Eric Cartman wrote: » Her father is a doctor, came in legally , she identifies as Zimbabwean-Irish and is a talented musician and college educated. Shes a really good example of the type of migrant that we do welcome to Ireland.
Wibbs wrote: » Indeed and a very simple question yet again; why do we want to import more and different and seemingly intractable social problems on top of the existing ones?
bubblypop wrote: » Will you stop! Steve Collins and his family were under protection for years in this country because of threats from Irish crime families.
Wibbs wrote: » Poverty and lack of education go up because of multiculturalism, particularly with some demographics and this is seen wherever the politic is in play and with the same demographics. And we're not just talking about actual asylum seekers and refugees here. In a UCD study it was found: O’Connell and Kenny (2017) show that only about 40% of adult African nationals in Ireland are employed, far less than the average for Irish natives or for other immigrant groups. They also suffer much higher rates of unemployment than the national average. The pattern is similar in other European labour markets. 60% out of work in receipt of social support. Over half. And the majority of them came here not through the asylum process(where today most are refused), but on the back of the birthright citizenship loophole in the early 2000's. We've already imported an underclass. If that loophole hadn't been there we would have many thousands less on the dole. That's a fair chunk of change.
Wibbs wrote: » Ghettoisation, the rise in identity politics, rise in racism, the importation of mores and attitudes that are contrary to liberal western thought(that was hard won on the backs of the corpses of millions), increased chances of radicalism on both sides, increased social tensions, increased unemployment, a confusion in education and employment standards, lack of integration among groups, less social cohesion, an addition of another underclass on top of existing ones, increased costs in education and social welfare, competition for housing at the lower end of society, which in turn increases sovereign debt because that has to be paid for. And all of the above gets worse over time and generations.
biko wrote: » The price of multiculturalism is higher for some. Samuel Paty, recently murdered for showing non-Muslims cartoons of Mohammad. Lars Vilks, painted Mohammad in 2007. 13 years later still has police escort everywhere he goes and probably will have for life.https://www.channel4.com/news/lars-vilks-the-artist-with-the-target-painted-on-his-back This is the real backside of exotic food and whatnot the left can dream up as justifications for inviting Islam.
Eric Cartman wrote: » Her music isn't quite to my taste, but still talented. Why people seem to think that her and Sharon Shannen can't work together because its 'Irish trad' is beyond me, music cannot be 'appropriated' otherwise the half of Kingston would be bitter about UB40.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » I could only bear 10 seconds of it, it's awful. I just love how much it's annoying the commenters on Twitter. Actually the comments from both sides are just bizarre.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » You're all gonna love this, lolhttps://twitter.com/rte/status/1344023939958321153
Wibbs wrote: » The point is anything but moot, it illustrates very well the innate problem with the subject of this thread, that is multiculturalism. We've already imported an underclass numbering in the many thousands. We shouldn't be trying to import more. Indeed I'd be looking to incentives to remove the ones already here.
biko wrote: » Is there another reason for them to be in Ireland? What have you learned from your African friends? What brought them here?
Eric Cartman wrote: » We only closed that loophole 16 years ago, we're only now seeing the fruits of that with the now teenage gang issues that commonly are brought up on this site, Now we're discussing the abuse of the DP system to allow more in without visas through the back door. The reality of it is, in legal visa based immigration we decline the majority of people from countries like Nigeria , the decline rates are much higher among African countries due to not being able to establish their legality to be here.https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/nearly-16000-people-refused-visas-22066540 Other countries do not present as much of an issue because theyre not trying to access Ireland with ill intentions :
bubblypop wrote: » But that avenue is not there any longer, in order for Africans to move to Ireland they must either have a visa allowing them to, or be an asylum seeker or be a refugee. So your point is moot
Last year, there were 7,597 visa applications from Nigeria. However, just 4,126 of those – or 54.3% – were granted. It was a similar story with applications from Sudan, where only 58% of almost 2,000 applications for a visa were approved. The approval rate in Sierra Leone was only slightly higher with 70 out of 116 (60.3%) of applications successful according to the records.
