What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Mainly from Ukraine and Belarus, with a some from India and Bangladesh. Not too many from middle east or Africa.

So what? They're still migrant populations. Oh.. you think this is just about those from the M.East and Africa?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So what? They're still migrant populations. Oh.. you think this is just about those from the M.East and Africa?

I simply Googled it after you posted it. Why the aggressive reaction??

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I simply Googled it after you posted it. Why the aggressive reaction??

Hold on a second. You think my reaction was aggressive? seriously? :pac:

Cordell

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you really going to deny the degree of influence that the EU has over member states?

EU is made of those member states but I'm not going to deny that some member states have more influence than the others.

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyway.. it's the UN making the rules by determining the rights of migrants/refugees, and providing plenty of space for the legal representatives of NGOs to appeal just about any decision regarding a migrant application.

UN has become a joke and countries have the power to oppose their rules.

Deleted User wrote: »

Genuine Asylum applications are generally very small. There's been too much widening the scope of what is considered Asylum, vs a "refugee". In the media, and within mainstream society.

True, but not EU fault.


To make it clear, my point is not to defend EU, but to point out who's actually responsible.

seenitall

Cordell wrote: »

When the issue was about sharing the burden of illegal migrants the sanctions they faced were insignificant, if any.
The real problem EU have with these two is about democracy and rule of law, also they back each other up and no real sanction can be applied because serious sanctions require unanimity when voted. This effectively creates a rogue group within EU and this is a very serious problem.

Furthermore, I have a problem with blaming EU for the non EU migration and all the problems it brings, because when you blame the EU the ones that are actually to blame won't be held responsible, and some may even use this to defend themselves - saying thins like we can't secure our borders and deport immigrants because EU doesn't allow us. Immigration policy and enforcement is something that each individual country is responsible for, an not the EU. There is no EU border control corps and no EU immigration police.

Insignificant, they were taken to court over not assenting, actually. Which serves them right for going rogue, yes? A very serious problem indeed.

I don’t know who you think is ultimately responsible (Erdogan, maybe? The USA?) for the crisis of thousands of young men from Maghreb, West and East Africa, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran being on the move through the Mediterranean and Balkan routes as we speak (in the spring when it gets warmer in Europe, it will be many tens of thousands again), sneaking into Europe from several sides, undocumented, unvetted and unwanted. The EU could do a hell of a lot here to unite around a firm response and stop the farce, rather than getting stroppy with its own members for electing not to participate in it, and so setting the expectation far and wide that it is, as a whole, actually welcoming to the issue! That’s not how you solve a political crisis of this magnitude, that is visited on the ground of so many countries of a political union; if the EU is the political union and entity that it thinks it is, then it needs to have a firm and unified response to this, something along the lines of the Australian model at the very least. And that is nowhere to be seen (trying to pay off Erdogan to keep ‘em on the other side of the border, like a blackmailed weakling, really doesn’t count).

correct horse battery staple

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

To add EU came about because nationalism (both right and left variety) destroyed the continent and killed dozens of million of people. 6 million alone were gased to stamp out the Jewish race and culture all because of rantings of a madman.

What are you on about? The EU was created as an economic zone long after such events.

But many these days have either forgotten the terrible history of Europe or are uneducated and/or don’t care

Probably most don't care... we live in a particularly selfish period. That's not to say people don't know about it though. Modern pop culture has many references to the experiences of the Jews. Less so about the 'other undesirables' that were persecuted but I doubt very much that many people are ignorant of European history (unless they're not from Europe originally) [They're still making movies about WW2, and what happened to the Jews tends to be well represented. Did you watch 'jojo rabbit'?]

It saddens me how this has been forgotten about and daily one can read dangerous nonsense on this site which wouldn’t look out of place in 1930s Germany

Such as? I'm sure you can provide a range of examples...

I wish EU paid for all kids to make one school trip to Aushwitz to learn that same mistakes should never be repeated. I am afraid it’s to late for several posters on this thread tho, they’ve been indoctrinated by toxic rhetoric and parallel universe that’s crawling out of woodwork.

I've been to both Treblinka and Auschwitz. Have you? Considering that you spelled it (Auschwitz) wrong, makes me think that you haven't.

