Migration Megathread

Sand · 17-03-2019 7:59pm

Midlife wrote: »

Any chance you could produce the citation for the facts you were stating yesterday. Please don't make this another month chase. Just cite the reference or retract your statement.

All I want you to post in response to this is where this information is from and exactly where it says this statement.

LOL. You might be sitting with an alert on this thread waiting for me to post, but I respond to posts in my own time. Be patient.

Midlife · 17-03-2019 8:56pm

Sand wrote: »

LOL. You might be sitting with an alert on this thread waiting for me to post, but I respond to posts in my own time. Be patient.

So you say

Sand wrote: »

As it stands, the evidence shows that non-European immigration is an economic cost, not a benefit.

and when asked for a reference or citation, you say 'I'll respond in my own time'.

Weak and transparent.

You rely heavily on the passing of pages and continuous motion of the thread and conversation to gloss over the half truths and outright lies you spout.

You are essentially dishonest in your posting about this topic.

Irish Praetorian · 17-03-2019 11:00pm

Midlife wrote: »

All I want you to post in response to this is where this information is from and exactly where it says this statement.

If I might be so bold as to interject, I believe this is drawn from government figures released by the MAC, published in (amongst others) the Financial Times (shouldn't be behind a paywall but let me know if it is).

The upshot is the typical 'native' citizen just about takes just slightly more than they contribute when it comes to tax paid vs services received, migrants from the EU 10 region contribute about £1000 per person per year to the exchequer, migrants from the EU15 region contribute about £3500 per person per year and the typical non-EEA migrant costs £800 per person per year.

Midlife · 17-03-2019 11:05pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

If I might be so bold as to interject, I believe this is drawn from government figures released by the MAC, published in (amongst others) the Financial Times (shouldn't be behind a paywall but let me know if it is).

The upshot is the typical 'native' citizen just about takes just slightly more than they contribute when it comes to tax paid vs services received, migrants from the EU 10 region contribute about £1000 per person per year to the exchequer, migrants from the EU15 region contribute about £3500 per person per year and the typical non-EEA migrant costs £800 per person per year.

Thanks. Yup, it's paywalled.

Would love to see it though.

Irish Praetorian · 17-03-2019 11:10pm

Midlife wrote: »

Thanks. Yup, it's paywalled.

Would love to see it though.

No matter, I've found the 'horses mouth' in a manner of speaking;

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/741926/Final_EEA_report.PDF

The pertinent data is on pages 73 but the entire document is a fascinating read.

Sand · 17-03-2019 11:22pm

Midlife wrote: »

So you say

and when asked for a reference or citation, you say 'I'll respond in my own time'.

Weak and transparent.

If anything distinguishes me from all the other contributors to this thread, it is that I take the time to evidence my views. That you are in denial of the truth reveals your own bias. Galatians 4 16.

You rely heavily on the passing of pages and continuous motion of the thread and conversation to gloss over the half truths and outright lies you spout.

You are essentially dishonest in your posting about this topic.

Yet you pretend to forget I have already evidenced my views. You're the one being dishonest, pretending it was not you who questioned the value of English identity, or argued a long game should not be played to remove it. You are the one pretending that you do not evade and avoid responding to pertinent questions. When I called you on this, you do not even bother to contest it. You simply move on to more lies. Only you can reconcile this behaviour with your claimed ideals.

Midlife wrote: »

Thanks. Yup, it's paywalled.

Would love to see it though.

You did see it. I've pointed you to these studies already. So even if you saw the truth you would simply continue to live in denial. The lie is where you choose to live. The difference between is us is my views are shaped by the evidence. Your views are in denial of the evidence. It's why I can afford to indulge you.

Sand · 17-03-2019 11:34pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

No matter, I've found the 'horses mouth' in a manner of speaking;

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/741926/Final_EEA_report.PDF

The pertinent data is on pages 73 but the entire document is a fascinating read.

The problem you are going to have is that the evidence is expressed in a table, so it is incomprehensible for Midlife. Sure, its repeated in the text, but he isnt going to read that either. So there is no evidence.

