Incident at Lost Lane on Saturday

Fall_Guy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, except we are prioritizing those immigrants over the poorest members of our own society, whose problems with education, housing, etc haven't been resolved, and in fact, are progressively getting worse. Think of the Irish children who need to beg in order to have adequate clothes to go to school..?

Rather than look to the problems within Irish society, and resolve them, you would like for Ireland to bring in a new underclass, many of whom will need substantial financial supports to give them a lifestyle even remotely comparable with the average Irish person.. because the focus is not giving these migrants the life of the lowest, but the life of the average.. So, why are we not focusing on our own poor, and vulnerable in the same way?

Yup, I can tug on supposed emotional heart strings too.

You're telling me what I would rather focus on, but you are incorrect in your assertion. I work in community development, I work with some of the most marginalised families in the country, and I really wish the complex set of factors that contribute to the intergenerational disadvantage that the least fortunate in Ireland experience could be solved by their being slightly more money available due to a zero-immigration policy being implemented.

I'm certainly not attempting to tug on heartstrings, if anything I think there's something innately rational about taking a moral stance that we should be willing to offer some small amount of assistance to those from much poorer countries looking to move here given that there relative disadvantage to us is largely down to little else than their place of birth.

I'm not advocating an open doors policy either, to be clear.

I think that your assertion that I would like to neglect Irelands poorest in favour of the welfare of immigrants is the only appeal to emotion here, as it is pushing fear as well as making claims about my original post that I never made myself.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

When is the last few times a chinese person was arrested for such things here, genuine question as I have no recollection of ever seeing stories about these things.

"A people trafficking gang charging €20,000 each to smuggle migrants into Ireland was yesterday smashed by Spanish police.

Officers arrested 155 people involved in the lucrative scam yesterday and stopped the activities of the criminals – who are believed to be Chinese – who transported victims into Ireland and Britain."

Oh there is crime.. but I'm guessing there's little concern since it involves bringing migrants into Ireland. There has also been some Triad activity in Ireland in the past.. but it's not much, all things considered.

The problem is that this a deflection. We refer to common crime, disorder, etc that migrants do, and he deflects to organised crime. It's a way to avoid recognizing what was previously said on the topic.

Fall_Guy

Fall_Guy wrote: »

You're telling me what I would rather focus on, but you are incorrect in your assertion. I work in community development, I work with some of the most marginalised families in the country, and I really wish the complex set of factors that contribute to the intergenerational disadvantage that the least fortunate in Ireland experience could be solved by their being slightly more money available due to a zero-immigration policy being implemented.

Hundreds of millions. Billions over time. Not "slightly more" money available. We're talking about people being employed by the State, and the support of NGOs' whose sole purpose is to handle the issues relating to migration.

In any case, it's not simply about money.. it's about focus. Being concerned with removing the factors that generate poverty in Ireland.. and you're advocating adding to it, by the migration of people who are most likely to end up at the bottom of society.

I'm certainly not attempting to tug on heartstrings, if anything I think there's something innately rational about taking a moral stance that we should be willing to offer some small amount of assistance to those from much poorer countries looking to move here given that there relative disadvantage to us is largely down to little else than their place of birth.

Ahh well, when a statement is made to think of the children, I tend to think people are attempting to tug heartstrings.

People from poorer countries are ill-equipped to work in a 1st world nation, lacking in any substantial low-skilled industries. Our farming sector is in decline, we don't have a manufacturing industry that relies on low skills, and most of our economy is geared towards those with a comparable education to European standards (since education is not equal in quality or trustworthiness)

So.. where do these people from poorer nations find work, that will provide them with the income needed to live independently, and also to provide for their children? Where are the jobs for them to do? Since we already have a native population that can fill those roles.

I'm not advocating an open doors policy either, to be clear.

Then what are you advocating?

I think that your assertion that I would like to neglect Irelands poorest in favour of the welfare of immigrants is the only appeal to emotion here, as it is pushing fear as well as making claims about my original post that I never made myself.

