Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Would you be ok with white Irish becoming a minority?

Options
12467…25

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    dav3
    Registered Users Posts: 1,671 ✭✭✭dav3


    Oh jesus the re-regs and sock puppets are out from under their rocks.

    Lads, ethno-nationalism isn't happening in this country, ever.

    You've got to at least try to do something with all your free time over the summer holidays, shilling on an internet forum isn't going to look too good on a CV in the future.


  • Options
    #93
    Minderbinder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,030 ✭✭✭Minderbinder


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Ugh. Yes, different words have different meanings, imagine that.
    Foreign-born means immigrants. The relative "ranking" of countries by foreign-born population will generally align closely with the "ranking" of countries by non-citizen population.

    So why didn't you use the same ranking then?

    Don't be patronizing when you are called out on your nonsense and then claim it generally aligns when you don't have a clue. You replied to a post calling it nonsense by citing data based on different criteria. Post statistics that are relevant rather than the ones you imagine are probably similar.


  • Options
    #94
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,101 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Samaris wrote: »
    Okay, so it's the absolute driving factor behind all migration in Europe and it is absolutely not falsified at all by the countless examples of mass migration taking place without said support as you yourself brought up with the American example. Migration will happen. Migration always has happened. Social welfare can be a factor, sure, but the alternative has tended to be that there isn't any, people come anyway,
    Can be a factor? My god you really have the blinkers on today. For a start the mass migration without support in my American example was generations ago. You're comparing apples to oranges here. Why does the current wave of "asylum seekers" and "refugees" overwhelmingly run through countries where they first land to countries with higher benefits? Which is against the oul immigration laws BTW. Why is that? They prefer the cold of Sweden to the warmth of Italy or Greece? Yeah right. I've another one they can pull.
    Why do you place "asylum seekers" in inverted commas, btw?
    See above.
    An awful lot of people are, and you really only have to watch the news to see that all of them are probably not making it up
    That's the all too common emotive angle on the subject. Oh look at the poor people in boats. The evidence that there are more economic migrants is far stronger. Remember the dead toddler on the beach that had so many wailing Facebook tears?(and who couldn't name him now without google) Have an oul read of the backstory. Consider Australia which had their own migrant crisis, stopped in its tracks when the Aussies stopped ferrying them to the "promised land" and deaths away fell to nothing. Oh and apparently they're all fleeing from war zones, but that label has spread all over the place since it was patently obvious that a large percentage were not coming from Syria. Others saw the floodgates open into the EU, with the EU providing a taxi service and social welfare and thought "aha!". They even give out sat phones to these migrants in the boats so EU ships will come and pick them up. You could not make this level of daftness up.

    As I said stop all payments to refugees and return the boats to North Africa or the Middle East and see how many "asylum seekers" keep coming. They're coming because the EU is inviting them in. Which is a debate for another day as to the reasons why.
    But there were similar views from local Americans regarding the Irish,
    and for a long time they were right.
    from the British regarding the Pakistanis,
    Yeah that's going well for the Brits and native born Pakistanis for that matter.
    from everyone regarding the Jews
    an entirely different subject. 1) they were always a tiny percentage of the European population. 2) the antipathy towards Jews came from the Romano Christian narrative. 3) Jews were actually integrated pretty well into most European countries. People of Jewish ancestry show strong genetic affiliations with whichever local population they hail from. Including pre Nazi Germany. Indeed the Nazis had to tie themselves in knots with the blood laws precisely because Jews were so integrated.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #95
    Andolino
    Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭Andolino


    Mayo welcome all sorts to the county even Dubs if you are in Castlebar or were there in the 1970's you could see this clearly Dubs all over the place but mostly you would find them in the pubs
    in the 90's the Bungalow was a haven for them playing banjos and singing rebel songs and Willie the Shoe didn't mind one bit
    SO I SUPPOSE THAT WAS THE START OF IT
    But why anyone would want to live in Ballyhaunis is beyond me (joke):roll eyes:


  • Options
    #96
    Will I Am Not
    Registered Users Posts: 3,495 ✭✭✭Will I Am Not


    Ninjavampire wrote: »
    We should only care that immigrants are given the proper opportunities to integrate into Irish society and aren't ghettoised or treated badly by a proportion of the population.

