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

jmreire wrote: »

But of course, these posters would always state that in their post's....:rolleyes:

Well as they’re so much more virtuous that us lowlife working class scared the hardworking immigrants will come and take all our jobs (no evidence they intend to work so far like...) yeah I assume they would!!!

jmreire

Gervais08 wrote: »

Or get paid by an NGO and have a vested interest.

But of course, these posters would always state that in their post's....:rolleyes:

Sand wrote: »

Huge money in 'refugee' trafficking these days. From the people smugglers to the lawyers and landlords.

Oh yeah. And the “sailors” too - never eeen one get off at Dover without designer gear and phone costing 5 times what mine does.

Absolute joke.

Gervais08 wrote: »

Or get paid by an NGO and have a vested interest.

Huge money in 'refugee' trafficking these days. From the people smugglers to the lawyers and landlords.

jmreire wrote: »

Agreed. And for most part, those who are in favour of increasing the Nrs of Immigrants / Asylum Seekers don't seem to have lived in the Countries these people are coming from, and as a result, basically know nothing about them.

Or get paid by an NGO and have a vested interest.

jmreire

Sand wrote: »

As an aside, I think its interesting how these advocates of multiculturalism try to portray themselves as sensible and reasonable. But under just the tiniest bit of pushback, all the irrational hatred towards comes rushing out. It's almost a waste of time pointing out to them the negative impact of mass migration and multiculturalism on the indigenous people. They know that. For them, that is the point.

Agreed. And for most part, those who are in favour of increasing the Nrs of Immigrants / Asylum Seekers don't seem to have lived in the Countries these people are coming from, and as a result, basically know nothing about them.

As an aside, I think its interesting how these advocates of multiculturalism try to portray themselves as sensible and reasonable. But under just the tiniest bit of pushback, all the irrational hatred towards comes rushing out. It's almost a waste of time pointing out to them the negative impact of mass migration and multiculturalism on the indigenous people. They know that. For them, that is the point.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Again pure lies this is what you previously said

Bluff your way out of that? Because that is all it would be bluffing. I can see right through you.

Leo is of Irish descent. Hence he is ethnically Irish, like everyone else who is of Irish descent. What aren't you following?

Cultures change over time

The culture of a given people changing organically and naturally is normal. But you're not proposing that Irish peoples culture change. You're proposing that the Irish people be displaced by non-Irish peoples and their non-Irish culture. There is a significant difference between the two.

Many in the Irish working class are the first to forego thier Irish culture quicker as many do not advance very far in further education...But on the whole it is the working class people who chose to lose thier Irish culture. And are more influenced by British teams or American celebrities. Man United tattoos and a proliferation of Britney's and so on.

So because the Irish working class haven't lived up to the standards you demand of Irish people, they deserve to be cast aside and crushed under the forces of globalism? Do you listen to yourself?

Oh I am well up to you! You firstly defined Irishness as going back generations. And grudgingly redefined Leo Varadkar as an Irishman!

I redefined him as Irish? Do you think hes not Irish then?

Yet contrast it to the following hysterical posts again. Pure contradiction.

There isnt any contradiction there.

It is clear from this you deep down view Irishness as a white ethnic group that is your main issue with multiculturalism. Deep down your issue is not if someone is defined as Irish but of what ethnic group they are.

Irish is an ethnicity. A European ethnicity. Same as the Japanese are an Asian ethnicity.

Your fear over Irish birthright also seems to be a consequence of the former. You would prefer if other ethnic groups were denied Irish citizenship from birth.

Me and 80% of the Irish people voted to remove that birthright loophole. I'm broadly satisfied with the constitution and nationality laws as they exist today. Maybe I'd make a few tweaks in an ideal world, but its fine as is. As I said before its your views which are completely out of step with the Irish people.

'Defending our culture' is code for being a bigot.
Plus again the irony is not lost on me that you have chosen to lose a main tenet of Irish culture - the Irish language. Yet on the other hand view yourself as defending Irish culture!?? :rolleyes:

I've not said anything about defending a culture? To do so, you first have to define what is Irish culture, like you do with language. I think that is a fools errand. Irish culture is whatever Irish people pursue. It's constantly changing and evolving and it wont be caged by narrow definitions such as your own. Irish people are going to define themselves and their culture without you. You can continue shouting at the clouds for all the difference it will make.