Midlife · 17-03-2019 11:50pm

Sand wrote: »

If anything distinguishes me from all the other contributors to this thread, it is that I take the time to evidence my views. That you are in denial of the truth reveals your own bias. Galatians 4 16.

Yet you pretend to forget I have already evidenced my views. You're the one being dishonest, pretending it was not you who questioned the value of English identity, or argued a long game should not be played to remove it. You are the one pretending that you do not evade and avoid responding to pertinent questions. When I called you on this, you do not even bother to contest it. You simply move on to more lies. Only you can reconcile this behaviour with your claimed ideals.

You did see it. I've pointed you to these studies already. So even if you saw the truth you would simply continue to live in denial. The lie is where you choose to live. The difference between is us is my views are shaped by the evidence. Your views are in denial of the evidence. It's why I can afford to indulge you.

I'm not in denial of any truth.

i have yet to read the piece but could you please point me to where you referenced it to me earlier. Or did you mean you just mentioned it before?

thanks

Sand wrote: »

You're the one being dishonest, pretending it was not you who questioned the value of English identity, or argued a long game should not be played to remove it.

And you see there you go again. When did i pretend this? Exact quote please.

I did question the value of English identity. I never pretended otherwise.

You see Sand, there's two more things I've asked for. Can you provide this time?

If you want my opinion on anything or me to further explain or back up anything, just say so and I'll honestly do my best.

Genuinly though, I don't think you're interested in reasonable debate where we both make points and maybe, shock horror, listen to what each other has to say.

You favour strawmen, answering questions with questions, belittling people and abusing statistics. All of this dressed up in Jordon Peterson-esque pseudo-intellectual nonsense which now includes biblical references. How learned must you be

Statusquo73 · 18-03-2019 12:51am

As an ex-muslim I can easily tell you that we should control the muslim community and Islam.

To be honest it is an arab tribe religion and contains a lot of arabic cultural values.

Even though majority of my family is still muslim I think it is cancer of our century.
I am aware that we can not stop them to believe their religion even though I found Islam extremely violent and primitive religion.

In my opinion the solution with islamic immigration would be a good Integration policy.
There are thousands and thousands young people are very moderate or they dont believe ISlam but they cant admit because of the pressure from their community.
Unfortunately many European countries did not take the Islamic communities under control or they did not defend moderate or ex muslims.
For example leaving islam/ chnaging religion is punishable by death in Islam that is why many muslims are afraid to do so. But Hey, We are in Europe! Not in fe..ng medieval middle east anymore.

Irish Praetorian · 18-03-2019 1:07am

Statusquo73 wrote: »

As an ex-muslim I can easily tell you that we should control the muslim community and Islam.

To be honest it is an arab tribe religion and contains a lot of arabic cultural values.

Even though majority of my family is still muslim I think it is cancer of our century.
I am aware that we can not stop them to believe their religion even though I found Islam extremely violent and primitive religion.

In my opinion the solution with islamic immigration would be a good Integration policy.
There are thousands and thousands young people are very moderate or they dont believe ISlam but they cant admit because of the pressure from their community.
Unfortunately many European countries did not take the Islamic communities under control or they did not defend moderate or ex muslims.
For example leaving islam/ chnaging religion is punishable by death in Islam that is why many muslims are afraid to do so. But Hey, We are in Europe! Not in fe..ng medieval middle east anymore.

Fascinating stuff; I know this may be slightly off topic but could I enquire a little about your personal story? For example are your family origins in an Arabic country/culture or a non-Arabic one like say Indonesia? Did the 'departure' from Islam (at least in your own mind if not in public) occur before or after the process of emigration? And is it much of a generational thing in your experience - by this I mean normally we would expect the older generations to be the most 'extreme' and younger to be more moderate; but the thing is in the UK it seems to be the case that the older generation is more moderate than their kids who seem to be embracing the kind of extremism their parents never did.

Sorry if this qualifies as dragging things off topic mods, its just rare we get personal experiences on here.

markodaly · 18-03-2019 1:16am

This pre-supposes that neoliberal organisations do not welcome and encourage mass migration. The IMF does welcome it. They have called for over 5 million immigrants to Spain, despite record unemployment in that country. Your views are found in any corporate HR department. Your advocacy of mass migration is in perfect alignment with those you claim to oppose.

