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

olestoepoke

Fluppen wrote: »

For me it's simple.


People of any nationality, race, creed, religion, sexual preference, gender id, whatever who come in with the intention to work, integrate (within reason), live lawfully and contribute positively to their community and our society are fine by me.

I agree totally. What gets my goat is the spongers, and there are plenty of Irish who are gaming the system. Just so happens where I live Balbriggan north county Dublin that the vast majority of sponging families getting free houses and driving nice cars whilst not working are of African decent. This breeds resentment from neighbours.

I dunno. I do find that there are differences in the way people behave based on their nationality, which is connected to their culture, and the manner in which they were brought up. There are behaviors, values and perspectives which are common among the vast majority of Irish people I've known, which would be subtly different to, say, the French.

TBH I don't really know many young Irish people, so I couldn't really hazard a guess as to how they've developed. Too much has changed over the last thirty years, which would have contributed to the differences on a national level.

Originally, I left Ireland for two reasons. The first was due to the banking crash and the inability to survive without going into major debt. The second, though, was because I didn't like living in Ireland... the drinking culture, the layers of depression, the circular hatred towards the English (in my neck of the woods), etc. I sought to escape, and I did. However, I found that the longer I lived outside of Ireland, the more I came to appreciate Irish people as a whole.

If you've ever spent time in Spain, you'll know what I mean. Everything is a scam there. Everyone is looking to gain something from you, there's rings upon rings of trickery going on, corruption at many levels, and never-mind the overblown drama. It made me realise just how direct, and relatively honest most Irish people are.

And since then, I've left Europe, and found even greater differences. For me, being Irish goes beyond the obvious aspects of culture, into the common behaviors. I guess that's changed considerably, (judging from what I've seen/heard since I've been home), and that makes me a little sad.

I'd consider that being Irish is connected to certain shared values regarding the value of life, common decency, respecting others personal space, etc. These are things, often lauded in other countries, but commonly quite lacking. It's different when it's a large population where there is so much variety of interests, but Ireland still has a relatively small population compared to most other countries. We can still aim to encourage a common belief, or a common set of values from our citizens.. and that is something worth working towards.

TomTomTim

Wibbs wrote: »

Here we go again

And round & round we go again. Eventually we'll have to start questioning our own madness, as we're literally making the same arguments over and over again. Once one of these people have been refuted, another pops up again making the exact same argument as the one before them. It's oh so tedious.

Bobblehats

Slowyourrole wrote: »

What makes someone a "real Irish" to you? How many generations of purity do you require?

Well as you mentioned it look up the word purity. And when you do come back and tell me under what circumstance, it could be considered a bad thing -

Far as I can tell purity is the absolute. Purity is angelic. Purity is pedigree. Purity is harmony and deep down in a perfect world we all strive to create to that. To live amongst that to be; that and whilst few of us attain that it would be wrong to engineer it - almost as much as it would be to force biodiversity, for it’s a dangerous game. One we should seek to distance ourselves from I mean who knows what kind of monster, we may give rise to

RandomName2

Bobblehats wrote: »

Well as you mentioned it look up the word purity. And when you do come back and tell me under what circumstance, it could be considered a bad thing -

Purity is a bad thing because first of all it is realistically an impossibility. Even were it possible it may not even necessarily be a good thing.

Take the royal houses of Europe. They wanted to keep their bloodlines pure. However the logical conclusion of the 100% pure Hapsburg bloodline was Charles II of Spain. You can have too much of a good thing, or to put it another way, without some diversity you tend to get fragility. You may notice that with selective breeding of dogs that some of the thoroughbreds suffer from increased health problems. The pursuit of perfection generates its own errors.

The genetics example can be analogous to both culture and society.

How do you define purity? If you are trying to define something that cannot realistically exist, clearly there are going to be some arbitrary parameters at play. So you now have an ideal that probably cannot be achieved, using a questionable means of defining it in the first place.

Furthermore the pursuit of perfection in itself can be highly damaging. After all, that's what you witness in particularly repressive societies. Perfection may be defined as living according to religious scripture. Perfection may be defined as having particular physical features and skin color. Perfection may be defined as adhering to specific political doctrine.

Theses things always exist in society. People already value those who live moral or pious existences, who are beautiful, and who live law abiding lives.

However when dissent or contrast is blocked, when the pursuit of purity becomes an end in itself, then society is left vulnerable to a terrible form of self perpetuating damage as it consumes its own tail.

jmreire

Slowyourrole wrote: »

Interesting you picked Jobstown as an example. Jobstown has always been a major area of youth violence. From Carrigmore to Kiltalawn and down to Fortunestown lane has a good number of housing estate focused gangs that clash. Killinarden, Cherry Orchard, Kilmahuddrick. All have gangs that clash with each other too. I don't think adding in different colours and nationalities will change that much.





