Wibbs wrote: » Actually both figures are estimates, so it boils down to whom does one put more faith in? The World bank or the CSO. One difference that's notable between them is the CSO figures stay oddly the same over the years, the World bank figures vary. Plus the CSO has been well known for inaccuracies on quite a few figures, including immigration data.Never mind that Nigeria is a powerhouse for remittance payments and is fifth in the world rankings. And as that article points out: Meanwhile, it has been widely established that the officially recorded remittances into the country are much lower than the actual remittances that take place through unofficial channels. This means a chunk of Nigeria’s remittances flows through the unofficial channels.Well we've already had a case of a Nigerian gang having a go at the oul money laundering here.
Slowyourrole wrote: » Not at all. I'm pointing out how disingenuous the question is. The benefit to the host nation doesn't change depending on whether someone is an economic migrant or asylum seeker. They both have the same potential. The only thing that's different is how deserving you think they are. If you want to pretend you are just concerned about cost/benefit of immigration then go ahead, but the fact you don't apply that same criteria to asylum seekers shows that it's not the real reason behind your objection.
Deleted User wrote: » Again, the question was answered. You seem to be a bit confused because you're asking me to defend Asylum seekers, when I'm obviously against the migration policies in Ireland. I get the feeling you're not really reading the answers you're getting to your posts. And like I said, you're doing the very thing you accuse others of doing. We asked for specific advantages to multiculuralism, and migration, rather than the vague comments given so far. You provided three examples, two of which were more of the same vague remarks, and one that was more specific, which I addressed. Wibbs addressed each of your points, but rather than actually deal with what he or I wrote, you're returning to your original point as if nobody had answered it. Basically, you're deflecting rather than argue in good faith.
Slowyourrole wrote: » I am surprised the closest either of you have come to describing a benefit to the host nation of accepting asylum seekers is looking virtuous.
Wibbs wrote: » Have you lost the ability to read plain english? I didn't dismiss the three points, indeed I devoted a paragraph to answering each one. Just because you choose to not like the answers is not my problem.
Slowyourrole wrote: » Again, neither of you have provided a benefit of accepting asylum seekers. The only thing you briefly referenced, klaz, was looking virtuous. You're both just telling me why asylum seekers are different to migrants but not actually showing any benefit to the host nation for them.
Like I said, you want an answer that suits you but you value things differently to the people you are asking. So you won't get an answer that suits you. Which is why Wibbs just completely dismissed the three things I mentioned. Yet when asked to show a benefit to asylum seekers using your value system, you can't.
Slowyourrole wrote: » Again, neither of you have provided a benefit of accepting asylum seekers. The only thing you briefly referenced, klaz, was looking virtuous. You're both just telling me why asylum seekers are different to migrants but not actually showing any benefit to the host nation for them. Like I said, you want an answer that suits you but you value things differently to the people you are asking. So you won't get an answer that suits you. Which is why Wibbs just completely dismissed the three things I mentioned. Yet when asked to show a benefit to asylum seekers using your value system, you can't.
Me. Earlier. Being very clear. wrote: They add or subtract little benefit in general, but the numbers are so small that any positives or negatives are minimal and people under genuine threat to life, limb and liberty are helped and the host nation gets to feel good about itself. It's as simple as that.
Deleted User wrote: » Actually, I did answer your question, but since I'm against the current way that we evaluate/process asylum claims/appeals, you're not going to get a long post defending the Asylum process. Although I do find it ironic that we're apparently "demand others provide you with an answer that suits you"... when that's exactly what you've been doing here. You've gotten a number of answers from different perspectives, but have dismissed them all as being not what you wanted. Whereas, when it comes to asking the positives of multiculturalism, or even migration, we have received a few very vague comments, but nothing of any depth. Care to step up and provide that? Nah. I didn't think so. Well, first off, it's kinda bad form to be directing that at Wibbs and me together, as while we agree on many things, there's just as much that we wouldn't. We would have different views on this. Just as my views are different to many of the other posters who dismissed labor concerns (not one I addressed previously)For myself, I was looking for direct benefits to the nation by African migrants. I know all the negatives, but I'm not sure of the positives. As for the low wage labor pool, that was dismissed because we already have a native population willing to do it, along with EU migration... we could easily encourage more Europeans to come in (Both Span and Italy being good candidates due to high unemployment), rather than looking to fill those demands with Africans or those from the M.East.
