What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP

Well the obvious reason why more European immigrants have jobs is likely down to the fact they specifically came here to fill a job through legal means. They're likely also going to be more qualified etc. Africans are going to be less qualified and more likely to have come here illegally with no job at the other end.

Problem is what is the solution? At the end of the article they say:“Understanding and using this evidence will help us to design and target effective interventions to support integration and remove barriers,” Sounds great in theory, but in every single European nation with any number of Africans they tend to coalesce at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale even many generations in* and it's not as if other nations have tried the same "interventions". They clearly don't work. For all sorts of reasons. Then again we see the early stages of how this multicultural stuff has gone down elsewhere and it's always the same narrative. Ireland won't be any different.

*Some Muslim demographics too, but it depends on where they originated. Malay Muslims tend to be educated and employed and often professionals, Pakistani Muslims far less so. I suspect the background East Asian cultural stuff underlying Islam is at play there.

Wibbs wrote:

Fewer ghettos and none along racial and cultural lines.
No social divisions and social segregation along racial and cultural lines.
No inter ethnic conflict. Less terrorism.
Less racism, because well fewer targets for it. Fewer or no prejudice along racial lines.

Yup, there'd be no racism without other races. No faulting your logic there. Just as there'd be no theft without possessions. No road deaths if we got rid of cars. No misogyny if we got rid of women. No misandry if we got rid of ridiculous made-up words. And as for your 'less terrorism' argument - the only terrorism we've ever had on this island has been homegrown.

Literally your only half-way valid argument that monoculturalism would be a good thing is that racists would be happy. Which isn't even true - they'd inevitably become something else-ist in the absence of those pesky blacks.

Wibbs wrote: »

No natives feeling increasingly remote from their own culture, no non natives feeling increasingly remote from their own and their new culture.

Honestly, can anyone on here say that they feel remote from their own culture? Moreover, can they express that remoteness in their own language? There are lots of positive things you can do to feel closer to your own culture (not just learning the bleeding language, but also our long history, which includes centuries of emigration), without taking the easy option of lashing out and blaming the existence of other cultures.

Arthur Daley wrote:

Basically mass migration from outside the EU.

And what will you do when the world and his wife arrives under this system. How will it be funded? How do we shout stop if people subsequently decide they need to? What level is enough? What level is too much?

People need to own their own proposals and outline how their systems work. Stand over it.

All I said was that getting asylum seekers into employment should be the number one priority, and would go some way towards solving a lot of the problems we've had so far. Not sure what's so disagreeable about that.

.anon. wrote: »

All I said was that getting asylum seekers into employment should be the number one priority, and would go some way towards solving a lot of the problems we've had so far. Not sure what's so disagreeable about that.

You’re conflating asylum seeking with legitimate, economic migration. Asylum seekers should not have access to the labour market, until it’s been proven that they have a well founded claim to remain in Ireland. If that proves not to be the case, the number one priority and the right solution is rapid deportation from this country.

Your previous suggestion that Ireland should not insist on degree-level education from non-EU migrants is one of the most preposterous arguments I’ve ever heard in the entire debate around migration. You do realize that the point of inward migration is to benefit the host society and not the migrant? There is a more than sufficient pool of lower skilled workers in Ireland and across the EU-28 who can fill these roles. Furthermore, if you knew anything about technology, you’d understand that a large % of low skill roles will be eliminated via automation and AI in the next 15-20 years.

Should we ignore this reality and allow every low skill migrant who fancies a change, to rock up here? If anything, the rules for non-EU migrants to access the Irish labour market should be significantly tighter. A useful degree is the absolute baseline; it should be accompanied by a verifiable job offer from a reputable company, plus a minimum income threshold of say 40K euros per year. This ensures that we restrict access to skilled migrants, who can make a meaningful contribution to our economy. I’m sorry if that curtails your access to non-EU food, music, and art..

Hamachi wrote: »

You’re conflating asylum seeking with legitimate, economic migration.

I'm talking about people whose claims are found to be valid and who are likely to be staying here long-term.

.anon. wrote: »

I'm talking about people whose claims are found to be valid and who are likely to be staying here long-term.

Which is a very small % of the overall asylum seeking population.

This relatively small cohort should have access to the labour market. Their on-going residence here should be contingent on self-sufficiency. It’s a very low bar to expect of any migrant who is afforded the privilege of long term residence in this country.