Why do you people use the phrase "cover up" when something isn't given major coverage? Not reporting something prominently is not a cover up. House fires and youth violence very rarely make national, or even local, news no matter who has been involved, unless there is some injury or death. Clashes with Gardaí rarely make the news. It's hard to tell on these threads when people are just using an incident to push their agenda or if they are genuinely ignorant of the problem with youth violence across the country. Do you actually think that this particular group of black is doing something unique? Do you think this is some imported culture? If anything, I'd say they're doing a fairly good job of fitting in with youths across the country, but in particular in Dublin estates.





What makes someone a "real Irish" to you? How many generations of purity do you require?

In reply to the last paragraph:-
On the question of movement of people and integration, becoming "more Irish than the Irish themselves " , you may take the Muslim from the Islamic Country, but you can never take the Islam from the Muslim. His first loyalty will always be to Islam., no matter what Country he lives in, or for how long. And he cannot be other than that. Muslims will work actively to change society to be a better "fit" for them. This has already happened in Germany and the UK, where despite there being national Laws, they have pushed for Islamic Laws to be integrated into national law. Because of this, they cannot be considered as a "Normal" immigrant, whose sole priority is a better life. Since the year 600, the whole thrust of Islam has been to convert the whole world to Islam, and this has never changed. I'm not anti-Muslim ( most of my friends are Muslim ) but definitely, I'm against Islam. I've lived for many years in Islamic Country's, and Thanks, but no Thank's. Muslim's? Yes. Islam? No.

briany

jmreire wrote: »

In reply to the last paragraph:-
On the question of movement of people and integration, becoming "more Irish than the Irish themselves " , you may take the Muslim from the Islamic Country, but you can never take the Islam from the Muslim. His first loyalty will always be to Islam., no matter what Country he lives in, or for how long. And he cannot be other than that. Muslims will work actively to change society to be a better "fit" for them. This has already happened in Germany and the UK, where despite there being national Laws, they have pushed for Islamic Laws to be integrated into national law. Because of this, they cannot be considered as a "Normal" immigrant, whose sole priority is a better life. Since the year 600, the whole thrust of Islam has been to convert the whole world to Islam, and this has never changed. I'm not anti-Muslim ( most of my friends are Muslim ) but definitely, I'm against Islam. I've lived for many years in Islamic Country's, and Thanks, but no Thank's. Muslim's? Yes. Islam? No.

I don't really agree with your basic assessment of Muslims because the religion is not a unified thing. Like all major religions, it has different sects with varying beliefs, and among each individual you will find different levels of belief and fervour. This is certainly not to deny that Islam has its fundamentalists, but it's hardly as if the religion is unique in that regard.

This is not to mention that in the Ashtiname of Mohammad, it's made pretty clear that religious tolerance (or at least tolerance for Christians) is expected of Muslims.

What has certainly been problematic in Islam, and for the rest of the world, is the rise of Wahabbism and Salafism, two puritanical forms of Islam, and which are very intolerant of anything that is not in their wheelhouse. But Wahhabism certainly does not represent the whole of the Islamic relgion, although it's sometimes painted as if it does by certain actors for whom it is useful to do so.

So, while I wouldn't have much time for the Wahabbists, just as I wouldn't have much time for the Baptists, I also wouldn't be particularly be bothered by the Iranian doctor living up the road who comes from a liberal Shia background.

Snickers Man

Wibbs wrote: »

Again find me one, just one "utopia" of "multiculturalism" in Europe where the darkest of skin aren't clustered near the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder or where there aren't extra social issues and flashpoints around ethnic lines. Good luck with that, but shure it "will be grand". This time.

OK. Show me a monocultural "utopia" anywhere on this earth. A place with no poverty, no inequality issues, endless sunshine, flowing with milk and honey, where everybody has a chicken in the pot, ice cream to follow, and a warm comfy bed at the end of the day in which to rest and binge watch Netflix.

There isn't any. And it's all the fault of those bloody immigrants!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

briany

briany wrote: »

I don't really agree with your basic assessment of Muslims because the religion is not a unified thing. Like all major religions, it has different sects with varying beliefs, and among each individual you will find different levels of belief and fervour. This is certainly not to deny that Islam has its fundamentalists, but it's hardly as if the religion is unique in that regard.

The problem with Muslims and Islam isn't related to individuals. It's when their congregations grow substantially, and their individualistic opinions, which might be open/"western", are smothered by the expectations of the group. There are indeed a wide variety of beliefs when it comes to Islam, but you'll find that the majority will fall into two particular camps, while retaining elements of their "lesser" beliefs. This means, though, that their lesser beliefs will step aside in favor of the greater belief, which is controlled through the group.

As these groups grow in population, there will always be greater demands on Muslims to conform to the "acceptable" modes of behavior, and expression. Islam is a very community driven religion...

