UN Migration Pact Ireland's Position?

demfad wrote: »

Sexual molestation and rape are wrong whether perpetrated by Swedes or those from outside Sweden. The definition of rape is fairly consistent worldwide. You believe this definition was invented to try and hide Swedish rape figures?

If you are accusing groups of people of heinous crimes and explaining it because of their ethnicity then you had better be convincing. The reason is because if they are not convincing it means that you yourself are not convinced and your assertions are based on something else. If your assertions are not based on reason they are based on bias, or racism in this case.

Stating that the definition of rape is somehow there to distort Swedish rape figures is bull. Do better or people will draw their own conclusions about you.

It is pretty simple.

There is a large increase in sexual crime in Sweden. This was used by right-wing pundits to criticize immigration policies in Sweden. The response to this is

'If you ignore sexual crimes except rape convictions then there has been no rise in crime rates'

As slimy a position as you can get, and only used to undermine the right-wing pundits.

I'm not saying that right-wing pundits are averse from using victims to suit their own agenda, but that does not make the response any less gross.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Percentage stating they were victims of sexual crime 2006–2017, BRÅ NTU

Or to quote your source

****, indeed, sticks to ****.

It really is amazing how you continue to ignore the fact that Sweden considerably broadened its definition of sexual crime in both 2005 and 2013.

Then, again, when you're desperately trying to spin a flagrantly racist narrative, I suppose it isn't at all suprising.

RandomName2 wrote: »

As I said, I find it slimy to ignore sexual molestation and assault in order to demonstrate that rape levels have been fairly level, despite sexual crime having a distinct rise in recent years. That is to say, that, to the letter, the assertion that Sweden is the rape capital of Europe is not proven, but one can't help but feel that the motives for clinging to that specific interpretation are themselves suspect.

Sexual molestation and rape are wrong whether perpetrated by Swedes or those from outside Sweden. The definition of rape is fairly consistent worldwide. You believe this definition was invented to try and hide Swedish rape figures?

If you are accusing groups of people of heinous crimes and explaining it because of their ethnicity then you had better be convincing. The reason is because if they are not convincing it means that you yourself are not convinced and your assertions are based on something else. If your assertions are not based on reason they are based on bias, or racism in this case.

Stating that the definition of rape is somehow there to distort Swedish rape figures is bull. Do better or people will draw their own conclusions about you.

4068ac1elhodqr

Ahh Sweden, the land of the world's 1st 'women only' festival (to provide the female population with a much needed 'safe zone').
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/world/europe/sweden-statement-festival-women.html

hill16bhoy wrote: »

You clearly haven't read the article I posted.

Feel free to post whatever Trump-style alternative reality narrative you want, but don't expect it to be taken in any way seriously.

I think it's pretty clear that your use of the word "slimy" is projection and gaslighting, as it usually is with those who buy into the bogus anti-immigrant narrative.

Anti-immigration blowhards tend to be the most flagrant misogynists around.

**** sticks to other ****.

Percentage stating they were victims of sexual crime 2006–2017, BRÅ NTU

Or to quote your source

First of all, the graph does not just represent rape, but a wide category called “sexual crimes.”

****, indeed, sticks to ****.

RandomName2 wrote: »

As I said, I find it slimy to ignore sexual molestation and assault in order to demonstrate that rape levels have been fairly level, despite sexual crime having a distinct rise in recent years. That is to say, that, to the letter, the assertion that Sweden is the rape capital of Europe is not proven, but one can't help but feel that the motives for clinging to that specific interpretation are themselves suspect.

Furthermore, although convictions for rape have not increased in the last number of years, as the source that I posted from the bbc said, over 80% of reported stranger rape was purportedly perpetrated by individuals coming from outside the EU. Brushing that under the carpet for political reasons is hard to defend.

You clearly haven't read the article I posted.

Feel free to post whatever Trump-style alternative reality narrative you want, but don't expect it to be taken in any way seriously.

I think it's pretty clear that your use of the word "slimy" is projection and gaslighting, as it usually is with those who buy into the bogus anti-immigrant narrative.

Anti-immigration blowhards tend to be the most flagrant misogynists around.

**** sticks to other ****.

hill16bhoy wrote: »

This article systematically demolishes the Sweden rape myth propaganda narrative being pushed by the extreme right. It's particularly well sourced.

I'd advise you to read it.

As I said, I find it slimy to ignore sexual molestation and assault in order to demonstrate that rape levels have been fairly level, despite sexual crime having a distinct rise in recent years. That is to say, that, to the letter, the assertion that Sweden is the rape capital of Europe is not proven, but one can't help but feel that the motives for clinging to that specific interpretation are themselves suspect.

Furthermore, although convictions for rape have not increased in the last number of years, as the source that I posted from the bbc said, over 80% of reported stranger rape was purportedly perpetrated by individuals coming from outside the EU. Brushing that under the carpet for political reasons is hard to defend.

FreudianSlippers

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not asking them to ask the public, we have the Dail, was this discussed in our national parliament?
If not, then they are using the ignorant is bliss approach towards the public.

All of this relies on the flimsy and likely flawed assumption that this has not or will not be discussed in the Oireachtas.

Can you please provide a shred of evidence that this will be signed without Oireachtas approval or show us where you derive the assumption that the Government can sign UN Resolutions (or alike) unilaterally?

I think you'll find, with a modicum of research, that signing these UN documents can be done at a Cabinet level following a joint Oireachtas committee (i.e. public) decision and ratification (making it law) requires a full Oireachtas vote, as with all legislation.

RobertKK

oscarBravo wrote: »

It explicitly removes any obligation to do so, yes.

Do you want the government to ask the public's permission before it makes any decisions, or just decisions that you personally feel strongly about?

I am not asking them to ask the public, we have the Dail, was this discussed in our national parliament?
If not, then they are using the ignorant is bliss approach towards the public.