As for your claim of posters being indoctrinated.. let's do a few rounds, perhaps with you highlighting such indoctrinated beliefs and disproving them?

Cordell

seenitall wrote: »

Insignificant, they were taken to court over not assenting, actually. Which serves them right for going rogue, yes? A very serious problem indeed.

Sarcasm aside, you are conflating two separate issues. The main problem EU have with these countries is their Erdogan style leadership, their attitude during the migrant crisis is not so important. They refused migrants and nothing serious came out of it, so much for EU forcing migrants down their neck.

seenitall wrote: »

I don’t know who you think is ultimately responsible (Erdogan, maybe? The USA?) for the crisis of thousands of young men from Maghreb, West and East Africa, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran being on the move through the Mediterranean and Balkan routes as we speak (in the spring when it gets warmer in Europe, it will be many tens of thousands again), sneaking into Europe from several sides, undocumented, unvetted and unwanted. The EU could do a hell of a lot here to unite around a firm response and stop the farce, rather than getting stroppy with its own members for electing not to participate in it, and so setting the expectation far and wide that it is, as a whole, actually welcoming to the issue! That’s not how you solve a political crisis of this magnitude, that is visited on the ground of so many countries of a political union; if the EU is the political union and entity that it thinks it is, then it needs to have a firm and unified response to this, something along the lines of the Australian model at the very least. And that is nowhere to be seen (trying to pay off Erdogan to keep ‘em on the other side of the border, like a blackmailed weakling, really doesn’t count).

Who is responsible? The people of those countries and their culture. They created shthole countries everyone wants to run from, no one else. This is why we need to be very careful about accepting them here.
EU could have done a lot to prevent this migrant crisis, to stop the ships from coming and ensuring the law is enforced. They didn't, partly because they didn't care, and partly because they cant. Blaming EU for its inaction I agree, but blaming EU for the migrant crisis is a scape route for the ones actually responsible.

seenitall

Cordell wrote: »

Sarcasm aside, you are conflating two separate issues. The main problem EU have with these countries is their Erdogan style leadership, their attitude during the migrant crisis is not so important. They refused migrants and nothing serious came out of it, so much for EU forcing migrants down their neck.



Who is responsible? The people of those countries and their culture. They created shthole countries everyone wants to run from, no one else. This is why we need to be very careful about accepting them here.
EU could have done a lot to prevent this migrant crisis, to stop the ships from coming and ensuring the law is enforced. They didn't, partly because they didn't care, and partly because they cant. Blaming EU for its inaction I agree, but blaming EU for the migrant crisis is a scape route for the ones actually responsible.

Going to the trouble to taking them to court over the issue of migrants is a big deal and not “nothing serious”. It was, among other things, a sign to everyone at large that the EU is open for business of accepting them in and will determine quotas and do its very best to try and enforce them with even the unwilling members if needed. It was a bad move, but not worse than thinking up the quotas ‘Solution’ in the first place. As long as there are no borders within the EU, the quotas are unworkable, as the migrants are not just going to sit still in Hungary if they really want to be in Germany with their relatives and contacts, and no amount of not granting residence for a long time, and other such measures will dissuade them; they know that countries like Germany or Sweden are too concerned with their ‘human rights’ to functionally protect the state and its citizens.

As for your second paragraph, IMO if a political entity has the means to do something about a blatant problem that it has, and yet doesn’t act, it is the creator of its own misfortune, more than anyone else. How the rest of the world is being governed is for the rest of the world to consider. Europe’s problems start at Europe’s doors, and that’s where the solutions lie, as well. Not in Afghanistan.

Cordell

Again, EU is not a separate entity, it's made of member states. If Germany really wants migrants, they can get them themselves, they don't need to force Hungary and Poland to take them first then wait for them to move to Germany across those open borders.
So when you say EU it's open for business, to whom exactly are you referring to? Who wants illegal migrants and why?