.anon. wrote: »

I know that's not a perfect answer, but I'm sure you'd equally struggle to tell me all the great things about monoculturalism.

Tell me something... why are the only two options, full-on multiculturalism or monoculturalism?

I mean it. This thread is full of people saying the have no issue with controlled immigration, and yet, this idea that we want a monoculture is raised. What's up with the need for absolutes?

We can have a multicultural society which encourages those who would be of direct benefit to the nation, would appreciate/support western values, and would seek to protect the very culture that provided them an environment to grow in safety, that is so different from their own. That's the point. Putting in rules/laws/regulations that control the inflow of migrants, so that everyone involved can have the best outcome.

I don't agree that we should only be letting people with third level qualifications in.

What other ways are there to judge the applicants ability to contribute to society?

But getting a job or an education should be the number one part of the asylum process from day one - because that seems to be the best way of integrating.

So, we shouldn't determine whether applicants actually appreciate our way of life? Take someone with extreme Islamic views (common within supporters of ISIS, without being an actual terrorist). Should we let someone like that into the country, when they would obviously be against the values and freedoms we hold so dear....? or would it be better to find someone else who would thoroughly enjoy living in a western nation, and want to embrace those ideals/values?

Question for everyone regarding Asylum seekers. Do you feel that their stay should not be permanent, and that when/if the threat is resolved, they should return to their home country? I get the feeling that asylum is more of a permanent thing these days, although I could easily be wrong there.

Deleted User wrote: »

Tell me something... why are the only two options, full-on multiculturalism or monoculturalism?

I only raised the topic of 'monoculturalism' to highlight how difficult it is to extol the virtues of a concept so non-tangible as multiculturalism. I wasn't counting on Wibbs taking the question literally and trying (albeit in a laughably poor manner) to answer it.

Deleted User wrote:

What other ways are there to judge the applicants ability to contribute to society?

Plenty of hard-working people don't have degrees and manage to contribute to society.

Deleted User wrote:

So, we shouldn't determine whether applicants actually appreciate our way of life? Take someone with extreme Islamic views (common within supporters of ISIS, without being an actual terrorist). Should we let someone like that into the country, when they would obviously be against the values and freedoms we hold so dear....? or would it be better to find someone else who would thoroughly enjoy living in a western nation, and want to embrace those ideals/values?

Define 'our way of life'. Most of the Muslims I work with seem to have similar lives to everyone else - they go to work, pay their mortgages, go home to their families, spend their weekends doing DIY, go on holidays during the summer, etc. Pretty sure they enjoy and embrace the values of living in a western nation.

.anon. wrote: »

I only raised the topic of 'monoculturalism' to highlight how difficult it is to extol the virtues of a concept so non-tangible as multiculturalism. I wasn't counting on Wibbs taking the question literally and trying (albeit in a laughably poor manner) to answer it.

Plenty of hard-working people don't have degrees and manage to contribute to our society.

Have you read any of Wibbs’ other posts around immigration and multi-culturalism? He’s clearly one of the most erudite posters on this topic. You could learn quite a lot if you actually opened your mind to his arguments.

Agreed, people without degrees can contribute to society. But to reiterate, that pool of labour can be easily sourced from the indigenous population and from our EU partners. There is no economic argument for importing low to medium skilled workers from outside the EU.

.anon. wrote: »

I only raised the topic of 'monoculturalism' to highlight how difficult it is to extol the virtues of a concept so non-tangible as multiculturalism. I wasn't counting on Wibbs taking the question literally and trying (albeit in a laughably poor manner) to answer it.

Err... um.. Yeah. No. You're actually trying to dismiss Wibbs's answer as being poorly done?

Hilarious. You do realise that you come off as completely unprepared to argue in good faith when you make that kind of remark. You know, you could actually stand up and argue his points... I'm not going to, because I accept his pov as being entirely accurate.

Plenty of hard-working people don't have degrees and manage to contribute to society.

Sure, they do... but why do we need more of them, when we already have a sizable native population doing so?

Define 'our way of life'.

I already have when I spoke about shared values, and common perceptions... read back a wee bit and you'll see it sprinkled throughout my posts about Muslims.

Most of the Muslims I work with seem to have similar lives to everyone else - they go to work, pay their mortgages, go home to their families, spend their weekends doing DIY, go on holidays during the summer, etc. Pretty sure they enjoy and embrace the values of living in a western nation.

You really don't understand what we're talking about here, do you? Because if you did, you wouldn't expect that paragraph to counter, or even object to what has been said.