Ahh well, I saw your post as an emotional guilt trip for the requirement to help those less fortunate than Irish people... I've reread it a few times, and I still see the same attempt at a guilt trip. Hence my own emotion laden post. Glad to see that you recognise it in others.. perhaps take a look at your own, and apply the same standards?

Omackeral

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I know you are. But is is fact. I think you are in the Joy

Gas. I’ve never once said which prison I’ve worked in on here. I’ve also worked plenty of escort duties and commitals/discharges and this has never been a point of any of my detail. Nor has it been the case for any of the hundreds of colleagues I’ve encountered on the job.

Repatriation is another thing altogether and happens from time to time but that’s not what you mentioned at all.

Edit just saw you said this pertains to ten years ago so maybe it happened then. Certainly not now as often as you’ve said it originally

Wibbs

Fall_Guy wrote: »

You're telling me what I would rather focus on, but you are incorrect in your assertion. I work in community development, I work with some of the most marginalised families in the country, and I really wish the complex set of factors that contribute to the intergenerational disadvantage that the least fortunate in Ireland experience could be solved by their being slightly more money available due to a zero-immigration policy being implemented.

OK FG, you work in community development and fair play, not an easy job. You see the results of various factors that as you say can lead to disadvantage going back generations. And you'll get little or no dispute from me on that score.

However, the question must be asked and it's the really obvious one; why should we - with little reason other than charity(misplaced IMHO) - import more people with added factors on top of the existing ones here that will increase the number of disadvantaged people here? Why would anyone advocate for that?

This is already happening FG. Just like it happened to other European nations before us and with the same patterns also seen in those nations. In Ireland today, who are least likely to be unemployed, marginalised, undereducated and at the lower end of the social strata; Africans, Asians, Irish? A UCD report into this noted:

O’Connell and Kenny (2017) show that only about 40% of adult African nationals in Ireland are employed, far less than the average for Irish natives or for other immigrant groups. They also suffer much higher rates of unemployment than the national average. The pattern is similar in other European labour markets. [emphasis mine]

By the by legal immigrants from Africa don't show this pattern, only the economic migrant demographic.

Exposure to the asylum industry has been touted as a possible explanation as the same report noted, however:

Even controlling for individual characteristics and the risk of exposure to the asylum system, there remains a substantial residual African disadvantage in both employment and unemployment, which may be due to discriminatory practices by employers.[emphasis mine]

Now racism surely plays a part in this, but Asians and Indians aren't exactly immune to that, nor are the African folks who came here legally through the normal channels. Never mind that this disparity continues down the generations as we've seen in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden etc. Whatever the reasons and there will be many it seems the same reasons are intractable, or nobody has managed to figure out how to change things.

In essence: We have imported an underclass to add to our existing one and continue to double down on this daftness. Hardly seems logical does it? Especially when we could see the same thing happening everywhere else. I could blame hubris among some, but mostly we let our eye off the ball until the birthright loophole was finally closed about ten years too late and we're reaping that now as a society and going on again the experiences of other nations going back decades it's not better it will get.

kildare lad

Fall_Guy wrote: »

You're telling me what I would rather focus on, but you are incorrect in your assertion. I work in community development, I work with some of the most marginalised families in the country, and I really wish the complex set of factors that contribute to the intergenerational disadvantage that the least fortunate in Ireland experience could be solved by their being slightly more money available due to a zero-immigration policy being implemented. .

Slightly more money available ? Direct provisions has cost the state a billion euro in the last 20 years. That's excluding the immigrants that received houses along with claiming rent allowance, children's allowance , unemployment benefit, medical cards that they've received on top of that . Most people aren't against immigration , but immigrants need to be a benefit to Ireland and be able to support themselves and not be tax payer dependent like the ones we have now

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yup. Australia falls within the circle of the Triads, as does the US. What Chinese gang crime is ongoing in Ireland?

There is always going to be some crime from nationalities. However, in terms of migration to a host nation, the Chinese do extremely well in Western nations, whereas other nationalities don't. Nor do we often see disorder within society from their children, which we can see happen from other nationalities. Nor do we see the demands for state supports, and a need for them to gain special recognition as victims..

Triad gangs run protection rackets, prostitution and grow houses in Ireland. They've done so since the 70s. It's easy to ignore because they prey almost exclusively on Chinese immigrants.

