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

biko wrote: »

I feel closer to Irish people rather than Indian people. We share a culture and tradition that I don't share with Indian people.

Maybe you don't care if you are the only person in your neighbourhood with a Christmas tree, but for me small things like that are important.
We're in Ireland after all so I kinda want Irish people around me. Is that really so hard to understand?

It sounds a little bit like for you people and places are exchangeable, I trust that's not true.

Who’s this “we” business though? That’s what I don’t get. You’re trying to portray all Irish people as having more in common with each other than people who aren’t from Ireland, and in my experience it’s just not true. I can accept that in your circumstances it may well be true that you have nothing in common with people who aren’t from Ireland, but the idea that they don’t have a Christmas tree in their house?

Apart from extreme curtain twitching, which I don’t imagine is indigenous to Irish people, many immigrants of all different religions and cultures enjoy Christmas traditions such as the Christmas tree and giving gifts and all the rest of it. Consumerism crosses all cultural boundaries

You can be surrounded with Irish people whom you assume share your values and opinions and beliefs towards other people, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they actually do, and you’re not asking for them to prove anything to you before you let them move into the neighbourhood. Housing co-ops aren’t really a thing in Ireland.

bubblypop wrote: »

It's never going to happen that 50% are replaced

Malmo, Sweden, was "Swedes only" until the 90s sometime.
Today people from 184 different countries live in Malmo. Roughly one-third of Malmö's residents were born in another country.
Counting their children it's easily over 50% with other cultures than Swedish.
In roughly 25 years.

Malmo is also the most crime ridden (highest prevalence of shootings), least working (twice as high unemployment than the rest of the country) and poorest (dependant on government help) city in Sweden. Run by socialists I might add

In Malmo the multicultural attempt have backfired.
Wish as you may, it will not work out better here.

Wibbs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not that I’m trying to avoid having to explain why there’s anything positive about multiculturalism, it’s that I don’t view multiculturalism in either positive or negative terms. For me it’d be like someone suggesting that I can’t argue the positives of homosexuality. I don’t need to, there’s nothing positive or negative about homosexuality itself, in just the same way as there’s nothing positive or negative about multiculturalism itself.

If someone were to sit any harder on the fence of saying nothing either way they're in grave danger of a bad attack of piles.

I’m really not. I’m coming at it from the baseline that there’s nothing inherently good or bad about multiculturalism. I could argue that it drives innovation, which it does.

Again you're avoiding the question by denying there is even a question. We could apply that sort of woolly headed philosophy to any matter. Then again it is very much what some sloppily define as "post modernism", but that's a simplification of the core of that. It's more well nothing is ultimately definable or answerable so no real reason to try. It's mind bogglingly lazy a position. Oh and multiculturalism can drive innovation, but it doesn't require actual people to do so and indeed much innovation in history was driven by conflict between ethnicities.

Racism and discrimination are problems, but they’re not problems caused by multiculturalism or immigration,

Eh then why are some demographics more likely to be at the lower end of society and generationally so?

they’re problems which can only be dealt with at a more local level as opposed to using statistics to suggest that the issues are national issues caused by multiculturalism.

Find me anywhere in the multicultural world where these issues are any different.

Over half of all Africans are unemployed doesn’t explain why they are unemployed.

No but it does tell one that Africans are more likely to be unemployed. They wouldn't be the only demographic of unskilled migrants who would be either. It's again the wilful importation of an underclass on top of existing ones. Yeah that's a positive...

Of course it matters to some people that they wish to point fingers at any particular demographic and say they’re unemployed, but what’s the point in bringing that up?

Because if you don't ask the questions how the hell are you going to find answers? Again an example of nebulous thinking that goes nowhere. If they’re interested in addressing unemployment in this country, it’s still nothing to do with multiculturalism. The percentage of Africans who are unemployed means nothing if you’re not willing to put it in some sort of context. Of the total number of people who are unemployed, what percentage are African?

I’d rather concentrate my efforts on helping people within my local community who are unemployed and want to work or want to contribute to society, or want to make something of themselves, regardless of their ethnicity or cultural background or socioeconomic status.

Again, please show me an example where this works.

Wibbs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In case you hadn’t noticed, low trust exists among different groups of people within Irish society before migrants were ever involved. There are people on all sides making hay of that particular incident, the vast majority of them native Irish, not immigrants.

Indeed and like I have said all along we already have issues within Ireland and the Irish why import more?

AllForIt

bubblypop wrote: »

Why does there have to be a benefit to you?
Why does it matter to you whether the people living in your area are irish or Indian or polish or any nationality?
This is why no-one argues the positives, because as they just don't even think about positives, because, well, why would they?!