This is not to mention that in the Ashtiname of Mohammad, it's made pretty clear that religious tolerance (or at least tolerance for Christians) is expected of Muslims.

Which is lovely, except that the problem isn't their tolerance or intolerance of other religions. It's their views towards many western values, such as the freedoms that western women have in their dress. Individually, Muslims will hold back their dislike of western behaviors, but as a group, they will be encouraged to express that dislike, which "can" go much further.

What has certainly been problematic in Islam, and for the rest of the world, is the rise of Wahabbism and Salafism, two puritanical forms of Islam, and which are very intolerant of anything that is not in their wheelhouse. But Wahhabism certainly does not represent the whole of the Islamic relgion, although it's sometimes painted as if it does by certain actors for whom it is useful to do so.

So, while I wouldn't have much time for the Wahabbists, just as I wouldn't have much time for the Baptists, I also wouldn't be particularly be bothered by the Iranian doctor living up the road who comes from a liberal Shia background.

Neither would I be. However, I would be bothered if there were a thousand Muslims living in my neighborhood. (but then I tend to live in Xi'an, where there is a sizable Muslim community, and I'm not bothered at all, because there is no expectation that their customs/beliefs will ever be allowed to gain traction in China)

As populations of Muslims rise, there is a trend of moving towards more traditional behaviors/beliefs, and that comes into conflict with western culture. In virtually every Islamic nation, we have seen a move away from the freedoms achieved for women, and steps back towards a more traditional system of behavior.

Rodney Bathgate

Slowyourrole wrote: »

Interesting you picked Jobstown as an example. Jobstown has always been a major area of youth violence. From Carrigmore to Kiltalawn and down to Fortunestown lane has a good number of housing estate focused gangs that clash. Killinarden, Cherry Orchard, Kilmahuddrick. All have gangs that clash with each other too. I don't think adding in different colours and nationalities will change that much.





Why do you people use the phrase "cover up" when something isn't given major coverage? Not reporting something prominently is not a cover up. House fires and youth violence very rarely make national, or even local, news no matter who has been involved, unless there is some injury or death. Clashes with Gardaí rarely make the news. It's hard to tell on these threads when people are just using an incident to push their agenda or if they are genuinely ignorant of the problem with youth violence across the country. Do you actually think that this particular group of black is doing something unique? Do you think this is some imported culture? If anything, I'd say they're doing a fairly good job of fitting in with youths across the country, but in particular in Dublin estates.





What makes someone a "real Irish" to you? How many generations of purity do you require?

Have you seen the gangster rap crap from them? Yes, they are doing something different.

If you or your direct predecessors acquired Irish citizenship having held another citizenship then you certainly aren’t ‘real Irish’. That is fairly simple to comprehend.

Bonniedog

Snickers Man wrote: »

OK. Show me a monocultural "utopia" anywhere on this earth. A place with no poverty, no inequality issues, endless sunshine, flowing with milk and honey, where everybody has a chicken in the pot, ice cream to follow, and a warm comfy bed at the end of the day in which to rest and binge watch Netflix.

There isn't any. And it's all the fault of those bloody immigrants!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

The only ones who believe in a utopia are the advocates of mass immigration on the left.

Bosses and landlords just see the money. A strange alliance to be sure.

Clarence Boddiker

jmreire wrote: »

In reply to the last paragraph:-
On the question of movement of people and integration, becoming "more Irish than the Irish themselves " , you may take the Muslim from the Islamic Country, but you can never take the Islam from the Muslim. His first loyalty will always be to Islam., no matter what Country he lives in, or for how long. And he cannot be other than that. Muslims will work actively to change society to be a better "fit" for them. This has already happened in Germany and the UK, where despite there being national Laws, they have pushed for Islamic Laws to be integrated into national law. Because of this, they cannot be considered as a "Normal" immigrant, whose sole priority is a better life. Since the year 600, the whole thrust of Islam has been to convert the whole world to Islam, and this has never changed. I'm not anti-Muslim ( most of my friends are Muslim ) but definitely, I'm against Islam. I've lived for many years in Islamic Country's, and Thanks, but no Thank's. Muslim's? Yes. Islam? No.

Its almost impossible to explain this to the progressive mind. Because they themselves have no loyalty to religion, Culture or anything else really so its extremely difficult for them to understand that others do not think like them. And that others have profound attachments to their religion and culture and that these will not disappear over time. They assume the Muslim will become a consumer drone Bugman like themselves, allied to nothing but an ever shifting set of arbitrary 'values' which have little foundation or roots, certainly not compared to the power of the Islamic religion in the Mind of a Muslim.

Snickers Man

Snickers Man wrote: »

OK. Show me a monocultural "utopia" anywhere on this earth. A place with no poverty, no inequality issues, endless sunshine, flowing with milk and honey, where everybody has a chicken in the pot, ice cream to follow, and a warm comfy bed at the end of the day in which to rest and binge watch Netflix.

