Sand wrote: » So, you cant.
joe40 wrote: » At least you're honest, if I have taken you up correctly. If immigrants are white European that is fine but no other ethnicities. So Indian software engineer, or Nigerian Doctor or Chinese chef would all be unwelcome. Or a third generation UK Muslim for that matter, although there is a common travel area between UK and Ireland. Is that your position? that is a genuine question.
jmreire wrote: » Well, thats the way it read anyway, whether you meant it or not... But no matter. Of course when people from a different race / culture reach a certain percentage of the host Country they emigrate to, they will cause change. Currently, 17% of our population is "New Irish". This has already happened in other Country's, who have been accepting Immigrants longer than us. And the higher that % goes, the more change it will bring, and that's for sure. Read ( google ) a few articles about the effects of immigration on host Country's, and see what you think then,
joe40 wrote: » Well what did that sentence mean in relation to immigration.
Sand wrote: » Immigration of individuals isnt a concern. The Indian, Nigerian or Chinese immigrant would either assimilate or ultimately leave. In the long run, they would leave no mark. But multiculturalism is not a handful of individuals. It is enduring ethnic enclaves created by mass migration which are too large and too different to be assimilated by the native people. Right now, 1 in 5 inhabitants of Ireland are foreign born. So the issue is not a few hundred or even a few thousand immigrants.
joe40 wrote: » My original post wasn't in favour of mass migration, I was talking about legal immigration for skills gaps that exists.
Would you have a source for the 1 in 5 figure.
Most of the immigrants in Ireland are Polish and Uk so would in all likelihood be same ethnicity.
Sand wrote: » There is three problems with that attitude: 2 - Similar attitudes (hardworking immigrants, benefits to the country etc) were pursued throughout Europe and the USA. Look where they are now with race riots and constant ethnic conflict. We have to learn from others mistakes, not repeat them.
Deleted User wrote: » In any case, I don't really have any issue with legal immigrants who have the educational backgrounds and skills to compete in the Irish job market. Which you would know if you had been following the thread.. I could add more, but I suspect most of this will be deflected, as would anything else I provided.
Deleted User wrote: » Which countries aren't treating our people well because of their religion/race/nationality? I think the point is that we're expected to treat others well because of their religion/race/nationality.... rather than expecting both ourselves and other countries to operate under the same general principle.
Sand wrote: » Ireland already has access to the entire labour force of the EU which has significant unemployment in some countries. It is difficult to think of any skills gap which cant be met by EU workers, should those gaps exist. Yes, the CSO. Google 'foreign born population ireland'. Their 2017 publication on diversity should be the first result. You may be confusing foreign born and non-nationals. Someone can be foreign born and secure an Irish passport. I think neither of us expect Polish or British ethnic enclaves to endure. To the extent they exist, they'll be assimilated in a generation or two. The concern is non-EU migrant enclaves, which will endure and not be assimilated. Therefore creating multiculturalism with all the problems that brings. Attitudes such as your own are dangerous because they pretend there is no problem when anyone with eyes can see what the UK, the US and other European countries are enduring. It's too late to prevent entirely, but we can stop making the problem worse.
Slowyourrole wrote: » If they people are in a position where they can obtain a top education in a place where you've shown it is extremely hard to get, they probably aren't as desperate to get out.
We're expected to treat people well because they are people who need help and are coming from a bad place. That's it. You've completely dismissed any humanitarian or long term aspect of immigration in favour of a totally cost/benefit short term analysis. That's just not an approach everyone wants to take.
Sand wrote: » Ireland already has access to the entire labour force of the EU which has significant unemployment in some countries. It is difficult to think of any skills gap which cant be met by EU workers, should those gaps exist.
You may be confusing foreign born and non-nationals. Someone can be foreign born and secure an Irish passport.
I think neither of us expect Polish or British ethnic enclaves to endure. To the extent they exist, they'll be assimilated in a generation or two. The concern is non-EU migrant enclaves, which will endure and not be assimilated. Therefore creating multiculturalism with all the problems that brings. Attitudes such as your own are dangerous because they pretend there is no problem when anyone with eyes can see what the UK, the US and other European countries are enduring. It's too late to prevent entirely, but we can stop making the problem worse.