Chaos Marine wrote: »

I never said it doesn't. Stop trying to put words in my mouth or change what I said so you can argue against a strawman of your own making. I said Ireland giving up it's national sovereignty makes my blood run cold. As in, at some point in the future, Ireland cedes it's ability to self govern to the EU.

It isn't a straw man. The only reason to use the words you used are to imply that Ireland has already lost or will lose national sovereignty.

Which is not true.

You are producing a straw man while simultanneously denying such and then projecting such onto somebody else.

That's classic gaslighting.

Your ability to read and reply to someone's else's words and actually understand their words is astoundingly poor. I said, again, that Ireland was controlled by the British Empire for almost a thousand years. The idea that Ireland would at some point surrender it's national sovereignty and ability to self govern to the EU as Verhofstadt's aim to turn the EU into some kind of superstate or imitation of the US but ruled by the beneficent arm of the morally superior Eurocrat doesn't sit right with me. At all. Is that any more clear for you? Would you like me to try and replicate what I've said with a crayon drawing through MS Paint?

You are explicitly comparing the EU to the British Empire.

And you are explicitly wrong.

There's that straw man again.

And you'd do well to lose the aggressive tone, especially given that it again appears to be a function of some more projection in your argument.

False fallacy. This is about mass migration from people outside of the EU. But for the record, not completely unchecked movement, no. I would expect at least a cursory examination of criminal records, reasons for travel etc.

It was a simple question.

Of course I'm in favour of Ireland leaving the EU. The EU is turning into authoritarian state.

Fine. So you're against the EU and want Ireland to leave. How, in practical terms, do you think this would be achieved, and where would it leave us in terms of our economy and future prosperity?

Of course you cite no examples of this supposed "authoritarianism".

I'll presume you think the regimes that protect "freedom" are Poland, Hungary and Russia, etc.

Irexiteers have a funny tendency to think that. Goes hand in hand with the sort of Goebbels-esque propaganda that emanates from those states.

Another fallacy. You're assuming that if a country was in such a great state to begin with that there would be mass migration out of it, that the wages would be in that good a state to begin with. Or if you mean migration out or into a country at manageable levels, you're erroneously comparing two different things. I have absolutely no problem with regulated migration.

My point to you was a logical follow on to your new and entirely made up "iron law of wages" that said, and I quote, "Wages go down as the volume of workers increase."

You made the point, I asked you an entirely logical follow on which you have responded to with gibberish.

Again I ask the question: If the number of workers goes down, does the average wage increase?

I ask it because you seem to display a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.

That's because the US had a massive requirement for people to fill basic jobs when that was more prevalent due to a more simplistic industrialised system. There is nowhere near the amount of demand for unskilled labour now as there was back then. To compare the two is massively disingenuous but going by your reply, I'm starting to see a pattern.

You made a point. The greatest ever experiment in large scale in-migration completely disproves your point, and has done at every stage in its history.

Quite well actually. There weren't the jobs to support them and those that did work wouldn't have been able to support them with taxes etc. Again, the mass exodus from Ireland tended to happen back when low skilled labour was highly in demand unlike today. You can't compare the two without some serious mental gymnastics which you appear to be attempting in spades.

When did it work out "quite well"?

The 1840s? The 1950s? The 1980s? After the crash?

Ireland has a long history of out-migration. The times when we had the most were times when we stagnated the most.

After the crash, for instance, there was a chance for the Government to re-employ thousands of people building social housing. We didn't and people in he building industry emigrated in droves. The building industry ground to a halt and we're left with a housing crisis because of that.

And amazingly enough, when we started attracting people into the country in the 1990s and again in this decade, we started growing and prospering.

If you think this is a credible point to make I'm honestly amazed you can type to begin with. Dublin isn't Ireland and Ireland isn't Dublin. For your argument to make even a lick of sense to anyone who isn't a doddering imbecile, you'd have to think the rest of Ireland hasn't progressed past the 1900s.

This is another answer which contains nothing but aggresssive gibberish which doesn't even make an attempt to address my question.

Again, you're asserting things I've never said and you're arguing against strawmen to win victories against. You're comparing someone who "migrates" from Cork to Dublin who would move from, lets say an Islamic country to a Christian country. Do you understand how absolutely insane that is? Are you going to try to compare dust to magma next?

I think you're proving out my assertion that it isn't migration per se that you have a problem with.

It's who migrates, specifically non-whites and most of all Muslims.

To be fair, it was pretty obvious and I don't expect any credit for working that out.

It's neither good nor bad because you have people from the same culture moving to different areas within the same culture. There will be regional differences of course but again, no where close to the differences you'd have from someone who moves an entirely different country to another.

How old are you? I haven't seen incompetent arguing of this level since I was in primary school.

Have you read your own posts?

So, I've given you examples there of large scale migration. You say they're "neither good nor bad".

But large scale migration is what you came on to complain about. Now you're not complaining about it, merely because the identity of the people who are migrating are acceptable to you on "cultural grounds".

As I said, it isn't migration you have the problem with, it's race and religion.

Considering the amount of terrorism going on from both sides in the North of Ireland, yes.

For somebody who claims to have Ireland's interests at heart, claiming that Irish citizens should have had their travel and migration rights taken away from them is a really funny way of demonstrating such.

If they failed a background check or had a history of violence, then yes, then Britain should have denied them access. Would that have stopped terror attacks in the UK? No but it would limited some of them.

Plenty of Irish people were said to have had "a history of violence" but didn't. The Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, for instance.

What if they were from the North, as most of the people involved in violence were?

You've already stated that you think the Common Travel Area should have been abolished. Yet you say Irish people should have been allowed move to Britain.

This raises an interesting follow up question. Do you favour a complete ban on immigration from certain countries, say, for instance, Iraq, Syria, Somalia or Lybia, a la Trump?