    Well that's just never going to happen until they are housed in Malahide, Skerries, Portmarnock etc. and not just all lumped into places like Balbriggan because of property prices.

    That's the blueprint for ghetto creation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    You did rather ignore the sweeping dismissal of "Caucasian" there, Wibbs, but that aside.

    You are insisting that immigration is downright bad and mostly based on false premises. I at least am acknowledging upsides and downsides. It would be nice to be able to discuss those issues without having to divert into questions such as that posed by the OP, which is taking a running jump at the whole topic and landing fifteen feet on the other side of likely. Especially since cultural identity, genetic heritage and national mores are being conflated wildly and in a confused manner that does not really contribute to having a sensible discussion about the actual problems.

    And for the genuine ones (and yes, they absolutely do exist, it is pretty darn "blinkered" to look at what's going on over in various Middle Eastern and African countries and say "it's all economic migration, no reason why people would be fleeing at all"), yeah, sure, stopping any benefits and shipping them back to their countries will sort out the issue in pretty much exactly the way that shipping Jews back to Nazi Germany would have sorted out the problem of migration back then. And no, I'm not being unreasonable in referring to the two situations, this is not Godwin's Law. There -are- people fleeing from truly dreadful situations and they are being ignored for the morally easier argument of "what about the economic migrants" - which is heavily influenced by Eastern Europeans for a start.

    There's a middle ground and all, I don't see why we constantly end up arguing the extremes - bar that people start threads to encourage it.


  • Options
    #98
    Ronaldinho
    Registered Users Posts: 829 ✭✭✭Ronaldinho


    Ninjavampire wrote: »
    We should only care that immigrants are given the proper opportunities to integrate into Irish society and aren't ghettoised or treated badly by a proportion of the population.

    Integration is a 2-way street. By way of a case study, maybe have a read of this: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10632/germany-chechens

    What would you suggest that the Germans have done wrong here that is leading to these outcomes?


  • Options
    #99
    Ninjavampire
    Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭Ninjavampire


    Golfproam wrote: »
    Borders must be controlled. Immigration control is essential.

    That's totally unrelated to integrating immigrants that are already in the country. I'm not advocating open borders.


  • Options
    #100
    Golfproam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 150 ✭✭Golfproam


    Ninjavampire wrote: »
    That's totally unrelated to integrating immigrants that are already in the country. I'm not advocating open borders.

    So, how do you reckon the illegal ones got here?


  • Options
    #101
    donegaLroad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭donegaLroad


    I saw a info chart from 2011 where it showed a district in London, and 70% of pupils in a particular secondary school were not born in the UK.
    I will see if I can find it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Ninjavampire
    Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭Ninjavampire


    Ronaldinho wrote: »
    Integration is a 2-way street. By way of a case study, maybe have a read of this: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10632/germany-chechens

    What would you suggest that the Germans have done wrong here that is leading to these outcomes?

    A quick google search and I'm reading about this right-wing think tank's anti-Islam bias. Please provide me with more reputable sources.


  • Options
    #103
    Ninjavampire
    Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭Ninjavampire


    Golfproam wrote: »
    So, how do you reckon the illegal ones got here?

    I'll try this again, I am not talking about how the immigrants get into the country, illegally or otherwise. I am talking about preventing them from being excluded in society through proper integration and positive attitudes toward them. I never mentioned my views on letting immigrants into the country, just that I feel it is important to do our best with the ones we have.


  • Options
    #104
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,676 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Starting to read Douglas Murray's Strange Death of Europe, basically the replacement of the nativist populations by rounds of immigrants from third world. One of the key points is the lack of any concern by the main political classes, who seemed up till recently to have a gentleman's agreement not to discuss, and the castigation of any but the mildest protest against this by the usage of social shaming for holding "-ist" views. In part this seems to be a related to a loss of confidence in the traditions and beliefs of the worth of Western society and the unwillingness to halt the welfare states growth.
    So the poll, while handy to capture a brief snapshot, is ultimately of no significance as this will occur due to a lack of will to oppose or at less slow it.