Entirely correct. All large corporations, western governments and NGO's support and favor liberal and easy migration policies, why wouldn't they, they make money out of it.

Yes, economically it is good, for growth, GDP, demand and so on. But as with many things, there are also losers.
It is not always sunshine and rainbows.

Statusquo73 · 18-03-2019 1:34am

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Fascinating stuff; I know this may be slightly off topic but could I enquire a little about your personal story? For example are your family origins in an Arabic country/culture or a non-Arabic one like say Indonesia? Did the 'departure' from Islam (at least in your own mind if not in public) occur before or after the process of emigration? And is it much of a generational thing in your experience - by this I mean normally we would expect the older generations to be the most 'extreme' and younger to be more moderate; but the thing is in the UK it seems to be the case that the older generation is more moderate than their kids who seem to be embracing the kind of extremism their parents never did.

Sorry if this qualifies as dragging things off topic mods, its just rare we get personal experiences on here.

Not at all. I hope my story can help with you have a better understanding with this topic.

I am a Kurdish person from turkey. So non arabics muslims but if you google kurdish history you will come accross that there are many different religious minorities such as Yezidis, Yersanism, Kakai, Zoroastronism, Christiany, Jews etc but unfortunatly majority of kurds are muslims. We are very moderate respect to arabics people. We were a matriarch society pre-islamic time. After Islamic invasion this changed.

My journey to leaving Islam started actualy back in my country, when I was witnessing how actually Islam treats women, non-muslims, the idea of Jihad, how actually they traumatising you with fear of hell. Of course inside the community you can not express freely this ideas. When I moved to Europe I could free express my opinion and no one condemned me for it.

( Except our lovely muslims friends

)

I totally agree on your point in UK young people are radicalising even more than olders. I think here we should blame government and their parents for it.
Obviously if your parents are extremists you become like them.
I have met many radicalised muslims here in Ireland too. Their common point was their father, uncle or respected people were religious or simply community was very religious.

Midlife · 18-03-2019 8:02am

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

No matter, I've found the 'horses mouth' in a manner of speaking;

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/741926/Final_EEA_report.PDF

The pertinent data is on pages 73 but the entire document is a fascinating read.

I think the bit about the static vrs dynamic analysis of the financial impact of migrants is pretty important to the argument at hand.

Yes, the average non-EEA migrant cost £840 in the year of publication but the document adds...

MAC wrote:

While the static analysis is useful as a snapshot of the net fiscal contribution of
migrants in the current fiscal year it can be misleading as a measure of the net
contribution over the lifecycle.

Obviously this is all about dependants. Further down the document it mentions that non-EEA migrants account for almost 14% of school aged children and also mentions that a dependant schoolchild child costs the state about £17,500 per year.

The cost of all these children, including those born in the UK, and additionally any costs associated with non-working members of a family are added to the non-EEA migrant totals.

This means that

MAC wrote:

The “break-even” point seems to be about £30,000 for EEA migrants
and UK-born and nearer to £38,000 for non-EEA migrants. The “break-even”
point is higher for non-EEA migrants than EEA because non-EEA migrants are
more likely to have dependent children and non-working adults in part because
family migration is more important

and to sum up.

MAC wrote:

The 515,000 migrants who arrived in 2016 are expected to make a discounted
net contribution of £26.9bn over their lifetime in the UK. We estimate that each
additional migrant from the EEA will make a total discounted fiscal contribution
of approximately £78,000 over his or her lifetime in 2017 prices. Non-EEA
migrants, who had a negative net fiscal contribution in the static analysis, are
estimated to have a positive lifetime contribution of £28,000 per head.

Essentially the report itself concludes that non-EEA migration is an investment which is ultimatly a net positive for the economy.

Posssibly the most interesting thing in it is just how much the UK benfited financially from EU migration. Kind of interesting given the decision they've made.

Midlife · 18-03-2019 8:07am

Sand wrote: »

The problem you are going to have is that the evidence is expressed in a table, so it is incomprehensible for Midlife. Sure, its repeated in the text, but he isnt going to read that either. So there is no evidence.