Considering the volume of sexual assaults, crimes in countries like Sweden, Germany and France, it's not paranoia, it's simply looking at the observable results and saying "I don't want that."

Or perhaps, like all the other anti-immigration extremists, you've decided to spin your own easily disprovable fear and hate-mongering narrative to justify obvious racism.

Let's be clear here - the sort of stuff you've come ou with in the above passage is 1930s stuff. There is no difference. This is what all racists and bigots do. Spin bigus narratives so as to peddle and incite hatred.

It's so predictable.

All you've been doing is twisting my words, putting words in my mouth and trying to brow beat me by calling me a racist.

Tell me, do you at all feel even the smallest amount of guilt for watering down such a serious accusation? Just the littlest bit of guilt?

Actual racists tend to not care about being called racist for some reason and the likes of you calling everyone who doesn't kowtow to your banner for legitimate reasons only gives them ammunition to fob off accusations of racism as hyperbole to get their foot in the door.

It's because of people like you trying to shut down discussions about legitimate concerns with cries of racism, homophobia, islamophobia etc at the drop of a hat against people who aren't any of those things that far-right wing political parties on the rise across Europe because the "woke progressive" lefty governments have abandoned the common man and woman on the street who have to suffer the lack of jobs, housing and food that the government seems only too happy to give foreigners at the demands of our European overlords.

Before you respond, I want to make one thing abundantly clear, if you reply to me with more strawmen or arguments against things I have not said, I'll not bother to reply as there's no point.

I think you've thoroughly proved me correct.

In one way I would generalise about racists, but in another way I wouldn't - some of them glory in it and don't care whether they're called out on it, a lot more are deluded about what they are and do care if they're called out on it. In a twisted way I have slightly more respect for the former, at least they're sort of honest, like.

Thanks for the cliche bingo at the end. I sort of zoned out there.

You've well and truly earned a "House" for your collection of strawmen.

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

Does it exclude them from having public debates on things they may or may not sign the country up to?

It explicitly removes any obligation to do so, yes.

Do you want the government to ask the public's permission before it makes any decisions, or just decisions that you personally feel strongly about?

Sand wrote: »

Weisses did respond to the notion of Polish (and Hungarian) culture with the response "What culture". It was a stupid thing to say. We don't have to dwell on it.

I'm sure the poster can speak for themselves, but the way I took it was that they were asking a genuine question to the poster Eric Cartman about what Polish culture is, whether there is something "intrinsic" to it, and they asked specifically, is it "Christian values"? Now certainly, historically, a majority of people who considered themselves Polish were and are Christian, but by 1939, there were 3.5 million Jews in Poland.

So, one wonders, was Eric Cartman, or are you for that matter, claiming that "Christian values" are an intrinsic part of "Polishness". ie. if you're not a Christian, you can't consider yourself to be genuinely Polish?

I really hope the answer is "no".

A lot of people 80 years ago thought the answer was "yes", and that didn't work out very well, did it?

You are confusing the state with the nation - as I noted, the nation has been far more persistent than the state. The Polish nation largely inhabits the same territory it has done for over 1,000 years. Its ignorant to pretend that 'What is Polish' was historically a pretty nebulous concept.

There were many "peoples" who had the idea of themselves as "nations".

Are people who consider themselves Ruthenian or Galician, part of a Rutheenian or Galician "nation", or come from a background of people who thought such, part of the Polish nation?

Are they part of the Polish state? Of course they are.

Are ethnic Germans or Lithuanians or Ukrainians who grew up in Poland part of the Polish state? Of course they are.

By introducing the distinction between the idea of nation and state, you're actually admitting that borders are merely lines on a map, because then all states contain distinct "nations", as you put it. And that destroys the very concept of homogeneity that those of an anti-immigrant persuausion are obsessed with.

The alternative to this is that all states should have a hegemonic ethnic group. Again, historical experience tells us that this works out terribly.

Of course, but it typically develops organically over time by the people of that nation/culture. Its completely radical to deposit millions of people from entirely different places into that culture. To the extent it happened historically, it was always accompanied by strife and conflict: i.e. the fall of the Roman Empire.

Migration is organic. It isn't organic just as a result of the economic system the world has had for the last three centuries, which grew organically itself. It's organic because the world is one organic system, which has never stood still. All that cultural evolution that happened in Britain, the US, Europe, Asia, Africa and elsewhere was organic because it all arose from an organic movement of people.

It might not be the organic type of evolution you liked, but that doesn't mean it wasn't organic. States are not organic, they are artificial creations.

Strife and conflict unfortunately tends to be part of the human condition and the reason we have trans-national organisations ssuch as the EU and the UN is to prevent it.

All too often, that strife and conflict has been because of nationalism, a tragically misguided belief in the "purity" of nations and a tragically misguided belief in the superiority of "nations" and "peoples" over others.

In fact that misguided belief in racial purity and supposed "intrinsic", exclusionary parts of culture, has been the biggest blight on human history ever known.

If that were true, all cultures would be the same. That there are distinct cultures is because different groups of people developed different cultures. There was some 'cross-pollination' as you call it between neighbouring people, but cultural developments were largely driven by those people themselves.

With the advent of globalisation, there is an increasing 'Americanisation' of cultures in the last 100 years. If that's a good or a bad thing is arguable.

How would they be all the same? Cultures evolve differently in different places because people are all different, they do different things and go off on their own distinct paths and the contexts they exist in are different. The world is a very big place.

"White" US and Australian culture developed in a different ways from the British culture they were exported from. So did New Zealand culture. British culture went off in its own different directions.

The US has its own distinct and varied cultures which came about organically.

What we traditionally see as "Irish culture" is a product of many different influences - Celtic, pagan, different forms of Christianity, Viking, English, Norman, arguably even Spanish.

Cultures have always effectively died and new cultures have always evolved or grown from effectively nothing.