  • Options
    #105
    Golfproam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 150 ✭✭Golfproam


    Ninjavampire wrote: »
    I'll try this again, I am not talking about how the immigrants get into the country, illegally or otherwise. I am talking about preventing them from being excluded in society through proper integration and positive attitudes toward them. I never mentioned my views on letting immigrants into the country, just that I feel it is important to do our best with the ones we have.
    Removing the illegal ones is a good place to begin.


  • Options
    #106
    Ronaldinho
    Registered Users Posts: 829 ✭✭✭Ronaldinho


    Ninjavampire wrote: »
    A quick google search and I'm reading about this right-wing think tank's anti-Islam bias. Please provide me with more reputable sources.

    Yep - I don't doubt that they have an agenda but these aren't floury opinion pieces; they're backed up by the primary sources linked in the article. Newspapers, radio interviews etc.

    If you want to put your head in the sand that's your prerogative.


  • Options
    #107
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    deco nate wrote: »
    Weren't the Irish always "celts"? ?

    Ouch No. Didnt the celts originate in india or eastern europe?
    The celts are blow ins like everyone else.


  • Options
    #108
    BillyBobBS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,568 ✭✭✭BillyBobBS


    Ninjavampire wrote: »
    So we don't bother to try and integrate people? What's the alternative? Immigration ban?

    Yes.


  • Options
    #109
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,101 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Samaris wrote: »
    You did rather ignore the sweeping dismissal of "Caucasian" there, Wibbs, but that aside.
    The topic is circular enough. But if you like I can certainly set out a stall describing the genetic, historical and geographical basis of the European population.
    You are insisting that immigration is downright bad and mostly based on false premises.
    I am insisting that the rate of immigration is downright bad when it reaches a certain level. An outcome we have seen in every single European country that fostered it, or let it get to those levels. It never works out well. For all sides.
    And for the genuine ones (and yes, they absolutely do exist, it is pretty darn "blinkered" to look at what's going on over in various Middle Eastern and African countries and say "it's all economic migration, no reason why people would be fleeing at all")
    Oh I'm quite sure genuine refugees exist, but IMHO the majority aren't.
    , yeah, sure, stopping any benefits and shipping them back to their countries will sort out the issue in pretty much exactly the way that shipping Jews back to Nazi Germany would have sorted out the problem of migration back then. And no, I'm not being unreasonable in referring to the two situations, this is not Godwin's Law.
    Eh yes it is. It's damn near a working definition of it. They are vastly different things. Equating more control over EU and Irish borders with "shipping Jews back to Nazi Germany" is beyond scaremongering emotive nonsense. And in the same breath you ask we not argue extremes? If you can't tell the difference I really don't know what to say.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #110
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,101 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Manach wrote:
    Starting to read Douglas Murray's Strange Death of Europe, basically the replacement of the nativist populations by rounds of immigrants from third world. One of the key points is the lack of any concern by the main political classes, who seemed up till recently to have a gentleman's agreement not to discuss, and the castigation of any but the mildest protest against this by the usage of social shaming for holding "-ist" views. In part this seems to be a related to a loss of confidence in the traditions and beliefs of the worth of Western society and the unwillingness to halt the welfare states growth.
    Yep, though I would as a general thing "follow the money". Who is set to benefit from this open borders experiment? Who sets to benefit from the flood of cheap labour and extra consumers? Who does a flag waver for open borders like Peter Sutherland and his ilk represent? Not the working men and women of the EU that's for damn sure. I would also argue that this is another pressure on the welfare state from those same vested interests, who have major issues with it. One can either have a strong welfare state and closed borders or open borders and a weak welfare state. One can't have both. It's unsustainable as it is in Ireland which has so far escaped the excesses of some other EU countries immigrant problems. Again who benefits from a weakened welfare state? Again not the man in the street.

    The loss of confidence in Western/European culture is just as worrying. The alternatives are either nowhere to be seen, or nowhere one would wish to live. This cultural equivalence guff is dangerous. Other cultures don't have it and in any face off between such a difference in cultural strength the passive weakness of cultural equivalence will lose to the active strength of cultural self confidence. The Right On don't seem to see this. When you see some gay folks and feminists marching in support of Islam it's both comical and worrying. The same people would rail against the Catholic Church in Ireland and can't see the daftness of their position, or the irony.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #111
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    Wibbs, will you look at the arguments being laid out in here? These arguments -are made-. Yes, shipping people back to warzones will deal with the immigration problem. It would have done the same thing during WW2. There's reasons for that, and they're not happy-flappy "we all do better in our own countries" reasons either.