If I may give my view on that one, I think we have always organized ourselves by Country. To organize ourselves by World I think is way too big a task given human nature and culture, and size even.

What is a country? Is it just a place? Do you think the world as a whole would be better off it there were no countries as they have always been regarded, instead are all just regions with distinct names and boarders that are just used to identify where they are on the map and not much more, where instead the World becomes one big country where everyone is free to come and go as they please like the current EU?

If I were to list the positives of a country, I would say the whole point, the one big positive, is that the people of the country have far more in common with each other than not, and so are more likely to tolerate each other and strive to make life workable without too much strife. And even that doesn't work sometimes. To think that this is something trivial and one would take steps to undermine it by introducing mass migration, I'm afraid shows a very fanciful and naïve view of us humans.

If mass migration was perfectly tickety boo we would have done it centuries ago, naturally I mean, intentionally rather than out of need or desperation as it has happened, and now frankly it is an experiment that is going wrong and will go further wrong if last weeks news is anything to go by.

I know what type of people who are to blame for all this - ideologues, although global businesses are playing their part, but it is high minded ideologues with their childlike ideas to fix all the world problems by national and cultural integration. Stick us all in the same room for a while, we might squabble initially but make up eventually after we get accustomed to each other and that's humanity sorted. That's one social experiment I'm not willing give my support to.

All I see now in the coming years is demographic identity strife of one sort or another. I think that's horrendous for society. Absolutely horrendous. The ideologues will blame any strife on racists. The cool think is though there aren't enough ppl that dumb to believe that. The accusation will be seen as it is; the ideologue blaming their experiment going wrong on someone else, a bogyman, so as to preserve their false sense of superior rightness on these issues.

biko wrote: »

Malmo, Sweden, was "Swedes only" until the 90s sometime.
Today people from 184 different countries live in Malmo. Roughly one-third of Malmö's residents were born in another country.
Counting their children it's easily over 50% with other cultures than Swedish.
In roughly 25 years.

Malmo is also the most crime ridden (highest prevalence of shootings), least working (twice as high unemployment than the rest of the country) and poorest (dependant on government help) city in Sweden. Run by socialists I might add

In Malmo the multicultural attempt have backfired.
Wish as you may, it will not work out better here.

I'm aware of your obsession with Sweden!
You may think it doesnt work, but the Swedes I worked with, don't have nearly as much of an issue as you do. Yes, there are some problems, but there are problems everywhere when there is low education and unemployment.

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed and like I have said all along we already have issues within Ireland and the Irish why import more?

We’re not importing issues, the issues such as racism, discrimination and unemployment already exist in Irish society regardless of how many immigrants there are in this country or where they’re coming from. It’s simply unrealistic to expect that the way to deal with issues like racism, discrimination and unemployment among the indigenous population is to keep migrants out. Racists will still be racist, people who wish to discriminate will still do so and the unemployed will still be unemployed.

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm aware of your obsession with Sweden!

In many ways Sweden is a fantastic place and it's often held up to say "look, this or that social reform works".
But to say they don't have a problem with immigration is a lie.

Immigrants can be a good thing and also a bad thing. It's a mixed blessing.
What we in Ireland must do is to make sure the immigration is small so they can adjust to us and we to them. It must also be highly skilled workers that will contribute from day one and probably also will put a lot effort into integration.

Sweden’s sharp influx of immigrants is the largest of any European nation, as a share of the overall population.

1 in 5 currently living in Sweden were born elsewhere.
My limit is 1 in 10.
What is yours?
1 in 4?
1 in 3?
1 in 2?
When is Sweden not Sweden anymore?

biko wrote: »

In many ways Sweden is a fantastic place and it's often held up to say "look, this or that social reform works".
But to say they don't have a problem with immigration is a lie.

Immigrants can be a good thing and also a bad thing. It's a mixed blessing.
What we in Ireland must do is to make sure the immigration is small so they can adjust to us and we to them. It must also be highly skilled workers that will contribute from day one and probably also will put a lot effort into integration.

Sweden’s sharp influx of immigrants is the largest of any European nation, as a share of the overall population.

1 in 5 currently living in Sweden were born elsewhere.
My limit is 1 in 10.
What is yours?
1 in 4?
1 in 3?
1 in 2?
When is Sweden not Sweden anymore?

They're trying out the Ship of Theseus approach.

Parachutes

biko wrote: »

1 in 5 currently living in Sweden were born elsewhere.
My limit is 1 in 10.
What is yours?
1 in 4?
1 in 3?
1 in 2?
When is Sweden not Sweden anymore?

