What are the pros and cons of multiracial multicultural society?

Nodin

Norwesterner wrote: »

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.

You seem to be confusing asylum seekers and immigrants.

Shenshen

Norwesterner wrote: »

...
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.

In all honesty, I doubt that people would actually travel from Syria to Ireland overland... If they did, they'd probably only just about start to arrive here now, a year after the war started.

EU asylum law also stipulates that asylum can ONLY be granted in the first EU country the potential asylum seeker arrives in. So if they did travel overland from Syria towards the EU as asylum seekers, they would not legally get any further than Greece. If they did travel on from there, the country they eventually do apply for asylum in will send them back to the first EU country they set foot in.
In short, if they had to actually travel overland, none at all would ever be in a position to ever apply for asylum in Ireland.

Norwesterner

Shenshen wrote: »

In all honesty, I doubt that people would actually travel from Syria to Ireland overland... If they did, they'd probably only just about start to arrive here now, a year after the war started.

EU asylum law also stipulates that asylum can ONLY be granted in the first EU country the potential asylum seeker arrives in. So if they did travel overland from Syria towards the EU as asylum seekers, they would not legally get any further than Greece. If they did travel on from there, the country they eventually do apply for asylum in will send them back to the first EU country they set foot in.
In short, if they had to actually travel overland, none at all would ever be in a position to ever apply for asylum in Ireland.

So. Explain this.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/mosney-firm-paid-89m-for-housing-asylum-seekers-1.1313304

Nodin

Norwesterner wrote: »

So. Explain this.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/mosney-firm-paid-89m-for-housing-asylum-seekers-1.1313304

.....whats your point?

Shenshen

Norwesterner wrote: »

So. Explain this.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/mosney-firm-paid-89m-for-housing-asylum-seekers-1.1313304

What's to explain? A private company that defrauded the government by providing for 600 asylum seekers, and taking more per person in administration fees than the asylum seekers themselves were granted per day?

“This sum has remained the same for 12 years – €19.10 per week for adults, just under €1,000 for the year, and €9.60 per week per child, just under €500 for the year while the centre operators received over €12,500 per resident for 2012."

Are you blaming the asylum seekers for government incompetence? Or for private sector greed?

Norwesterner

Nodin wrote: »

.....whats your point?

Pretty self explanatory.
He said asylum is only given to those who arrived in the nearest country.
He said if any asylum seeker arrived in Ireland he/she would not be entitled to asylum and would be sent back to the first country they entered on fleeing.
My point was why aren't those in Mosney sent back to the first country they entered?

Nodin

Norwesterner wrote: »

Pretty self explanatory.
He said asylum is only given to those who arrived in the nearest country.
He said if any asylum seeker arrived in Ireland he/she would not be entitled to asylum and would be sent back to the first country they entered on fleeing.
My point was why aren't those in Mosney sent back to the first country they entered?

...that's not quite the case.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59465073&postcount=1

Shenshen

Nodin wrote: »

...that's not quite the case.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59465073&postcount=1

Ah, now, I didn't know that. I remember this being presented rather differently back in Germany, but as I'm no lawyer it is quite possible that I misunderstood.

However, I do know that there is a problem with refugees trying to get to the UK via France - the UK maintains that since these people already are safely in France, the UK is under no obligation to accept them as refugees, since they are not under immediate danger where they are now.
And I do believe Germany is treating applications by people arriving from other "safe" nation in quite a similar way.

Either way, I'm not quite sure how that would make a company catering for 600 asylum seekers improbable. I have provided figures before stating that while 93% of applications are rejected, 7% are granted. So the figure of 600 people doesn't seem so extraordinary?

Shenshen

Norwesterner wrote: »

Pretty self explanatory.
He said asylum is only given to those who arrived in the nearest country.
He said if any asylum seeker arrived in Ireland he/she would not be entitled to asylum and would be sent back to the first country they entered on fleeing.
My point was why aren't those in Mosney sent back to the first country they entered?