Wibbs

Brian? wrote: »

Triad gangs run protection rackets, prostitution and grow houses in Ireland. They've done so since the 70s. It's easy to ignore because they prey almost exclusively on Chinese immigrants.

True enough; there have been a few recent incidences where the Guards got involved and a few scumbags have been kicked out on their arse. Mostly as you note with them targetting their own in language schools and Chinese owned businesses and sex worker trafficking. There was also the now infamous running battle with a load of them going full Jackie Chan on each other with meat cleavers and shotguns in Abbey street in the late 70's. A few dead came out of that one.

The big difference is it's "organised" and very rarely spreads into the wider community. The scumbags don't want any wider attention that will affect business. So well dodgy as it is and needs to be tackled and hard and the perps kicked out of the country the chances of an average Irish person bumping into Chinese triad gangs or large groups of Asian teens on a rampage are significantly lower than with African demographics. The same keep your head down, stay within and support your community, don't make wider waves, work hard, make a few quid cultural traits of East Asian communities that can lead to triads and the like also leads them to do extremely well as a diaspora around the world. Cultural traits that aren't present to nearly the same degree in the African diaspora, though again oddly are present in many African cultures in Africa itself. Unlike the Asian diaspora the African diaspora tends to leave those traits behind.

dd973

It's funny that there's a certain type of Irish person who'd see Dermot O'Leary and Shane McGowan as completely English/British, disqualified from Irishness because their parents moved.

Ironically this sort of exclusivist standpoint about birthplace and accent is actually a very British attitude.

Fall_Guy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ahh well, when a statement is made to think of the children, I tend to think people are attempting to tug heartstrings.


Then what are you advocating?



Ahh well, I saw your post as an emotional guilt trip for the requirement to help those less fortunate than Irish people... I've reread it a few times, and I still see the same attempt at a guilt trip. Hence my own emotion laden post. Glad to see that you recognise it in others.. perhaps take a look at your own, and apply the same standards?

I'm not sure how to multi quote, but will do the best I can to address these three points. There was a lot more in your post but I feel when I cover these it will make it clear why there's no need for me to cover the details you laid out (or maybe not, as I thought my first post would have made that clear).

On the first quote, I didn't make any statement about thinking of the children, so I honestly don't know what you mean here (is this a phrase used to describe statements that one perceives as moralising? It certainly makes no sense in a literal sense).

I would advocate for Ireland accepting a proportional number of asylum seekers to other wealthy countries as some acknowledgement of the fact that a large part of the collective privilege we are afforded in global terms is at the expense of the exploitation of the world's poorest.

We have very different philosophical points of view on this matter, but I can assure you there's no guilt-tripping being done on my part. I believe that given that it is merely a product of pure randomness that I was born in a wealthy country at a time of prosperity as opposed to being born in a poor country, I don't feel the fact that people less fortunate may not make our society better in terms of adding to the strength of our economy is a good enough reason to say we should not admit asylum seekers. And I have no fears about our society being degraded by the presence of a small number of asylum seekers even if they loved down to the lowest expectations that people in this thread have outlined.

If pointing out the very obvious fact that huge inequalities exist at a national and global level that any one of us could find ourselves on either side of through no fault / credit of our own is guilt-tripping, I think we are setting the bar very low in that regard.

For me it seems completely rational to want to mitigate against some of the inequalities that exist in the world given how little personal control we actually have over the standing we have in the social order of things.

Wibbs has made some really good balanced points (*off-topic bit of mancrushing*: and done it in as succinct a way as ever, possibly the most enjoyable poster to read on boards, even if I don't always share his outlook) as to why he feels that the idea of "charitable" instincts are being misplaced here by citing facts showing how many asylum seekers don't flourish economically in new countries.

But my stance would be, again, even if there is plenty of evidence that asylum seekers do struggle to move up the social ladder over generations in new countries (I definitely think there is a different dynamic at play here in many other countries with high numbers of immigrants historically given postcolonial hangovers etc) there is not widespread evidence of social problems involving asylum seekers in Ireland currently, despite the large amount of fear in certain quarters.