Deleted User wrote: » Except I said nothing about a top education... There are reputable universities in most countries which aren't that difficult to gain entry. The links I provided simply showed how common it was for institutions to be of low quality and the reasons behind that. But, I'm curious about your post.. are you thinking that we should allow people in, regardless of their educational background, just because it's hard for them to obtain an education?
Deleted User wrote: » Ahh well, I've learned from watching increasing numbers of people seek to migrate over the last two decades, and I've paid attention to what's been happening in Africa, M.East, and S.America. Humanitarian actions are lovely when it keeps the target groups away from our borders. We are going to see pretty much a constant increase in refugee applications into Europe for the foreseeable future, all the while, western economic models are still rather shaky, unwilling to face the inherent problems of those models. Let me put it this way. St. Francis gave away everything to the poor in his devotion to God. Fine. He was an individual. Ireland or Europe consists of nations, who have their own dependents that need to be provided for. Resources are not infinite, and the West consumes a hefty amount of resources to keep what it currently has, with little sign that those demands will decrease. With your attitude, you would have us help everyone (since how could you choose, when you lay down the guilt for not showing a humanitarian attitude), which would mean ever greater expense to the State, with ever increasing demands on the lower/middle classes to provide in taxation. Considering the weakness of the debt system that businesses have engaged in, we're likely facing another recession (even after the covid downturn) within the next decade, so... how would we pay for all these humanitarian gestures? After all, you seem to believe we should help them all.. and typically, refugees don't leave to return home after the trouble has passed, except for those from second generation migrant families (but who wait until they're adults), which means the expense of educating and providing for them until they're ready to join the workforce, but will there be jobs for them? And more importantly will those jobs provide enough in tax to cover the costs of the years of support they received, and will they have jobs that don't require other support from welfare? I can certainly understand the desire to help out. I've done volunteer work in the past, both here in Ireland, and in China with the poor. But... and this is a big but. We cannot help everyone without killing our own ability to provide. We would be destroying the very thing that allows us to provide foreign aid. Never mind, destroying that which provides for the whole nation as it is. Ever see a movie where a ship is sinking, the panic of the people onboard, and their rush to swamp the lifeboats? That's what mass migration is for Europe. [Most countries in Africa and the M,East are facing massive problems with political instability, religious conflict, ecological damage, etc] Swamping Europe's economic success, and eventually, it'll make us as poor as other countries, not to mention the social breakup/violence that will occur when people can no longer support themselves. I had to laugh at your claim that my analysis was short term... and maybe it is. That's even more scary, wouldn't you say? People want to believe that Europe will always be rich/successful. They just don't want to face reality. I remember when Ireland was one of the poorest countries in Europe... we could return to that state of existence within the same amount of time it took to get out of it... but many people don't want to face that reality. A very possible reality.
Slowyourrole wrote: » No, I'm saying there's no point pretending it's a fair immigration system when it's only open to those from other countries that are already advantaged.
And you've highlighted the issue that most anti immigrant people seem to have. It's all or nothing. But it's not a choice between severely restricted immigration and open borders. You can have humanitarian policies and still limit overall numbers. You don't have to help absolutely everyone if you don't have the capacity.
Deleted User wrote: » Fairness only seems to be an issue when it comes to western immigration policies. Have you ever gone through the immigration processes for other nations and the hoops you often have to jump through? Most nations have requirements about those who are to be allowed in. In fact, I can't think of any nation with an open door policy, and very few nations who are completely against immigration. It's open to anyone who fulfills the requirements. The vast majority of nationalities have equal chance at entry should they meet the individuals requirements.
Deleted User wrote: » It's not and never has been all or nothing. Care to prove otherwise? Even when Ireland was a poor assed country, there was still many options for immigration.
Deleted User wrote: » Who decides capacity? because that seems to be the problem with the anti-immigration crowd. Capacity is never reached as long as there's some people experiencing a crisis.... at what point do you decide that capacity has been reached? Before or after an economy buckles?
Slowyourrole wrote: » I already said before. I don't care how fair another country's system is. I'm only concerned about our own. We can certainly learn from them but we shouldn't base policy on how another country is doing things.