Are you going to just insult me or actually make an effort to engage in discussion and point out where I've been incorrect? If you want the opportunity to clarify areas where I think you're maybe acccidentally misinterpreted data or just been deliberatly dishonest, I can repost some questions for you.

Anyone reading this thread for a while will have learned not to expect this however.

But just for the record Sand, as I mentioned before if you want my opinion on anything or me to further explain or back up anything, just say so and I'll honestly do my best.

ancapailldorcha · 18-03-2019 9:51am

No more video dumps please. Posts deleted.

splashuum · 18-03-2019 2:39pm

Turkish Migrant opens fire in a train in Utrecht killing several. Rumours it could be a retaliation attack over the events in Christchurch.

recedite · 18-03-2019 2:59pm

Midlife wrote: »

Yes, the average non-EEA migrant cost £840 in the year of publication but the document adds...

Obviously this is all about dependants. Further down the document it mentions that non-EEA migrants account for almost 14% of school aged children and also mentions that a dependant schoolchild child costs the state about £17,500 per year.

Fair point, but lets examine how they arrive at these "estimates".
Basically they are saying that although the evidence shows non-EAA migrants being a drain on the economy, the kids which accompany them are expected to make up for that later. This expectation is based on the kids who arrived in 2016 being educated in the UK, and being more skilled and productive than the parents.
Whether this is likely to be true or not is a matter for speculation. Either way, the economic output of the kids is predicted at the average productivity of an average citizen, which is higher than that of a non-EEA migrant, and therefore it would raise the average for the whole family over time.

But this is a bit dishonest, because the kids are being considered migrants for the purposes of the statistic, but are being assigned the assumed (future) productivity of a native, which skews the "non-EAA migrant" statistic in a positive way.

James Brown · 18-03-2019 8:34pm

recedite wrote: »

Its a rubbish comparison. Just a deflection.
How do you think he picked up the name "Connolly".
Just about about everyone living in Ireland has a relative in England, Scotland, or Wales, and vice versa. And that is the way it has been for thousands of years.

On today, of all days, I shouldn't have to point out that St Patrick was Welsh.

What have these people got in common with James Connolly or St Patrick?
The court was so appalled by their behaviour that they have been told to stay in this country. Go figure.

You obviously didn't read the post I quoted or read the posts in context.

James Brown · 18-03-2019 8:43pm

Sand wrote: »

Do you really believe that because he was born in Scotland to Irish parents in an Irish immigrant community he was not Irish? He only became Irish by naturalisation?

Just curious. People born to Irish parents are entitled to Irish citizenship regardless of where they are born.

What does that even mean?

This pre-supposes that neoliberal organisations do not welcome and encourage mass migration. The IMF does welcome it. They have called for over 5 million immigrants to Spain, despite record unemployment in that country. Your views are found in any corporate HR department. Your advocacy of mass migration is in perfect alignment with those you claim to oppose.

Maybe instead of tilting at windmills you should ask if the policy of mass migration benefits Europeans. If you are objective, you'll acknowledge it does not. Then you need only ask why that policy should be pursued.

I take you agree with Thatcher then:

And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women.

But outside of Tory extremist groups, there are societies not individuals. Peoples identity is important to them. People thrust into multiculturalism are deeply unhappy. Those who can flee it, those who cant suffer as studies have shown.

You cited Connolly in a conversation about immigration being a bad thing. Merely pointing out he was an immigrant and a terrorist. Personally I think we could do with more like him but without the violence
The rest of you post makes many assumptions and then infers views upon me based on your assumptions.
It's about what's best for people not where they came from or what religion they are. We should curtail immigration were it causes trouble to society. We should take in an immigrant from Syria with the same sentiment we welcome one from Australia.
Do you view Europe as a defined static state of being? What needs protecting? Economies? If so sure curtail immigration if needed.

Midlife · 18-03-2019 9:03pm

recedite wrote: »

Fair point, but lets examine how they arrive at these "estimates".
Basically they are saying that although the evidence shows non-EAA migrants being a drain on the economy, the kids which accompany them are expected to make up for that later. This expectation is based on the kids who arrived in 2016 being educated in the UK, and being more skilled and productive than the parents.
Whether this is likely to be true or not is a matter for speculation. Either way, the economic output of the kids is predicted at the average productivity of an average citizen, which is higher than that of a non-EEA migrant, and therefore it would raise the average for the whole family over time.