Fall_Guy

Fall_Guy wrote: »

On the first quote, I didn't make any statement about thinking of the children, so I honestly don't know what you mean here (is this a phrase used to describe statements that one perceives as moralising? It certainly makes no sense in a literal sense).

You referred to the people who have children who might engage in anti-social behavior. But sure, I found the overall post to be taking the stance of morality, by suggesting that we should give charity to those in need (encouraging or embracing immigration).

I would advocate for Ireland accepting a proportional number of asylum seekers to other wealthy countries as some acknowledgement of the fact that a large part of the collective privilege we are afforded in global terms is at the expense of the exploitation of the world's poorest.

Except, Ireland's success isn't as a result of any exploitation of the worlds poorest. Care to prove that it is... Ireland, mind, not Europe or Western nations collectively.

Collective privilege? What would that be?

We have very different philosophical points of view on this matter, but I can assure you there's no guilt-tripping being done on my part. I believe that given that it is merely a product of pure randomness that I was born in a wealthy country at a time of prosperity as opposed to being born in a poor country, I don't feel the fact that people less fortunate may not make our society better in terms of adding to the strength of our economy is a good enough reason to say we should not admit asylum seekers. And I have no fears about our society being degraded by the presence of a small number of asylum seekers even if they loved down to the lowest expectations that people in this thread have outlined.

Let's be clear. I have no issue with genuine asylum seekers. This is something I've noticed on these kind of threads. The suggestion that the opposition to immigration is about Asylum seekers. It's not. It's about economic migrants, and those who are currently abusing our immigration system... because the numbers of genuine asylum seekers is extremely low in comparison to those who apply.

As for very different philosophical points of view on this matter.. I haven't spoken about my philosophical perspective. I've been looking at this topic from a practical point of view. Perhaps, that's where we're going wrong... if you're discussing this from a philosophical pov.. then anything is possible, since reality takes second place to, well, everything.

Oh.. and I'm getting a very strong vibe that you're a believer in "privilege" like white privilege, and other such nonsense. Would I be incorrect in assuming that you do?

If pointing out the very obvious fact that huge inequalities exist at a national and global level that any one of us could find ourselves on either side of through no fault / credit of our own is guilt-tripping, I think we are setting the bar very low in that regard.

Except you weren't pointing out the inequalities that exist.. you were suggesting that because those inequalities exist, Ireland should take in these migrants.

For me it seems completely rational to want to mitigate against some of the inequalities that exist in the world given how little personal control we actually have over the standing we have in the social order of things.

We already do, and have for decades. Both the State and Irish people have contributed huge amounts in aid sent to foreign countries for all manner of purposes.

Wibbs has made some really good balanced points (*off-topic bit of mancrushing*: and done it in as succinct a way as ever, possibly the most enjoyable poster to read on boards, even if I don't always share his outlook) as to why he feels that the idea of "charitable" instincts are being misplaced here by citing facts showing how many asylum seekers don't flourish economically in new countries.

Not quite sure why you're praising Wibbs in a post directed at me. But sure, Wibbs is my role model on boards.

But my stance would be, again, even if there is plenty of evidence that asylum seekers do struggle to move up the social ladder over generations in new countries (I definitely think there is a different dynamic at play here in many other countries with high numbers of immigrants historically given postcolonial hangovers etc) there is not widespread evidence of social problems involving asylum seekers in Ireland currently, despite the large amount of fear in certain quarters.

So.. we should wait until we have a problem with migrants before considering the dangers/risks of immigration? In spite of the history of every other Western nation to play the immigration and multicultural experiment?

Fall_Guy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You referred to the people who have children who might engage in anti-social behavior. But sure, I found the overall post to be taking the stance of morality, by suggesting that we should give charity to those in need (encouraging or embracing immigration).



Except, Ireland's success isn't as a result of any exploitation of the worlds poorest. Care to prove that it is... Ireland, mind, not Europe or Western nations collectively.

Collective privilege? What would that be?



