nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

RyanthePirate

I would like to see a Boards.ie Consensus.

Economists agree that immigration has a net positive on the economy and this immigration is surely a wonderful thing for the county.

Agree/Disagree?

Mod:

I have updated the OP of this thread with a list of threadbanned users, I would advise posters to check on this before posting in the thread again or a forum sanction will be imposed for breaching same.

If you want to discuss your threadban feel free to PM the banning mod (or myself if you can't remember who that is and I'll point you in the right direction).

Threadbanned Users:
DelaneyIn
TheCitizen
V8 Interceptor
Hamachi - lifted 14/03/22, reinstated 28/03/22
Effects
biko
Kivaro
Eric Cartman
Swindled
Gradius
RobbieTheRobber - lifted 25/08/21 - reinstated 27/08/21
Cordell - lifted 16/08/21
Gangster Yippin
blindjustice
Eircom_Sucks
TomSweeney
Wojtek the Bear
Cordell
klaz
0ph0rce0
tonium22
tonycascarino
Real Donald Trump
Star Bingo
Nuts102
TomTomTim
Nosler
Absolute Zero
Hungry Burger

Find more posts tagged with

racism

i-am-a-racist-but...

we're-not-racist

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

She shouldn’t be giving lectures to them on the side of the canal - not excusing their behaviour but come on like

That's the problem with Irish society today, people afraid to call anyone out for wrongdoing.
Place would be much better if kids like this were told off more often.

Rob Humanoid

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

She should. Irish kids get away with murder because we are afraid of them. Fair play to her.

Obviously the kids are scum... BUT at the same time, I'd be very careful about lecturing people out in public. I've seen people seriously beaten for a lot less. I saw a guy pummeled many years ago for 'lecturing' a lad about smoking hash on top of the bus. It was brutal.

Report them but don't get involved.

While those vids are horrible it must be said. It still does'nt take away from the fact that we need a fair immigration system. One that favors people that our good for this country and will make good citizens. Just not criminals and ne-er do wells.

MFPM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Giving a lecture At the side of a canal though?

Not the cleverest idea - race doesn’t come into it

Giving a lecture At the side of a canal though?

Not the cleverest idea

Utterly irrelevant, there is no excuse for a violent attack on anyone for 'giving a lecture'.

race doesn’t come into it

It would seem from the video that it did in this case.

MFPM

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure... I do see the problem. The problem being that this is a different topic and completely unrelated to antifa. If I had wanted to read or write about Antifa, I'd be on that thread.

I get tired of people wanting to derail threads, when there's already a very strong thread available for them to rant over.

Ok. I'll notify a mod and see if they can reason with you.

Yet you had no issue with the guy claiming antifa as an 'organisation' just the guy pointing out that it's nonsense, I wonder why?!

Patrick2010

On Friday Mark Cagney on Newstalk interviewed one of those who signed the petition to end direct provision and asked what was the alternative. Answer was I don’t have the answer to that but it needs to be a system that treats people with dignity etc , that people coming here were fleeing from poverty,war and being housed in as bad conditions as they were escaping from.
So living in a hotel with all your meals and needs provided for is the same as home?
You never get an answer to what’s the alternative, either here or in the media.
Just once I’d love some interviewee to say the alternative is to give them their own house or apartment because that is the only alternative .

jackboy

Patrick2010 wrote: »

On Friday Mark Cagney on Newstalk interviewed one of those who signed the petition to end direct provision and asked what was the alternative. Answer was I don’t have the answer to that but it needs to be a system that treats people with dignity etc , that people coming here were fleeing from poverty,war and being housed in as bad conditions as they were escaping from.
So living in a hotel with all your meals and needs provided for is the same as home?
You never get an answer to what’s the alternative, either here or in the media.
Just once I’d love some interviewee to say the alternative is to give them their own house or apartment because that is the only alternative .

Firstly their applications should be processed much much faster. They should either get the full dole when they are here or at least allowed to work a certain amount of hours a week (monitored so they are not exploited). That would be a start.

zerosugarbuzz

jackboy wrote: »

Firstly their applications should be processed much much faster. They should either get the full dole when they are here or at least allowed to work a certain amount of hours a week (monitored so they are not exploited). That would be a start.

