon.

The question as to how much of it is genuine concern is very much an open one. All parties agree that the system is imperfect and needs improvement, thus they all accept a certain amount of genuine concern.

The south africa analogy is as a result of sensationalism and ignorance,

Exactly the point I was driving at - The foreign media portrayal of the issues in Switzerland are exactly the same. They choose the sensationalist angle, yet leave the reader in ignorance of the more subtle nuances which really form the issue.

It sounds like the Swiss govt don't wanna pay for deportation and don't wanna resemble Nazi-type deportations so the quick fix was, 'survive on your own if you wanna stay here' which sounds cheapest solution of them all.

It might sound like that, but their reasons for not deporting people are somewhat more considered.

Interestingly, as you are in Switzerland, have you integrated over there into Swiss culture and customs or do you retain your Irish culture & customs?

I'd say its a mix of both.

liberty 2007

multiculturism is a niosocialist idoligy. (Socialism was responsable for the deaths of many tens of millions of people through the 20th century) yet it's allied to capitalism for economic benifits. On the recieving end is poor little nationalism. Which is deemed to bo the bad guy by the other two opressive powers.
Through the ages, the movment of large numbers of people, almost always ended in conflect or persecution. From the enslavment of the Jews in anchient Egypt, to the multicultural society of the former Yugoslavian conflect.

mise_me_fein

liberty 2007 wrote:

multiculturism is a niosocialist idoligy. (Socialism was responsable for the deaths of many tens of millions of people through the 20th century) yet it's allied to capitalism for economic benifits. On the recieving end is poor little nationalism. Which is deemed to bo the bad guy by the other two opressive powers.
Through the ages, the movment of large numbers of people, almost always ended in conflect or persecution. From the enslavment of the Jews in anchient Egypt, to the multicultural society of the former Yugoslavian conflect.

What are you trying to say?

Terry

My guess is that s/he is saying that people should stay where they are. Less trouble that way.
Also that nationalism gets the blame for capitalist and socialist actions by capitalists and socialists, who are in league with each other.

liberty 2007

mise_me_fein wrote:

What are you trying to say?

What I'm saying is this.
The governments agenda is to drive the economy forward. The more people employed in the country the more tax revenue, ecomomic growth etc...
It helps to overcome that old problem of budget deficit.
For business, full or near full employment is bad, they depend on a large supply of available labor at any given time. So from that sourse, there is active support for immigrants.
Neither Government nor industry seem to give any consideration to the long term social implacations of this.
As for the niosocialists, well they seem to believe that people are the same all over the world and if we all just get to know each other, we'll all stop fighting.
It's a wonderful notion, but it's not just rubbish, it's very dangerous rubbish.
History if full examples mass migration or etnic mixing ending in conflict or persecution.

darkman2

Irish are lost for words over thorny issue of immigration
By Kevin Myers
Wednesday October 10 2007


And still, no debate on immigration, none whatever; and never mind the pusillanimous, left-liberal media classes, what about the rest of you? Why the silence? Why the abject, pathetic, skulking public wordlessness on an issue that -- to judge from the way so many people come up to me in supermarkets -- is foremost in your minds?


Clearly, we're not going to get a lead from RTE, that miserable mongrel born of a one-night stand between a pious, politically-correct vegan, and a louche, populist tabloid. That wretched half-breed was on full display during my last -- and oh believe me, my very last -- appearance on Kenny's Late Late Show recently.

A researcher from the programme had first contacted me weeks ago, asking me if I'd appear on it to discuss immigration. I was very reluctant, and with good reason. The previous occasion that I'd appeared on Kenny's Late Late Show was seven years ago, to promote a recently-published selection of my Irish Times' columns. But when Kenny introduced me, he made no mention of my book, instead yodeling in that cretinous, patronising way he has: "Now folks, what would you say to a man who said this?" ... . before quoting, out of context, a sentence from a column about Travellers. And naturally, there in the audience was a pre-primed Traveller, who promptly denounced me for my racism.