Let's be clear. I have no issue with genuine asylum seekers. This is something I've noticed on these kind of threads. The suggestion that the opposition to immigration is about Asylum seekers. It's not. It's about economic migrants, and those who are currently abusing our immigration system... because the numbers of genuine asylum seekers is extremely low in comparison to those who apply.

As for very different philosophical points of view on this matter.. I haven't spoken about my philosophical perspective. I've been looking at this topic from a practical point of view. Perhaps, that's where we're going wrong... if you're discussing this from a philosophical pov.. then anything is possible, since reality takes second place to, well, everything.

Oh.. and I'm getting a very strong vibe that you're a believer in "privilege" like white privilege, and other such nonsense. Would I be incorrect in assuming that you do?



Except you weren't pointing out the inequalities that exist.. you were suggesting that because those inequalities exist, Ireland should take in these migrants.



We already do, and have for decades. Both the State and Irish people have contributed huge amounts in aid sent to foreign countries for all manner of purposes.



Not quite sure why you're praising Wibbs in a post directed at me. But sure, Wibbs is my role model on boards.



So.. we should wait until we have a problem with migrants before considering the dangers/risks of immigration? In spite of the history of every other Western nation to play the immigration and multicultural experiment?

Again, apologies for the poor formatting of the reply, but feel free to decipher it if you so choose...

The only reason I mentioned the children of immigrants who may or may not get involved in anti-social behaviour is that, well, this thread is about the child of an immigrant who got involved in anti-social behaviour. Bit of a stretch to label that a "somebody think of the children" argument.

Well, irelands "success" as a nation is not something that I feel qualified to the able to quantify and summarise on boards, but it's the product of a chain of events that none of us can take any credit for. An aggressive pursuit of Foreign Direct Investment going back well over 50 years has played a large role in Irelands economic growth however, and we have benefitted hugely from global capitalism. To view Irelands "success" as being someway isolated and existing outside the global shifts that occurred throughout the 20th and early 21st century is impossible.

Many of these developments saw the quality of life for "developed" countries improve greatly often times through the exploitation of resources and labour from developing countries.

The privilege I speak of is the privilege of being a consumer of any manner of commodity or technical innovation at a price that should not make sense given the scarcity of some of the materials needed to make it. Or the privilege to know that I live in a country that has has a reasonably well functioning social democracy despite its many flaws. Privileges which I didn't earn, I just happened to be born into.

If the "strong vibe" you seem to be getting in relation to use of the term privilege is that I'm someone who would be described as "woke" and tends to see racism everywhere, then no, you would not be correct to assume that I do. If what you mean is do I think that certain people have certain advantages in life that they did nothing to acquire other than being lucky enough to be born with good genes or rich parents or to have been brought up in an environment free of violence / addiction / abuse /neglect etc, then yes, you are correct to assume I believe in privilege.

I believe that we are all the product of a lot of factors, the vast majority of which we had no personal control over. Call that what you will.

For me it follows logically that if we don't really have any ownership over our "success" or "failure" in life, indivually and on a global scale, then there is an obligation to try and mitigate against some of that. I see that you agree with accepting asylum seekers as long as their cases are genuine. So it would seem in principle we agree.

Where we would differ it appears would be at what point of the spectrum of need that we feel a person's right to asylum is justified. It goes without saying that by virtue of the fact that economic migrants WANT to be in Ireland rather than their home country, that it is still true to say that we were lucky enough to be born into a country that is deemed a better place to live than they were. And while that doesn't mean that every single person who decides they want to come to Ireland should be admitted (and they aren't), I do feel there is an obligation to do our part.

Your last point asks should we wait until there was a problem before considering the risks. Are we in agreement that there isn't a problem currently? From what I have read on boards, there seems a large number of people who feel that we already have a massive problem with antisocial behaviour among African youths disproportionate to other youths from a similar socio-economic background. I had counted you among them based on what I had read today.

I honestly don't see the huge failure of the "multicultural experiments" that you speak of. I see rising inequality in developing countries and I see that immigrants tend to be in lower socio-economic groups. I see increased ethnic tensions and political tensions worldwide, possibly thanks to the unintended consequences of the attention economy that social media has dominated in recent years. But I haven't seen any wealthy countries that have been destroyed by an influx of immigrants or asylum seekers.