Sand wrote: »

As I said, he's Irish by my definition.

There's no contradiction there?

Which is irrelevant to the definition of the Irish people in the constitution and under citizenship law.

Again pure lies this is what you previously said

Sand wrote: »

I mean the European ethnic group commonly described as Irish, who primarily descend from the same people who lived on the island of Ireland in the 5th-6th century and even before. Those Irish people. Would you be okay with that ethnic group becoming a minority in their own homeland? So long as they were displaced by better, more productive and cost effective workers?

Sand wrote: »

Would you be okay with Irish people being a minority in Ireland, so long as the new majority where hard working, well educated and socially liberal? Essentially better people in your view than the Irish working class.

Bluff your way out of that? Because that is all it would be bluffing. I can see right through you.

But not the Irish working class who you are happy to throw under the bus, right?

Cultures change over time much as you have chosen to forego aspects of Irish culture - for example the Irish language. Many in the Irish working class are the first to forego thier Irish culture quicker as many do not advance very far in further education. Granted there are few exceptions such as Gaelscoil Chluain Dolcain.

But on the whole it is the working class people who chose to lose thier Irish culture. And are more influenced by British teams or American celebrities.
Man United tattoos and a proliferation of Britney's and so on.
Yet this the same cohort who scream the loudest about those 'sponger foreigners' coming in.

All it will take is one articulate Irish bigot to light the spark under this resentment. A better, more charismatic orator, than a clown like Justin Barrett from the National Party. And things will erupt.

No, I've been very consistent. Which makes it all the more remarkable that you're not keeping up.

Oh I am well up to you! You firstly defined Irishness as going back generations.
And grudgingly redefined Leo Varadkar as an Irishman!

Sand wrote: »

Leo has an Irish parent so he's of Irish descent. He identifies as being Irish. And he's accepted as being Irish by Irish people. Hence he is Irish by my definition.

Yet contrast it to the following hysterical posts again. Pure contradiction.

Sand wrote: »

I mean the European ethnic group commonly described as Irish, who primarily descend from the same people who lived on the island of Ireland in the 5th-6th century and even before. Those Irish people. Would you be okay with that ethnic group becoming a minority in their own homeland? So long as they were displaced by better, more productive and cost effective workers?

Sand wrote: »

Would you be okay with Irish people being a minority in Ireland, so long as the new majority where hard working, well educated and socially liberal? Essentially better people in your view than the Irish working class.

It is clear from this you deep down view Irishness as a white ethnic group that is your main issue with multiculturalism. Deep down your issue is not if someone is defined as Irish but of what ethnic group they are.

The birthright citizenship loophole only existed for a few years, not even a decade.

Your fear over Irish birthright also seems to be a consequence of the former. You would prefer if other ethnic groups were denied Irish citizenship from birth.

I think you have to learn to accept that the Irish people as a whole are going to define ourselves and our culture, not you. And that's okay.

'Defending our culture' is code for being a bigot.

Plus again the irony is not lost on me that you have chosen to lose a main tenet of Irish culture - the Irish language. Yet on the other hand view yourself as defending Irish culture!??

:rolleyes:

Not just the fact that you do not speak it. But the fact you seem so distant to it.

Two realities that are completely incongruent.

I suppose if you have learned one thing at all from this thread. Using 'Gaelic' to refer to the Irish language gives you away.
If you want to hide your ignorance of your own native language and culture in future, you know to use the terms 'Gaeilge' or 'Irish' when referring to the language. It makes your comments on 'defending the Irish culture' seem less silly.

I am not sure there is much hope for your comment on 'Irish people becoming a minority in Ireland' because we all know what that is code for.

excludedbin wrote: »

I sincerely hope you're not involved in genetics because that couldn't be further from the truth. Unity results in recessive genes becoming more common, which means more deformities and generally a weaker, poorer gene pool. I'll take different people over inbred hicks, thanks.

If you are involved in genetics you'd also know that the number of people required in a population to reduce a risks of a weaker gene pool is actually quite small. At one point the entire (modern) human race was bottlelnecked into a population of around 40-50,000 tops(some reckon more like 20,000) and we all come from them. So a GAA final at Croker's full.