There isn't any. And it's all the fault of those bloody immigrants!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

This is what people don't seem to understand. Standing against multiculturalism in its current form (and past forms) doesn't mean that we're desiring a nation without any foreigners, or the importation of other cultures.

The point is that the current system is flawed. Throughout this thread, most of those who have posted against multiculturalism, have said (repeatedly) that they're not against immigration. Typically, the problem is with how immigration policies are implemented, and the lack of long-term planning (and research) to integrate migrants into society... with the aim of removing all the problems that arise from the existing method.

Basically, there's too much "ahh sure, it'll be grand". Instead of that, we'd like to see a more rational approach to the whole thing, recognising the negatives, and working to counter them, without changing Western culture to accommodate migrants. (since that has consistently failed)

Hamachi

Snickers Man wrote: »

OK. Show me a monocultural "utopia" anywhere on this earth. A place with no poverty, no inequality issues, endless sunshine, flowing with milk and honey, where everybody has a chicken in the pot, ice cream to follow, and a warm comfy bed at the end of the day in which to rest and binge watch Netflix.

There isn't any. And it's all the fault of those bloody immigrants!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Not being facetious, but Japan is pretty closely aligned to the template you’ve outlined above. Third largest economy in the world, extremely high standard of living, extraordinarily well educated, and the kicker, > 97% native Japanese.

Despite significant demographic pressures due to a persistently low birth rate and a rapidly aging population, Japan actively eschews the multicultural model. They plan to automate their way out of the looming demographic issues. More power to them. They are being incredibly sensible, whereas European nations seem hell bent on tearing themselves asunder, pursuing this flawed social experiment.

What’s even more upsetting in the case of Ireland, is that the demographic imperative simply does not exist. We have one of the highest birth rates in Europe; our fertility rate is just about replacement level. Driving around Dublin today, I couldn’t help but notice the youthful profile of the (indigenous Irish) population. Despite this advantage, our ‘leaders’ still see fit to drive us down a path that has undermined social cohesion in many of our neighboring societies.

joe40

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is what people don't seem to understand. Standing against multiculturalism in its current form (and past forms) doesn't mean that we're desiring a nation without any foreigners, or the importation of other cultures.

The point is that the current system is flawed. Throughout this thread, most of those who have posted against multiculturalism, have said (repeatedly) that they're not against immigration. Typically, the problem is with how immigration policies are implemented, and the lack of long-term planning (and research) to integrate migrants into society... with the aim of removing all the problems that arise from the existing method.

Basically, there's too much "ahh sure, it'll be grand". Instead of that, we'd like to see a more rational approach to the whole thing, recognising the negatives, and working to counter them, without changing Western culture to accommodate migrants. (since that has consistently failed)

I like your posts, and are always fair and balanced imo. But I disagree with you that the majority of posters here are "not against immigration" plenty clearly are against any immigrants especially black/African.

Some aren't, some make good points about problems of integration in other countries, which has merit and something we should learn from, but surely you can see that there are plenty here who just want to use anecdotal evidence to tar all immigrants as lazy and criminal.

I don't want to see uncontrolled immigration, the setting up of ghettos etc, but as it stands we are a multi cultural society and that to my mind has brought a lot of positives to our country.

I have no problem embracing that as it currently is. We have a legal system and a written constitution, Irish law will remain the only law.
Irishness, and Irish identify is still very strong that won't be eroded any time soon.

An immigrant in Ireland, obeying our rules, I don't have much problem with.

joe40

joe40 wrote: »

I like your posts, and are always fair and balanced imo. But I disagree with you that the majority of posters here are "not against immigration" plenty clearly are against any immigrants especially black/African.

Thanks. I appreciate that. I really do try to be balanced about the whole thing. I really want to avoid the emotional/drama that tends to go with these kinds of discussions.

Now... Here's the thing. Many (not all) African migrants end up on the bottom of any western society, and as such, turn to abusing the system, crime and/or violence. The issue is not with African immigrants per se. The issue is with the type of Africans who are allowed in, and the mechanisms in place to integrate them as productive members of society.

Personally, I have no issue with Africans who have the skills/education to be able to compete, on an equal basis, with Irish people. They're welcome to come here as part of normal migration policies. However, that's not what we've been getting...

Some aren't, some make good points about problems of integration in other countries, which has merit and something we should learn from, but surely you can see that there are plenty here who just want to use anecdotal evidence to tar all immigrants as lazy and criminal.

Sure, some do.... and typically, I don't "thank" their posts.

I don't want to see uncontrolled immigration, the setting up of ghettos etc, but as it stands we are a multi cultural society and that to my mind has brought a lot of positives to our country.

Such as? What are these positives? and are these positives coming from one particular migrant group or all of them?