I do think the direct provision system needs to be changed and improved. There are definitely Irish “businessmen” making millions on the back of the asylum seekers. I mean what is the point in putting people in remote villages in the west of Ireland without even decent public transport links?
However, I think the appeal system needs to be limited to one appeal only. And they should be deported on arrival if it is obvious this could not have been the first country they landed in.

ExMachina1000

jackboy wrote: »

Firstly their applications should be processed much much faster. They should either get the full dole when they are here or at least allowed to work a certain amount of hours a week (monitored so they are not exploited). That would be a start.

No they shouldn't get the full dole. That's a ridiculous idea. They already receive a roof over their head, food , medical treatment and an allowance. Throw a "full dole " on top and you are treating them better than our own citizens.

Some people seem to think that there is a bottomless money pit.

The budget for direct provision is taken from the justice department. Last years figure was 100% over budget.

[Deleted User]

Patrick2010 wrote: »

On Friday Mark Cagney on Newstalk interviewed one of those who signed the petition to end direct provision and asked what was the alternative. Answer was I don’t have the answer to that but it needs to be a system that treats people with dignity etc , that people coming here were fleeing from poverty,war and being housed in as bad conditions as they were escaping from.
So living in a hotel with all your meals and needs provided for is the same as home?
You never get an answer to what’s the alternative, either here or in the media.
Just once I’d love some interviewee to say the alternative is to give them their own house or apartment because that is the only alternative .

I'd also love to have the alternatives in place before removing DP. (or whatever it is, that is being removed). Instead we get these vague demands for something better, the old system is removed, and... there's nothing there that can effectively replace the original system.

Where's all the debate about what should replace DP? Actual debate with an aim of finding the most efficient and cost effective way... but there's been very little said except for all the posturing that demands it must be removed.

jackboy

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

No they shouldn't get the full dole. That's a ridiculous idea. They already receive a roof over their head, food , medical treatment and an allowance. Throw a "full dole " on top and you are treating them better than our own citizens.

Some people seem to think that there is a bottomless money pit.

The budget for direct provision is taken from the justice department. Last years figure was 100% over budget.

They need money to have some sort of an existence. They would spend all the money in the small towns and villages anyway so that would benefit the community. Hanging around a small village for long periods of time with no money is not good for mental health. We let them into the country so we are responsible for looking after them.

[Deleted User]

jackboy wrote: »

They need money to have some sort of an existence. They would spend all the money in the small towns and villages anyway so that would benefit the community. Hanging around a small village for long periods of time with no money is not good for mental health. We let them into the country so we are responsible for looking after them.

Nah. They're responsible for themselves. The State is responsible for them once their claim is approved, but that doesn't mean that they should get every possible benefit (and more) than normal citizens.

Give them a job to do (combined with educational programs like language acquisition)... provided and run by the State. Pay them a salary/wage. If their claim is approved, they can head off to get a different job, and support themselves independently.

ExMachina1000

jackboy wrote: »

They need money to have some sort of an existence. They would spend all the money in the small towns and villages anyway so that would benefit the community. Hanging around a small village for long periods of time with no money is not good for mental health. We let them into the country so we are responsible for looking after them.

Speed up the process then. Either approved or rejected. Remove those who are rejected and have training or education pathways for those who are approved . Nobody wants to see people
live a life in limbo which affects the mental health of the individuals and costs the taxpayer a fortune.

Where they live in the meanwhile is the elephant in the room.

jackboy

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Speed up the process then. Either approved or rejected. Remove those who are rejected and have training or education pathways for those who are approved . Nobody wants to see people
live a life in limbo which affects the mental health of the individuals and costs the taxpayer a fortune.

Where they live in the meanwhile is the elephant in the room.

Yes, processing the applications much faster is the best way to save money and best for the health of the applicants. Follow the money though. There are lots of scumbags getting rich by the never ending application process.

ExMachina1000

jackboy wrote: »

Yes, processing the applications much faster is the best way to save money and best for the health of the applicants. Follow the money though. There are lots of scumbags getting rich by the never ending application process.

In that case it all falls back on government and how the system is ran.

If people who are rejected yet appeal repeatedly and still do not leave the winners are the legal profession who take the cases and the employers who hire the rejected applicants through the black economy

The taxpayer ie me and you lose every time.

This is only the beginning. Numbers coming here will increase exponentially.

As a side note there are close to 50k people living in hotels in the UK.