    Yes, there are economic migrants, no, I do not know the proportions - and nor do you judging by the "IMHO the majority aren't". Yes, there are genuine cases too and we can see evidence for the likelihood of genuine cases being on the rise in this current migration crisis by turning on the news. Conflating them as a reason to ban immigration and kick out the immigrants is just plain foolish, because trying to control one issue by what may be useful with another issue is unlikely to work. Witness the looming problems regarding immigration and Brexit for a start.

    There is a debate to be had. But no-one is arguing for unfettered mass immigration. And a lot of the supposed solutions require punishing the genuine cases out of misplaced fear while pretending that migration is a brand-new issue. That's not specifically aimed at you, but that is a problematic trend through discussions that attempt to narrow down onto specific issues rather than "migration bad".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Glenster
    Registered Users Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    my people are already outnumbered by boggers and knackers.

    I'd welcome different ethnicities if they shared my ideology of not being a bogger or knacker.


  • Options
    #113
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,753 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Ugh. Yes, different words have different meanings, imagine that.
    Foreign-born means immigrants. The relative "ranking" of countries by foreign-born population will generally align closely with the "ranking" of countries by non-citizen population.

    I'm a foreign born irish national. I appear to be cousins 3rd or closer with about a quarter of the county which my father left in 1940 something.

    Should i be not allowed to be here?


  • Options
    #114
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,416 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    Culture determines all, not colour.

    It is the reason if you are gay or Jewish or a woman in France that you are more likely to vote for Le Pen.

    It is all well and good being an open borders advocate or a Socialist or CEO of a Multinational when you live in the nice part of town away from the diversity.

    This experiment will never be replicated in any other part of the World, well maybe when they become rich and the example of Europe has faded in to history.


  • Options
    #115
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,572 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Do I get to choose the white Irish to be vanished?

    Then yes, I'm ok with it.


  • Options
    #116
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    Victor wrote: »
    No mods about, so the racists come out, eh?How about you compare like for like? Ballyhaunis has a population of about 2,312 (and is still majority Irish), China has a population of 1,371,000,000.

    He specifically asked about white Irish, not those with Irish citizenship.

    http://www.mayonews.ie/news/26885-social-cohesion-of-ballyhaunis-under-threat
    CSO figures from 2012 show that ‘white Irish’ people account for 40 percent of the town’s population, while the local national school, Scoil Íosa, has 28 percent ‘white Irish’ pupils among their roll of 322 children.

    Victor wrote: »
    Besides the Han majority, 55 other ethnic groups are recognised in China by the PRC government, numbering approximately 105 million people"

    So what you're saying is that the other 1.2 billion people living in China aren't from an ethnic minority?


  • Options
    #117
    pumpkin4life
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭pumpkin4life


    Samaris wrote: »
    Wibbs, will you look at the arguments being laid out in here? These arguments -are made-. Yes, shipping people back to warzones will deal with the immigration problem. It would have done the same thing during WW2. There's reasons for that, and they're not happy-flappy "we all do better in our own countries" reasons either.

    Yes, there are economic migrants, no, I do not know the proportions - and nor do you judging by the "IMHO the majority aren't". Yes, there are genuine cases too and we can see evidence for the likelihood of genuine cases being on the rise in this current migration crisis by turning on the news. Conflating them as a reason to ban immigration and kick out the immigrants is just plain foolish, because trying to control one issue by what may be useful with another issue is unlikely to work. Witness the looming problems regarding immigration and Brexit for a start.

    There is a debate to be had. But no-one is arguing for unfettered mass immigration. And a lot of the supposed solutions require punishing the genuine cases out of misplaced fear while pretending that migration is a brand-new issue. That's not specifically aimed at you, but that is a problematic trend through discussions that attempt to narrow down onto specific issues rather than "migration bad".

    Wrong. It's a very good reason to ban immigration from these areas. If you don't know your probabilites of the danger involved, then don't get involved in the first place.


