Fluppen wrote: » For me it's simple. People of any nationality, race, creed, religion, sexual preference, gender id, whatever who come in with the intention to work, integrate (within reason), live lawfully and contribute positively to their community and our society are fine by me.
Wibbs wrote: » Here we go again
Slowyourrole wrote: » What makes someone a "real Irish" to you? How many generations of purity do you require?
Bobblehats wrote: » Well as you mentioned it look up the word purity. And when you do come back and tell me under what circumstance, it could be considered a bad thing -
Slowyourrole wrote: » Interesting you picked Jobstown as an example. Jobstown has always been a major area of youth violence. From Carrigmore to Kiltalawn and down to Fortunestown lane has a good number of housing estate focused gangs that clash. Killinarden, Cherry Orchard, Kilmahuddrick. All have gangs that clash with each other too. I don't think adding in different colours and nationalities will change that much. Why do you people use the phrase "cover up" when something isn't given major coverage? Not reporting something prominently is not a cover up. House fires and youth violence very rarely make national, or even local, news no matter who has been involved, unless there is some injury or death. Clashes with Gardaí rarely make the news. It's hard to tell on these threads when people are just using an incident to push their agenda or if they are genuinely ignorant of the problem with youth violence across the country. Do you actually think that this particular group of black is doing something unique? Do you think this is some imported culture? If anything, I'd say they're doing a fairly good job of fitting in with youths across the country, but in particular in Dublin estates. What makes someone a "real Irish" to you? How many generations of purity do you require?
jmreire wrote: » In reply to the last paragraph:- On the question of movement of people and integration, becoming "more Irish than the Irish themselves " , you may take the Muslim from the Islamic Country, but you can never take the Islam from the Muslim. His first loyalty will always be to Islam., no matter what Country he lives in, or for how long. And he cannot be other than that. Muslims will work actively to change society to be a better "fit" for them. This has already happened in Germany and the UK, where despite there being national Laws, they have pushed for Islamic Laws to be integrated into national law. Because of this, they cannot be considered as a "Normal" immigrant, whose sole priority is a better life. Since the year 600, the whole thrust of Islam has been to convert the whole world to Islam, and this has never changed. I'm not anti-Muslim ( most of my friends are Muslim ) but definitely, I'm against Islam. I've lived for many years in Islamic Country's, and Thanks, but no Thank's. Muslim's? Yes. Islam? No.
Wibbs wrote: » Again find me one, just one "utopia" of "multiculturalism" in Europe where the darkest of skin aren't clustered near the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder or where there aren't extra social issues and flashpoints around ethnic lines. Good luck with that, but shure it "will be grand". This time.
briany wrote: » I don't really agree with your basic assessment of Muslims because the religion is not a unified thing. Like all major religions, it has different sects with varying beliefs, and among each individual you will find different levels of belief and fervour. This is certainly not to deny that Islam has its fundamentalists, but it's hardly as if the religion is unique in that regard.
This is not to mention that in the Ashtiname of Mohammad, it's made pretty clear that religious tolerance (or at least tolerance for Christians) is expected of Muslims.
What has certainly been problematic in Islam, and for the rest of the world, is the rise of Wahabbism and Salafism, two puritanical forms of Islam, and which are very intolerant of anything that is not in their wheelhouse. But Wahhabism certainly does not represent the whole of the Islamic relgion, although it's sometimes painted as if it does by certain actors for whom it is useful to do so. So, while I wouldn't have much time for the Wahabbists, just as I wouldn't have much time for the Baptists, I also wouldn't be particularly be bothered by the Iranian doctor living up the road who comes from a liberal Shia background.
Snickers Man wrote: » OK. Show me a monocultural "utopia" anywhere on this earth. A place with no poverty, no inequality issues, endless sunshine, flowing with milk and honey, where everybody has a chicken in the pot, ice cream to follow, and a warm comfy bed at the end of the day in which to rest and binge watch Netflix. There isn't any. And it's all the fault of those bloody immigrants!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
[Deleted User] wrote: » This is what people don't seem to understand. Standing against multiculturalism in its current form (and past forms) doesn't mean that we're desiring a nation without any foreigners, or the importation of other cultures. The point is that the current system is flawed. Throughout this thread, most of those who have posted against multiculturalism, have said (repeatedly) that they're not against immigration. Typically, the problem is with how immigration policies are implemented, and the lack of long-term planning (and research) to integrate migrants into society... with the aim of removing all the problems that arise from the existing method. Basically, there's too much "ahh sure, it'll be grand". Instead of that, we'd like to see a more rational approach to the whole thing, recognising the negatives, and working to counter them, without changing Western culture to accommodate migrants. (since that has consistently failed)
joe40 wrote: » I like your posts, and are always fair and balanced imo. But I disagree with you that the majority of posters here are "not against immigration" plenty clearly are against any immigrants especially black/African.