But this is a bit dishonest, because the kids are being considered migrants for the purposes of the statistic, but are being assigned the assumed (future) productivity of a native, which skews the "non-EAA migrant" statistic in a positive way.

I don't think it's fair to reduce the report to 'a matter for speculation' tbh.

If the purpose was to show migration as being not an economic benefit, people will have to produce something else.

As with the ESRI one from some time back, all they can show is that non-EU migration is not as beneficial in economic terms as EU migration but there's nothing to show anythng other than long term economic gain.

Sure you can cherry pick a singl statistic out and question therest but given the text of the report, that would be dishonest.

Problem remains fertility rates of the west.

RandomName2 · 18-03-2019 10:10pm

Statusquo73 wrote: »

As an ex-muslim I can easily tell you that we should control the muslim community and Islam.

To be honest it is an arab tribe religion and contains a lot of arabic cultural values.

Even though majority of my family is still muslim I think it is cancer of our century.
I am aware that we can not stop them to believe their religion even though I found Islam extremely violent and primitive religion.

In my opinion the solution with islamic immigration would be a good Integration policy.
There are thousands and thousands young people are very moderate or they dont believe ISlam but they cant admit because of the pressure from their community.
Unfortunately many European countries did not take the Islamic communities under control or they did not defend moderate or ex muslims.
For example leaving islam/ chnaging religion is punishable by death in Islam that is why many muslims are afraid to do so. But Hey, We are in Europe! Not in fe..ng medieval middle east anymore.

All religions are toxic if observed too closely. In Europe, people were burned at the stake for having a slightly different interpretation of the Bible. The only thing that allows crazy religious fundamentalism to flourish is censorship. Crazy fundamentalist clerical governments can, and do, exercise rigid censorship for this very reason.

Since the aptly named Enlightenment, censorship in the West has traditionally been quite relaxed, which is one of the reasons why the Church's role has largely collapsed (Ireland needed a bit more time to loosen its draconian censorship laws, but it too has entered the modern age).

One big problem is that criticism of religion, in the West, has become synonymous with racial discrimination (exclusively in relation to Islam). As bull**** a sentiment as this is (religion and race are two separate things, as you in particularly may be acutely aware) Western freedoms includes the freedom to pursue one's own beliefs. Indeed, you cannot possibly be free if the state can impose upon you what it believes you should, or should not, believe.

But there is a distinction between allowing people the freedom to pursue whatever beliefs they have in private, and how they should behave in society, and this is the crux of why there is no consensus on the matter. We have plenty of people on this thread, on this website, on social media, on mainstream media, all declaring what ways people should think, what things people should say, what ways people should interact with each other.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I suspect he has rather more in common with people who obsess over "mass" migrations of Muslims on Internet forums and social media.

That's a pretty decent example of such. It is a relatively well-meaning, straightforward attack on people of a particular political persuasion, for the exact reasons laid out above. It goes without saying, of course, that this cuts both ways.

It has probably always been thus, but modern technology has had some disquieting implications. Shaming people for behaving a certain way, I suppose, has always been a hallmark of societal interaction, but these days it can haunt you like a bad smell. One day you may lose your job and all your social connections because of something politically incorrect you tweeted 10 years ago. As greater volumes of data get gathered on us, the rope suspending Damocles' sword becomes increasingly frayed.

I don't know why self-described liberals are more inclined towards public shaming than those on the opposite side of the political spectrum, but the use of such a weapon in today's world has far greater implications than it would a hundred, fifty, even ten years ago. The chilling effect is probably the single greatest threat that the West faces. Whilst it can be perhaps more clearly seen in the discussion, or lack thereof, of a particular religion, this is only a clear example of such.

That's not to say that shaming people for saying horrible, poorly thought out, ignorant, and offensive things, is inherently bad, it's just much, much more potent these days, and a more than a little imbalanced in its execution.

oscarBravo · 18-03-2019 11:49pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

We have plenty of people on this thread, on this website, on social media, on mainstream media, all declaring what ways people should think, what things people should say, what ways people should interact with each other.