Even 1 in 10 is insane. Sweden have committed cultural and ethnic suicide if that's true.

Is it immigration or replacement we are talking about here?

Wibbs wrote: »

If someone were to sit any harder on the fence of saying nothing either way they're in grave danger of a bad attack of piles.

I’m not sitting on the fence if I’m critical of the idea of anti-immigration. The whole thread is about views of multiculturalism - I don’t particularly feel strongly one way or the other about it, but I do feel strongly about anti-immigration - it perpetuates negative perceptions of immigrants based upon the fact that they’re immigrants and they’re a threat to the natives. It’s that sort of rhetoric I find overly dramatic, creating issues where there aren’t any.

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh and multiculturalism can drive innovation, but it doesn't require actual people to do so and indeed much innovation in history was driven by conflict between ethnicities.

It does require people because people bring with them different ideas to the table by way of tackling old problems with new solutions. It’s true that conflict also drives innovation, but that’s innovation by way of demonstrating superiority, as opposed to innovation by way of cooperation between ethnicities.

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh then why are some demographics more likely to be at the lower end of society and generationally so? Find me anywhere in the multicultural world where these issues are any different. No but it does tell one that Africans are more likely to be unemployed. They wouldn't be the only demographic of unskilled migrants who would be either. It's again the wilful importation of an underclass on top of existing ones. Yeah that's a positive...

Because they are considered to have nothing of any value to contribute to society. Same reason there are huge numbers of the indigenous population are at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder and it has nothing to do with ethnicity or culture or anything else. These issues aren’t any different in any society because there will always be things which are valued in society, and things that are of no value, such as a degree in gender stereotypes. It’s only the importation of an underclass if they are prevented from contributing to society, as many African immigrants are by never being given the chance to contribute to society by Irish people who say they wouldn’t be racist if it weren’t for immigrants, and they don’t discriminate in employment, it’s just that immigrants often aren’t qualified as they’re looking for fluent English speakers only.

Wibbs wrote: »

Because if you don't ask the questions how the hell are you going to find answers? Again an example of nebulous thinking that goes nowhere.

Pointing out that 40% of African immigrants are unemployed isn’t asking questions, it’s making a statement, it’s giving an answer to a question which nobody asked. That’s the kind of nebulous thinking that isn’t questioning anything but is susceptible to propaganda. How many people who have ever claimed that statistic do you imagine have ever bothered to ask themselves why? Why is it that 40% of African immigrants are unemployed? Could it be the same reasons that many thousands more Irish people are unemployed? I’d imagine there’s more in common between people who are unemployed than anything which differentiates them from each other.

Wibbs wrote: »

Again, please show me an example where this works.

In communities all over Ireland there are all sorts of community projects which are aimed to get local people involved in education and employment in order to benefit their communities and contribute to society, particularly in areas where there are a large proportion of the local population are uneducated, unskilled and unemployed. The idea is to identify ways in which they can contribute to their communities by developing their skills towards future employment. It’s nothing to do with just putting people on government schemes to fudge the national statistics regarding the number of people on the live register who are considered unemployed. It’s about fostering a spirit of community within communities and building networks that way as opposed to having immigrants and indigenous populations remain in poverty and remain within their own networks unwilling to break out of generational poverty because it’s what they know and they’re comfortable with it.

Arthur Daley

biko wrote: »

1 in 5 currently living in Sweden were born elsewhere.
My limit is 1 in 10.
What is yours?
1 in 4?
1 in 3?
1 in 2?
When is Sweden not Sweden anymore?

The fake left will leave us a country that is like Trigger's Broom.:pac::o:mad:

biko wrote: »

In many ways Sweden is a fantastic place and it's often held up to say "look, this or that social reform works".
But to say they don't have a problem with immigration is a lie.

Immigrants can be a good thing and also a bad thing. It's a mixed blessing.
What we in Ireland must do is to make sure the immigration is small so they can adjust to us and we to them. It must also be highly skilled workers that will contribute from day one and probably also will put a lot effort into integration.

Sweden’s sharp influx of immigrants is the largest of any European nation, as a share of the overall population.

1 in 5 currently living in Sweden were born elsewhere.
My limit is 1 in 10.
What is yours?
1 in 4?
1 in 3?
1 in 2?
When is Sweden not Sweden anymore?

It’s 1 in 4 now... that lovely statistic :pac:

The total resident population of Sweden was 10,377,781 in October 2020. The population exceeded 10 million for the first time on Friday, 20 January 2017. The three largest cities are Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. Sweden's population has become much more ethnically, religiously and linguistically diverse over the past 70 years as a result of global immigration. Every fourth (24.9%) resident in the country has an immigrant background and every third (32.3%) has at least one parent born abroad.