The gas thing is that you've multi-quoted me, but failed to actually address each of the points I made.

Hamachi wrote: »

Have you read any of Wibbs’ other posts around immigration and multi-culturalism? He’s clearly one of the most erudite posters on this topic. You could learn quite a lot if you actually opened your mind to his arguments.

Yeah, he's like Boards' own Stephen Fry. I think people can sometimes confuse wordiness with erudition. If you think you can learn anything about culture from someone who believes monoculturalism is a good thing because it eliminates racism, then I would politely suggest you might consider visiting a library.

Hamachi wrote: »

Agreed, people without degrees can contribute to society. But to reiterate, that pool of labour can be easily sourced from the indigenous population and from our EU partners. There is no economic argument for importing low to medium skilled workers from outside the EU.

Not necessarily. My own employer had to advertise abroad to fill relatively well-paid medium-skilled positions.

.anon. wrote: »

Yeah, he's like Boards' own Stephen Fry. I think people can sometimes confuse wordiness with erudition. If you think you can learn anything about culture from someone who believes monoculturalism is a good thing because it eliminates racism, then I would politely suggest you might consider visiting a library.

Not necessarily. My own employer had to advertise abroad to fill relatively well-paid medium-skilled positions.

There’s nothing polite in your suggestion. It’s a snide, passive aggressive attempt to dismiss the argument of another poster. Basically, your rationale amounts to the infantile: multiculturalism == good because it allows you to experience tasty treats and some music and art. Yet you have the temerity to dismiss Wibbs’ argument as laughable?

For the third time, low to medium skilled positions do not require a non-EU workforce. You’re seriously suggesting that your employer cannot source employees from an EU population of > 500 million people, for positions that you’ve already asserted do not require a degree? If that’s truly the case, your employer should be looking at the recruitment process in place. Clearly it’s a shambles.

Rob Humanoid

I don't really have a problem with immigration per se. But our government does a crap job of managing the whole thing (like everything else it touches). If someone wants to come over, and work hard and make a contribution to our society then, I'm all for that. Through the process of legal immigration.

My problem is with the ones who commit crime and screw the system (we have plenty of Irish criminals already to deal with). They are the ones that shouldn't be allowed stay. I've lived and worked in the UK for a number of years and I didn't take the piss, and worked fekin' hard.

I'm also concerned about certain people 'porting' over their religious ideology. We've already had our first case of FGM. How many more will follow, or will practice that 'under the radar'. Everyone has the right to follow whatever 'god' they like, but the Irish law must come first, along with protecting its citizens. Note: I'm not saying that all practitioners do, or advocate such things. Just something we need to be vigilant of. That and the rise of anti-gay sentiments from religion also.

I say this from an atheist's perspective. So, I'm happy to call out any religion homegrown or not (cough cough... Catholicism).

IMO, we need a good solid immigration system, that is fair (for us and them). One that helps people better themselves, and keeps out the ones that seek to game, or abuse the system.

Will this ever happen? Of course not.... We have FFFG in power.

Hamachi wrote: »

There’s nothing polite in your suggestion. It’s a snide, passive aggressive attempt to dismiss the argument of another poster. Basically, your rationale amounts to the infantile: multiculturalism == good because it allows you to experience tasty treats and some music and art. Yet you have the temerity to dismiss Wibbs’ argument as laughable?

You clearly didn't read my post then, because I pretty much disregarded the food/music/art stuff from the outset and referred instead to the common ground that tends to exist between people regardless of where they're from. I also acknowledged that it wasn't a perfect answer. Upon rereading my own post, it implies that multiculturalism is neutral, rather than positive.

Hamachi wrote: »

For the third time, low to medium skilled positions do not require a non-EU workforce. You’re seriously suggesting that your employer cannot source employees from an EU population of > 500 million people, for positions that you’ve already asserted do not require a degree? If that’s truly the case, your employer should be looking at the recruitment process in place. Clearly it’s a shambles.

It's a job that not a lot of people want to do. Luckily, it seems to be particularly popular with people from certain (EU and non-EU) countries.

.anon. wrote: »

You clearly didn't read my post then, because I pretty much disregarded the food/music/art stuff from the outset and referred instead to the common ground that tends to exist between people regardless of where they're from. I also acknowledged that it wasn't a perfect answer. Upon rereading my own post, it implies that multiculturalism is neutral, rather than positive.