Before Nodin provided the link to extensive information, I would have guessed they arrived on direct flights, or via non-EU countries, so could not be sent back?

Nodin

Shenshen wrote: »

Ah, now, I didn't know that. I remember this being presented rather differently back in Germany, but as I'm no lawyer it is quite possible that I misunderstood.
...

It used be different, so you probably just heard the old version.

SeanW

I think I can sum up the Multicultural-Lefts view on this both accurately and succinctly.

Pros

• Multiculturalism is just great. It just is. I know better than you. Though very likely my only experience of multiculturalism was getting that dark-skinned man to build my conservatory super-cheap

Cons

• There are no cons. If you think there are any problems with importing foreign cultures (no matter how vile and backward they are) or mass immigration, you're a racist. It's the only reason. That and you read the Daily Mail when everyone knows only the Guardian is fair and balanced.

woodoo

Could affirmative action in the united states be considered a pro or a con of multiracial society.

IMO its a pro if you are from a racial minority and a con if you are white.

SugarCoat

I can finally use up the X, Y and Z pages of my address book

Cavehill Red

Shenshen wrote: »

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.

Except I never mentioned any areas. Try again.

Nodin

woodoo wrote: »

Could affirmative action in the united states be considered a pro or a con of multiracial society.

IMO its a pro if you are from a racial minority and a con if you are white.

Why is it a "con" if you are "white"?

pabloh999

Nodin wrote: »

Why is it a "con" if you are "white"?

Isnt affirmative action based on quotas?

Not the "best man for the job"
Seems a bit unfair.

Affirmative action, known as positive discrimination in the United Kingdom

Wiki

Spanish Harlem

America throws college scholarships at blacks and they still end up constituting a shocking 60% of the prison population. You can't help people who don't want to help themselves.

Herb Powell

SeanW wrote: »

I think I can sum up the Multicultural-Lefts view on this both accurately and succinctly.

Well, if that's how you want to play

wrote:

Pros-some of them are civilised. I know this because they don't do anything out of the ordinary from my Irish-centric perspective, and they must be all the same. Chinese for example-they don't engage in any crime. Great bunch of lads, welcome here.

Cons-inferior people coming into my country, with their stupid ooga-booga culture, ruining my life, making it hell, stealing my job, scrounging dole I PAID FOR, but worst of all they're brown! Imagine that! Ugh, it's just sad and disgusting to have different people living here, in what is OUR country. How will I identify myself with these immigrants destroying my culture? I can say this many ways, but essentially, I believe my country will be ruined when different people come to live here. I can't say exactly how they will do this, but I just know they will. Mark my words.

You see how it just doesn't really help at all?

Nodin

pabloh999 wrote: »

Isnt affirmative action based on quotas?

Not the "best man for the job"
Seems a bit unfair.


Wiki

He's talking about the states. The same legislation covers religion and gender. Seperate legislation provides "affirmative action" for the disabled. Funny enough we don't get anyone whinging about how the legless are getting an unfair advantage.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

He's talking about the states. The same legislation covers religion and gender. Seperate legislation provides "affirmative action" for the disabled. Funny enough we don't get anyone whinging about how the legless are getting an unfair advantage.

There aren't many legless people, thankfully (though theres a few more now thanks to the latest act of Jihad in Boston) and not having any legs is an actual disability, which is different to skin colour etc.

Herb Powell wrote:

from my Irish-centric perspective

So you are also a cultural relativist?

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

There aren't many legless people, thankfully (though theres a few more now thanks to the latest act of Jihad in Boston) and not having any legs is an actual disability, which is different to skin colour etc.

Being obtuse, getting in a bit of muslim bashing...all in the one post, well done.

If you live in a country where certain traits are discriminated against by a majority, that would be a disadvantage, akin to a physical disability in terms of gaining employment.

Are you permanently angry btw?

jank

Obviously Nodin has to fight to corner of the PC left, but affarmative action is bull **** imo. You are picking people on the basis of their race, not their ability to do the job. Yet this is OK with some!