Hamachi

Fall_Guy wrote: »

I would advocate for Ireland accepting a proportional number of asylum seekers to other wealthy countries as some acknowledgement of the fact that a large part of the collective privilege we are afforded in global terms is at the expense of the exploitation of the world's poorest.

For me it seems completely rational to want to mitigate against some of the inequalities that exist in the world given how little personal control we actually have over the standing we have in the social order of things...

Just to pick up on a few of your points.

1. Ireland is already exceedingly generous in contributing to the effort to mitigate against global inequality. We contribute 0.7% of GDP or ~800M euros annually to overseas aid. This money goes much further in developing nations, than it would transplanting a cohort of migrants to developed nations, where they are ill-equipped to succeed. It’s quite disingenuous of you to imply that Ireland isn’t an active participant here.

2. People don’t have an issue with legitimate asylum seekers. Those who are genuinely in fear of their lives for political or societal reasons should be offered sanctuary here. However, many Irish people are rightly disenchanted with our current asylum system. It was thoroughly subverted by sub-Saharan Africans from 1998-2004, exploiting the jus soli citizenship loophole. In more recent times, we’ve experienced a primarily male-driven influx from the Indian subcontinent and Albania and Georgia. A negligible % of these people have a legitimate claim to asylum. This rightly irritates the native population and ensures that the entire asylum seeking population is observed with a cynical eye. Hard on heart, can you truly claim that the Nigerian community arrived here via genuine channels?

3. I actually agree with your suggestion that asylum seekers should be distributed equitably across developed nations. Let’s assume that the EU signs up to an annual intake of 200K, which to my eyes is relatively generous. Ireland comprises 1% of the EU population, which translates to an annual intake of 2K. That seems fair and proportionate to me. Would you concur and sign off on this approach?

4. Another option that hasn’t been discussed hitherto, is linking the asylum intake to taxation. It could work like the church tax in Germany. Essentially, it’s an opt-in, additional tax. Those who feel morally obligated to opt in like yourself, sign up to paying the tax. Those who are opposed to asylum seeking, opt out. This revenue stream determines the annual intake and the supports available to asylum seekers. This may be a pragmatic solution that appeals to arguments on both sides of the debate.

I respect your opinions and your willingness to debate, which is in stark contrast to the snarky, puerile posting style of others. However, I’m not a fan of your utterances around ‘collective privilege’. It smacks to me of an ideological stance, for which I have little affection.

gerogerigegege

Omackeral wrote: »

Gas. I’ve never once said which prison I’ve worked in on here. I’ve also worked plenty of escort duties and commitals/discharges and this has never been a point of any of my detail. Nor has it been the case for any of the hundreds of colleagues I’ve encountered on the job.

Repatriation is another thing altogether and happens from time to time but that’s not what you mentioned at all.

Edit just saw you said this pertains to ten years ago so maybe it happened then. Certainly not now as often as you’ve said it originally

UK to build prison wing in Lagos to transfer Nigerian prisoners

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-nigeria-prison/uk-to-build-prison-wing-in-lagos-to-transfer-nigerian-prisoners-idUSKCN1GK1BA

Fall_Guy

Fall_Guy wrote: »

The only reason I mentioned the children of immigrants who may or may not get involved in anti-social behaviour is that, well, this thread is about the child of an immigrant who got involved in anti-social behaviour. Bit of a stretch to label that a "somebody think of the children" argument.

Fair enough, although I would suggest that your original post that I replied to had more than a little of moralising involved.. Which is fine in itself, but it still points to a guilt trip. Your further posts have since reinforced that perception.

Well, irelands "success" as a nation is not something that I feel qualified to the able to quantify and summarise on boards, but it's the product of a chain of events that none of us can take any credit for. An aggressive pursuit of Foreign Direct Investment going back well over 50 years has played a large role in Irelands economic growth however, and we have benefitted hugely from global capitalism. To view Irelands "success" as being someway isolated and existing outside the global shifts that occurred throughout the 20th and early 21st century is impossible.