Kenny followed this with another quote, again out of context, and lo and behold, another person in the audience was ready to denounce me for my racism/sexism/whateverism. And another. and another. It was a bloodbath, and my appearance on the show ended without Kenny ever making a proper mention of the book. This, no doubt, is called "balance" in Montrose.

So why would I hazard another appearance on Kenny's vile show? Well, frankly, the national interest. Immigration is the greatest threat to the social cohesion of this country, and though I personally had absolutely nothing whatever to gain by re-appearing on the show, if I did -- simply out of patriotic duty -- perhaps I might trigger a public debate on immigration, as no mere newspaper column could.

So I sought, and got a promise from the producer Larry Masterson that if I appeared on The Late Late Show there would be no audience participation, no heat, and no personal rancour. The subject would not be me, or whatever I've said in the past, but simply immigration, perhaps the biggest challenge in the history of the Irish State.

Once the item was under way, I half-twigged what Kenny was up to when he began to question me on observations about immigration I made four years ago.

But I steered the conversation back to the central issue: the need to talk openly about it today. And then, as Kenny suddenly swung towards the audience, I realised I had been Judassed yet again. He was throwing the topic open.

He took a question from a nasty young man who revealed his agenda by addressing me as "Myers". I was able to brush off his arrant and aggressive gibberish. The next audience-member, a whinging little Australian, then accused me of playing the race-card. I saw her off too. And that was that. If Masterson and Kenny had wanted to start another lynch-mob in the audience with this shameless violation of a gentleman's agreement, they had failed. At least, the subject of immigration was now on the public agenda. Next, the nationwide debate could get under way.

Only it didn't. True, Prime Time rang the following Tuesday, asking me to contribute to a forthcoming programme on immigration. I asked about the format. There would, I was told, be various representatives from immigrant groups, plus me, and the Minister, Conor Lenihan.

And that, pretty much, is how immigration is always dealt with in Ireland: a cringing liberal deference to immigrant-sensibilities, and a sublime indifference to the feelings of the natives (a category, incidentally, to which I do not have the honour of belonging). The very notion that the majority community -- the Irish people -- should be allowed a larger voice on this subject is anathema to dogmatic liberals. Instead, immigration is usually turned into a blustering morality-competition, in which journalists loudly vie to show off how anti-racist they really are.

Anyway, I refused to appear on such a ridiculously unbalanced programme, and it went ahead without me, though perhaps my criticisms of its intended format were taken aboard. It finally consisted of one assertive immigrant, (the editor of Metro magazine), the minister, and a timid academic. Naturally, nothing whatever was gained or learned.

And I then waited for other responses from Late Late viewers, and the phone-calls from our many radio stations, to confirm that debate was now under way. Instead, almost total silence. Why? Perhaps the Irish people are simply too cowardly to survive as a people: they would, apparently, prefer to go to their demographic doom, rather than risk being called rude names.

So be it. I have done my best, and can do no more.

The bridge stands unmanned as Lars Porsena's legions approach, and this time there is no Horatio. Ireland, as Ireland, is about to vanish, just as Leicester, Bradford, Luton, Rotterdam, et cetera, have already done.

Fare thee well Enniskillen, and Erin's Green Isle.

I agree with everything Myers says and I do think the Irish attitude to this issue is 'cowardly'. I think that is a good way of putting it. The problems coming are so blatantly obvious and the evidence is there from our EU neighbours that the fact no debate is taking place (not even in the Dail - once!) is tbh shocking. We have no control over this at all.

mise_me_fein

What can we do darkman2? I only noticed how bad the problem was when I was walking down O'Connell street a few weeks ago(there was a distinct lack of Irish accents and a rather large proportion of foreign languages being heard).

Once I went home to my small town I thought about it for a while but then got back to my old ways.

It's not going to be an issue until a large amount of the population sees (or blames) the non national for taking their job. Until this happens people don't have it top of their agenda. Meanwhile in the background our country is being lost and we're becoming a mini America.

What can we do?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

stop watching american tv shows, americna movies, stop eating american food and drinks, stop listening to american music. Don't go to american websites. And try not to be a hypocrite

kthxbai

biko

It's used to be that you could tell a servant by that they had an country accent, a 100 years later they have a Polish accent.