seenitall

The EU (its most influential states specifically) have been torn between their humanitaran impulses, the corporate view of more and more population being nothing but beneficial, the government conviction that “we need migrants to pay our pensions in the future” and the ‘populist’ backlash to all of this when the populations started waking up to the fact that they are being sold a pup. So Germany, for example, has to balance these elements precariously, and it does. It talks a good talk of humanitariasm, takes in boatloads of unknown and unknowable men in the hope of future prosperity they will bring, but once it sees the mood music change, then it’s “we all have to do our part, we are not taking them all in (because the migrants’ stock has plummeted and the German on the street sees them more and more as a nuisance and a threat than an asset now - think the rise of AfD), here, Poland, Hungary and others will also get loads so ye can’t complain too much” (the unspoken message here being: “See, we ARE trying to get rid of them!”). It is all so cynical, dishonest and, most importantly, useless. (As I’ve already mentioned, to the migrants themselves, these attempted reshuffles and re-directions only send the message that it’s green light in Europe. So, worse than useless, really. The situation calls for a glaring red traffic light.)

As to the bigger picture in all of this, I find the DeadHand’s post interesting. I admit, I am less versed in that, not so visible, side of politics, but certain trends are making themselves known, for sure.

RobbieTheRobber

seenitall wrote: »

The EU (its most influential states specifically) have been torn between their humanitaran impulses, the corporate view of more and more population being nothing but beneficial, the government conviction that “we need migrants to pay our pensions in the future” and the ‘populist’ backlash to all of this when the populations started waking up to the fact that they are being sold a pup. So Germany, for example, has to balance these elements precariously, and it does. It talks a good talk of humanitariasm, takes in boatloads of unknown and unknowable men in the hope of future prosperity they will bring, but once it sees the mood music change, then it’s “we all have to do our part, we are not taking them all in (because the migrants’ stock has plummeted and the German on the street sees them more and more as a nuisance and a threat than an asset now - think the rise of AfD), here, Poland, Hungary and others will also get loads so ye can’t complain too much” (the unspoken message here being: “See, we ARE trying to get rid of them!”). It is all so cynical, dishonest and, most importantly, useless. (As I’ve already mentioned, to the migrants themselves, these attempted reshuffles and re-directions only send the message that it’s green light in Europe. So, worse than useless, really. The situation calls for a glaring red traffic light.)

As to the bigger picture in all of this, I find the DeadHand’s post interesting. I admit, I am less versed in that, not so visible, side of politics, but certain trends are making themselves known, for sure.

Aren't afd polling worse than they were three years ago?
My german is miniscule so I'm going to use wikipedia as my source but I believe they are down at 10% support in the polls from a high of 3 years ago when they were about 20%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2021_German_federal_election

seenitall

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Aren't afd polling worse than they were three years ago?
My german is miniscule so I'm going to use wikipedia as my source but I believe they are down at 10% support in the polls from a high of 3 or 4 years ago when they were about 20%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2021_German_federal_election

Honestly, I haven’t checked recently. I was making a point to do with a court case of around 3 or 4 years ago, when the EU sued several countries for not consenting to take in quotas of migrants (coinciding with the high for AfD, you dont’s say?!) This can be gleaned from the context of my post, I think.

Dyr

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

To add EU came about because nationalism (both right and left variety) destroyed the continent and killed dozens of million of people. 6 million alone were gased to stamp out the Jewish race and culture all because of rantings of a madman.
.

Oh right, nationalism. Kind funny that the facists were imperialists (clues in the names, "The Third Reich", "The Second Roman Empire")

Of course, the left back then were internationalists rather than nationalists, or globalists as they like to be called now.

Sand

Deleted User wrote: »

I had the misfortune of hearing that ebun woman on newstalk today, my goodness she will cause trouble. Such a divisive attitude. She will do nothing but harm for race relations in this country.

Kivaro wrote: »

She would do no harm if she was not provided the platform to spew her hatred/racism at the whole Irish nation.

While I agree Ebun is an entirely disagreeable person, its important to remember she isnt the problem. She is the result of the problem. If it wasn't Ebun, it would be someone else. The problem is multiculturalism - mass migration creates ethnic enclaves, which then creates ethnic strife. People like Eubun are inevitable once you allow mass migration to occur.

DeadHand wrote: »

The EU despises native nationalism within the individual countries of Europe as it stands as the greatest obstacle to federalisation.

The most effective means to neutralise this nationalism is to reduce and demoralise European nations in their own homelands. Mass immigration is a potent tool to achieve this aim as it can be (and is) defended and justified through emotive arguments, social taboo and, increasingly, oppressive law even if the self-evident reality on the ground is that it harms the native society.