Which is not what i said. Irelands success is based on playing the odds, sucking up to both the EU and multinational companies, and aiming at producing a relatively high skilled workforce to take on the need for services, and technology, that companies didn't have easily available in an English speaking country. Ireland has juggled the few advantages available to it quite well. Ireland also joined the EU at a great time for gaining investment and support... before it's attentions drifted.

Many of these developments saw the quality of life for "developed" countries improve greatly often times through the exploitation of resources and labour from developing countries.

Huh? Unless you're talking about gains from colonial assets, then I'm somewhat confused by the reference. Resources from developing countries was paid for... as for labor.. huh? Once again, I'm wondering if you're applying a collective responsibility for what the US or European nations did themselves.

The privilege I speak of is the privilege of being a consumer of any manner of commodity or technical innovation at a price that should not make sense given the scarcity of some of the materials needed to make it. Or the privilege to know that I live in a country that has has a reasonably well functioning social democracy despite its many flaws. Privileges which I didn't earn, I just happened to be born into.

Ahh... the privilege of birth. Gotcha. Nah. I don't buy it. I started working at 16 because my parents didn't have the disposable income to provide for us all.. just as I held multiple jobs throughout college (not University), and that I sent home money for a long period after I'd started working.

You see... I've traveled. I've lived in a variety of places in Asia, and I've also spent time in both Africa, and the M.East. I've seen absolute poverty, and I've seen poor, just as I've seen people lead pretty happy lives while having few financial benefits.

Now, you're welcome to believe in some kind of privilege, but my father shared a pair of shoes with his brother until he was in his late teens. His family wasn't wealthy. Wasn't even comfortable, or secure. So.. nope... I'm not buying into this need to believe that we owe those who live in less prosperous regions. (I volunteered in Africa, not because I owed anybody anything but because I felt I could help others. Which I did. Interesting experience)

I believe that we are all the product of a lot of factors, the vast majority of which we had no personal control over. Call that what you will.

I'd consider it to be irrelevant.

For me it follows logically that if we don't really have any ownership over our "success" or "failure" in life, indivually and on a global scale, then there is an obligation to try and mitigate against some of that. I see that you agree with accepting asylum seekers as long as their cases are genuine. So it would seem in principle we agree.

Hell no. I believe that we are in a position to help a small group of people, who genuinely need that help, because their lives are at risk. Economic migrants have many options for finding a place to live and work.. it doesn't have to be Ireland, or even the EU.

, I do feel there is an obligation to do our part.

We already do. I snipped the rest because I don't, even remotely, agree with you.

Your last point asks should we wait until there was a problem before considering the risks. Are we in agreement that there isn't a problem currently? From what I have read on boards, there seems a large number of people who feel that we already have a massive problem with antisocial behaviour among African youths disproportionate to other youths from a similar socio-economic background. I had counted you among them based on what I had read today.

Based on what you read of mine? Where did I state any such thing? I haven't written anything about African youths being anti-social.

My concerns are rather simple.

One. Many of these migrants are lacking in the educational requirements to be considered comparable with an Irish workforce, and the demands of the mainstream job market. (as I said previously, the quality of education, even should it be present is highly dubious)
Two. Any educational initiatives to upskill them will take many years (considering that many migrants don't speak English well, and our own training initiatives have been so unsuccessful with our own low skilled population).. and during the time that education is being acquired (if it's acquired), they need to supported by the State.
Three. There is no current and proven method of integrating these groups of migrants into Irish society, except for the desire of some to change Irish society to accommodate migrants. In every western nation where the same attitude was brought into play, it has led to problems, and outright failure..

I could go on with another dozen concerns...

I honestly don't see the huge failure of the "multicultural experiments" that you speak of. I see rising inequality in developing countries and I see that immigrants tend to be in lower socio-economic groups. I see increased ethnic tensions and political tensions worldwide, possibly thanks to the unintended consequences of the attention economy that social media has dominated in recent years. But I haven't seen any wealthy countries that have been destroyed by an influx of immigrants or asylum seekers.