Sure, and that explains the prism through which you view the issues of mass migration. You have a hammer, all problems are nails.

Migration has always been around. Celtic FC is an example of a distinct cultural institution which was a product of migrants who faced bittter prejudice. It's an example of how cultures grow, change and fuse. It wouldn't be what it is without its Irish influence. It wouldn't be what it is without its setting in Glasgow and Scotland and how it became part of the cultural fabric of those places.

Uh yes and no. Firstly, its problematic to talk about a British culture or a British people. There is English, Scottish and Welsh people each with distinct identities and cultures. 'British' is an imperial/globalist identity, not a national one like the Polish one (or indeed English, Scottish or Welsh). A loyal subject of the Empire could be British, from Montreal to Cape Town to Bombay to Sydney in a way they could not be English.

English, Scottish and Welsh culture did not come about because of immigration. They developed slowly over centuries. Even to the extent you might argue migrations played a role, that 'immigration' was resisted such as at the Battle of Hastings. The arrival of the Normans or the Saxons did change Britain, but the existing people did not welcome it.

You're just proving my point about culture being nebulous and the concept of homogeneity or "homogenous culture" being a crock.

Britain over the last few centuries, for all its faults in terms of colonialism etc, has actually been a pretty good example of how a multi-cultural society can work. It's deeply diverse and heterogenous, and always was. Within England itself, there has always been massive diversity.

The culture of England, like Ireland, is a product of massively diverse influences from across Europe and the world.

Liverpool, for instance, is a world away from Sussex or Cornwall in terms of culture, and massively influenced by Irish immigration in a similar way to how Glasgow is.

But Britain has now demonstrated what the real danger is - and it isn't immigration, it's the demagogues in the press and politics who have shamelessly played to a fantasy idea of a racially pure, oppressed "real" England, and stirred up hatred against immigrants and outsiders for their own personal gain.

Sand wrote: »

No, the compact actually states it openly:

Facilitating "Safe, Orderly and regular migration" describes actions toward exiting migration. It does not facilitate migration, in fact it reduces that prospect. It facilitates making migration safer etc.

You are deliberately and dishonestly misleading.

I find it a useful distinction to make. I'm not opposed to the concept of people travelling to, working in or settling in foreign countries. I am against mass migration: a level of migration which effects rapid demographic changes on the host country. If I didn't make the distinction, people would be wasting their time arguing against positions I don't hold.

To describe it as mass or otherwise you must substantiate and quantify it. How do you evaluate "rapid demographic change".

The compact is a series of commitments which are made with the purpose of facilitating mass migration.

The compact seeks to reduce existing migration and make migration safer. Your assertion is baseless.

Migration of peoples happen for a variety of reasons. You would think with the upcoming climate change cataclysm that opponents of migration would be advocates of a global response to human made climate breakdown or wars or other drivers of human movement. But no, your solution is based on barbed wire guns and firing statistics out to make these people appear lesser. It is petty, and ultimately it is stupid.

RobertKK

oscarBravo wrote: »

Has it somehow escaped your attention that we live in a representative democracy, which is explicitly designed around the idea that we elect a government to make decisions on our behalf?

Does it exclude them from having public debates on things they may or may not sign the country up to?
If you keep the country ignorant on issues, then maybe they are representing no one, and maybe it makes politicians more open to influences beyond the people who elect them.
I just believe the population should be informed with issues debated as has happened in other countries when it has come to this issue.

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

We live in a rather poor democracy if we have the government signing up to whatever...

Has it somehow escaped your attention that we live in a representative democracy, which is explicitly designed around the idea that we elect a government to make decisions on our behalf?

Chaos Marine

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Ireland has national sovereignty. It has used that sovereignty to enter into agreements re internal migration as part of the EU.

Ireland has complete national sovereignty over migration from outside the EU. Why are you implying it doesn't, when you know it has?

I never said it doesn't. Stop trying to put words in my mouth or change what I said so you can argue against a strawman of your own making. I said Ireland giving up it's national sovereignty makes my blood run cold. As in, at some point in the future, Ireland cedes it's ability to self govern to the EU.

Why are you comparing the EU to the British empire, when any cursory reading of the situation could tell you the two things are entirely different, and that far from being an "empire", the EU is the exact opposite of such?

Your ability to read and reply to someone's else's words and actually understand their words is astoundingly poor. I said, again, that Ireland was controlled by the British Empire for almost a thousand years. The idea that Ireland would at some point surrender it's national sovereignty and ability to self govern to the EU as Verhofstadt's aim to turn the EU into some kind of superstate or imitation of the US but ruled by the beneficent arm of the morally superior Eurocrat doesn't sit right with me. At all. Is that any more clear for you? Would you like me to try and replicate what I've said with a crayon drawing through MS Paint?

Do you support free movement within the EU?

False fallacy. This is about mass migration from people outside of the EU. But for the record, not completely unchecked movement, no. I would expect at least a cursory examination of criminal records, reasons for travel etc.

If you don't, why not just come straight out and say you're in favour of Ireland leaving the EU, given that that would be the logical upshot of being against free movement?

Of course I'm in favour of Ireland leaving the EU. The EU is turning into authoritarian state.

If there is a causation effect between in-migration and wages going down, surely then, there should be a causation effect between out-migration and wages going up?

Another fallacy. You're assuming that if a country was in such a great state to begin with that there would be mass migration out of it, that the wages would be in that good a state to begin with. Or if you mean migration out or into a country at manageable levels, you're erroneously comparing two different things. I have absolutely no problem with regulated migration.

Surely then the USA, the world's greatest ever experiment in large scale in-migration, would thus prove that wages go down when there is large scale in-migration?

That's because the US had a massive requirement for people to fill basic jobs when that was more prevalent due to a more simplistic industrialised system. There is nowhere near the amount of demand for unskilled labour now as there was back then. To compare the two is massively disingenuous but going by your reply, I'm starting to see a pattern.