Which foreigners are the worst? The Poles working hard for a few years before returning home to buy a house etc or the refugees trying to avoid war and strife at home?

mike65

Pity is many reading Myres article will draw solice on the assumption he is a racist/nationalist/cultualist/whatyourhavingyourself-ist. In fact he's not, he just would like to know why the huge demographic shift and its manifold implications is'nt being disscussed at any level of authority.

He's right to wonder.

Mike.

Terry

mike65 wrote: »

Pity is many reading Myres article will draw solice on the assumption he is a racist/nationalist/cultualist/whatyourhavingyourself-ist. In fact he's not, he just would like to know why the huge demographic shift and its manifold implications is'nt being disscussed at any level of authority.

He's right to wonder.

Mike.

And this coming from an immigrant.

Well said, Mike.

liberty 2007

I remember many years ago there was a thing called debate. there were 2 teams, each team about 4 speakers with a given amount of time to argue for or against the motion. Long since gone, today we have a refined version of propaganda. Forced suppression of reasonable argument. (I'm referring to the most powerful media TV and radio)
There are people who have been attempting to argue against uncontrolled immigration for years, but they have been demonised and silenced by the media by denying them the oxygen of publicity.
Remember what happened in Austria,when the people democratically elected a party who called for immigration control.The EU implemented sanctions against them. How undemocratic is that? People are afraid to speak out for fear of being branded as Nazis. That has been a very convenient weapon against the public and it's time to put an end to it.

K-9

liberty 2007 wrote: »

I remember many years ago there was a thing called debate. there were 2 teams, each team about 4 speakers with a given amount of time to argue for or against the motion. Long since gone, today we have a refined version of propaganda. Forced suppression of reasonable argument. (I'm referring to the most powerful media TV and radio)
There are people who have been attempting to argue against uncontrolled immigration for years, but they have been demonised and silenced by the media by denying them the oxygen of publicity.

It's got to the stage if you say controlled immigration or integration, people call you a Nazi.

No, I'd like planned immigration. Nothing wrong with that.

The liberals on this argument don't see that just opening borders and having no control will cause racism down the line.

fly_agaric

Ireland, as Ireland, is about to vanish

Didn't that happen already? Some time ago?
Courtesy of our good neighbours over the Irish sea?:rolleyes:;)

mike65

Pensions are not much discussed on AH but nows a good time to start

From the Damien Kilberd in the Sunday Times

..but the bulk of such migrants are less than 45 years old and won't need pensions for 20 years. Ireland is, in fact, experiencing a demographic "golden age" EU studies show that in recent years public pension expenditure in the country was less than 5% of GDP
comparted to a norm of more than 10% amojng the EU 15

So we are at least helping to keep the wolf from the door! and as immigrants tend to be young they might stay and have children who in turn will keep the worker/pensioner ratio lower than many states.

Mike.

Orange69

mike65 wrote: »

Pensions are not much discussed on AH but nows a good time to start

From the Damien Kilberd in the Sunday Times



So we are at least helping to keep the wolf from the door! and as immigrants tend to be young they might stay and have children who in turn will keep the worker/pensioner ratio lower than many states.

Mike.

Imo not many of the current immigrants will remain in Ireland during the troubled economic times over the horizon..

gurramok

And alot of young Irish couples cannot afford to have children because of costs here.

Now we hear that immigration is needed to pay for pensions. FFS, help Irish people with finanacial and work friendly incentives to have kids and then you have a solution.

Its no co-incidence that those on social welfare have the most kids(anecdotal here) because there is help to have kids when you have no income but when a woman has to give up her job to mind a kid or put that kid into a creche, its damn too costly and career breaking these days for these people.

The likes of France have reversed their terrible birth rate to help their future prospects, why can't we?

mise_me_fein

Orange69 wrote: »

Imo not many of the current immigrants will remain in Ireland during the troubled economic times over the horizon..

This is what'd you think, but is this really going to happen?

