What are the pros and cons of multiracial multicultural society?

Herb Powell

Norwesterner wrote: »

They don't want to mention that rising immigration in a low-employment era is a bad idea. It's racist to even think so.

That's not racist at all. What IS racist is when people start coming out and saying how the immigrants are inferior, or are in some way responsible for numerous problems in an area (they might be sometimes, but realistically, they usually aren't, and even if they were, why should their nationality/race come into it?)

Shenshen

Grayson wrote: »

I've seen threads here stating otherwise. Describing Finglas as a ghetto.

I guess that's what i get for believing anything a right wing nutjob says.

Well, from what I recall, some parts of Finglas are a ghetto. Just not an immigrant ghetto.

woodoo

Terry1985 wrote: »

multicuturalism is a political idea to share people across nations it doesn't work in practice.
You have Africans attacking Irish people in gangs in Temple bar, then no report on their sentancing when they were caught.
A lot of rapes and attempted rapes by non nationals.
The people bring with them all the bad elements of others cultures.

A lot of Africans relationships break up and you'll see a rise in African aggression here too, from angry teenagers of broken families. If they're escaping from a culture of violence then it's s culture they're bringing over here. I know, I was attacked in a full bus by one.

Some cultures are civilised and fit in without problems, like Indian and Chinese, but African and certain Eastern European elements don't.

Black people make up 2.7% of the population of the UK but make up 13.7% of the prison population. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/172542/stats-race-cjs-2010.pdf.pdf

In the USA back people make up 12.3% of the population but 43.7% of the prison population.
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/raceinc.html
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/US_Black.html

I have no comment to make on the reasons for that because i just don't know.

Shenshen

woodoo wrote: »

Black people make up 2.7% of the population of the UK but make up 13.7% of the prison population. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/172542/stats-race-cjs-2010.pdf.pdf

In the USA back people make up 12.3% of the population but 43.7% of the prison population.
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/raceinc.html
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/US_Black.html

I have no comment to make on the reasons for that because i just don't know.

So... what would you're suggestion be regarding blacks in the US? They're hardly all first generation newly arrived immigrants, are they?

Nodin

Terry1985 wrote: »

multicuturalism is a political idea to share people across nations it doesn't work in practice.
You have Africans attacking Irish people in gangs in Temple bar, then no report on their sentancing when they were caught.
A lot of rapes and attempted rapes by non nationals.
The people bring with them all the bad elements of others cultures.

A lot of Africans relationships break up and you'll see a rise in African aggression here too, from angry teenagers of broken families. If they're escaping from a culture of violence then it's s culture they're bringing over here. I know, I was attacked in a full bus by one.

Some cultures are civilised and fit in without problems, like Indian and Chinese, but African and certain Eastern European elements don't.

And lo, the bollocksology has started....

Cavehill Red

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmmm, is Sweden multicultural? As in integrated fully into society?

Here's the common confusion - multicultural does NOT mean integration. It means multiple separate cultures co-existing in the same space. So yes, in that there are now Islamic ghettos in Malmo, Sweden is multicultural. And no, for the same reason, Sweden is not integrated fully.

bnt

It's not "racist" to criticise certain cultures, and it's important to draw a distinction between people and their cultures. After all, all people are born equal, and they don't get to choose the culture in which they are brought up.

On the other hand, not all cultures are equal. Some are better and more evolved than others. I see people confusing the two things, thinking that equality and human rights should translate to "cultural relativism", the idea that all cultures are "different but equal". Well, they may be different, but they are not equal.

Ideally, people learn to transcend the objectionable parts of their culture, keep the good bits, but also elevate themselves to the standards of objectively better cultures. (Yes, I said objectively - as measured by the objective results they produce.)

Example: I make no apology for my opinion that Africa has never produced any music as advanced and complex as Western Classical music - but there are Classical composers and musicians who can trace their roots back to Africa. They just had to leave Africa (culturally, even if not always physically) to progress in that field.

Norwesterner

gurramok wrote: »

Are you making this up?

Finglas has one of the highest if not the highest concentration of Irish nationals in Dublin. http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0614/90074-migrants/

Think you'll find it's Foxrock, Blackrock, Greystones etc that has the lowest concentration of Non-EU residents.
Ironic, considering thats where all the hipster, open door policy folk live.

emo72

Norwesterner wrote: »

Think you'll find it's Foxrock, Blackrock, Greystones etc that has the lowest concentration of Non-EU residents.
Ironic, considering thats where all the hipster, open door policy folk live.

funny that. and it tells a story in itself.

Cavehill Red

emo72 wrote: »

funny that. and it tells a story in itself.