In culture too, considering that cultures have never been static but have always interacted and influenced each other. What you call 'unity' would've seen us stuck as a backwards little Catholic ****hole where 'fallen women' would still be shipped off to be brutalised, children would still be raped, and homosexuality would still be outlawed. Media were banned because they deviated from what was considered acceptable, because they were different. And 'unity' would've seen that preserved.

And all of that was going out the door or gone by the turn of the 1990's, long before we had any modern multiculturalism here. That kicked off in the late 90's and early 00's. Never mind that many of those who came in here would be just as or more religious and/or "backward" than the native population. Tell me again how are the Middle East and Nigeria for homosexuals and women's rights and rape stats and marriage equality?

Cultures have never been and never will be static.

Indeed they haven't, but in virtually every single case where such change was down to the migration of people it was because of war and conquest and colonisation. In other cases it was down to ideas travelling along trade routes rather than masses of people.

You're trying to hold back the tide with your hands and bitter complaining about how much you hate this change. But it'll still happen, whether you want it to or not. You probably think that sounds nihilistic because you can't see change as anything but bad.

Change isn't the problem. The wrong kind of change is. While we all get happy clappy about "diversity" and different foods.. the blind eye is turned to the negatives which are legion, not least for the new arrivals. The less like the natives they act and look, the more this is in evidence.

Again please show me a single example of a "multicultural" nation anywhere in the West where it isn't the case that the darker the skin, the lower on the socioeconomic scale people tend to cluster. Ditto for antisocial behaviour and criminality. Just one would do.

And yes a helluva lot of that is indeed down to racism(don't mention the East Asians doing well...), but unlike some I'm looking at the practical realities of this experiment, rather than living in the hope that maybe this time... Unfortunately not. We have had "multiculturalism" of the western European sort for just about twenty years and with a tiny percentage of migrants compared to somehwere like the UK or Germany and the exact same narratives are being played out. Well I never...

So please, by all means, continue to angrily strike at the sea as it comes in around your feet. Just know that you can always move back in with the rest of us and stay dry, whenever you like.

Your peddling the same empty rhetoric of those you oppose. It sounds only lovely for those ears that are tuned to it, but it actually means feck all in reality.

Then again as I've noted if you're middle class or have a bit of dosh this won't affect you. Yeah your feet might get a little wet once or twice, but you can go back to your dry almost exclusively White suburbia.

Yurt2

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Plus acupuncture another benefit of Multiculturalism. Brought to Ireland by Chinese practitioners. Which I could take a guess at least some of the opponents of multiculturalism availed of in the past.

Also, I bet many an opponent of Multiculturalism had had a session of Yoga an Indian invention!

Or how about some Thai massage therapy?

Most here say multiculturalism never has a happy ending....

The acupuncturist I went to was a woman from Co Clare. My girlfriend's yoga instructer a lady from Cork. Do you think we need to toss immigration policy out the window and refuse to discuss it to enjoy the wonders of massage?

Patrick2010 wrote: »

Sean Moncriefe giving a soft interview on the topic of NGO people smugglers.

Sean Moncriefe was all you needed to say...

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Again not true, it is clear you have a limited knowledge of Irish law.
Legally the Irish language is the first language of the State.

And under Irish law a man can self identify as a woman and be accorded the status of womanhood(and vice versa) under law.

Which is about as based in reality as Irish being the first language of the state. It hasn't been the language of education, commerce, law and science for centuries and the second that lot are not on the table a language is essentially doomed to the hinterlands and tge oft meagre concerns of same long term, beyond enthusiasts in it, which is fair enough. Greek a very good example of that and a language with far more of a cultural impact on European and world thought in just about every subject one can think of. Nobody speaks it any more. Modern Greek is quite different. Does this mean a native born Greek person going back to the egg who doesn't speak ancient Greek isn't truly Greek? Or an Italian who can't speak Latin, or an English person who can't speak Anglo Saxon? Of course it doesn't. Only the Gaelgóirí can't seem to wrap that around their heads. Well quite the number rely on the pretence for a living.