Surely the countries with significant out-migration would thus see the biggest rise in wages? How did that ever work out for Ireland?

Quite well actually. There weren't the jobs to support them and those that did work wouldn't have been able to support them with taxes etc. Again, the mass exodus from Ireland tended to happen back when low skilled labour was highly in demand unlike today. You can't compare the two without some serious mental gymnastics which you appear to be attempting in spades.

Do you support internal migration within countries? I mean, Dublin has changed beyond all recognition in the last 100 years? Why do you think that is?

If you think this is a credible point to make I'm honestly amazed you can type to begin with. Dublin isn't Ireland and Ireland isn't Dublin. For your argument to make even a lick of sense to anyone who isn't a doddering imbecile, you'd have to think the rest of Ireland hasn't progressed past the 1900s.

The main reason is because massive numbers of people have migrated to it - the vast majority from other parts of Ireland. In your language, that's "mass migration". It doesn't matter whether somebody moves to Dublin from Letterkenny or Lahore, they're still a migrant.

Again, you're asserting things I've never said and you're arguing against strawmen to win victories against. You're comparing someone who "migrates" from Cork to Dublin who would move from, lets say an Islamic country to a Christian country. Do you understand how absolutely insane that is? Are you going to try to compare dust to magma next?

Was this a good thing or a bad thing for Dublin?

How about Galway, which has grown massively in recent years?

Is the fact that massive numbers of Dubs have moved to Navan, Drogheda and Portlaoise a good thing for those towns?

They're "outsiders", they have migrated on a large scale to a different place.

How about pretty much every major city in the world, which all grew because of massive in-migration from other parts of whatever country they're in?

It's neither good nor bad because you have people from the same culture moving to different areas within the same culture. There will be regional differences of course but again, no where close to the differences you'd have from someone who moves an entirely different country to another.

How old are you? I haven't seen incompetent arguing of this level since I was in primary school.

Should Britain have abolished the Common Travel Area during the Troubles?

Considering the amount of terrorism going on from both sides in the North of Ireland, yes.

The Common Travel Area enabled/enables free movement for residency purposes from Ireland to the UK and vice versa.

From the 1970s to the 1990s, Irish people carried out large numbers of terrorist attacks in Britain. Surely then, by the same rationale that you use above, Irish people should have been stopped from moving to Britain? Yes?

If they failed a background check or had a history of violence, then yes, then Britain should have denied them access. Would that have stopped terror attacks in the UK? No but it would limited some of them.

On the flipside of that, if one was to be paranoid enough, couldn't one have argued back then - hell, you could argue it now - that if enough British people moved here as a result of free movement, we could have ended up rejoining the UK? Would that have been a legitimate reason to oppose the Common Travel Area?

Considering the volume of sexual assaults, crimes in countries like Sweden, Germany and France, it's not paranoia, it's simply looking at the observable results and saying "I don't want that."

I'm just trying to get your angle on all these questions, because it appears to me you're just one more poster trying to claim that racism has nothing to do with your views when it appears bleedin' obvious that it has everything to do with it.

All you've been doing is twisting my words, putting words in my mouth and trying to brow beat me by calling me a racist.

Tell me, do you at all feel even the smallest amount of guilt for watering down such a serious accusation? Just the littlest bit of guilt?

Actual racists tend to not care about being called racist for some reason and the likes of you calling everyone who doesn't kowtow to your banner for legitimate reasons only gives them ammunition to fob off accusations of racism as hyperbole to get their foot in the door.

It's because of people like you trying to shut down discussions about legitimate concerns with cries of racism, homophobia, islamophobia etc at the drop of a hat against people who aren't any of those things that far-right wing political parties on the rise across Europe because the "woke progressive" lefty governments have abandoned the common man and woman on the street who have to suffer the lack of jobs, housing and food that the government seems only too happy to give foreigners at the demands of our European overlords.

Before you respond, I want to make one thing abundantly clear, if you reply to me with more strawmen or arguments against things I have not said, I'll not bother to reply as there's no point.

RobertKK

The biggest problem with this is the lack of debate, We live in a rather poor democracy if we have the government signing up to whatever (doesn't have to be this) and there is no public debate.
This is like our Dail in general, where there is a minor section of contrarian opinion and a large amount of group think.

Knowing our parliament, we will sign this with little to no debate.
I know too little about this to have a position. I have seen that an increasing number of countries are rejecting it. My issue is we the Irish people are kept in the dark and treated with ignorance.
We should have a public debate before the country signs anything, irrespective of how binding or not when it comes to what is signed.

When it comes to immigration in Europe. Hilary Clinton said Europe has done it's share, and must reduce immigration if Europe wants to fight the rise of far right wing parties.
I don't know what we are potentially signing, but if we are signing up for more immigration from outside of Europe, I do think Hilary Clinton is potentially correct in her assessment of it being counter productive to Europe.

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I never said there was no such thing as Polish culture, and I don't think the poster you're referring to (from back on page 1 of the thread) was saying such either.

Weisses did respond to the notion of Polish (and Hungarian) culture with the response "What culture". It was a stupid thing to say. We don't have to dwell on it.

Poland and what is Polish has historically been a pretty nebulous concept, given that much of what is present day Poland was formerly part of Germany, while much of present day Ukraine, Lithuania and Belarus were formerly part of Poland.

You are confusing the state with the nation - as I noted, the nation has been far more persistent than the state. The Polish nation largely inhabits the same territory it has done for over 1,000 years. Its ignorant to pretend that 'What is Polish' was historically a pretty nebulous concept.

Culture never stands still - it's a living breathing, constantly evolving thing.

Of course, but it typically develops organically over time by the people of that nation/culture. Its completely radical to deposit millions of people from entirely different places into that culture. To the extent it happened historically, it was always accompanied by strife and conflict: i.e. the fall of the Roman Empire.