It has the happy side effect of swelling both European cheap labour pools and markets. Hence, corporations eagerly throw their mammoth weight behind the calculated plantation.

Our politicians are careerists first and national leaders a distant second (if they are at all). Thus, they will implement every program advanced by the EU even if said program harms the Irish nation. To almost a man and woman they have aspirations to play in the bigger league that European politics represents after their time in domestic politics is done. Total obedience while in domestic office blazes the trail toward a lucrative next career phase in Brussels.

Our homeland is being planted again, just as it was sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, for the achievement of a political aim. This will result in blood. The first stirrings we have seen in Carraigaline, Balbriggan, Blanchardstown and Clonee.

We can simply look to France, England and Sweden to see the strife that invariably follows at the more advanced stages of multiculturalism, these waters are not uncharted.

I dearly hope that I am wrong and that things will work out alright. As it is, I believe we are heading toward a society that is divided, violent, tense and unhappy.

I don't disagree with what you've stated - I'd just comment on the bit in bold that it doesn't *have* to be opposed. People can be Irish and European. They can be English and European. French and European. German and European. The EU does not need to require an either/or choice between national and European identity and given the threat posed by globalism a regional response is necessary. Hang together or hang separately as a European-American once said.

If the EU detests European peoples it is only because it is controlled by neoliberalism which wants to reduce people to mere factors of productivity. A pro-European EU would defend European peoples.

Sand

Cordell wrote: »

No, it doesn't. Or, more accurately, the left wing politicians that were voted in by the people do. If this needs to change people need to vote politicians that have different views.
This whole EU vs us narrative is wrong, we all are the EU, it's a partnership, not an impersonal ruling office.

It isnt a left wing vs right wing topic. Those terms are outdated. The left leaning neoliberals demand mass migration because of the anti-racism policies their corporate donors demand. The right leaning neoliberals demand mass migration because of the anti-racism policies their corporate donors demand.

Any individual, group or party which opposes mass migration is immediately deplatformed and unpersoned by the corporations that control access to the public square. How can people freely vote for politicians with 'different views' if those politicians walled away from public discourse by the corporations whose interests are threatened by those views?

seenitall

Sand wrote: »

It isnt a left wing vs right wing topic. Those terms are outdated. The left leaning neoliberals demand mass migration because of the anti-racism policies their corporate donors demand. The right leaning neoliberals demand mass migration because of the anti-racism policies their corporate donors demand.

Did you just answer those few pertinent questions from the end of your post #5704? Most of Western Europe seems to have centralist governments that are in thrall to forces other than the principles of transparency and patriotism (that latter one being a dirty word especially these days). So, left or right is meaningless, the centre has the best optics (it’s in the name) so gets elected, but whatever it’s called, it’s the Europeans that are getting scewrd.

The centre will not hold.

https://jeffreyharrod.blogspot.com/2011/11/global-weimarism-or-why-centre-cannot.html?m=1

Sand

Sand wrote: »

While I agree Ebun is an entirely disagreeable person, its important to remember she isnt the problem. She is the result of the problem. If it wasn't Ebun, it would be someone else.

Actually, I disagree with you here. Ebun is part of the problem. She's a manifestation of the identity politics that has been allowed to infect western culture, and she (and those who support her) will generate far more racism that would likely happen naturally.

You see, I feel that racism is a human condition that won't be removed by laws, or even by the social conditioning we're seeing. It's a natural reaction to exposure to other cultures in a negative way. Oh. I definitely see racism as a negative in itself, but it's something that I've seen just about every nation I've ever visited or lived in. But the simple truth is that immigration has highlighted the differences in cultures, whether that being work culture, or behavioral norms. When a large percentage of a cultural/racial group, end up at the bottom of society, then others are going to feel superior, or feel bitterness that funding is taken away from them, and given to the migrants. It's natural.

Ebun with her push to have racism recognised in Ireland, encourages that anger/bitterness to manifest. Without her, it's likely that racism in Ireland would continue to be a muted thing. With her, it's rammed down peoples throats, and will generate a backlash eventually.

The problem is multiculturalism - mass migration creates ethnic enclaves, which then creates ethnic strife. People like Eubun are inevitable once you allow mass migration to occur.