For example, I wouldn't have any issue with the majority of migration from Asian countries (China, Thailand, etc), because they work hard, and while they don't integrate much, they rarely, if ever, get involved in trouble... nor are they seeking Irish culture to adapt to accommodate their wants.

So, I can see some positives... but I wonder do the positives balance with the negatives?

I have no problem embracing that as it currently is. We have a legal system and a written constitution, Irish law will remain the only law.
Irishness, and Irish identify is still very strong that won't be eroded any time soon.

Whereas I can see, in my lifetime, where Irish people find the migrant descendants equaling their population, if not being greater. There's a weakness with democracy...

As I've said before, I'm not happy with short term views, and would rather people consider what Ireland will be like in twenty or forty years time.

An immigrant in Ireland, obeying our rules, I don't have much problem with.

Me neither... but then I looked at the video of the house being burned... and I thought to myself, that's a lot of non-whites in the vicinity of a crime.

I can remember when Ireland was a very law abiding place. It doesn't seem so long ago. And no, I'm not laying it all on migrants... but the changes to society that involves migrants and their needs/wants does factor into it.

jmreire

briany wrote: »

I don't really agree with your basic assessment of Muslims because the religion is not a unified thing. Like all major religions, it has different sects with varying beliefs, and among each individual you will find different levels of belief and fervour. This is certainly not to deny that Islam has its fundamentalists, but it's hardly as if the religion is unique in that regard.

This is not to mention that in the Ashtiname of Mohammad, it's made pretty clear that religious tolerance (or at least tolerance for Christians) is expected of Muslims.

What has certainly been problematic in Islam, and for the rest of the world, is the rise of Wahabbism and Salafism, two puritanical forms of Islam, and which are very intolerant of anything that is not in their wheelhouse. But Wahhabism certainly does not represent the whole of the Islamic relgion, although it's sometimes painted as if it does by certain actors for whom it is useful to do so.

So, while I wouldn't have much time for the Wahabbists, just as I wouldn't have much time for the Baptists, I also wouldn't be particularly be bothered by the Iranian doctor living up the road who comes from a liberal Shia background.

I worked with Wahabbi's for a time.. ( and Shias / Sunni's).and it was one of them who told me that in the Quran, you can find the justification for each and every act you wish to do as a Muslim, especially when dealing with non-Muslims. Its also well known that in the furtherance of Islam that lies and deception are allowed, and even encouraged, and this was also sanctioned by Mohammad. Try telling the Christians in pakistan ( and other Countries too ) about then "Ashtiname_of_Muhammad " . One thing is certain though, all Muslims no matter which sect, abide by the Quran and Sharia Law. And no matter how they will act in public individually, or as you mentioned the Liberal Shia Doctor, who lives up the road, when they are massed together, they are something completely different. Even Imam's who criticised isis were unable to contradict isis when they ( isis) produced the relevant passages in the Quran to justify their actions. The problem is, that everything is covered in the Quran...no matter what, even if it contradicts itself, and it cannot be changed. And thats how its possible to find different adherents for every shade of Islam. From the ones who you can have pint with to the ones who will not even think twice about cutting your throat because you are an " infidel or a Kuffir .

Hamachi

joe40 wrote: »

I don't want to see uncontrolled immigration, the setting up of ghettos etc, but as it stands we are a multi cultural society and that to my mind has brought a lot of positives to our country.

I have no problem embracing that as it currently is. We have a legal system and a written constitution, Irish law will remain the only law.
Irishness, and Irish identify is still very strong that won't be eroded any time soon.

An immigrant in Ireland, obeying our rules, I don't have much problem with.

I don’t have an issue with skills-based, high caliber migration. However, a significant % of the inward movement to this country simply does not match this profile. We’ve imported cohorts of people, who are economically inactive and there is no evidence to suggest that the second generation is raising the bar.

You speak of ghettoization as if this is a hypothetical in Ireland. It isn’t; it’s happening right now. I live in Dublin 15, the most diverse post code in Dublin. Very noticeable concentrations of particular ethnic groups have already formed out here.

Take a drive through the Hansfield section of Ongar or Tyrellstown. These areas are on the fast track to becoming ghettoes. The % Irish count is dwindling rapidly in places like this. Whilst I accept that this is anecdotal, I personally know people who are planning to leave this area when their children reach school-going age, due to the changing demographics.

You speak of the unilateral benefits of multiculturalism. Can you catalog what they are? What rewards and enjoyment does it bestow on the native population? Please don’t fall back on the tired old cliche of an improved food scene. From the vantage point of a pretty multicultural area, I’m struggling to understand how the lives of my family or those of my neighbors have been enriched by the high volume of non-nationals in our midst. If anything, it’s encouraging people to hunker down within their own community, to engage with those, with whom they feel a connection.