Wibbs wrote: » Eh no. I wasn't aware my answer or Klaz' was hidden. We answered you. I didn't even read K's post while I was typing mine and it's in broad agreement. I'm beginning to wonder... Nope. I don't particularly see it as a finely tuned balance sheet, more an overall overview of societal positives and negatives over time. Expanding the low wage labour pool? A hiding to nothing for a few reasons. 1) why are we not expanding same from within Europe and legally? EG Spain is a lot closer than Sudan and has a high unemployment rate, but apparently that's the wrong kind of "diversity". 2) The low wage sector will contract in the coming decades, as it has contracted over the last few. Exposure to different culture (food,language, traditions)? Turn on the telly or go on the internet. Ireland has been exposed to different cultures for decades and especially over the last 4 decades and we didn't require tens of thousands of non EU people here to do so. Never mind that the first generation of immigrants revert to local traditions and language, or ape external ones they think fit them more. EG Black youth going for the "gangsta" angle, Muslims staying or becoming more Muslim. The Irish American diaspora tends to be more diddly aye "Oirish" than Irish people. Hardly much cultural enrichment going on. Connections forged with the home countries of the immigrants? Tends to be very much along "race" and common cultural lines that one. Or along ex colony lines, which we never had. Plus quite a bit of those "connections" on the more personal level is the transfer of money earned here back home. Quite a lot of it in the case of Ireland and Nigeria transfers. The Indo reckoned in 2019 at 500 million per annum and that was one year. Now Irish people overseas certainly sent money home, but when there's only supposed to be under 20,000 Nigerians living here, apparently 40% of whom are in receipt of social welfare 500 million is a puzzling figure. That's over 25,000 euro for every Nigerian man woman and child living here. Now the Polish sent 174 million back home, but there are over 120,000 of them here. Such Nigerian "connections" are ten times higher than Polish. Not suspicious at all at all.
osarusan wrote: » Not true at all at all though. Either in 2013 when Niall Collins asked the question, or in 2019 when Noel Grealish asked the question.https://www.thejournal.ie/personal-remittance-ireland-to-nigeria-world-bank-4891522-Nov2019/
Wibbs wrote: » Such Nigerian "connections" are ten times higher than Polish. Not suspicious at all at all.
Slowyourrole wrote: » So neither of you can answer the question but demand others provide you with an answer that suits you?
If I understand it,
you've (or someone asking the same question at least) has dismissed things like expanding the low wage labour pool, the exposure to different culture (food,language, traditions) and the connections forged with the home countries of the immigrants (such as we have with Poland and the U.S. has with us) as being beneficial. Are you talking a pure immediate financial benefit?
Cordell wrote: » I'd say connection forged with highly developed countries are more important than those with the 3rd world, for example a good relation with Israel has much more potential to be beneficial than those with Pakistan and Nigeria (even with all those princes).
If I understand it, you've (or someone asking the same question at least) has dismissed things like expanding the low wage labour pool, the exposure to different culture (food,language, traditions) and the connections forged with the home countries of the immigrants (such as we have with Poland and the U.S. has with us) as being beneficial. Are you talking a pure immediate financial benefit?
Deleted User wrote: » Except the circumstances and numbers are different. Look. Historically, Asylum seekers accounted for an extremely small number of people, so their acceptance into a nation would have very little impact. Due to the numbers, and their circumstances, they would have lived quiet lives, and kept to the background (as they were being persecuted abroad, and fear of retribution following them). However, when we look at Asylum seekers today, the scope of that status has shifted dramatically due to the relative ease by which transportation links have improved. It's far easier than before to travel, and so, those seeking asylum have increased. Asylum would have very few actual benefits to the host nation, except in rare situations (such as gaining an Einstein, or similar) The benefit was in showing the nations virtue in helping out. Fair enough. The numbers involved were tiny, and their impact, regardless of their behavior, was minimal. However, with the rise of NGOs, the internet, etc, both the numbers and their impact has shifted dramatically. Genuine asylum seekers still represent an extreme minority (as long as the scope of that identification isn't expanded... which we've seen happen before with all manner of terms/classifications). As such, they're generally not an issue...The problem is with the bogus or inappropriate claims of asylum. Now. There is a major difference between all other migration and asylum seekers. Asking for the benefits of multiculturalism should be done, because we're expected to accept far more in terms of numbers, with no limit being put in place for the future. Accepting genuine asylum seekers is unlikely to match, even remotely, the number of other migration applications. As for me, I feel that Asylum should be a temporary measure, with cases being reviewed periodically, so that if the circumstances which caused the application for asylum have changed, then the seeker should be sent home. Asylum shouldn't be a way to sidestep normal migration policy.