I won't apologise for publicly stating my belief that people shouldn't be assholes towards other human beings. I also won't apologise for not hiding my belief that "othering" Muslims is an example of such assholery; nor am I ashamed of the view that the only difference between the expressed belief that Muslims don't deserve to live among us and the expressed belief that Muslims don't deserve to live is one of scale.

If you choose to read that as "declaring what ways people should think", knock yourself out. If you think that I should suppress my views about overt Islamophobes, but don't think that that amounts to declaring what way I should think, or what things I should say - well, I'll leave you to reconcile that one yourself.

recedite · 19-03-2019 10:35am

Midlife wrote: »

Sure you can cherry pick a singl statistic out and question therest but given the text of the report, that would be dishonest.

Problem remains fertility rates of the west.

You're the one cherrypicking. The basis statistic is that each non-EU migrant is an £840 per year drain on the UK economy, on average. You picked out one statistic that reckons this average might improve over time if young kids are included, and if those young kids grow up as fully integrated, productive, and highly skilled citizens.

As for the issue western fertility rates, that can be addressed directly.
But you can be sure migrants will be just as quick to latch onto any benefits there if they are allowed to.

RandomName2 · 19-03-2019 12:24pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I won't apologise for publicly stating my belief that people shouldn't be assholes towards other human beings. I also won't apologise for not hiding my belief that "othering" Muslims is an example of such assholery; nor am I ashamed of the view that the only difference between the expressed belief that Muslims don't deserve to live among us and the expressed belief that Muslims don't deserve to live is one of scale.

If you choose to read that as "declaring what ways people should think", knock yourself out. If you think that I should suppress my views about overt Islamophobes, but don't think that that amounts to declaring what way I should think, or what things I should say - well, I'll leave you to reconcile that one yourself.

As a matter of principle, I fully support your right to voice your opinion, even if, as far as conformity goes, it is pugnaciously pushing at at open door. I never said otherwise, but your non sequitur that jumps to this very conclusion (that I would have you forcibly silenced), exemplifies the process whereby people are discredited by attempting to associate them with positions that will essentially act as a stigma.

This is far from exclusive to you. It is the reason why, if you search "Godwin" on boards.ie you get 264 pages of results. Now saying that I'm a hypocrite who believes in censorship, or that someone who criticizes immigration is basically the same as a white-supremacist terrorist is a little more nuanced than that, but the motive is no different.

Non-nationals who arrive by boat on Italy's shore should be deported, says someone

So why not shoot them

Quips oscarbravo.

That translates as 'You are an extremist so your views do not need to be considered'. Indeed, you explicitly say that people who are anti-immigration are basically in favor of genocide. Now personally I think that comes across slightly arseholey, but I'm not really interested in that. I'm interested in the increasing use of lobster logic among 'liberals' as a device to not discuss the matter at hand, but rather discredit those doing the discussing. If the same were true of conservatives, if every contrary view that was uttered was trumped up as equivalent to a communistic, pinko ideology, and a threat to the integrity of society, I would be equally hostile to it.

I have little time for those who support someone, just because they are on the same ideological side, regardless of the means being employed.

markodaly · 19-03-2019 12:30pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you choose to read that as "declaring what ways people should think", knock yourself out. If you think that I should suppress my views about overt Islamophobes, but don't think that that amounts to declaring what way I should think, or what things I should say - well, I'll leave you to reconcile that one yourself.

This is the key statement here.

How many overt Islamaphobes are on this thread for example.
Do you think I am Islamaphobe? Recedite? Sand?

Brian? · 19-03-2019 12:34pm

markodaly wrote: »

This is the key statement here.

How many overt Islamaphobes are on this thread for example.
Do you think I am Islamaphobe? Recedite? Sand?

You're right. There are very few overt Islamophobes posting in the thread. Most posters stick to softer dog whistle style bigotry.

Is brown immigrantophobe a phrase? It's a better description of the prevailing anti immigrant views commonly expressed on the thread. Talk of maintaining cultural and national identity and what not.