Never mind any nonsense about what Ireland must do with regard to attracting highly skilled workers, highly skilled workers are not the issue, they’re free to come here but many of them have no desire to due to our exorbitant cost of living, particularly in urban areas, which is also an issue of contention in Sweden as regards population density -

The population density is just over 25 people per km² (65 per square mile), with 1 437 persons per km² in localities (continuous settlement with at least 200 inhabitants). 87% of the population live in urban areas, which cover 1.5% of the entire land area. 63% of Swedes are in large urban areas. The population density is substantially higher in the south than in the north. The capital city Stockholm has a municipal population of about 950,000 (with 1.5 million in the urban area and 2.3 million in the metropolitan area).

Demographics of Sweden

Essentially, the problem with Sweden isn’t that 80% of their population are ethnic Swedes and 20% are immigrants from a whole host of other countries (I’ve no doubt there are a few from Ireland in there, you’ll know when they refer to the weather as Baltic :pac:), or that they have a problem with immigration. Their problem is essentially the same as the Irish problem or the problems of any country with an underdeveloped rural infrastructure where 80% of the population live on 20% of the land, and outside of that is bogger country.

Sand

Sand wrote: »

We don't see intelligent or reasoned defences of multiculturalism in this thread - or any like it - because it is faith based, not evidence based. And their faith has defenses against evidence. Either plain out ignore it (anyone who doesn't subscribe to the ideology is evil or even non-human, so shouldn't be listened to) or like Christians and dinosaur bones, it reformats the evidence itself as a test of faith (yes, there are some problems, but keep the faith it will all work out...).

bubblypop wrote: »

No, people create bad outcomes for multiculturalism, and dare I say it, people like you. Who are just anti foreigner.

And the prophecy is fulfilled.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m criticising the way multiculturalism is being portrayed as an overwhelmingly negative influence on the indigenous population

Because it is. You go on to acknowledge there are no benefits for the indigenous people. Only negatives.

The policy is wholly justified by the idea that the values of the indigenous population will influence the behaviour of immigrants.

The indigenous people aren't defined by their values. Even if for the sake of argument I grant that premise, you haven't explained why its required for the indigenous people to mentor other ethnic groups. Why do the indigenous people have to suffer to redeem foreign groups?

Either way, thank you for demonstrating the religious/messianic nature of the belief system I pointed to earlier.

Where it does happen that immigrants are permitted to participate equally in society, there are both positive and negative outcomes, depending upon a whole number of different factors.

When the negative outcomes include foreign ethnic gangs systematically grooming, torturing and raping tens of thousands of English girls for decades the positive outcomes (if any) are irrelevant. No one would trade their children for them.

Oh they don’t.

Oh yes they do. Its the accepted basis of modern democratic regimes. Maybe you have some bespoke take on things, but its hardly relevant.

Sand wrote: »

Because it is. You go on to acknowledge there are no benefits for the indigenous people. Only negatives.

I never acknowledged any such thing? Biko asked what are the positives for him personally, I said there aren’t any. I never said there are only negatives for the indigenous people.

Sand wrote: »

The indigenous people aren't defined by their values. Even if for the sake of argument I grant that premise, you haven't explained why its required for the indigenous people to mentor other ethnic groups. Why do the indigenous people have to suffer to redeem foreign groups?

They are? You don’t need to grant the premise for the sake of argument because the argument already consists of people’s opposition to immigration being based upon the idea that immigrants do not share the values of the indigenous population. I didn’t imagine I needed to explain to people who claim I share their values that the indigenous population have that obligation because we’re all morally and intellectually superior to immigrants! If people don’t share our values, we take their kids, that’s just the way we roll in our bubbles of moral and intellectual superiority.

Sand wrote: »

When the negative outcomes include foreign ethnic gangs systematically grooming, torturing and raping tens of thousands of English girls for decades the positive outcomes (if any) are irrelevant. No one would trade their children for them.

That issue has fcukall to do with immigration. It’s not as though anyone prefers to be raped by the natives. It’s a stupid point, frankly.

Sand wrote: »

Oh yes they do. Its the accepted basis of modern democratic regimes. Maybe you have some bespoke take on things, but its hardly relevant.

No it’s not. What you’re referring to is called direct democracy which as far as I’m aware only exists in Switzerland. It certainly doesn’t exist in Ireland which is a representative democracy, which is why politicians only show up on your doorstep any time there’s local or general elections claiming to give a fcuk for your opinion as they wish to represent your opinions at local or national level, but they’re working off their own mandate, not yours.