Plus acupuncture another benefit of Multiculturalism. Brought to Ireland by Chinese practitioners. Which I could take a guess at least some of the opponents of multiculturalism availed of in the past.

Also, I bet many an opponent of Multiculturalism had had a session of Yoga an Indian invention!

Or how about some Thai massage therapy?

Most here say multiculturalism never has a happy ending....

We've had spuds(and tobacco and corn) for centuries and we didn't need Mesoamerican urban enclaves to get them. Yoga has been on the go here since at least the 1970's. We've had the zero in mathematics for many centuries and didn't need Indian folks on the ground to get it. The printing press kicked off in Europe at a time when the number of East Asians in Europe could be counted on the fingers of one hand after a nasty incident with a threshing machine. Ideas flow quite well without needing tens of thousands of migrating people in the mix.

Justin Credible Darts

It must be horrible for gormdubhgorm to have to live in a country he hates
horrible to to be surrounded by Irish people he seems to dislike

must be like a prison sentence

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

And had to put a caveat on Leo's Irishness. You could just not say simply say that you view Leo as Irish. You couched it by saying he is accepted as Irish by the Irish people. Sounds like you are typing it through gritted teeth. As I remember on a number of times now you have said that to be of Irish descent you have to go back generations.

As I said, he's Irish by my definition.

Plus we have a weasly contradiction below here.

There's no contradiction there?

Again not true, it is clear you have a limited knowledge of Irish law.
Legally the Irish language is the first language of the State.

Which is irrelevant to the definition of the Irish people in the constitution and under citizenship law.

I have great respect for Irish people who express thier Irishness by thier love of Irish culture

But not the Irish working class who you are happy to throw under the bus, right?

So now you have changed your tune yet again.

No, I've been very consistent. Which makes it all the more remarkable that you're not keeping up.

Judging by the way you went around the houses to grudgingly accept Leo Varadkar as Irish, it gives the distinct impression that such a change was decades too late for you.

The birthright citizenship loophole only existed for a few years, not even a decade.

Again, you are the worst type of Irish hypocrite anti-migrant, yet distant from thier own Irish culture. Pathetic in my view. If you let yourself loose your own culture it is no wonder you are fearful of other cultures. Because they would make a show of your limited sense of Irishness very fast.

You only have to pay a visit to a Ciorcal Comhra, in Conradh na Gaeilge to find that out.

I think you have to learn to accept that the Irish people as a whole are going to define ourselves and our culture, not you. And that's okay.

excludedbin

Cordell wrote: »

Yes, because there is no positives, for that to be the case the multicultural cultures need to be superior, which is not the case, but quite the opposite. And there is no strength in diversity either, the strength comes from unity.

I sincerely hope you're not involved in genetics because that couldn't be further from the truth. Unity results in recessive genes becoming more common, which means more deformities and generally a weaker, poorer gene pool. I'll take different people over inbred hicks, thanks.

In culture too, considering that cultures have never been static but have always interacted and influenced each other. What you call 'unity' would've seen us stuck as a backwards little Catholic ****hole where 'fallen women' would still be shipped off to be brutalised, children would still be raped, and homosexuality would still be outlawed. Media were banned because they deviated from what was considered acceptable, because they were different. And 'unity' would've seen that preserved.

I know this'll set people screaming in outrage but 'strength in unity' really is just fascistic rhetoric. Look at the language employed by Mussolini and how it was all about the people rallying behind the party, unified. Look at the NSDAP and how the people were unified against outside forces and outgroups. 'Unity' really is just about targeting and punishing anyone who in any way deviates outside the narrow norm that you decide upon. Because anyone that deviates from it is trying to divide the people, rather than unify them. You see it up and down on this forum, all day, every day. Especially on this thread, where difference is seen as the greatest sin possible.

But you know what the greatest irony about it is? It's self-desructive. Because once you remove all those who aren't part of your 'unity', you need to find another group to vilify to keep the movement going. So you turn against people who don't fit your 'unity' enough. Who aren't loyal enough. And, let's call a spade a spade, who aren't white enough. And on down it spirals until eventually those inside are outnumbered by those outside.