The highly motivated, skilled, and self-sufficient migrants coming to work in tech and health care should be encouraged and provided with a relatively unproblematic path to citizenship. Conversely, those with few meaningful skills, who subvert our asylum process, or have zero intention of integrating and adhering to the law of the land, should be discouraged from arriving here. This latter group is a not inconsiderable cohort, despite the protestations of those who support unregulated migration.

kildare lad

Hamachi wrote: »

I don’t have an issue with skills-based, high caliber migration. However, a significant % of the inward movement to this country simply does not match this profile. We’ve imported cohorts of people, who are economically inactive and there is no evidence to suggest that the second generation is raising the bar.

You speak of ghettoization as if this is a hypothetical in Ireland. It isn’t; it’s happening right now. I live in Dublin 15, the most diverse post code in Dublin. Very noticeable concentrations of particular ethnic groups have already formed out here.

Take a drive through the Hansfield section of Ongar or Tyrellstown. These areas are on the fast track to becoming ghettoes. The % Irish count is dwindling rapidly in places like this. Whilst I accept that this is anecdotal, I personally know people who are planning to leave this area when their children reach school-going age, due to the changing demographics.

You speak of the unilateral benefits of multiculturalism. Can you catalog what they are? What rewards and enjoyment does it bestow on the native population? Please don’t fall back on the tired old cliche of an improved food scene. From the vantage point of a pretty multicultural area, I’m struggling to understand how the lives of my family or those of my neighbors have been enriched by the high volume of non-nationals in our midst. If anything, it’s encouraging people to hunker down within their own community, to engage with those, with whom they feel a connection.

The highly motivated, skilled, and self-sufficient migrants coming to work in tech and health care should be encouraged and provided with a relatively unproblematic path to citizenship. Conversely, those with few meaningful skills, who subvert our asylum process, or have zero intention of integrating and adhering to the law of the land, should be discouraged from arriving here. This latter group is a not inconsiderable cohort, despite the protestations of those who support unregulated migration.

All it does is make white , rich , middle class lefties who don't live in them areas feel good about themselves . Put too many immigrants from a certain continent in one area and it turns into a ghetto . It happens all over the world and yet some people think we need multiculturalism. How come they don't push this crap nowhere else in the world but in the west.

weldoninhio

kildare lad wrote: »

All it does is make white , rich , middle class lefties who don't live in them areas feel good about themselves . Put too many immigrants from a certain continent in one area and it turns into a ghetto . It happens all over the world and yet some people think we need multiculturalism. How come they don't push this crap nowhere else in the world but in the west.

Exactly, any NGO or social justice warrior who wants multiculturalism should be forced to bring their multicult to Africa for five years. Don't be hogging the greatness of multiculture in Europe like some coloniser. Bring it to the masses in Africa.

Wibbs

weldoninhio wrote: »

Exactly, any NGO or social justice warrior who wants multiculturalism should be forced to bring their multicult to Africa for five years. Don't be hogging the greatness of multiculture in Europe like some coloniser. Bring it to the masses in Africa.

Never going to happen. Multiculturalism is only for predominantly White western nations and any that are seen to resist this politic are to be convinced otherwise. It's only those who seem to require "diversity" according to the purveyors of this politic. Indeed the very notion that any Black nation would be improved by an injection of White faces would be seen as uncomfortable, even racist. They'd be right on that score, but the other way around?

It's also quite clear that even so called "diversity" itself has a colour bias and a strong one. 100,000 Polish people, tens of thousands each of Germans, Brits, Spaniards et al in Ireland are the wrong sort of "diversity" and don't get peddled by the usual sources and NGOs, simply because they're White. Asians tend to come way down the list too.

Hamachi

kildare lad wrote: »

All it does is make white , rich , middle class lefties who don't live in them areas feel good about themselves . Put too many immigrants from a certain continent in one area and it turns into a ghetto . It happens all over the world and yet some people think we need multiculturalism. How come they don't push this crap nowhere else in the world but in the west.

Absolutely. The difference in the demographic composition of North West vs. South East Dublin is really quite an eye-opener. I’ll let you speculate where those who advocate for diversity tend to reside..

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Such as? What are these positives? and are these positives coming from one particular migrant group or all of them?

I'd love an answer to this one too and nobody seems to be able to come up with one, beyond vague diversity is its own reward type replies. It's more like an Accepted Fact(tm), a point of faith rather than a definable reality. If it's so obvious then why is it seemingly so hard to down down these positives?

For example, I wouldn't have any issue with the majority of migration from Asian countries (China, Thailand, etc), because they work hard, and while they don't integrate much, they rarely, if ever, get involved in trouble... nor are they seeking Irish culture to adapt to accommodate their wants.