Beechwoodspark

Patrick2010 wrote: »

On Friday Mark Cagney on Newstalk interviewed one of those who signed the petition to end direct provision and asked what was the alternative. Answer was I don’t have the answer to that but it needs to be a system that treats people with dignity etc , that people coming here were fleeing from poverty,war and being housed in as bad conditions as they were escaping from.
So living in a hotel with all your meals and needs provided for is the same as home?
You never get an answer to what’s the alternative, either here or in the media.
Just once I’d love some interviewee to say the alternative is to give them their own house or apartment because that is the only alternative .

This is the thing.

It’s become a trend buzz word to say “end DP”

Ok....lay out the alternative? Genuinely want to know what it is?

Stateofyou

In short, we need to shift to long-term, strategic thinking, and away from a reactive “managed emergency”-style system that relies on private operators. Even in the middle of the housing crisis solutions exist.

We then have to accept that providing asylum and accommodation is a positive and important part of being a modern democracy that respects human rights. An average of 2,290 people per year have claimed asylum in Ireland over the last 10 years. This is an entirely manageable number, but the majority have no means to pay for accommodation or family to rely on. Around 61,100 people have been accommodated in direct provision since 2000. If direct provision ends, something has to take its place.

Responsibility should be shifted away from the Department of Justice. It does not have the knowledge of housing or sufficient power and influence in housing policy circles. The budget and control of accommodation for people seeking asylum should be ringfenced but mainstreamed into wider housing policy. Housing experts should be consulted and sought for input. Philanthropy, faith groups, developers and business should also be encouraged to become involved. Partnerships and consortiums that leverage the unique attributes of each will be crucial.

https://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=dd0b4484-cfa0-4a31-8c19-9d00a180457a

Dyr

Stateofyou wrote: »

An average of 2,290 people per year have claimed asylum in Ireland over the last 10 years. This is an entirely manageable number

Manageable? Yeah but no

Heres a deal, asylum seekers get one bite at the cherry in direct provision. After that we buy a nice big managed complex in Bulgaria where we can keep them in relative luxury and run their appeals via video link. Then, when their 70th appeal fails and the legal system finally admits they havent a leg to stand on, the bench can't pull the stroke of "yerra you're here so long now we might as well let ye stay, bring the rest of the family over too"

Hello, genuine asylum seekers, farewall chancers. Theres some long term strategic thinking, instead of sticking up a "Sucker Island welcomes freeloaders" sign

Stateofyou

Bambi wrote: »

Manageable? Yeah but no

Heres a deal, asylum seekers get one bite at the cherry in direct provision. After that we buy a nice big managed complex in Bulgaria where we can keep them in relative luxury and run their appeals via video link. Then, when their 70th appeal fails and the legal system finally admits they havent a leg to stand on, the bench can't pull the stroke of "yerra you're here so long now we might as well let ye stay, bring the rest of the family over too"

Hello, genuine asylum seekers, farewall chancers. Theres some long term strategic thinking, instead of sticking up a "Sucker Island welcomes freeloaders" sign

It's lucky you don't need to now seek asylum, isn't it. It's lucky you aren't living in the times in which Irish people immigrated out all over out of necessity.
Better hope in future you never find yourself on the wrong side of economic, wartime or climate disaster looking for safety and security somewhere else. Because you obviously don't think people in that situation are worthy, including yourself and your loved ones. In fact all those Irish people should have just stayed put and suffered. Right?

Patrick2010

Stateofyou wrote: »

It's lucky you don't need to now seek asylum, isn't it. It's lucky you aren't living in the times in which Irish people immigrated out all over out of necessity.
Better hope in future you never find yourself on the wrong side of economic, wartime or climate disaster looking for safety and security somewhere else. Because you obviously don't think people in that situation are worthy, including yourself and your loved ones. In fact all those Irish people should have just stayed put and suffered. Right?

The usual reply, Irish people immigated so we should take in anyone who wants to come here.
Irish people who went to America,England,Australia wherever went to work in countries that needed workers, they didn’t arrive expecting free houses and to have all their needs looked after.

Stateofyou

Patrick2010 wrote: »

The usual reply, Irish people immigated so we should take in anyone who wants to come here.
Irish people who went to America,England,Australia wherever went to work in countries that needed workers, they didn’t arrive expecting free houses and to have all their needs looked after.

The usual reply, when no one actually said that or is advocating for it either.