A large % will stay. Just hope their kids carry on like Irish kids and then we're not so bad.

ambro25

Not read nearly enough of Mr Myers' prose to form an informed opinion of the guy, but at this initial stage at least, a lot of it echoes.

I migrated to Ireland, and to/from other EU countries before that, and in each and every case I was always very aware that it was I who should integrate and, after a fashion, assimilate "traditions" (for lack of a better word). In simple terms: why should I expect the locals to bend over backwards to accomodate my cultural makeup? they didn't make me come here.

Whereby witnessing, in Ireland recently and other EU countries (esp.UK) before that, the extent to which local and national governments will go to 'accomodate' some or other foreign nationals (with multi-€m language and/or ethic-centric micro initiatives) without expecting any 'give' in return, has always aggravated me to some extent.

The propension has traditionally been that ghettoisation occurs to circumvent racial tension exerted by locals... I find that all this extra and ever-increasing "help" is not geared towards integration, and favours ghettoisation just the same: integration used to be impeded by racial tensions decades ago (whereby ghettoisation for safety), now integration is just not needed at all due to prevalent policies (whereby ghettoisation by imported cultural choice).

Note that It's much less a case of 'why should they get this/that/the other when I had to work so bl00dy hard to get to this level when I got here', very much more a 'how dare they expect this/that/the other when they came here of their own free will'. Essentially: taking full responsibility for one's choices.

But then again, how much of that attitude is down to a modern 'West European' upbringing and a christian religious background?

Mr.Micro

I think it is a very difficult to be an immigrant.How much of your own identity do you surrender to your adapted country? One runs the risk of being in between the adapted country and the country of origin accepted by neither a stateless person .Not a nice place to be .Ireland can learn from other cultures and there will be problems as we have to deal with them now and not export all our problems like before .

ambro25

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I think it is a very difficult to be an immigrant.How much of your own identity do you surrender to your adapted country? One runs the risk of being in between the adapted country and the country of origin accepted by neither a stateless person.

True enough.

I think it depends on how far apart are the cultures/societies in question, to begin with: West European moving to Ireland can hardly be compared with (say) Afghan or Central African moving to Ireland (assuming "stereotype" persons).

But still, as an immigrant myself, I see it "in equity" as me having to do the most surrendering (if surrendering need be), since it was my choice to come. I cannot see how this could be any different, again from an "equitable" POV, for any other immigrant of any other background: the most to expect from a host country, is to be treated no different than a native - to ask or expect more is, IMHO, taking the p*ss.

Terry

ambro25 wrote: »

True enough.

I think it depends on how far apart are the cultures/societies in question, to begin with: West European moving to Ireland can hardly be compared with (say) Afghan or Central African moving to Ireland (assuming "stereotype" persons).

But still, as an immigrant myself, I see it "in equity" as me having to do the most surrendering (if surrendering need be), since it was my choice to come. I cannot see how this could be any different, again from an "equitable" POV, for any other immigrant of any other background: the most to expect from a host country, is to be treated no different than a native - to ask or expect more is, IMHO, taking the p*ss.

Pfft.
Quitter.

http://www.triskelle.eu/images/img_undersiege.jpg

Mr.Micro

ambro25 wrote: »

True enough.


But still, as an immigrant myself, I see it "in equity" as me having to do the most surrendering (if surrendering need be), since it was my choice to come. I cannot see how this could be any different, again from an "equitable" POV, for any other immigrant of any other background: the most to expect from a host country, is to be treated no different than a native - to ask or expect more is, IMHO, taking the p*ss.

At what point though does one stop as you put it" surrendering". It is a cultural shock for immigrants as they are often never accepted no matter what they do or how the blend in the mix.,as there will always be an element in society that will make it so.There is no easy answer .The rights of the person should be paramount as far as I am concerned and all equal no matter what the status of the person as long as he or she is resident in the country.There are usually very valid reasons that people move to another country as in reality most people would prefer to live with their own people .

Dyr

Will German, French or Dutch inscribe the epitaph of Emmet?
When we have sold enough of Ireland to be but strangers in it.

poor ould Luke Kelly had it sussed.

It'll probably be in chinese though. Maybe Polish.