There are all different types of culture, and much, if not most, of what we define as culture was driven or fertilised by immigration or cross-pollination of ideas.

If that were true, all cultures would be the same. That there are distinct cultures is because different groups of people developed different cultures. There was some 'cross-pollination' as you call it between neighbouring people, but cultural developments were largely driven by those people themselves.

With the advent of globalisation, there is an increasing 'Americanisation' of cultures in the last 100 years. If that's a good or a bad thing is arguable.

My user name contains the word "bhoy" - which is a reference to Celtic FC, a massive cultural force in its own right in Scotland, and one which would not exist but for immigration. The immigrants which founded and supported Celtic FC faced massive prejudice and bigotry for decades in Scotland, and that can still spill over even today.

Sure, and that explains the prism through which you view the issues of mass migration. You have a hammer, all problems are nails.

British culture, all of it, and all of it came about because of immigration.

Uh yes and no. Firstly, its problematic to talk about a British culture or a British people. There is English, Scottish and Welsh people each with distinct identities and cultures. 'British' is an imperial/globalist identity, not a national one like the Polish one (or indeed English, Scottish or Welsh). A loyal subject of the Empire could be British, from Montreal to Cape Town to Bombay to Sydney in a way they could not be English.

English, Scottish and Welsh culture did not come about because of immigration. They developed slowly over centuries. Even to the extent you might argue migrations played a role, that 'immigration' was resisted such as at the Battle of Hastings. The arrival of the Normans or the Saxons did change Britain, but the existing people did not welcome it.

Those who hold up the governments of Poland, Hungary and Italy as a model to be emulated talk of "Christian values". Yet they cannot tell us how these governments uphold so called "Christian values", and they are simultaneously totally blind to and ignorant of the best of "Christian values" - they work explicitly against them.

Weisses introduced Christian values to the thread. No one else did.

Sand wrote: »

I had already read my post back and tweaked it to clarify. Many states of Poland emerged as monarchies and republics rose and fell, the first recognised example in the 10th century. Every time the last incarnation of the Polish state fell, it re-emerged as a political expression of the Polish nation and people, distinct from the peoples around them.

In that context its incredibly ignorant to ask 'What culture' when Polish nationality and culture is what endured after kings and presidents failed.

I never said there was no such thing as Polish culture, and I don't think the poster you're referring to (from back on page 1 of the thread) was saying such either.

Poland and what is Polish has historically been a pretty nebulous concept, given that much of what is present day Poland was formerly part of Germany, while much of present day Ukraine, Lithuania and Belarus were formerly part of Poland.

That said, I think you can define plenty of things as examples of Polish culture, in the same way you can describe plenty of things as examples of Irish culture.

But defining what is not "Polish culture" or "Irish culture" or anywhere else's culture is a much more difficult thing.

Poland had a rich Jewish culture, which, tragically, was effectively eliminated by World War II and the Holocaust. That was Polish culture as much as Jewish culture. However I somehow doubt that many people who are loudly anti-immigration would see it that way, and I'm not sure they would see any irony in that.

Culture never stands still - it's a living breathing, constantly evolving thing.

There are all different types of culture, and much, if not most, of what we define as culture was driven or fertilised by immigration or cross-pollination of ideas.

My user name contains the word "bhoy" - which is a reference to Celtic FC, a massive cultural force in its own right in Scotland, and one which would not exist but for immigration. The immigrants which founded and supported Celtic FC faced massive prejudice and bigotry for decades in Scotland, and that can still spill over even today.

So much of British musical culture is driven by descendants of Irish immigrants, from the Beatles to Dusty Springfield to The Smiths to Oasis to Ed Sheeran.

The influence of immigration from much further afield in British music is also unmistakable - ska, soul, trip hop, reggae, grime etc.

British culture, all of it, and all of it came about because of immigration.

I think there's a huge tendency on the part of those who are obsessed with demonising immigrants and immigration to confuse culture with laws.

When anti-immigation people talk about "our culture" and "our way of life", what they're doing is demonising people of non-white colour as lawless, marauding and inherently dangerous. It is to denigrate them as "rapists" and "murderers". This is always what it comes back to.

Those who hold up the governments of Poland, Hungary and Italy as a model to be emulated talk of "Christian values". Yet they cannot tell us how these governments uphold so called "Christian values", and they are simultaneously totally blind to and ignorant of the best of "Christian values" - they work explicitly against them.

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Sweden doesn't record crime statistics based on ethnicity.

They stopped reporting crime statistics based on ethnicity. The last statistics were issued in 2005. The 2005 figures showed that foreign born immigrants were 2.5 times more likely to be criminals than native Swedes (defined as Swedes with 2 Swedish born parents). Those born in Sweden to two foreign born parents were twice as likely to be criminals.

Captain Obvious

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Sweden doesn't record crime statistics based on ethnicity.

A policy brought in under a right wing government as a cost saving measure.

Ireland doesn't record ethnicity of offenders either. Prisons do though.

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The Polish state has not existed since the 10th century. That's simply a historical lie.

I had already read my post back and tweaked it to clarify. Many states of Poland emerged as monarchies and republics rose and fell, the first recognised example in the 10th century. Every time the last incarnation of the Polish state fell, it re-emerged as a political expression of the Polish nation and people, distinct from the peoples around them.

In that context its incredibly ignorant to ask 'What culture' when Polish nationality and culture is what endured after kings and presidents failed.

demfad wrote: »

Your continual assertion that the compact is to facilitate mass migration appears to be false at best.

No, the compact actually states it openly:

11. With this comprehensive approach, we aim to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration

13. To achieve this, we commit to facilitate and ensure safe, orderly and regular migration for the benefit of all.

18. We further commit to ensure timely and full implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as well as to build upon and invest in the implementation of other existing frameworks, in order to enhance the overall impact of the Global Compact to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration.