And no, they didn't. They suffered more and we're still bitter and salty about it to this day. There are countless historical accounts, documentaries, books about it etc, and of course the lesson here is what a shame and never should have happened. They deserved at least freedom and care and fair shot. They didn't deserve what they faced- unless you are prepared to argue that they did deserve it and so too do the current asylum seekers?

Wibbs

Stateofyou wrote: »

It's lucky you don't need to now seek asylum, isn't it. It's lucky you aren't living in the times in which Irish people immigrated out all over out of necessity.
Better hope in future you never find yourself on the wrong side of economic, wartime or climate disaster looking for safety and security somewhere else. Because you obviously don't think people in that situation are worthy, including yourself and your loved ones. In fact all those Irish people should have just stayed put and suffered. Right?

Annnnnnd here we go again. The same worn out threadbare "argument" that keeps being peddled as if Irish emigration is a mirror of the current form. Only it isn't and for a few reasons and yet again I'll explain why because this silly argument seems to have legs:

1) In the vast majority of cases Irish immigrants were going to ex colonies of Europe founded upon and utterly reliant upon immigration. When those nations reached a population level that didn't require immigration in such numbers their criteria became significantly more limited and numbers let through dropped off a cliff. Getting into America in the 1890's was mostly a case of having the fare to get there, getting into American today? Well have a go and see.

2) The Irish and other immigrant groups going to such places had almost no social safety net, no social welfare, no social housing. It was sink, swim or charity. And a fair amount of exploitation.

3) European nations today are very different societies that have quite different needs. Cheap low education labour is a contracting market. We are not colonies that required masses of non native people. Ireland in particular has the highest birth rate in the EU so doesn't fit into that usual oh "we need more babies" stuff, though that is still peddled here. Well it's the same multicultural script everywhere, no sense in changing it.

As an aside multiculturalism as a politic as well as being steeped in the oppressed/oppressor narrative, is also a politic of those ex European New World colonies because they had to deal with it by virtue of their very design. Or it's a politic of European nations who were colonisers where many of the colonised have come home to roost. Ireland doesn't fit into either category and shouldn't have to import the decades of ongoing daftness like them. We've only had a taste of it for 20 years and we're experiencing it already.

Stateofyou wrote: »

We then have to accept that providing asylum and accommodation is a positive and important part of being a modern democracy that respects human rights.

Why do we have to accept this? Why is this such an obvious given? And while you're struggling to come up with an answer that doesn't involve going straight for the copy of charity posters, maybe dig deeper and yet again please outline these positives you are so sure of. Exotic food, vague appeals to empathy and cheap labour have been covered by the way.

An average of 2,290 people per year have claimed asylum in Ireland over the last 10 years. This is an entirely manageable number,

I'd have no issue with that number of actual asylum seekers, or paying taxes to give them a leg up.

Around 61,100 people have been accommodated in direct provision since 2000. If direct provision ends, something has to take its place.

A far faster judgement process. You get in, or you don't and if you don't, then get the hell out. Six months tops. Streamline it right down as Australia has.

Responsibility should be shifted away from the Department of Justice. It does not have the knowledge of housing or sufficient power and influence in housing policy circles. The budget and control of accommodation for people seeking asylum should be ringfenced but mainstreamed into wider housing policy. Housing experts should be consulted and sought for input. Philanthropy, faith groups, developers and business should also be encouraged to become involved. Partnerships and consortiums that leverage the unique attributes of each will be crucial.

Oh brilliant, more bloody NGO's sucking at the taxpayers teat. No thank you. Faith groups. :rolleyes: We already have more NGO's with a shed load of overlap already sucking at that teat. If the general public knew how many I'd bet the majority would be as irritated by the sheer waste and funding of muppets as I am.

They deserved at least freedom and care and fair shot. They didn't deserve what they faced- unless you are prepared to argue that they did deserve it and so too do the current asylum seekers?

Well I think you'd find if the current asylum seekers, the majority of whom are rejected as chancers from the usual sources that even the bold Leo referenced, had to face the same setup as the Irish and other immigrants to the New World, you'd magically discover the number of them showing up would dwindle to an absolute trickle and actual asylum seekers. Indeed it would be one helluva good filter to weed out said chancers.