It's a job that not a lot of people want to do. Luckily, it seems to be particularly popular with people from certain (EU and non-EU) countries.

Ok. So if multiculturalism is net neutral and does not confer any specific advantages on the host society, there should be no issues with Ireland tightening our migration controls, right? It seems logical to focus on selective, high-skilled migration that truly benefits Ireland, particularly given the sharp economic contraction that we’re facing, no?

Furthermore, I take it that you have no issues with EU nations who eschew the multicultural model? The Visegrad block have decided that it’s not for them. Given that the outcomes are net neutral, presumably you’re also fine with them adopting a less internationalized approach, right?

I’ll take your word for it with respect to your employer, even if I am skeptical that any semi-skilled position cannot be filled domestically or at a stretch, from within the EU.

Hamachi wrote: »

Ok. So if multiculturalism is net neutral and does not confer any specific advantages on the host society, there should be no issues with Ireland tightening our migration controls, right? It seems logical to focus on selective, high-skilled migration that truly benefits Ireland, particularly given the sharp economic contraction that we’re facing, no?

Something of a moot point, probably. Jobs are the main reason why most people come here in the first place. And if there aren't any, then fewer people will come. And many who are already here will leave.

Go on, tell me why I'm wrong and how they're all coming here to claim benefits.

Hamachi wrote: »

Furthermore, I take it that you have no issues with EU nations who eschew the multicultural model? The Visegrad block have decided that it’s not for them. Given that the outcomes are net neutral, presumably you’re also fine with them adopting a less internationalized approach, right?

Personally, I wouldn't like to live in a country that took such an isolationist approach. You might like it, but that's a matter for yourself.

.anon. wrote: »

Yup, there'd be no racism without other races. No faulting your logic there. Just as there'd be no theft without possessions. No road deaths if we got rid of cars. No misogyny if we got rid of women. No misandry if we got rid of ridiculous made-up words. And as for your 'less terrorism' argument - the only terrorism we've ever had on this island has been homegrown.

Well done for avoiding the other points, but sure what the hell we'll run with this one. There would of course still be racism and mistrust/fear of the other. Every society, White, Black, whatever you're having yourself has it. However yes there would be less "practical" racism in a more monocultural society. And yes terrorism has been home grown, but again like an underclass, social division and all the other ills societies are heir to, why do we purposely seek to import more and different ones? A bigger selection of novel foods in Tesco? Which we'd have anyway.

I do find the part of your post I highlighted interesting and it speaks volumes about the absorbed oppressed/oppressor narrative you've come to believe without much in the way of critical thinking or examination of that narrative. So I'm not really surprised you'd be all on board with the multicultural narrative too. Actually if we look at the government ads with couples and kids promoting "diversity" that were posted earlier, note who's missing from them. White men, the top of the oppressor tree. Black women are oddly missing too. Well not so odd, as even the Right On, made up almost exclusively of White people have their colour biases and Black women tend not to figure too highly in them. African American women commentators have long noted this.

Literally your only half-way valid argument that monoculturalism would be a good thing is that racists would be happy. Which isn't even true - they'd inevitably become something else-ist in the absence of those pesky blacks.

Again avoiding my other points like the plague, because, well they're actual demonstrable points that you can't actually argue against.

Honestly, can anyone on here say that they feel remote from their own culture? Moreover, can they express that remoteness in their own language? There are lots of positive things you can do to feel closer to your own culture (not just learning the bleeding language, but also our long history, which includes centuries of emigration), without taking the easy option of lashing out and blaming the existence of other cultures.

Well it's nice to see the old unexamined trope of "well we were immigrants once" not going away. Never mind again avoiding the points raised. Let's forget the boogyman of oul Straight Male Whitey for a second and look to the second part of my point that you quoted, but avoided: no non natives feeling increasingly remote from their own and their new culture. Look to the second third and beyond generations of non native populations throughout Europe. Read their experiences around being citizens and yet not quite feeling like true citizens of their adopted land. Why do you think the protests and riots and latterly even "home grown", yet "foreign" terrorism from this demographic kicks off? One of the main drivers of the current BLM protests that have kicked off across the multicultural world is that a large group of people feel disenfranchised from the societies they live in and have lived in for many decades, even centuries. And it still hasn't changed and you can bet that in the future it won't have changed too much beyond the surface. But again Ireland will magically avoid any of this...