It's the story of modern capitalism basically. As I said at the beginning, they want mobile, docile, servile workers. They can achieve that with increased globalisation.
It's interesting to me that, given we live in an age of global media and affordable global transport, there has never been less need to move populations about in order to 'experience other cultures'. They're all there for you, either virtually on the internet or TV, or else in person, a plane flight away.
Yet that is the main reason offered in favour of multicultural societies.
No one seems to legislate for the other side of the equation. What about those who would rather not have other cultures inflicted upon them? They can turn off the TV or the internet, but when mass immigration arrives at their doorstep, it is an infliction on their civil liberties, since they were given no choice in the opening of the borders to all.
When you break it down, this is fuck all to do with cultures exploring each other and everything to do with making lots of money for a small number of rich people. What do they then do with that money? Why, they build big houses behind big gates to keep the immigrants out, of course.

Shenshen

Norwesterner wrote: »

Think you'll find it's Foxrock, Blackrock, Greystones etc that has the lowest concentration of Non-EU residents.
Ironic, considering thats where all the hipster, open door policy folk live.

Any sources to back this up? The link in the post you quoted does state that 55% of the immigrant community live on the North side, leaving 45% for the South side.
So is there any statistic you have to show that the percentage of immigrants in Foxrock, Blackrock or Greystones is lower than the percentage in Finglas, where it's under 5%?

mike65

Better football/soccer team.

Shenshen

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It's the story of modern capitalism basically. As I said at the beginning, they want mobile, docile, servile workers. They can achieve that with increased globalisation.
It's interesting to me that, given we live in an age of global media and affordable global transport, there has never been less need to move populations about in order to 'experience other cultures'. They're all there for you, either virtually on the internet or TV, or else in person, a plane flight away.
Yet that is the main reason offered in favour of multicultural societies.
No one seems to legislate for the other side of the equation. What about those who would rather not have other cultures inflicted upon them? They can turn off the TV or the internet, but when mass immigration arrives at their doorstep, it is an infliction on their civil liberties, since they were given no choice in the opening of the borders to all.
When you break it down, this is fuck all to do with cultures exploring each other and everything to do with making lots of money for a small number of rich people. What do they then do with that money? Why, they build big houses behind big gates to keep the immigrants out, of course.

Since when is it a right to pick your neighbours?

Cavehill Red

Shenshen wrote: »

Since when is it a right to pick your neighbours?

Straw man argument.

Norwesterner

Shenshen wrote: »

Any sources to back this up? The link in the post you quoted does state that 55% of the immigrant community live on the North side, leaving 45% for the South side.
So is there any statistic you have to show that the percentage of immigrants in Foxrock, Blackrock or Greystones is lower than the percentage in Finglas, where it's under 5%?

Take a walk around Foxrock, Greystones or Blackrock, then hop on the bus to Tallaght, Finglas or Blanchardstown and you tell me.
Do you really need a link??
How much social housing has been built for immigrants in the leafy suburbs where our elite, opinion formers live??

woodoo

Shenshen wrote: »

So... what would you're suggestion be regarding blacks in the US? They're hardly all first generation newly arrived immigrants, are they?

I don't have a suggestion.

LosBlanco

Race is irrelevant. Each person is different and we can't highlight pros nor cons to the influx of so-called 'foreigners'.

Cavehill Red

Shenshen wrote: »

Any sources to back this up? The link in the post you quoted does state that 55% of the immigrant community live on the North side, leaving 45% for the South side.
So is there any statistic you have to show that the percentage of immigrants in Foxrock, Blackrock or Greystones is lower than the percentage in Finglas, where it's under 5%?

Page 12. You're welcome.

Shenshen

Norwesterner wrote: »

Take a walk around Foxrock, Greystones or Blackrock, then hop on the bus to Tallaght, Finglas or Blanchardstown and you tell me.
Do you really need a link??
How much social housing has been built for immigrants in the leafy suburbs where our elite, opinion formers live??

I wasn't aware that social housing was built specifically for immigrants?
I can't say I've ever met any immigrants living in social housing, most I know rent or have bought a house.

But I did have a feeling that you base your assumptions on the numbers of immigrants on the languages you hear on the busses.

Galwayguy35

opti0nal wrote: »

How about sectarianism? Orange marches? Republicans in sunglasses and berets?

Multiculturalism is the topic of this thread, sectarianism is a different subject but feel free to start a thread on it if you wish.

Frank Black

Pros: Better restaurants.
Cons: Having to listen to racists complaining about all 'the foreigners'.

Shenshen

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Page 12. You're welcome.

Thanks. The images on the top right and the bottom left are very interesting, the areas you mentioned in particular have fairly high concentrations of non-EU Europeans and Asian inhabitants. Not the highest numbers of all areas, but still substantially more than Finglas.

crockholm

So....The argument for immigration boils down(not intended) to better food and better sports players.Bravo.

Norwesterner

Shenshen wrote: »

I wasn't aware that social housing was built specifically for immigrants?
I can't say I've ever met any immigrants living in social housing, most I know rent or have bought a house.

But I did have a feeling that you base your assumptions on the numbers of immigrants on the languages you hear on the busses.