The saddest thing of it all is how you can't see that your ideology is doomed to failure by its very nature. Cultures have never been and never will be static. You're trying to hold back the tide with your hands and bitter complaining about how much you hate this change. But it'll still happen, whether you want it to or not. You probably think that sounds nihilistic because you can't see change as anything but bad.

That's also why your ideology is doomed to fail. You will never be able to get everyone to agree with you but that is what it needs. Those of us who see no ill in change (just because it's change) don't have to have everyone agree with us, because it'll still happen either way.

So please, by all means, continue to angrily strike at the sea as it comes in around your feet. Just know that you can always move back in with the rest of us and stay dry, whenever you like.

Plus acupuncture another benefit of Multiculturalism. Brought to Ireland by Chinese practitioners. Which I could take a guess at least some of the opponents of multiculturalism availed of in the past.

Also, I bet many an opponent of Multiculturalism had had a session of Yoga an Indian invention!

Or how about some Thai massage therapy?

Most here say multiculturalism never has a happy ending....

TomTomTim

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Take the sandwich who invented it?
John Montagu, the 4th Earl of Sandwich back in 1762 a Britishman. Ireland could not be classed British as this stage as it was prior to the Act of Union 1800.
Now we have wraps and all sorts. I still am a hang sambo person.

.

:pac:

Sand wrote: »

Leo has an Irish parent so he's of Irish descent. He identifies as being Irish. And he's accepted as being Irish by Irish people. Hence he is Irish by my definition.

And had to put a caveat on Leo's Irishness. You could just not say simply say that you view Leo as Irish. You couched it by saying he is accepted as Irish by the Irish people. Sounds like you are typing it through gritted teeth. As I remember on a number of times now you have said that to be of Irish descent you have to go back generations.

Plus we have a weasly contradiction below here.

I dont fear other cultures, and I have a very broad definition of Irish identity. Your definition is extremely narrow, based on a language the vast majority of people cant or don't speak in day to day life. Far fewer people would qualify as Irish under your definition.

Irish people are a European people. Again, you need to get over that.

Because that is how Irish identity is defined - by descent, not by language tests. The vernacular for Irish people is English, not Gaelic. Has been that way for hundreds of years. You need to get over it.

Again not true, it is clear you have a limited knowledge of Irish law.
Legally the Irish language is the first language of the State.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en#part2

ARTICLE 8

1 The Irish language as the national language is the first official language.

--
--

Furthermore, in any problem of Statutory interpretation. Or constitutional interpretation. the Irish version takes precedence.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44026870?seq=1

--
--

Plus my Great Grandfather would have had no English only Irish. That does not go back 100's of years he lived until the 1930's.

--
--

Also no Irish person clued into the Irish language at all - would say 'Gaelic'. You sound very distant to it. Which again is part of your hypocrisy which annoys me. You clearly have no interest in it, for someone who claims to be so Irish. Not just the fact you don't speak it.

Your use of the word 'Gaelic' is a red flag.
It is Irish or Gaeilge. Gaelic refers to a culture as opposed to the language.

--
--

Verging into personal abuse there. But it does demonstrate again the hatred you have against Irish people. You're vomiting up an awful lot of resentment. Do Irish people disappoint you?

No just weasely hypocrites like you. I have great respect for Irish people who express thier Irishness by thier love of Irish culture not simply on the basis of where they were born. Plus I have even greater respect for non-Irish nationals who embrace the Irish culture. Putting the like of you to shame.

No, I'm Irish because I am of Irish descent. It doesn't matter where I was born. And people aren't Irish simply because they were born in Ireland - that loophole was closed long ago.

So now you have changed your tune yet again. Only a few days ago you classed the Irish people as being from the 5th and 6th century.
And you furthermore said that to be of Irish descent means you have to be of Irish lineage for generations - and you muddied over Vikings, Normans, Saxons and so on. And funnier still you have moved on to citizenship and even worded 'long ago' to imply it was much longer than 15 years ago. :rolleyes:

That comment isnt controversial. I refer you to Article 9.2 of the Irish contitution:

'Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, a person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, who does not have, at the time of the birth of that person, at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law.'

Judging by the way you went around the houses to grudgingly accept Leo Varadkar as Irish, it gives the distinct impression that such a change was decades too late for you.