But let's look how we're faring so far shall we? As it stands and contrary to the feelings of the rabid "we're being replaced!!" gobsh1tes on Youtube and the like we actually have a tiny population of non White people living in Ireland. One percent, around 40,000 odd. The vast majority of non natives here are actually White. OK, yet even at that tiny percentage and only after two decades we're already seeing the creep of separation, the ghettoisation and "white flight" of some urban areas. We're already seeing racism kicking off going both ways. We're already seeing Blacks having lower employment figures and more reliance on social welfare. We're already seeing the kneejerk reactions like the hotel statues, the Right wing nutters etc. At just 1% of our population almost exclusively concentrated in small urban areas. Yeah we're doing great alright.

All I said was that getting asylum seekers into employment should be the number one priority, and would go some way towards solving a lot of the problems we've had so far. Not sure what's so disagreeable about that.

There's nothing disagreeable about that when we're talking about actual asylum seekers, which as we've seen and according to the government agencies involved, make up a tiny percentage of those coming here(even the last taoiseach referenced and confirmed it, though only referenced the pale faced chancers. Of course). Indeed if we had the same framework in place during the Celtic Tiger, the population of non EU origin people currently living here would be a fraction of what it is.

I only raised the topic of 'monoculturalism' to highlight how difficult it is to extol the virtues of a concept so non-tangible as multiculturalism. I wasn't counting on Wibbs taking the question literally and trying (albeit in a laughably poor manner) to answer it.

You didn't answer it at all, have subsequently admitted you can't as it's so difficult and indeterminate a concept and is at best neutral. More a feeling of "of course it's good. It must be" without actually knowing why it's good, which is not much of an argument, or a position to hold. Which is why the question raised throughout this thread still holds and still remains unanswered. I listed quite the number of not so neutral, not so positive and demonstrable aspects of it, the majority of which you ignored, yet I'm the one with the laughably poor answer? OK

.anon. wrote: »

Something of a moot point, probably. Jobs are the main reason why most people come here in the first place. And if there aren't any, then fewer people will come. And many who are already here will leave.

Go on, tell me why I'm wrong and how they're all coming here to claim benefits.

Personally, I wouldn't like to live in a country that took such an isolationist approach. You might like it, but that's a matter for yourself.

There you go again. Trying to personalize the issue and disparage other posters, because you have no real argument to make, nor can you point to any tangible benefit of multiculturalism. I’m glad that we’ve at least grudgingly teased out that it’s net neutral at best and confers no particular advantage on the host society.

Can you point to one instance where I’ve mentioned that migrants come here to avail of benefits? You won’t find it, because I never uttered that statement. Again, I support skills-based, high caliber migrants who will be self-sufficient and represent an economic benefit to Ireland. Can you point out anything illogical in that argument without resorting to insults?

You know nothing about my enjoyment of an isolationist policy or otherwise. For the record, I work in a highly globalized industry, dealing with people internationally daily. I also lived on the continent for many years and speak German to near native ability. I’ll wager that my career is significantly more international than yours. This experience has opened my eyes to the uniqueness of Ireland and her people, which is something I enjoy in this globalized world. If that makes me an isolationist in your eyes, so be it.

The final point I’ll address to you is the one tangible benefit you’ve forwarded in support of your argument. Namely, reaching a common understanding with work colleagues from very different backgrounds. Great, good for you. However, I’d like to point out that work isn’t a milieu for many people to have those lovely little interactions. It’s a place where they go to advance their careers and deepen their skills, so that they can continue to enjoy their lives with the people that truly matter- partners, children, family, long-standing friends. Frankly, superficial, work-related interactions with random immigrants aren’t a priority for the majority of people. I guess you know that already given the grudging acceptance that multiculturalism isn’t of any particular benefit.

Oh and ease up on the disparagement. It comes across as uncivil and snide...

.anon. wrote: »

Something of a moot point, probably. Jobs are the main reason why most people come here in the first place. And if there aren't any, then fewer people will come. And many who are already here will leave.

Many will leave eh? Sure if they're young and single but people who've come here and settled down, had families? Which would be a large percentage of non EU residents living here. Hell, a large enough percentage of them got residency because they had children here. Where would they go? Well, let's look to a government report from our neighbour across the Irish sea. Afro Caribbean folks came to live in the UK in numbers in the 50's and today? 9% of Black people were unemployed, the highest unemployment rate across all ethnic groups. Maybe they should "go back home"...