The largest number of applications – just over 37,000 – came from India. The grant rate for people from that country was 96%, the Department of Justice said. The next highest number of visa requests emanated from China. There were 22,990 in total and 96.5% of them were successful. The third highest number of applications came from Russia and of the 18,551 visa requests processed from that country, 96.6% were granted.
bubblypop wrote: » in order for Africans to move to Ireland they must either have a visa allowing them to, or be an asylum seeker or be a refugee.
bubblypop wrote: » I'm not suggesting immigrants commit crime. Anyone can commit crime, however offenders are more likely to come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. I didn't say there is no link between crime and poverty, in fact it's obvious that there is a link. But it's not as simple as 'poor people commit crime'
bubblypop wrote: » I also don't believe that multi culturism causes the issues you have outlined, poverty and lack of education cause those issues.
bubblypop wrote: » So basically what you are saying is that you just don't believe Ireland should take any asylum seekers or refugees. Which is fair enough if that's your opinion. I don't have any issue with the country taking a fair share of people who need our help. I also don't believe that multi culturism causes the issues you have outlined, poverty and lack of education cause those issues. Which are issues that Ireland need to work on, and a few thousand extra people who need help won't have much of an affect.
bubblypop wrote: » I suppose my point is that it is not the immigrants fault that they end up at the bottom of that scale.
I believe that we should be actively encouraging all people into education or vocational training. For all people, I don't see a few thousand asylum seekers or refugees as any big drain on our country.
I also don't see any major negatives with multi culturism
McHardcore wrote: » You tell us that you are struggling to find reliable sources of information on migrants due to States not providing reports, or handing over their reports on migrants to "organisations" that have a "inherent bias in what they report". If this is what you believe, then without a source of reliable information, your statements and conclusions on migrants in this thread are also unreliable.
On the same point, if you believe that there is a conspiracy between these "organisations" and the governments to "direct bias to present immigration as being a net benefit, to justify the agendas (?) at play.", then you need to give evidence to this extraordinary claim: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
Deleted User wrote: » Actually, a bigger problem is that the majority of organisations who dedicate themselves to making reports are directly involved in immigration, or activism, and have an inherent bias in what they report, and how they present it. State reporting, typically, is more reliable, however, due to the focus on promoting immigration over the last two decades (as part of State/EU policy), they've allowed other organisations to take over the primary active role in doing so. Why? Because there was a direct bias to present immigration as being a net benefit, to justify the agendas at play. With activist, or organisations who were founded on the backs of immigration, they have a bias to present immigration as being a positive to benefit themselves. ... Let me give you an example. I wanted to find out the education level of migrants entering Ireland over the last two decades. I looked online. Nothing. I emailed and phoned the CSO, nothing. I checked the EU commission database, nothing. I've found heaps of articles on the subject, but again, no concrete data, almost as if nobody was asking migrants what their educational backgrounds were, on entry into Europe. I've spoken to a few officials who claim the questions have been asked, but the reports done on the topic, don't provide any specific details..
Wibbs wrote: » Yes, I think we can agree on that. Now please point me to any multicultural nation in the West where those of African origins don't tend to cluster at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale(and other scales like education and crime), where those of East Asian origins don't tend to cluster at the top, with White Europeans spread across the scale(as one would expect for a majority). *Spoiler Alert* There isn't one. Now there are all sorts of reasons for this, and yes racism plays into it, but nobody else has been able to make much of a difference in changing things. I'll bet the farm nobody will. Therefore and again where is the logic in importing an underclass to our existing one and one that seems intractable and comes with another set of variables on top? How are we going to be any different? Wishful thinking? Magic? And again where are the benefits? Exoticism and charity and cheap labour are bloody weak examples, but these are about the only ones trotted out by those in favour of multiculturalism. The negatives are a lot easier to list and easier to back up with real world examples too.
biko wrote: » Can you provide example or sources for your claims? It's a lot of guesswork right now. You claim "Without doubt socioeconomic factors and lack of education have the biggest effect on crime." and then follow up with "I'm not suggesting that people commit crime because they are poor" So you think crime and poverty have no link but "socioeconomic factors have the biggest effect on crime" What is socioeconomic factors to you? Are you suggesting immigrants commit crime because they live in immigrant areas?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