Again, you are the worst type of Irish hypocrite anti-migrant, yet distant from thier own Irish culture. Pathetic in my view. If you let yourself lose your own culture it is no wonder you are fearful of other cultures. Because they would make a show of your limited sense of Irishness very fast.

You only have to pay a visit to a Ciorcal Comhra, in Conradh na Gaeilge to find that out.

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I dont believe in that invisible am in the sky ****. and the general irish people have no problem with "lack of faith"

the muslims dont share that prospective.
In you r own word that is their identity.

I can slate jesus, budda etc,,,,try that **** with the muslims,

As for the pub culture, I think you need to check your facts on alcohol consumption per per person n% wise around the world and you will find the french, german etc consume more and they have far more "multiculturism than we have

You only know of the radical Muslims not all Muslims are radical. In the past Gay Byrne and RTE had to obey radical Catholics for a long time. It only changed in the last 30 years or so.
I would be more afraid of Scientologists personally.

As for alcohol consumption the key is binge drinking that is part of Irish culture not the consumption levels alone.

I find this fear of multiculturalism in general to be laughable.
Take the sandwich who invented it?
John Montagu, the 4th Earl of Sandwich back in 1762 a Britishman. Ireland could not be classed British as this stage as it was prior to the Act of Union 1800.
Now we have wraps and all sorts. I still am a hang sambo person.

The drink that is now sold to tourists as an image of Ireland. Was invented by a Unionist and a man from the Protestant ascendency against Home Rule. And is now owned by a British multinational.

Ireland has thrived with FDI from foreign tech companies. And has had many politicians from various backgrounds. The Jewish community had a huge role in Irish life and the Irish state. You need only look at the number of Jewish politicians in Ireland's past. Or how around Portobello in Dublin was known as "little Jerusalem". Immigrants from Russian pogroms. James Connolly even handed out leaflets in 1902 in Yiddish when he was running for the Dublin Corpo!

Of course some people like to pretend that being Irish only means:

1) Going back generations
2) The right types - Republicans and White

Even years ago living in Ireland was much more complex than that.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The truth is by your definition Leo Varadkar is not Irish, for example.

Leo has an Irish parent so he's of Irish descent. He identifies as being Irish. And he's accepted as being Irish by Irish people. Hence he is Irish by my definition.

Why?

Because that is how Irish identity is defined - by descent, not by language tests. The vernacular for Irish people is English, not Gaelic. Has been that way for hundreds of years. You need to get over it.

You are the kind of hypocrite who I really despise...You are just one of those pathetic hypocrites, which Ireland has to put up with, unfortunately.
...I would actually class you as the worst type of Irishman...Yet gombeens like you have no clue.

Verging into personal abuse there. But it does demonstrate again the hatred you have against Irish people. You're vomiting up an awful lot of resentment. Do Irish people disappoint you?

One in name only and holding on for dear life that you are 'true Irish' basically because you were born here.

No, I'm Irish because I am of Irish descent. It doesn't matter where I was born. And people aren't Irish simply because they were born in Ireland - that loophole was closed long ago.

He/She also would not fear other cultures. And not have a really narrow definition of Irishness.

I dont fear other cultures, and I have a very broad definition of Irish identity. Your definition is extremely narrow, based on a language the vast majority of people cant or don't speak in day to day life. Far fewer people would qualify as Irish under your definition.

Your sole expression of Irishness seems to start and end with the fact your family were here for a few generations - which is of implicit importance for you as it would imply that they are white.

Irish people are a European people. Again, you need to get over that.

You cannot weasel out of a quote such as: And refuse to explain it properly, As I have already asked you. Without having some sinister agenda. There is no running away from that comment now.

That comment isnt controversial. I refer you to Article 9.2 of the Irish contitution:

'Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, a person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, who does not have, at the time of the birth of that person, at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law.'

Sand wrote: »

No, but you have to be of Irish descent to be Irish.

This seems to be your only standard for an Irish person. As the likes of you have feck all else to link themselves to Ireland bar a parent. No Irish language and so on. The truth is by your definition Leo Varadkar is not Irish, for example.

Why? Because it makes you feel good about yourself as you have lost many of the main tenets of Irish culture over time. Example the Irish language.