Could you stop repeatedly using the phrase "Mass migration"?

I find it a useful distinction to make. I'm not opposed to the concept of people travelling to, working in or settling in foreign countries. I am against mass migration: a level of migration which effects rapid demographic changes on the host country. If I didn't make the distinction, people would be wasting their time arguing against positions I don't hold.

So States are soverign to determine their migration policy. The compact just insures that problems that cause migration are identified and minimized if possible.

The compact is a series of commitments which are made with the purpose of facilitating mass migration. Sovereign states do not lightly sign up to commitments with the purpose of breaking those commitments. Having signed up to this compact, advocates of mass migration will use it to compel Irish governments to meet the commitments made.

RandomName2 wrote: »

And as if to prove my point about cherry-picking, or if we are being generous, bias confirmation, for the sake of providing an argument that is centrally defined by an exaggerated view of the threat of particular political spheres.

You provide one source. I shall do a little better.

Irish Times

Reuters

There's a BBC source which I won't bother quoting as it says the same thing and comes from the same root source.

The Telegraph

A nice graph

There's another graph by the Wall Street Journal that I can't share as it's behind a paywall, but I will lovingly type out the figures into a table for your benefit

Share of foreign nationals among 2017 crime suspects
Crime | Percentage
Pickpocketing | 74.4
Forgery of documents | 55.4
Burglaries |41.3
Rapes and sexual assaults |37
All types | 34.7
Foreigner as % of population | 12.8

bbc

Quite honestly I find the attempt to exclude molestation and sexual assault from sex crime statistics a little bit slimy.

bra

Sweden doesn't record crime statistics based on ethnicity.

There are a number of reasons why the published sexual crime rate is higher in Sweden than in other countries.

Chief among them is the criteria for what is classed as sexual crime, which is broader than in other countries.

There is also a stronger culture of reporting sexual crime in Sweden than elsewhere, which is an excellent thing, not a bad thing.

My experience of discussions such as this tells me that a high proportion of anti-immigrant posters have a strong dislike of such a reporting culture, as misogynism tends to go hand in hand with dislike of immigrants.

There's also a fantastical leap on the part of those who tell us that Sweden is a supposed rape hotspot, and that Muslims are solely to blame for this.

Other countries have lots of Muslims too, yet have far lower published rates of sexual crime.

So, you expect us to believe that Muslims in Sweden are uniquely obsessed with raping women in a way that Muslims in other countries so clearly aren't.

What is the basis you have for such a conclusion?

This article systematically demolishes the Sweden rape myth propaganda narrative being pushed by the extreme right. It's particularly well sourced.

I'd advise you to read it.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/crime-sweden-rape-capital-europe/

hill16bhoy wrote: »

In 2017, Germany recorded its lowest crime rate since 1992.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-crime-rate-migration-antisemitism-horst-seehofer-a8343226.html

And as if to prove my point about cherry-picking, or if we are being generous, bias confirmation, for the sake of providing an argument that is centrally defined by an exaggerated view of the threat of particular political spheres.

You provide one source. I shall do a little better.

First, the total number of asylum seekers in Germany by the end of 2016 was up 490 per cent compared with 2014.
Almost 300,000 crimes (9 per cent of the total) were linked to refugees/asylum-seekers in 2016, up 42 per cent year-on-year.
Federal statistics indicate that, of almost 4,000 rapes recorded in the years 2015 and 2016, the percentage of non-national perpetrators jumped in that time from 33 to 38 per cent.
A new study this week showed that, in the two-year period to end-2016, the number of refugees in the state of Lower Saxony (population 7 million), jumped by 117 per cent to 163,000, while refugee crime suspects jumped by 242 per cent. Put another way, crimes with a refugee suspect jumped from four per cent in 2014 to 13 per cent two years later.

Irish Times

Violent crime rose by about 10 percent in 2015 and 2016, a study showed. It attributed more than 90 percent of that to young male refugees.

Reuters

There's a BBC source which I won't bother quoting as it says the same thing and comes from the same root source.

The number of suspected crimes by refugees, asylum-seekers and illegal immigrants rose to 174,438 in 2016 — an increase of 52.7 per cent, according to the interior ministry.

The Telegraph

A nice graph

There's another graph by the Wall Street Journal that I can't share as it's behind a paywall, but I will lovingly type out the figures into a table for your benefit

Share of foreign nationals among 2017 crime suspects
Crime | Percentage
Pickpocketing | 74.4
Forgery of documents | 55.4
Burglaries |41.3
Rapes and sexual assaults |37
All types | 34.7
Foreigner as % of population | 12.8

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Sweden's overall crime rate has held steady since 2005. The commonly-used trope about the rape rate exploding due to Muslim immigration is long-debunked bull****.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39056786

About 58% of men convicted in Sweden of rape and attempted rape over the past five years were born abroad, according to data from Swedish national TV.

bbc

Quite honestly I find the attempt to exclude molestation and sexual assault from sex crime statistics a little bit slimy.

In the Swedish Crime Survey (Nationella trygghetsundersökningen - NTU), 2.4 per cent of the population (16 – 79 years of age), corresponding to approximately 181,000 persons, state that they had been exposed to sex offences in 2016. This is an increase as compared with 2015, when 1.7 per cent stated that they had been exposed. The level of sex offences remained relatively stable during the period 2005 – 2012, but after that there has been an increase. The estimated number of incidents is 654,000, which is significantly more than any other year. However, as the results have shown considerable variations throughout the years, the results of any single year should be interpreted carefully.

bra

MrMaki

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The Polish state has not existed since the 10th century. That's simply a historical lie.

The Polish state dates from the period directly after World War I.

Do mean to say the idea of a Polish state has existed since the 10th century? Because that's an entirely different thing.

If you tell us that a Polish state has existed since the 10th century, then Ruthenia and Galicia and all manner of other "states" are "states" too.