OK.
You've never heard of immigrants in social housing?
They even have their own stipulations.
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Housing/FileDownLoad,29412,en.pdf
Where do you live out of interest?
Have you ever been to the areas I mentioned?

Norwesterner

crockholm wrote: »

So....The argument for immigration boils down(not intended) to better food and better sports players.Bravo.

And of course they're better looking than us....(which apparently isn't racist or eugenic-based to say)

Shenshen

Norwesterner wrote: »

OK.
You've never heard of immigrants in social housing?
They even have their own stipulations.
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Housing/FileDownLoad,29412,en.pdf
Where do you live out of interest?
Have you ever been to the areas I mentioned?

I used to live in North Dublin (Phibsborough and Cabra) and now live in Co Cork.
So EU nationals may be considered for assessment for social housing or support if they are employed or have very good reason for being temporarily unemployed, non-EU nationals need to have lived here for 5 years before being considered...

I take it the issues you have are with refugees and UK nationals, so, since these are the only ones who can be considered for social housing without any restrictions?
Considering that refugees might well be in a legal situation where they are not even allowed to work, that would leave those pesky UK nationals so...

Norwesterner

Shenshen wrote: »

I used to live in North Dublin (Phibsborough and Cabra) and now live in Co Cork.
So EU nationals may be considered for assessment for social housing or support if they are employed or have very good reason for being temporarily unemployed, non-EU nationals need to have lived here for 5 years before being considered...

I take it the issues you have are with refugees and UK nationals, so, since these are the only ones who can be considered for social housing without any restrictions?
Considering that refugees might well be in a legal situation where they are not even allowed to work, that would leave those pesky UK nationals so...

I didn't mention UK Nationals.
If they are law abiding, hard working citizens I've no problem with any immigrant.
It's the open door policy that allows an entire Traid network to set up in Ireland unchecked or unnoticed , or pickpocket gangs to come here, claim the dole, get a house and work full time thieving that galls me.

I've read recently that Syrian refugees were refused entry to Ireland.
This is wrong in my opinion as these are genuine refugees and we should help them.
Unfortunately most of the refugees in Ireland are bogus, and have made it more difficult now for the genuine ones to enter.
The fact that we are unable to cope with an influx of genuine refugees (from Syria etc) is bluntly the fault of those who clumsily oversaw our immigration policy in the last decade.

discus

The fact that we are unable to cope with an influx of genuine refugees (from Syria etc) is bluntly the fault of those who clumsily oversaw our immigration policy in the last decade.

Absolutely Norwesterner. Couldn't agree more. We managed to take in vietnamese boat people and give them another chance, but from all the 'new-labour' inspired multiculturalism and lax immigration, we can't help those in genuine need.

Shenshen

Norwesterner wrote: »

I didn't mention UK Nationals.
If they are law abiding, hard working citizens I've no problem with any immigrant.
It's the open door policy that allows an entire Traid network to set up in Ireland unchecked or unnoticed , or pickpocket gangs to come here, claim the dole, get a house and work full time thieving that galls me.

I've read recently that Syrian refugees were refused entry to Ireland.
This is wrong in my opinion as these are genuine refugees and we should help them.
Unfortunately most of the refugees in Ireland are bogus, and have made it more difficult now for the genuine ones to enter.
The fact that we are unable to cope with an influx of genuine refugees (from Syria etc) is bluntly the fault of those who clumsily oversaw our immigration policy in the last decade.

The pdf you linked me to did mention them, though.
It also did mention, as I said, that EU nationals need to be able to prove that they have employment before being considered for social housing, and non-EU nationals not only have to be employed, but need to have lived in Ireland for 5 years before they can be considered.

I agree with you on the Syrians. But I know from back in Germany that asylum law in the EU are very complex indeed, and that fleeing a war is not considered grounds for asylum. They put that particular bit in place during the civil war in former Yugoslavia.
I doubt however that "most refugees in Ireland are bogus", Ireland accepts under 7% of applications for asylum. Over 93% are rejected, and consequently sent back home.
http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/PR07000171

Norwesterner

discus wrote: »

Absolutely Norwesterner. Couldn't agree more. We managed to take in vietnamese boat people and give them another chance, but from all the 'new-labour' inspired multiculturalism and lax immigration, we can't help those in genuine need.

Our immigration policy (and that of Britain) was similar to delivering bread in a refugee camp by throwing it from the back of a lorry.
The strong-willed, the devious and the ruthless benefitted.
The elderly, weak and poor suffered.
It take a special effort, ruthlessness and also financial backing to travel through a dozen countries to reach Ireland.
The State rewarded this, and are now blocking entry to those from Syria etc who don't have the money or criminal wherewithall to smuggle themselves here.
And considering our State showed duplicity in allowing sectarian terrorists leave Ireland for Syria and now we wash our hands of the result...this is particularly enraging.