We all know where your mindset leads. Pathetic really.
You are the kind of hypocrite who I really despise. Talking about a 'true Irish' standard - generations of Irish descent, which is your sole expression of Irishness.
Based on a Republican myth of an Irish race created 100 years ago and developed in the 1930's tailteann games and so on.

Yet you have damn all clue about the Irish language 'Gaelic' you call it. Which I would excuse if you were not born and educated in Ireland. You also are likely one of those who say 'TG four' for TG4 instead of TG ceathair. It would not surprise me if you say 'we' for a British soccer team. You are just one of those pathetic hypocrites, which Ireland has to put up with, unfortunately.

I would actually class you as the worst type of Irishman. One in name only and holding on for dear life that you are 'true Irish' basically because you were born here. A secure Irish person in a broader sense would be interested in Irish culture and not be so insecure about thier Irishness and fearful of multiculturalism. He/She also would not fear other cultures. And not have a really narrow definition of Irishness.

As I have already said in my experience it is foreign nationals that are more open to learning the Irish language. Yet gombeens like you have no clue. It really speaks volumes.

Your sole expression of Irishness seems to start and end with the fact your family were here for a few generations - which is of implicit importance for you as it would imply that they are white.

I have not seen your username in any other threads I frequent - you just definitely seem like one of those "Irish for the Irish" heads.

You cannot weasel out of a quote such as:

Sand wrote: »

you have to be of Irish descent to be Irish.

And refuse to explain it properly, As I have already asked you. Without having some sinister agenda. There is no running away from that comment now.

Patrick2010

Sean Moncriefe giving a soft interview on the topic of NGO people smugglers.

Cordell

Wibbs wrote: »

I know but the joke is the ones in the thread who weren't being ironic(consciously) hadn't much else to add but the nebulous "food", "diversity" and "humanity".

Yes, because there is no positives, for that to be the case the multicultural cultures need to be superior, which is not the case, but quite the opposite. And there is no strength in diversity either, the strength comes from unity.

Yellow_Fern

Sloan Hundreds Village wrote: »

Perhaps consult yourself with the Poland, who for example will be approx 0.2% muslim by 2050, from 0.1% now (compare to Sweden, then no longer 'Sweden' as we know it at 20-30%)...
The V4 group will have all their customs, values and cultural heritage largely in place.

Ireland will likely by 4.6% muslim in 2050, not much, but still enough to affect or impede upon some daily experiences and forced changes of traditions.
This could easily be reduced by having a better IPO system, and accepting only valid cases.

There is some demographic modelling that implies Ireland will become muslim majority, in about 180 years. It is not very sophisticated modelling in my opinion (although I am not expert) but for what it is worth.

Rostan, Pierre, and Alexandra Rostan. "When will European Muslim population be majority and in which country?." PSU Research Review (2019).

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

To be fair W, I think he was being ironic (?)

I know

but the joke is the ones in the thread who weren't being ironic(consciously) hadn't much else to add but the nebulous "food", "diversity" and "humanity".

Kivaro

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

To be fair W, I think he was being ironic (?)

Yes, methinks that Cordell was being ironic.

_Kaiser_

Wibbs wrote: »

List them please. I know it may sound easy on the surface of this politic, but if you can provide such a demonstrable list of positives, it'll be a first.

To be fair W, I think he was being ironic (?)

Wibbs wrote: »

And we have a winner. When pressed to list the positives of a large scale social experiment that apparently is so self evidently beneficial to the host nation and those that move to it that the positives are obvious and again all we get is food... You really couldn't make this up.

To be fair, when this thread kicked off I genuinely thought there would be a lot more easily definable positives and the gulf between the negatives and positives would be a lot lot closer and the pro and con folks would be more balanced. It seems I had also bought into the idea to some degree even with my reservations for both the host nations and cultures and the incoming ones, but at the same time hadn't really examined it too closely. That can be the danger with Obvious Truths we collectively believe without much questioning.

I find it baffling how people would be willing to accept higher taxes to pay for the benefits, housing and medical care needed for these people not to mention an increase in FGM, anti women and LGBT attitudes and behaviours, going back to religion pervading all aspects of life just when we were out of it - all for what ?

A curry you can probably get in M&S. Madness,