That was my point.
Government generally decides capacity based on allocated funding. Of course, many would argue with the amount of allocated funding being too high or too low and whether it is being used to the best effect but that's politics.
Slowyourrole wrote: » Government generally decides capacity based on allocated funding. Of course, many would argue with the amount of allocated funding being too high or too low and whether it is being used to the best effect but that's politics.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Original post. My original post to you. Duh. Good lord.
weldoninhio wrote: » You’re wasting your time with that lad. He believes that cleaners should be paid the exact same wage as solicitors.
Sand wrote: » It meant that you were talking about Ireland as if it was a football team, seeking to bring in the best players from all over the world. A pure meritocracy. It isnt. Ireland is the homeland of the Irish people. You cant run it like a business. Look at how that sort of 'best and brightest' attitude has served the US, which is almost broken by its ethnic conflicts.
Wibbs wrote: » Indeed, but that doesn't seem to be even on the table. We hear all about this need and drive for "diversity" and this apparent need for more people(which doesn't apply to Ireland with the highest birthrate in the EU, but hey let's ignore that..), but where are the EU wide drives to encourage Europeans from nations with an excess of workers to move to work in nations with a shortage of workers? They seem to be damned well hidden. Europeans already do this off their own bat. There are well over 100,000 such people from the EU living here, but they almost never figure in the "diversity" narratives of the government or NGO's pushing this politic. Google those NGO's and others, try and find a pale faced example of this "diversity" they preach. About the only examples of White Europeans are those who run these organisations. Again it seems their concept of "diversity" is obsessed with skin colour and the darker the better. At one point going into labour here sufficed, but the Irish people overwhelmingly rejected that by democratic vote. Apparently to Leo and the like this means nada as we're not "diverse" enough. Very much so. The unwillingness to see the bloody obvious problems with this ideology beggars belief. It's not as if these problems are hidden. They're in plain sight in every single nation that has tried to run this ideology or because of history had to deal with it. There are no outliers. No exceptions. Some are worse than others but there are no examples of functioning "melting pots" of multiracial "diversity" where there aren't minor and major societal problems that come from it. And yet this ideology keeps being pushed and believed in the face of clear evidence from other nations and history that it doesn't work out too well. Not least for the demographics that are most different to the host population. But ask for examples of this ideology working or why it should be attempted, again, and you get nada, or at best vague references to this "diversity" being its own reward.
joe40 wrote: » The 2016 census, doesn't have it that high, plus most non nationals are UK or other EU, especially Polish.https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp7md/p7md/p7anii/#:~:text=Diversity%20in%20Ireland,11.6%20per%20cent%20in%202016.
Wibbs wrote: » They're in plain sight in every single nation that has tried to run this ideology or because of history had to deal with it. There are no outliers. No exceptions. Some are worse than others but there are no examples of functioning "melting pots" of multiracial "diversity" where there aren't minor and major societal problems that come from it. And yet this ideology keeps being pushed and believed in the face of clear evidence from other nations and history that it doesn't work out too well. Not least for the demographics that are most different to the host population.
2u2me wrote: » Well it seems an impossible standard that you have set here. You could just as easy argue for the major societal problems coming out of racially homogenous societies and say "aha it doesn't work".
Clarence Boddiker wrote: » Galway experiences the joys of multiculturalism. Gang of Black youths involved in muggings and racially motivated attacks.https://connachttribune.ie/gang-leader-jailed-for-racially-motivated-assault/
2u2me wrote: » Well it seems an impossible standard that you have set here. You could just as easy argue for the major societal problems coming out of racially homogenous societies and say "aha it doesn't work". For clarity I'm against this 'multiculturalism' too but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Kivaro wrote: » That is not necessarily true. When our last Children's minister decided to bring hundreds of "children" from the migrant camps in Calais, the then Finance minister announced that she would have to find the estimated €110 million to fund this ludicrous action from her own department. This would mean cutting other programs in the Department of Children and Youth Affairs in order to do this. She originally stated that she wanted to bring them all back to Ireland from Calais, so there is uncertainty on the actual number who arrived here.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