Some aren't, some make good points about problems of integration in other countries, which has merit and something we should learn from, but surely you can see that there are plenty here who just want to use anecdotal evidence to tar all immigrants as lazy and criminal.
I don't want to see uncontrolled immigration, the setting up of ghettos etc, but as it stands we are a multi cultural society and that to my mind has brought a lot of positives to our country.
I have no problem embracing that as it currently is. We have a legal system and a written constitution, Irish law will remain the only law. Irishness, and Irish identify is still very strong that won't be eroded any time soon.
An immigrant in Ireland, obeying our rules, I don't have much problem with.
briany wrote: » I don't really agree with your basic assessment of Muslims because the religion is not a unified thing. Like all major religions, it has different sects with varying beliefs, and among each individual you will find different levels of belief and fervour. This is certainly not to deny that Islam has its fundamentalists, but it's hardly as if the religion is unique in that regard. This is not to mention that in the Ashtiname of Mohammad, it's made pretty clear that religious tolerance (or at least tolerance for Christians) is expected of Muslims. What has certainly been problematic in Islam, and for the rest of the world, is the rise of Wahabbism and Salafism, two puritanical forms of Islam, and which are very intolerant of anything that is not in their wheelhouse. But Wahhabism certainly does not represent the whole of the Islamic relgion, although it's sometimes painted as if it does by certain actors for whom it is useful to do so. So, while I wouldn't have much time for the Wahabbists, just as I wouldn't have much time for the Baptists, I also wouldn't be particularly be bothered by the Iranian doctor living up the road who comes from a liberal Shia background.
joe40 wrote: » I don't want to see uncontrolled immigration, the setting up of ghettos etc, but as it stands we are a multi cultural society and that to my mind has brought a lot of positives to our country. I have no problem embracing that as it currently is. We have a legal system and a written constitution, Irish law will remain the only law. Irishness, and Irish identify is still very strong that won't be eroded any time soon. An immigrant in Ireland, obeying our rules, I don't have much problem with.
Hamachi wrote: » I don’t have an issue with skills-based, high caliber migration. However, a significant % of the inward movement to this country simply does not match this profile. We’ve imported cohorts of people, who are economically inactive and there is no evidence to suggest that the second generation is raising the bar. You speak of ghettoization as if this is a hypothetical in Ireland. It isn’t; it’s happening right now. I live in Dublin 15, the most diverse post code in Dublin. Very noticeable concentrations of particular ethnic groups have already formed out here. Take a drive through the Hansfield section of Ongar or Tyrellstown. These areas are on the fast track to becoming ghettoes. The % Irish count is dwindling rapidly in places like this. Whilst I accept that this is anecdotal, I personally know people who are planning to leave this area when their children reach school-going age, due to the changing demographics. You speak of the unilateral benefits of multiculturalism. Can you catalog what they are? What rewards and enjoyment does it bestow on the native population? Please don’t fall back on the tired old cliche of an improved food scene. From the vantage point of a pretty multicultural area, I’m struggling to understand how the lives of my family or those of my neighbors have been enriched by the high volume of non-nationals in our midst. If anything, it’s encouraging people to hunker down within their own community, to engage with those, with whom they feel a connection. The highly motivated, skilled, and self-sufficient migrants coming to work in tech and health care should be encouraged and provided with a relatively unproblematic path to citizenship. Conversely, those with few meaningful skills, who subvert our asylum process, or have zero intention of integrating and adhering to the law of the land, should be discouraged from arriving here. This latter group is a not inconsiderable cohort, despite the protestations of those who support unregulated migration.
kildare lad wrote: » All it does is make white , rich , middle class lefties who don't live in them areas feel good about themselves . Put too many immigrants from a certain continent in one area and it turns into a ghetto . It happens all over the world and yet some people think we need multiculturalism. How come they don't push this crap nowhere else in the world but in the west.
weldoninhio wrote: » Exactly, any NGO or social justice warrior who wants multiculturalism should be forced to bring their multicult to Africa for five years. Don't be hogging the greatness of multiculture in Europe like some coloniser. Bring it to the masses in Africa.
Deleted User wrote: » Such as? What are these positives? and are these positives coming from one particular migrant group or all of them?
For example, I wouldn't have any issue with the majority of migration from Asian countries (China, Thailand, etc), because they work hard, and while they don't integrate much, they rarely, if ever, get involved in trouble... nor are they seeking Irish culture to adapt to accommodate their wants.