Destroyed? That's your qualifier for failure? okie dokie. All joking aside, you need to pay more attention to the status of immigrants in western nations, not from the perspective of finding justifications that they're victims, but rather to see why they're consistently failing. They.. not the State. Not western culture. The immigrants themselves. Perhaps take a look at the failure rates of educational programs across the EU... or the failure to translate those on welfare, to jobs that don't require State supplements for those migrants to live a reasonable lifestyle.

I don't want an immigrant underclass in Ireland or Europe. That leads to bitterness and anger over being treated badly... but the simple fact is that Ireland doesn't have the jobs for these kind of migrants. We don't have a substantial low skilled economy. Even Germany has had problems providing such jobs to migrants, because such jobs aren't growing.. we live in an age where med-high skills are in demand. Not low skills without education. Without decent jobs, migrants won't be able to live independent lives, capable of increasing their social mobility and improving "the lot" for their children. They will be reliant on the State for income support.. for education.. for almost everything.. and we are all entering a recession due to covid and the danger of debt financing in companies. Revenues for the State are likely to fall, which means that migrants (especially if more are allowed in) will have less income.. when they were expecting more from living in a first world nation. All the while, watching jealously what Irish families have.. and.. that's not going to lead to gratitude.

Wibbs

Fall_Guy wrote: »

Your last point asks should we wait until there was a problem before considering the risks. Are we in agreement that there isn't a problem currently? From what I have read on boards, there seems a large number of people who feel that we already have a massive problem with antisocial behaviour among African youths disproportionate to other youths from a similar socio-economic background. I had counted you among them based on what I had read today.

With only two decades of this multicultural experiment under our belt we already have as I noted above; 40% of adult African nationals in Ireland are employed Basic maths tells us 60% aren't or semi employed and on social welfare. And that's the figure for the documented. The "undocumented" AKA illegal numbers here we're not sure of. We have already added an underclass to the existing one. 20 years in. Going on the charity and our responsibilities angle we've created an imported underclass, rather than done much to improve lives overseas, or here.

I honestly don't see the huge failure of the "multicultural experiments" that you speak of. I see rising inequality in developing countries and I see that immigrants tend to be in lower socio-economic groups. I see increased ethnic tensions and political tensions worldwide, possibly thanks to the unintended consequences of the attention economy that social media has dominated in recent years. But I haven't seen any wealthy countries that have been destroyed by an influx of immigrants or asylum seekers.

It's not rising FG, it's a consistent feature of every single multicultural nation in Europe(and beyond) and has been for many decades and long before social media or any of that. It was present when more unskilled labour was needed, it's happening now when it's not. And that feature is also consistent in how the different demographics line up in inequality: Those of African origin are clustered at the bottom(along with groups like Pakistani and some ME origins), White Europeans run the gamut from bottom to top obviously because they're the majority, but are far less likely to be on the bottom than the previous demographics. East Asians tend to be clustered near the top, with far fewer in receipt of social supports(Indians and Jews similarly). Find any Western nation where this isn't the case. There isn't one and hasn't been one in the last half century plus of increased migration into the West. The pattern is remarkably consistent and remarkably obvious, but is rarely talked about by those in power save to blame the host society for racism, while thinking this time it'll be different.

Ireland is just playing recent catch up to all the rest that we should have learned from. If the birthright loophole never existed today we would have many thousands fewer in need of social support. And that's before the other issues that other nations have to deal with; ghettoisation, which has already started here and will continue as "White Flight" digs in more and a rise in criminality and antisocial behaviour on top of the existing one. Thankfully we've so far avoided the Islamist/Western faultline of others and hopefully that stays that way as numbers remain low and most such folks are here legally, well educated and employed so ghettoisation in both geography and the mindset is lesser.

In essence my issues boil down as they always have to this: The advantages of multiculturalism are extremely and surprisingly vague for such an apparent given, nay sacred cow of current Western thought. They're pretty much entirely based on notions of exoticism and charity, or good for business in unregulated and unskilled labour markets as they drive wages down, which isn't in play here. The disadvantages are legion and worse in some demographics, not least for those demographics and their succeeding generations themselves.

TL;DR? Why import more societal problems when we already have our own homegrown problems? It's like finding a small fire in a room of your house and rather than look to contain that you add in more wood. It makes zero sense.