Identity politics and multiculturalism are two separate things. They're connected but identity politics arose from the feminist movement, and has gathered serious momentum from the trans debate. Ireland would naturally have many racial groups through normal immigration.

The best example I can give is China... a remarkably homogeneous society, even with 56 ethnic groups, they're all "Chinese". There is still a huge amount of immigration, even though China doesn't encourage that immigration. I don't mean westerners or Asians doing business or teaching, but large numbers of Africans and Arabs.

Immigration is a fact of life in a modern world. It just is.

Ebun is inevitable when Identity politics is given a platform. Even without multiculturalism, Ebun would have had the basis to cry racism, because immigration existed before mass immigration.

TBH, while I know some posters here will blow this out of proportion, I can see the end of western dominance as an economic and diplomatic powerhouse ending, due to identity politics. It's so damn divisive, and weakens every society that allows it a platform.

Dyr

Danes sound like they've had enough

https://www.thelocal.dk/20210122/danish-prime-minister-wants-country-to-accept-zero-asylum-seekers

Kivaro

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH, while I know some posters here will blow this out of proportion, I can see the end of western dominance as an economic and diplomatic powerhouse ending, due to identity politics. It's so damn divisive, and weakens every society that allows it a platform.

Russia and China are just sitting back with amazed faces watching our self-inflicted deterioration.... without a bullet being fired.

I remember during the one good day during the summer doing a coastal drive and thinking about the glorious land that we have here, and the work and sacrifices that our forefathers endured to get it. And then with all the inward non-EU migration, I thought as I passed by the green fields, well, that's 1/4 acre for a Pakistani migrant, that's 1/4 acre for a Bangladeshi, that's a 1/4 acre for a Nigerian and so on ....
It was just a metaphor in my head for the resources (financial, medical, educational etc.) and actual property (including land) that the Irish government were giving to people who have no connection to our country and with some of them also abusing the generosity of the Irish people.

If these migrants were actively involved in our society, working and contributing, then it wouldn't be an issue. And fair play to those who want to participate. But for a sizeable proportion of them coming here to live off welfare and expecting us to adhere to the customs of their homelands, well then, that is something we all should object to.

With Covid becoming so prominent in our lives now and with such an uncertain future, we need to ask if the Government made a wise decision to increase our population in such a quick manner? Do we have the resources to take care of everyone if things get worse? We have been told that the country can handle 10 million people, and we need them to pay for our pensions, but the reality is so much detached from that. We really need to re-evaluate the scale of non-EU migration to Ireland. Maybe Covid will focus the country to finally ask these questions.

RobbieTheRobber

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Aren't afd polling worse than they were three years ago?
My german is miniscule so I'm going to use wikipedia as my source but I believe they are down at 10% support in the polls from a high of 3 years ago when they were about 20%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2021_German_federal_election

I'm not that familiar with German politics but I had been doing a bit of reading after Angela Merkel's party selected their successor, he doesn't seem to be popular with the electorate (https://www.dw.com/en/germany-poll-shows-low-support-for-new-cdu-head-as-merkel-successor/a-56256832) but the guy who is the front runner currently (polling at 43%) Markus Söder, seems quite conservative about both Eurozone expansion and migration, seems passionate about German/Bavarian identity

"During the Greek government-debt crisis, Söder was among the most vocal in calling for Greece to leave the Eurozone. By 2012, he said in an interview: "Athens must stand as an example that this Eurozone can also show teeth."

In early 2018, Söder reiterated his opposition against any expansion of the eurozone to include countries like Bulgaria and Romania; the introduction of Eurobonds; and the creation of a European finance minister post"

"Throughout the European migrant crisis, Söder has sharply criticized the migrant policies of Angela Merkel several times. He warned of a "huge security gap" that remained because the whereabouts of hundred thousands of migrants was still unclear and he strongly doubted that the integration of so many people could succeed. In Söder's view, the Germans did not want a multicultural society. Refugees should return to their home countries whenever possible. The dictum "Wir schaffen das" ("We make it") of Chancellor Merkel was "not the right signal", instead he suggested "Wir haben verstanden" ("We have understood").