Hamachi wrote: » Absolutely. The difference in the demographic composition of North West vs. South East Dublin is really quite an eye-opener. I’ll let you speculate where those who advocate for diversity tend to reside..
Wibbs wrote: » I'd love an answer to this one too and nobody seems to be able to come up with one, beyond vague diversity is its own reward type replies. It's more like an Accepted Fact(tm), a point of faith rather than a definable reality. If it's so obvious then why is it seemingly so hard to down down these positives? +1 The above list of cultural traits is why the various Asian diaspora are among the most successful people in the nations they find themselves in. And it's not as if they never face xenophobia and racism. Look at the US where anti Asian feelings have come up on the regular in that nation's history and yet the average Asian American is more educated, earns more, has fewer single parent families, fewer criminals and fewer social issues than any other group, including European Americans and way fewer than African Americans.
TomTomTim wrote: » I don't disagree, but it will end up being racial division instead of just division among rival gangs of natives. I'd argue that one is worse than the other, as most gangs end up ceasing to exist, while racial division is something that's not so easily nipped in the bud, as I'm sure you'd agree. I've mentioned Jobstown solely due to it being something I've experienced myself; I pass through there regularly, and have friends that live there. I don't like to speak of areas I haven't been to, as it would be foolish.
RandomName2 wrote: » This is probably the most important and relevant question here. I mean it's totally loaded, but leaving that aside, it is actually difficult to answer. Clearly if someone's family came to Ireland during Celtic migration, the Viking or Norman invasions, they are entirely Irish. If their family was part of the plantations they probably are entirely Irish, but many that belonged to families that were part of the Ulster plantations certainly don't feel Irish or want to be branded as Irish. But realistically the question really is about the last 50 years, and, in particular, going forward. If someone is here two months, gets married, and becomes Irish, are they as Irish as you or me? Legally, sure. If they could not name a single famous Irish person, know nothing of the history or culture of the island, they are still completely Irish, from a legal point of view. Personally I don't see how I could ever become another nationality. If I marry someone in Myanmar and then say I am Mayanmarese, I'd feel like a hypocrite, even if it were legally true. Imagine if I started having opinions about Myanmar history, despite my family having had no part in any of that country's history. I'd expect to be laughed out of it. It would be cheeky at best for me to express a strong opinion, downright insulting at worst. Who would I be to speak about such matters? We also offer citizenship to people provided they are simply here long enough (as long as they weren't in education or applying for asylum during that period). This is reasonable insofar that it is unfair to have people give many years, often the best years of their life, to building a life in Ireland, and yet not offer them the securities and privileges that come with citizenship. However the fact that we have this as part and parcel of our system makes it important to ensure that we are careful about who will be allowed to stay in this country (and thereby be in a position to avail of citizenship). I think the most important criteria is that immigrants aren't too samey. One of the reasons why the immigrants during the plantations in Ulster are distinct from Irish is because they were part of only two groups (Scottish/English, Presbyterian/ Church of England respectively). Immigrants shouldn't be in a position to congregate in neighborhoods of 'their own', instead they should be integrated into Irish society. An emphasis on the 'multi' of multiculturalism would help prevent distinct pockets of particular cultures or ethnicities from forming. This is less an issue with immigrants from EU countries because we are all part of the suprastate of the EU. One of the important aspects of this is the freedom of movement. Many migratory workers from the EU are precisely that: once the work that they have been doing dries up they return home as there's no barriers to them doing exactly that. Someone from a non-EU that has obtained permanent residency here is unlikely to ever permanently return to the country from which they've come, for both practical and financial reasons.
Bobblehats wrote: » Well as you mentioned it look up the word purity. And when you do come back and tell me under what circumstance, it could be considered a bad thing - Far as I can tell purity is the absolute. Purity is angelic. Purity is pedigree. Purity is harmony and deep down in a perfect world we all strive to create to that. To live amongst that to be; that and whilst few of us attain that it would be wrong to engineer it - almost as much as it would be to force biodiversity, for it’s a dangerous game. One we should seek to distance ourselves from I mean who knows what kind of monster, we may give rise to
Rodney Bathgate wrote: » Have you seen the gangster rap crap from them? Yes, they are doing something different.
Rodney Bathgate wrote: » If you or your direct predecessors acquired Irish citizenship having held another citizenship then you certainly aren’t ‘real Irish’. That is fairly simple to comprehend.
Hamachi wrote: » You speak of the unilateral benefits of multiculturalism. Can you catalog what they are? What rewards and enjoyment does it bestow on the native population?
Wibbs wrote: » And yet still we have silence on the answer to this question:No takers? Surely something so right and obvious should be easily answered? On the other hand the negatives are a doddle to list and give examples of.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