Except that they aren't.

The Islamic caliphate of Spain would be a "state". Israel would be a state with a history lasting thousands of years. Never mind that it was formed in 1948.

It is not a lie. it is a historical fact.
Country Poland was firstly formed in late 6th century and since 9th century existed under name "Polania", then late 10th century "Polania" and the king and people were christianized, and since then "Polska ( Poland)" is existing under this name. Word "Polska" was used by Vatikan scribes since late 10th century.

While Ruthenia and Galicia people were from many different countries in Europe, majority Polish people were from one area where Slovians lived,

This is something that can help you to understand Polish history better.

https://youtu.be/2DrXgj1NwN8

and here is some information about Polish borders.

https://youtu.be/CvDRz9HFfSU

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The Polish state has not existed since the 10th century. That's simply a historical lie.

The Polish state dates from the period directly after World War I.

Do mean to say the idea of a Polish state has existed since the 10th century? Because that's an entirely different thing.

If you tell us that a Polish state has existed since the 10th century, then Ruthenia and Galicia and all manner of other "states" are "states" too.

Except that they aren't.

The Islamic caliphate of Spain would be a "state". Israel would be a state with a history lasting thousands of years. Never mind that it was formed in 1948.

I was in the German museum in Berlin and judging by European maps "Poland" surrounded by Russia, Austria and Germany disappeared many times over the last 1000 years.

Look at our corner of the world: how many waves of people have migrated West to here?
Before the recent wave of migrants we had English, Celts, and many waves pre Celtic. Same in Britain: The British Celts migrating to Brittany in France, Anglo Saxons into Britain, Picts in Scotland and Scotus (Irish) as well as British and Anglo Saxon.

The argument against migration taht it hasn't happened throughout history is completely bogus yet right wingers whine when the United Nations do not take their prejudiced views on migration into international migration pacts.

Sand wrote: »

That is amusingly ignorant. A Polish state has existed on and off since at least the 10th century under the Piast dynasty, and the Polish nation has endured and persisted for over 1,000 years even when their kingdoms and republics have fallen. And all you can say is what culture?

As for the pact, it seems clear that Ireland should not sign it. Its advocates state is is non-binding, and accomplishes nothing meaningful. So why take the risk of Ireland signing up to a compact with no upside for Ireland?

Going through the text itself its clear it is written with an agenda that is inimical to Ireland's interests, and that of Europe as a whole. This is why it is proving so controversial.

These are repeated myths about migration, but its the prism through which the rest of the text is written. Mass migration as a symptom of globalisation is good, and the aim of the document is to facilitate it, not prevent it.

Again, this is the viewpoint that informs the text. It is not entertained that that negative perceptions of migration could be derived from objective, evidence-based clear information about the benefits and challenges of migration. To the extent that information is to be provided to citizens, it is only with the aim of facilitating mass migration.

As the aim of the compact is facilitate mass migration, and the compact will be leveraged as part of 'international law' the above affirmation is essentially worthless. Once Ireland has signed up to this compact, it has signed up to facilitate mass migration to Ireland and that will be used by NGOs, institutions and lobby groups as a stick to intimidate future Irish governments into compliance, nominally sovereign or not. The 23 points are framed as commitments, and a serious country does not lightly sign up to commitments, binding or not.

It's also worth noting that the text concerns itself almost entirely with the rights of migrants. To the extent the people of destination countries are considered, it's with a perfunctory note that their concerns should be addressed, but not listened to.

There is absolutely no benefit to Irish people in this document, but there is a lot of risks. Our government should absolutely not sign up to this. The Irish government can continue to set its own migration policy without this document in any case.

From the actual compact:

Objectives for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration
(1) Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence-based
policies
(2) Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their
country of origin
(3) Provide accurate and timely information at all stages of migration
(4) Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation
(5) Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
(6) Facilitate fair and ethical recruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work
(7) Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration
(8) Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants
(9) Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants
(10) Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international
migration
(11) Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner

Your continual assertion that the compact is to facilitate mass migration appears to be false at best. See point (2) above. Could you stop repeatedly using the phrase "Mass migration"? Try to make your argument by using evidence not by using high frequency of repetition.

Also:

National sovereignty: The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine
their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction,
in conformity with international law. Within their sovereign jurisdiction, States may distinguish
between regular and irregular migration status, including as they determine their legislative and
policy measures for the implementation of the Global Compact, taking into account different
national realities, policies, priorities and requirements for entry, residence and work, in
accordance with international law.

So States are soverign to determine their migration policy. The compact just insures that problems that cause migration are identified and minimized if possible. And that migration is made safer for people and easier for States to manage.

RandomName2 wrote: »

However, the rise in crime in Germany and Sweden can be directly attributed to immigration. Whether or not this crime will abate will largely depend on how well both countries cope with their millions of new residents.

In 2017, Germany recorded its lowest crime rate since 1992.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-crime-rate-migration-antisemitism-horst-seehofer-a8343226.html

Sweden's overall crime rate has held steady since 2005. The commonly-used trope about the rape rate exploding due to Muslim immigration is long-debunked bull****.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39056786

Sand wrote: »

That is amusingly ignorant. The Polish state has existed since at least the 10th century under the Piast dynasty, and the Polish nation has endured and persisted for over 1,000 years even when their kingdoms and republics have fallen. And all you can say is what culture?

The Polish state has not existed since the 10th century. That's simply a historical lie.

The Polish state dates from the period directly after World War I.

Do mean to say the idea of a Polish state has existed since the 10th century? Because that's an entirely different thing.

If you tell us that a Polish state has existed since the 10th century, then Ruthenia and Galicia and all manner of other "states" are "states" too.

Except that they aren't.

The Islamic caliphate of Spain would be a "state". Israel would be a state with a history lasting thousands of years. Never mind that it was formed in 1948.