Wibbs wrote: » They add or subtract little benefit in general, but the numbers are so small that any positives or negatives are minimal and people under genuine threat to life, limb and liberty are helped and the host nation gets to feel good about itself. It's as simple as that. They do on average. The uncomfortable truth is that some cultures are quite simply better than others and further, some quite simply do better living in Western societies and others do worse. 20,000 East Asians in a European nation is generally a positive for the host society and for the East Asians, 20,000 Africans much less so. And before you go scrabbling around looking for pearls to clutch, "race" has feck all to do with it. Indian and Pakistani people are the same "race", yet the former diaspora outperforms the latter by nearly every metric. Not religion either. People point to the "Muslim rape gangs" in the UK and a general dodgy attitude to rape among some migrants in Germany and Sweden etc who are also Muslim, yet not even a hint of Yemeni rape gangs, or Bahraini, or Malay, or Jordanian, or Iranian, yet they're all Muslim cultures. I have, as has Klaz.
Slowyourrole wrote: » Neither have you said what the benefit is of accepting asylum seekers. You just stated why you find them acceptable, not how they benefit the country.
The best Wibbs could come up with is in relation to a specific group of asylum seekers and the benefit is that Asians have a good work ethic.
It must be easy if you are demanding a simple answer to the same question from others.
Slowyourrole wrote: » Neither have you said what the benefit is of accepting asylum seekers. You just stated why you find them acceptable, not how they benefit the country. The best Wibbs could come up with is in relation to a specific group of asylum seekers and the benefit is that Asians have a good work ethic. Surely you must be able to point to one tangible benefit to the country from accepting asylum seekers? It must be easy if you are demanding a simple answer to the same question from others.
RandomName2 wrote: » Actual asylum seekers are likely to echo our own values. Persecution due to anti-feminism, anti-democracy, homophobia, religious intolerance is all more than likely to push people who are more 'Western' to.. well.. the West. Defectors from North Korea are unlikely to be waving communist flags and chanting 'death to capitalists'. People who are fleeing persecution absolutely merit sanctuary. They are guaranteed it under UN human rights. We do not border any country that is likely to exact such persecution. Unfortunately, were we to receive a refugee from one of our neighbors (let's say Snowden from America) I doubt we would treat them as such, but instead would likely immediately bow to the pressure of our allies to ignore these individuals' right to asylum. The Vietnamese boat people that Ireland received were a good example of genuine asylum seekers, received in a controlled and organized fashion. I would be surprised if Ireland didn't benefit from this small influx of people in the long run.
Wibbs wrote: » As RandomName2 noted they're more likely to echo our values and be grateful for their new home. Plus they're going to be a small number of people, not tens of thousands, so more likely to integrate over time. Take the example of the Vietnamese boat people mentioned. What not so many people realise, or have forgotten was Ireland was publicly pressured into taking them, because we weren't into inward immigration at all(same with the Hungarian Refugees in the 50's, never mind pre war Jews). Plus there were only a couple of hundred people involved and the usual Asian cultural background of strong parental and familial bonds and work ethic and self sufficiency meant they have tended to have been a positive wherever they ended up. Oh and this is muy importante, those Vietnamese chose to come to a country that was one of the poorest in the EEC at the time. They didn't show up en masse when we had the Celtic Tiger. Bugger all Africans, or Georgians or Roma came here in the 70's or 80's. Funny that. And legal immigration is about bringing in vetted people who have skills or resources that are positives for Ireland. We have a couple of hundred thousand Poles, Germans, Brits, Spaniards etc here legally as they're EU citizens and no ghettos and not exactly a load of gang stuff and other anti social behaviour. However you still haven't answered my question about listing positives of multiculturalism. Again if they're so self evident why not? Surely it's an easy question to answer?
Alejandro68 wrote: » Is new Irish meaning people who immigrated here and got citizenship?I immigrated here and have no desire to take citizenship.I am not not Irish and my current GNIB card still allows me too live and work here.And pay taxes. I don't have anything negative against the Irish or Ireland.As it is now my home,but I am also proud of my nationality and where I come from.And I do assimilate here as much as I can.But I don't think that would make me Irish. I hope that comes across as nice as it is in my head to explain it for myself.
SEPT 23 1989 wrote: » every voxpop interview on the RTE News begins with new Irish
Kivaro wrote: » 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.
Gentlemanne wrote: » Probably not obsessing about the demographics of literally four random people being interviewed.
Kivaro wrote: » How did they think young white male college-goers felt while watching that BBC segment?
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?
How did they think young white male college-goers felt while watching that BBC segment?
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. ......
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