Hamachi wrote: »

Oh and ease up on the disparagement. It comes across as uncivil and snide...

It merely illustrates a lack of a cogent argument that can stand on its own two feet in a debate.

Kivaro

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually if we look at the government ads with couples and kids promoting "diversity" that were posted earlier, note who's missing from them. White men, the top of the oppressor tree. ......

In an effort to try a more balanced view of the world, it was the BBC news that got my 15 minutes attention this morning. I clicked (remote control) into a segment of college age young people in the UK and their challenge of getting employment and developing a future for themselves. The interview was conducted in a sunny park with the participants standing in a circle. What was glaringly obvious was the omission of one segment of society. There was a young man of African descent, one young man of Middle-Eastern descent, a young woman of African descent, and a young white woman. There was no young white man involved in the discussion.

The omission of such a large component of UK society was startling, but I got the impression that the BBC were impervious to the notion of inclusivity that involved young white males. How did they think young white male college-goers felt while watching that BBC segment? How difficult would it have been for the BBC to just have included a young white college male?

There were sizeable redundancies announced at the BBC recently, with the primary reason being the unrelateability of the organisation with the UK general public. The above is a prime example of this. Yet, it seems that the BBC would prefer to die a slow virtue-signalling death rather than adjust their downward spiral. The same, if not worse, is happening with RTE.

Cordell

How did they think young white male college-goers felt while watching that BBC segment?

Probably they are too busy studying for their real degrees to be watching BBC crap about make believe degrees and diversity.

Kivaro wrote: »

I
The omission of such a large component of UK society was startling, but I got the impression that the BBC were impervious to the notion of inclusivity that involved young white males. How did they think young white male college-goers felt while watching that BBC segment? How difficult would it have been for the BBC to just have included a young white college male?

Not so startling really K.

One could argue that the Right On* is gung ho for "diversity", but only of a particular kind, because of the fight against what is seen as the enemy and the cause of all woes and oppression, namely the dominant western culture of the European, nominally "Christian" values of the Straight White Man his Patriarchy and other oppressor/oppressed narrative buzzwords.

One way to do this is seek to dilute the above list by bringing in non White, non Western, non Christian groups to "fix" our terrible problems as they regard them. To make things less "Christian" less White male, less European, less Western. While missing of course the obvious irony of bringing in often far more actually patriarchal and conservative cultures. Though hardliners of every stripe are notable by a complete and collective irony failure.

This would handily explain the lack of pale male** faces in setups like the one you describe and in those Irish government ads and missives. It also handily explains why diversity made up of other non local European White demographics are completely ignored. It also handily explains why this so called diversity only ever goes one way, darker skin to pale, never the other way around, because, well, they're not White, European and Western. That needs fixing. Even why diversity involving East Asians is generally overlooked, because what with their stable, conservative, often quite right wing "family values" and "patriarchal" cultures they're a little too close for comfort to the White Western boogyman.

If one frames this politic in the above way most if not all of the ducks line up and it also explains why the believers in this politic have no concrete positives to list concerning multiculturalism, because in essence that's not what it's about.

* TBH I struggle to find a good label for the politic. "Left" is wrong as it's drifted away from the core values and support base of that politic as it's mostly comprised of White middle class people and what they see as their concerns. "Liberal" is even more off target as it's anything but and like "Left" framed through the usual dopey America lens. "Progressive"? Maybe, but...

** Plenty of White Female faces though. Well the same church holds feminism as a major congregation(NB anon's all to obvious "ridiculous made-up words" concerning misandry) and western Feminism is almost entirely about the concerns and shifting demands of White middle class western women. Their darker hued sisters rarely get a look in, save for the occasional exotic mascots for the cause. When it suits.

yaknowski

2 sets of people in my monkeysphere:

Polish Family 1. Co-Worker.
Himself and wife educated to M.Sc. level. He's a Software Team Lead. Wife works in Property sector. Rents an apartment.

Polish Family 2. Neighbour.
Himself & wife not educated. He cleans cars & does tattoos in the house. Wife cleans hotels. Rents house. Received HAP.

These 2 cases may there or thereabouts balance each other in terms of cost to the taxpayer.

But still I'd prefer a targetted immigration approach, educated or skilled trades where we have a shortage, anyone that contributes from an economic point of view is welcome.

Gentlemanne

Kivaro wrote: »

How did they think young white male college-goers felt while watching that BBC segment?

Probably not obsessing about the demographics of literally four random people being interviewed.