+1 The above list of cultural traits is why the various Asian diaspora are among the most successful people in the nations they find themselves in. And it's not as if they never face xenophobia and racism. Look at the US where anti Asian feelings have come up on the regular in that nation's history and yet the average Asian American is more educated, earns more, has fewer single parent families, fewer criminals and fewer social issues than any other group, including European Americans and way fewer than African Americans.

Wibbs

Hamachi wrote: »

Absolutely. The difference in the demographic composition of North West vs. South East Dublin is really quite an eye-opener. I’ll let you speculate where those who advocate for diversity tend to reside..

Yep, in Ireland because of the Celtic Tiger passport tourism and lax controls sadly the horse has bolted already. We're stuck with this nonsense now and as has happened in every single other European nation that has run this experiment it will get more divisive and those urban areas will become more ghettoised along "race" lines. "White flight" is already happening. Like Hamachi I too know a couple of people who want to leave such areas, or already have. If I'm being honest I would in their shoes.

On the other hand I also know people in areas that have become more Middle Eastern Muslim in demographics over the years and they have no plans to move. Why? Simply because there are no extra social issues, if anything the areas have improved in that regard. For all the talk of the negatives of Islam, it very much depends on where the Muslim population comes from originally and the culture they bring with them.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

I'd love for someone to list the pro's and cons for multiculturalism. I'd say that pro's list is quite quite short and includes things like "different food" while the negative list might include things like "more rapes"...

Yurt2

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd love an answer to this one too and nobody seems to be able to come up with one, beyond vague diversity is its own reward type replies. It's more like an Accepted Fact(tm), a point of faith rather than a definable reality. If it's so obvious then why is it seemingly so hard to down down these positives?

+1 The above list of cultural traits is why the various Asian diaspora are among the most successful people in the nations they find themselves in. And it's not as if they never face xenophobia and racism. Look at the US where anti Asian feelings have come up on the regular in that nation's history and yet the average Asian American is more educated, earns more, has fewer single parent families, fewer criminals and fewer social issues than any other group, including European Americans and way fewer than African Americans.

They were also historically highly cohesive (out of necessity) when they first arrived in significant numbers in North America and had informal lending networks to help out new arrivals.

There's an old adage, which was actually very true, that when you got a cluster of Chinese, you'd see a restaurant set up; a cluster of Koreans, you'd see a church; and a cluster of Japanese, a credit association. All acted as informal lending networks to the community to set up businesses or pay for kids education etc.

The same thing believe it or not happens in Ireland with the Pakistani population. I was curious when I noted that most Indian restaurants I went to were ran by Pakistanis. I asked the the guy behind the till in one place why this was. He said that members of the mosque tend to lend to new arrivals to get them on their feet and get restaurants open, even when they don't have assets or collateral.

Wibbs

Yep. I know of a couple of Afghan lads who got that Muslim community financial and other support leg up to start their own businesses. No banks involved, which I see as a bloody good thing.

Slowyourrole

TomTomTim wrote: »

I don't disagree, but it will end up being racial division instead of just division among rival gangs of natives. I'd argue that one is worse than the other, as most gangs end up ceasing to exist, while racial division is something that's not so easily nipped in the bud, as I'm sure you'd agree. I've mentioned Jobstown solely due to it being something I've experienced myself; I pass through there regularly, and have friends that live there. I don't like to speak of areas I haven't been to, as it would be foolish.

I've worked in all the areas I mentioned. That's why I brought them up specifically. Harelawn and Cherry Orchard were probably the worst of them. Barely any of the stuff that happened made the news. The gangs often featured here due to their skin colour don't hold a candle to what goes on elsewhere. I see what you are saying about the divisions being different. I don't think it makes a difference though. It's just something they cling to for identity, like the gangs based in estates were.

Fluppen wrote: »

For me it's simple.


People of any nationality, race, creed, religion, sexual preference, gender id, whatever who come in with the intention to work, integrate (within reason), live lawfully and contribute positively to their community and our society are fine by me.

Everyone claims to have that attitude, and maybe they do. The issue arises when they start to make assumptions about a people based on the group they come from.

RandomName2 wrote: »

This is probably the most important and relevant question here. I mean it's totally loaded, but leaving that aside, it is actually difficult to answer.

Clearly if someone's family came to Ireland during Celtic migration, the Viking or Norman invasions, they are entirely Irish. If their family was part of the plantations they probably are entirely Irish, but many that belonged to families that were part of the Ulster plantations certainly don't feel Irish or want to be branded as Irish.

But realistically the question really is about the last 50 years, and, in particular, going forward.

If someone is here two months, gets married, and becomes Irish, are they as Irish as you or me? Legally, sure. If they could not name a single famous Irish person, know nothing of the history or culture of the island, they are still completely Irish, from a legal point of view.

Personally I don't see how I could ever become another nationality. If I marry someone in Myanmar and then say I am Mayanmarese, I'd feel like a hypocrite, even if it were legally true. Imagine if I started having opinions about Myanmar history, despite my family having had no part in any of that country's history. I'd expect to be laughed out of it. It would be cheeky at best for me to express a strong opinion, downright insulting at worst. Who would I be to speak about such matters?