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Obviously Nodin has to fight to corner of the PC left, but affarmative action is bull **** imo. You are picking people on the basis of their race, ...!

...and those with no legs, women (OMG!!!) and war veterans.....probably leaving out a few there. Up north it was brought in to prevent sectarian discrimination.

Yet, as mentioned earlier, what do single area do some get worked up about...?

jank

So basicly you want people with a disability treated as if they are special rather than people who have something to offer to society for whom they are not what they are.

Tell me, is there a law stating that women have to make up a % of peopl in a workplace? So what the **** are you on about????

You are seriously grasping at straws if you have to bring the north into this argument lol, as if that is the standard we should be looking at!!

You are for discriminating against one set of people so that another set of people can be offered work or education on the basis of their sex, race or disability rather on their ability. That is racist and sexist my lefty friend.

SeanW

Herb Powell wrote: »

they don't engage in any crime

Hypothetically speaking, (and I'm not saying this is true) but suppose that immigrants from one culture/country were more inclined to commit crimes than immigrants from another.

Would it not make more sense to give preference to the latter?

Nodin wrote: »

...and those with no legs, women (OMG!!!) and war veterans.....probably leaving out a few there. Up north it was brought in to prevent sectarian discrimination.

I oppose "positive" discrimination but this is off topic, the disabled get preferential parking spaces and I'm fine with that though. And as for bringing Northern Ireland into it ... and you call me obtuse :rolleyes:

jank

SeanW wrote: »

Hypotheticalpreferential parking spaces and I'm fine with that though. And as for bringing Northern Ireland into it ... and you call me obtuse :rolleyes:

Think Nodin lost the argument right there. "But, but, but... The north!" Yea, mate lets make that the standard model of democracy in the world.
:rolleyes:

humanji

Folks, cut out the petty digs at each other. You don't have to make each post personal.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

So basicly you want people with a disability treated as if they are special rather than people who have something to offer to society for whom they are not what they are.

Tell me, is there a law stating that women have to make up a % of peopl in a workplace? So what the **** are you on about????

You are seriously grasping at straws if you have to bring the north into this argument lol, as if that is the standard we should be looking at!!
.

The law in the states, which is where we were talking about, is designed to prevent discrimination against those with disabilities. There are also laws regarding women in this regard.

There are no "quotas" per se, as far as I know. A firm has to show that its employees are broadly representative of the workforce in the area if it wants a federal contract.

The north has affirmative action in relation to the nationalist population
being under-represented in the workforce.

SeanW wrote:

the disabled get preferential parking spaces and I'm fine with that though

So you don't believe in ensuring that disabled persons are treated fairly in the workplace?

Herb Powell

SeanW wrote: »

Hypothetically speaking, (and I'm not saying this is true) but suppose that immigrants from one culture/country were more inclined to commit crimes than immigrants from another.

Would it not make more sense to give preference to the latter?

It would make sense if all people of a particular were the same homogenous block, but crime transcends culture, and is present in every country. It makes perfect sense that there would be resentment towards those who come from a cultural background/community who seem to responsible for a lot of crime in an area. It makes sense why people would discriminate, but it doesn't make it ok.

I used the Chinese as an example, because they, and almost all other Asian cultures, are usually held in high regard, even by the bigots as being civilised. However, they have their own crime networks. The triads are as ruthless as any gangs. We hear about huge drug bust on asian-run operations pretty often.

So you see, saying that someone has a higher potential to commit crime just because of their cultural/racial background is nonsense. Like I said, crime is EVERYWHERE, and whilst there are many many many different cultures and ethnic groups, the common denominator of high crime areas/regions appears to be economic, rather than race-related. Poor people are more likely to turn to crime, not people of (x)-colour/whatever.

Shenshen

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Except I never mentioned any areas. Try again.

The areas that had been mentioned, and that my quoted post had referred to.
Better?