I'm not calling you a bigot. You may be wrong a lot, but i can't think of a time where you were actually bigoted in your views.

markodaly · 19-03-2019 12:37pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Non-nationals who arrive by boat on Italy's shore should be deported, says someone

So why not shoot them

Quips oscarbravo.

That translates as 'You are an extremist so your views do not need to be considered'. .

This x1000

On the 11th of June 2004 1.427 million Irish people voted to amended article 9.2 of the Irish Constitution to deny an automatic right to Irish citizenship to people born on this Island.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

I doubt any of these voters would also advocate shooting these people.

I never understand why on a serious politics forum, such snide quips are tolerated.

Brian? · 19-03-2019 12:40pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

As a matter of principle, I fully support your right to voice your opinion, even if, as far as conformity goes, it is pugnaciously pushing at at open door. I never said otherwise, but your non sequitur that jumps to this very conclusion (that I would have you forcibly silenced), exemplifies the process whereby people are discredited by attempting to associate them with positions that will essentially act as a stigma.

This is far from exclusive to you. It is the reason why, if you search "Godwin" on boards.ie you get 264 pages of results. Now saying that I'm a hypocrite who believes in censorship, or that someone who criticizes immigration is basically the same as a white-supremacist terrorist is a little more nuanced than that, but the motive is no different.

Non-nationals who arrive by boat on Italy's shore should be deported, says someone

So why not shoot them

Quips oscarbravo.

That translates as 'You are an extremist so your views do not need to be considered'. Indeed, you explicitly say that people who are anti-immigration are basically in favor of genocide. Now personally I think that comes across slightly arseholey, but I'm not really interested in that. I'm interested in the increasing use of lobster logic among 'liberals' as a device to not discuss the matter at hand, but rather discredit those doing the discussing. If the same were true of conservatives, if every contrary view that was uttered was trumped up as equivalent to a communistic, pinko ideology, and a threat to the integrity of society, I would be equally hostile to it.

I have little time for those who support someone, just because they are on the same ideological side, regardless of the means being employed.

Serious question. Who on this thread is a 'liberal' in your view? I can't remember encountering anyone on boards who self identified as a liberal. Even you put it in quotation marks, the word has basically lost any meaning due to constant misuse.

Brian? · 19-03-2019 12:45pm

markodaly wrote: »

This x1000

On the 11th of June 2004 1.427 million Irish people voted to amended article 9.2 of the Irish Constitution to deny an automatic right to Irish citizenship to people born on this Island.

Well sort of. If your parents are habitually resident when you're born here you're entitled to Irish citizenship. Which is an altogether sensible approach as Ireland was being used for citizenship tourism to gain access to the EU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

I doubt any of these voters would also advocate shooting these people.

I never understand why on a serious politics forum, such snide quips are tolerated.

I doubt it too. Which is because the amendment wasn't taking away birth right citizenship entirely, as above. It was a very common sense approach.

The people of Ireland did not vote to no longer accept refugees or deny entrance to immigrants, which is kind of the matter at hand.

markodaly · 19-03-2019 12:48pm

Brian? wrote: »

You're right. There are very few overt Islamophobes posting in the thread. Most posters stick to softer dog whistle style bigotry.

Or to put it bluntly, on this forum, it would not be tolerated.

Maybe I put it to you. Is it ever OK to discuss immigration policy, without being accused of engaging in dog whistling?

Is brown immigrantophobe a phrase? It's a better description of the prevailing anti immigrant views commonly expressed on the thread. Talk of maintaining cultural and national identity and what not.

Well these are delicate subjects and I can understand why the ears prick up if one starts to go there. Yet, sometimes, not always but sometimes one has to take a step back and look, discuss what is happening. On our own Island, the Ulster plantation can be viewed in the same way. Tell me, did this improve the situation in Ulster and on our Island as a whole?

I don't think anyone with hindsight would view the Ulster plantation in a positive light historically speaking given the sectarianism which has manifested itself in that part of the country and still exists to this day.

I'm not calling you a bigot. You may be wrong a lot, but i can't think of a time where you were actually bigoted in your views.

Because maybe I am not a bigot?

Migration Megathread

Comments