We also offer citizenship to people provided they are simply here long enough (as long as they weren't in education or applying for asylum during that period). This is reasonable insofar that it is unfair to have people give many years, often the best years of their life, to building a life in Ireland, and yet not offer them the securities and privileges that come with citizenship. However the fact that we have this as part and parcel of our system makes it important to ensure that we are careful about who will be allowed to stay in this country (and thereby be in a position to avail of citizenship).

I think the most important criteria is that immigrants aren't too samey. One of the reasons why the immigrants during the plantations in Ulster are distinct from Irish is because they were part of only two groups (Scottish/English, Presbyterian/ Church of England respectively). Immigrants shouldn't be in a position to congregate in neighborhoods of 'their own', instead they should be integrated into Irish society. An emphasis on the 'multi' of multiculturalism would help prevent distinct pockets of particular cultures or ethnicities from forming.

This is less an issue with immigrants from EU countries because we are all part of the suprastate of the EU. One of the important aspects of this is the freedom of movement. Many migratory workers from the EU are precisely that: once the work that they have been doing dries up they return home as there's no barriers to them doing exactly that. Someone from a non-EU that has obtained permanent residency here is unlikely to ever permanently return to the country from which they've come, for both practical and financial reasons.

That doesn't really answer the question. Your reasoning is a bit arbitrary too. There's purebred Irish that come out of 15 years of education barely able to ask someone's name in Irish. Should they lose their citizenship for not being part of the culture? I can name two Irish poets, one of whom I only know because he taught me in school. Do I lose my Irishness? How many people with a complete Irish ancestry can tell you who fought at the Battle of the Boyne? All this is a bit moot anyway because when you look at a video of a black person fighting in the street, you know nothing of his historical knowledge or cultural attachment. So I ask again, what makes someone "Real Irish"?

Bobblehats wrote: »

Well as you mentioned it look up the word purity. And when you do come back and tell me under what circumstance, it could be considered a bad thing -

Far as I can tell purity is the absolute. Purity is angelic. Purity is pedigree. Purity is harmony and deep down in a perfect world we all strive to create to that. To live amongst that to be; that and whilst few of us attain that it would be wrong to engineer it - almost as much as it would be to force biodiversity, for it’s a dangerous game. One we should seek to distance ourselves from I mean who knows what kind of monster, we may give rise to

That's an even worse answer than the man above.

jmreire wrote: »

In reply to the last paragraph:-
On the question of movement of people and integration, becoming "more Irish than the Irish themselves " , you may take the Muslim from the Islamic Country, but you can never take the Islam from the Muslim. His first loyalty will always be to Islam., no matter what Country he lives in, or for how long. And he cannot be other than that. Muslims will work actively to change society to be a better "fit" for them. This has already happened in Germany and the UK, where despite there being national Laws, they have pushed for Islamic Laws to be integrated into national law. Because of this, they cannot be considered as a "Normal" immigrant, whose sole priority is a better life. Since the year 600, the whole thrust of Islam has been to convert the whole world to Islam, and this has never changed. I'm not anti-Muslim ( most of my friends are Muslim ) but definitely, I'm against Islam. I've lived for many years in Islamic Country's, and Thanks, but no Thank's. Muslim's? Yes. Islam? No.

That doesn't even attempt top answer the question I asked.

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Have you seen the gangster rap crap from them? Yes, they are doing something different.

There's a viral video at the moment of a white Irish fella rapping about the noggin. But the rap stuff goes way back. I remember about 20 years ago there was a gang of white lads in Crumlin who called themselves the C-Unit and threw up graffiti about "Crumpton" (As in NWA and 50 cent). Teenagers find anything to latch on to for identity. Their actual actions are the same.

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

If you or your direct predecessors acquired Irish citizenship having held another citizenship then you certainly aren’t ‘real Irish’. That is fairly simple to comprehend.

So if your dad is Irish but your mam is English you can't consider yourself real Irish? What if it's just one of your grandparents.

Wibbs

And yet still we have silence on the answer to this question:

Hamachi wrote: »

You speak of the unilateral benefits of multiculturalism. Can you catalog what they are? What rewards and enjoyment does it bestow on the native population?

No takers? Surely something so right and obvious should be easily answered? On the other hand the negatives are a doddle to list and give examples of.

Eric Cartman

Wibbs wrote: »

And yet still we have silence on the answer to this question:



No takers? Surely something so right and obvious should be easily answered? On the other hand the negatives are a doddle to list and give examples of.

thats it, nobody can ever seem to list the positives , bar the token "BuT YoU LiKe ChInEsE FoOd" says it all when a bit of grub is the best thing they can come up with.