Dyr

Stateofyou wrote: »

It's lucky you don't need to now seek asylum, isn't it. It's lucky you aren't living in the times in which Irish people immigrated out all over out of necessity.
Better hope in future you never find yourself on the wrong side of economic, wartime or climate disaster looking for safety and security somewhere else. Because you obviously don't think people in that situation are worthy, including yourself and your loved ones. In fact all those Irish people should have just stayed put and suffered. Right?

You're conflating asylum with immigration, common enough in some circles, unless of course you're admitting that most asylum seekers are actually immigrants

The Unbearables

This all comes down to one question. Has multiculturalism worked in any society in the history of our planet? We all know the answer but yet we refuse to change direction in fear of being called racist.

The Unbearables

Patrick2010 wrote: »

The usual reply, Irish people immigated so we should take in anyone who wants to come here.
Irish people who went to America,England,Australia wherever went to work in countries that needed workers, they didn’t arrive expecting free houses and to have all their needs looked after.

And we had the same moral and cultural values that Americans believe in. We wanted to integrate not separate.

Wibbs

The Unbearables wrote: »

This all comes down to one question. Has multiculturalism worked in any society in the history of our planet?

Actually there have been a couple that kinda worked, but there were a few differences. Examples would be the Roman, early Islamic and Chinese empires. The differences? Integration to and adherence to the the overarching culture was a near given and dissension was smacked down hard. The overarching culture was self confident and conservative, even "right wing" to our way of thinking. They were also pretty much of the same "race". So while there's been quite the revisionist twist on Africans in Rome portraying them as Black, actual sub Saharan Africans were very small in number and "African" meant those Mediterranean peoples from modern day Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt and so on. So basically these multicultural success stories were absolutely nothing like modern Europe in nature.

The Unbearables wrote: »

And we had the same moral and cultural values that Americans believe in. We wanted to integrate not separate.

Well, not quite. We were overwhelmingly Catholic a population and this was seen as a major problem for the White Anglo Saxon American culture. We had the advantage of being White so assimilation was much easier over time and easier than even the Italian and Spanish diaspora.

[Deleted User]

The Unbearables wrote: »

And we had the same moral and cultural values that Americans believe in. We wanted to integrate not separate.

Then why did the Irish all live together in the same areas? All played Irish sports, Irish music & dancing? Why did they open Irish shops selling Irish produve, for the Irish people?
Irish people did the same then as the immigrants to Ireland do now.

Dude89

Some on here are saying the numbers claiming Asylum are relatively low, are missing out on one part of the process, once granted they can apply for FAMILY REUNIFICATION, I've read up to 20 family members can come here under reunification. who supports the additional family members who arrive?

ExMachina1000

I wasn't aware of the full details

"Children born in Ireland on or after 1 January 2005 are entitled to Irish citizenship if one of their parents are Irish or one of their parents are legally resident in the island of Ireland for 3 out of 4 years immediately prior to birth. Periods of legal residency as an asylum-seeker or on a student visa do not qualify for these purposes. However, a child born in Ireland who would not otherwise be entitled to citizenship of any other country will be entitled to Irish citizenship"

Blazer

Patrick2010 wrote: »

The usual reply, Irish people immigated so we should take in anyone who wants to come here.
Irish people who went to America,England,Australia wherever went to work in countries that needed workers, they didn’t arrive expecting free houses and to have all their needs looked after.

to be honest those people aren't arriving looking for that either.
But they're being forced into these areas and just grouped there.
At least Irish people could disappear off the boats back then.
To me DP is absolutely shameful and I think most of this "woke" stuff is absolute nonsense.
I firmly believe if we send these people back then every country should round up all the illegal irish and send them back home. Its only right.

Or we could abolish DP, implement a proper asylum system where we don't allow fat cats to take advantage of low paying workers.
Allow them one appeal and then its out of here.
IF you come from war torn countries then yes lets get you settled down and working for a living.
If not or you're an economic migrant then its back on the plane and dropped off at one of your country's airports. And I know this is double standards because that's what the illegal Irish are.
Go through the proper channels to get a visa etc. I know plenty of people who have done it.

Arthur Daley

Dude89 wrote: »

Some on here are saying the numbers claiming Asylum are relatively low, are missing out on one part of the process, once granted they can apply for FAMILY REUNIFICATION, I've read up to 20 family members can come here under reunification. who supports the additional family members who arrive?

Bono's NGO tells us these people are coming in to pay our pensions. Thats the economic arguement. But more likely we'll end up paying their pensions.