In 2018, Söder's government enacted the Kreuzpflicht, an obligation to display crosses at the entrance of public buildings. Söder has stated that the crosses are not to be seen as Christian symbols, but as symbols of Bavarian cultural identity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markus_S%C3%B6der

I don't speak much German so I'm relying on Wikipedia, interested to hear if anyone more familiar with German politics has a view on him

Kivaro

Bambi wrote: »

Danes sound like they've had enough

https://www.thelocal.dk/20210122/danish-prime-minister-wants-country-to-accept-zero-asylum-seekers

This story from a couple of days ago should be looked at in more depth.
"The Danish prime minister wants her country to accept 'zero' asylum seekers. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen says her ambition is for Denmark not to offer asylum to any refugees at all."

So for a country that had over 21,000 asylum applications in 2015, but now want none; why such a dramatic change in policy?
The answer is in what the Danish Prime Minister calls social cohesion. She says that Denmark is already under threat from it:
“We must take care that not too many come to our country, otherwise our social cohesion could not exist. It is already under threat”.

With the recent asylum NGO report telling the government that we need to accept up to 5,000 new asylum seekers every year indefinitely (with no end), and with a guarantee by Roderic O' Gorman of their own house/apartment within 3 months of arriving here; Ireland will be inundated with asylum seekers for years to come. What about our social cohesion? Is there an Irish politician out there who will ask this question?

We need to solve this problem now and not let it fester, because we are seeing our own social cohesion problems all over the country front and centre in the news.

Hellokitty1212

Kivaro wrote: »

This story from a couple of days ago should be looked at in more depth.
"The Danish prime minister wants her country to accept 'zero' asylum seekers. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen says her ambition is for Denmark not to offer asylum to any refugees at all."

So for a country that had over 21,000 asylum applications in 2015, but now want none; why such a dramatic change in policy?
The answer is in what the Danish Prime Minister calls social cohesion. She says that Denmark is already under threat from it:
“We must take care that not too many come to our country, otherwise our social cohesion could not exist. It is already under threat”.

With the recent asylum NGO report telling the government that we need to accept up to 5,000 new asylum seekers every year indefinitely (with no end), and with a guarantee by Roderic O' Gorman of their own house/apartment within 3 months of arriving here; Ireland will be inundated with asylum seekers for years to come. What about our social cohesion? Is there an Irish politician out there who will ask this question?

We need to solve this problem now and not let it fester, because we are seeing our own social cohesion problems all over the country front and centre in the news.

I do agree we should help as many as possible in genuine need when it doesn’t impact our own - but why is no one pointing out to O’Gorman that he is as utter fool and that is the stupidest idea since someone put salt in chocolate????

5000 a year is not many.

Hellokitty1212

bubblypop wrote: »

5000 a year is not many.

That’s half the alleged homeless list that could be done away with.

Hellokitty1212

Hellokitty1212 wrote: »

That’s half the alleged homeless list that could be done away with.

Alleged homeless is right!!

Hellokitty1212

bubblypop wrote: »

Alleged homeless is right!!

Just because I don’t buy the 11000 figure doesn’t mean we don’t have our own people in need.

Hellokitty1212

Hellokitty1212 wrote: »

Just because I don’t buy the 11000 figure doesn’t mean we don’t have our own people in need.

We do have people in need. However, we are quite capable of helping another 5000 a year, and there's no reason to think those people will always need help.

biko

bubblypop wrote: »

We do have people in need. However, we are quite capable of helping another 5000 a year, and there's no reason to think those people will always need help.

I think you need to send more of your salary to UNICEF. Make a change.

biko

biko wrote: »

I think you need to send more of your salary to UNICEF. Make a change.

Ooh sarcasm!
I don't have any issues with giving to charity. Certain ones
Do you have an issue with people that help disadvantaged children?

Wibbs

bubblypop wrote: »

We do have people in need. However, we are quite capable of helping another 5000 a year, and there's no reason to think those people will always need help.

It seems it strongly depends on the demographic involved. In Ireland half of all African origin people in this country are not considered "economically active" and have a social welfare impact far higher than any other demographic outside Travellers. This trend is reflected throughout the EU. It's not "race" either as Pakistani origin people throughout Europe show a similar trend towards the bottom, yet Indian origin people show the opposite and indeed on average outperform the native populations. Same "race". More locally Travellers couldn't be any more White and Irish and yet trend to the bottom.