  • Options
    #118
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,416 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    Samaris wrote: »
    Wibbs, will you look at the arguments being laid out in here? These arguments -are made-. Yes, shipping people back to warzones will deal with the immigration problem. It would have done the same thing during WW2. There's reasons for that, and they're not happy-flappy "we all do better in our own countries" reasons either.

    Yes, there are economic migrants, no, I do not know the proportions - and nor do you judging by the "IMHO the majority aren't". Yes, there are genuine cases too and we can see evidence for the likelihood of genuine cases being on the rise in this current migration crisis by turning on the news. Conflating them as a reason to ban immigration and kick out the immigrants is just plain foolish, because trying to control one issue by what may be useful with another issue is unlikely to work. Witness the looming problems regarding immigration and Brexit for a start.

    There is a debate to be had. But no-one is arguing for unfettered mass immigration. And a lot of the supposed solutions require punishing the genuine cases out of misplaced fear while pretending that migration is a brand-new issue. That's not specifically aimed at you, but that is a problematic trend through discussions that attempt to narrow down onto specific issues rather than "migration bad".

    There are people who are arguing for unfettered mass migration, they tend to be radical right Libertarians or Anarchists and Communists, in other words, people who tend to be from well to do backgrounds.

    The migration rate as is into Europe is unsustainable but the real kicker has been the policy of Multiculturalism if that did not exist then the reaction would largely not as well.

    The Working Class will always be largely against large immigration because it is a cost to them, they have to live with.


  • Options
    #119
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    Samaris wrote: »
    There is a debate to be had. But no-one is arguing for unfettered mass immigration. And a lot of the supposed solutions require punishing the genuine cases out of misplaced fear while pretending that migration is a brand-new issue. That's not specifically aimed at you, but that is a problematic trend through discussions that attempt to narrow down onto specific issues rather than "migration bad".

    There most certainly are people who even deny mass migration has happened in Ireland over the last decade or two, and in Germany last year. Shenshen argued that Ireland being 18% non-Irish isn't "mass immigration" since they didn't all come at once. The same poster denied that a million people going into Germany was "mass migration".

    There are a lot of people on the pro-immigration side who are turning a blind eye to the issues, and rather than confronting them, the pragmatic pro-immigrant side pretends that they don't exist and instead attacks the anti-immigrant side. Doing this is merely going to inflame the argument to the point where we'll have someone like Trump or Wilders promising to reign in immigration and splitting our society down the middle.

    The lines are being drawn (you can read Varadkar's piece in Time magazine if you wish) between those who are pro-immigration (with their open-borders bedfellows) and those who are anti-immigration (with their closed borders bedfellows).

    Surely the pragmatic thing to do is actually listen to those of us on the pragmatic right who want to restrict immigration before it becomes such a contentious issue in the first place?


  • Options
    #120
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    pumpkin4life wrote: »
    Wrong. It's a very good reason to ban immigration from these areas. If you don't know your probabilites of the danger involved, then don't get involved in the first place.

    Aighto, so we're banning Eastern Europeans now. That will be a major problem in Britain when it comes to their food industry, so if you don't know the dangers involved...etcetera.


    It would also be nice to listen to the pragmatic pro-immigration people as well. We do actually have decent points as well as the pragmatic anti-immigration people. It would appear to be more useful to get away from the sort of rubbish typified by the title of this thread and talk about things that we can agree on and work out the more contentious parts of rather than swinging wildly to one extreme or the other.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    LadyMacBeth_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,070 ✭✭✭LadyMacBeth_


    Samaris wrote: »
    Cystic fibrosis, phenyketanuria, hemochromatosis (iron-loading, pretty much, and once called the "Celtic disease") and something called transferase-deficient galactosemia (no idea). https://www.jstor.org/stable/20764508?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    Have Cystic Fibrosis myself and one of my genes is the more severe one typically found in Ireland, the other is unusual and mostly found in eastern Europe/middle east and Ashkenazi Jews. It's my second more unusual one that isn't so severe and that compensates somewhat for my severe ''Irish'' gene. My family are Irish as far back as anyone can remember so it seems that I have some foreign ancestors that I can thank for my ''milder'' disease :D


Advertisement