SnazzyPig

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never acknowledged any such thing? Biko asked what are the positives for him personally, I said there aren’t any. I never said there are only negatives for the indigenous people.

They are? You don’t need to grant the premise for the sake of argument because the argument already consists of people’s opposition to immigration being based upon the idea that immigrants do not share the values of the indigenous population. I didn’t imagine I needed to explain to people who claim I share their values that the indigenous population have that obligation because we’re all morally and intellectually superior to immigrants! If people don’t share our values, we take their kids, that’s just the way we roll in our bubbles of moral and intellectual superiority.

That issue has fcukall to do with immigration. It’s not as though anyone prefers to be raped by the natives. It’s a stupid point, frankly.

No it’s not. What you’re referring to is called direct democracy which as far as I’m aware only exists in Switzerland. It certainly doesn’t exist in Ireland which is a representative democracy, which is why politicians only show up on your doorstep any time there’s local or general elections claiming to give a fcuk for your opinion as they wish to represent your opinions at local or national level, but they’re working off their own mandate, not yours.

I think you may be confusing intellectualism with autism.

Nothing wrong with that but awareness of it might be helpful to both you and the people you deal with.

Otherwise people might take your crap seriously.

SnazzyPig wrote: »

I think you may be confusing intellectualism with autism.

Nothing wrong with that but awareness of it might be helpful to both you and the people you deal with.

Otherwise people might take your crap seriously.

I don’t think any of the people posting here are autistic, are you? Is that what you’re trying to make me aware of?

In any case it has no bearing on the discussion one way or another other than the fact that there are plenty of employers who are willing to hire people with autism, such as Microsoft -

How Microsoft is helping other companies hire people with autism

Now, how seriously do you imagine anyone should take your crap?

I remember when the first non-white migrants arrived in Ireland in the 90's in numbers.

At the time, it felt like we had no historical baggage of slavery or apartheid or anything like that. In fact we didn't need to learn lessons because we had seen other countries (US, UK, South Africa) make mistakes so we didn't have to.

We were a nation of emigrants and we knew how they felt. There was zero racism in those days. You'd hear stories about the odd knacker who would shout something on the street but apart from that we lived in as close to utopia in terms of race relations.

We started with a blank slate, in a great time in history. And what has happened? Tensions have been building for years, not from the Chinese community, not from the Indian, Brazilian or Polish community either.

This all tells me that there are certain groups of people (I emphasise the word "groups", because individually they are fine), who simply cannot integrate and build honest hardworking lives for themselves without begging, stealing or borrowing from the government. They are always ready to play the victim card despite our country welcoming them in the 90's with open arms and open hearts.

rossie1977

biko wrote: »

Malmo, Sweden, was "Swedes only" until the 90s sometime.
Today people from 184 different countries live in Malmo. Roughly one-third of Malmö's residents were born in another country.
Counting their children it's easily over 50% with other cultures than Swedish.
In roughly 25 years.

Malmo is also the most crime ridden (highest prevalence of shootings), least working (twice as high unemployment than the rest of the country) and poorest (dependant on government help) city in Sweden. Run by socialists I might add

In Malmo the multicultural attempt have backfired.
Wish as you may, it will not work out better here.

And yet local police say crime has decreased...

Rosengård police officer Sjögren says "we have seen a clear change in the rate of reported crime in the area, it has decreased significantly."

According to the police and the emergency services, there has been a 56 percent decrease (comparing rates from 2009 with 2018). When asked about the unremarkable crime rates in Rosengård, Norling, the national police's press spokesman concurs that "crime statistics do not stand out in especially vulnerable areas."

biko wrote: »

In many ways Sweden is a fantastic place and it's often held up to say "look, this or that social reform works".
But to say they don't have a problem with immigration is a lie.

Immigrants can be a good thing and also a bad thing. It's a mixed blessing.
What we in Ireland must do is to make sure the immigration is small so they can adjust to us and we to them. It must also be highly skilled workers that will contribute from day one and probably also will put a lot effort into integration.

Sweden’s sharp influx of immigrants is the largest of any European nation, as a share of the overall population.

1 in 5 currently living in Sweden were born elsewhere.
My limit is 1 in 10.
What is yours?
1 in 4?
1 in 3?
1 in 2?
When is Sweden not Sweden anymore?

Well firstly, I don't get afraid when I hear about foreign births, because I know in Ireland for example, most foreign births are in the UK, most of them to one or more Irish parents. Sweden I believe has a large number of Finnish born persons.

Neither am I afraid of Ireland becoming a different country, because of the huge influence Irish culture has had on many other countries around the world.

With regards to unemployed and low skilled people, then there is an issue in this country. The governments have made it less attractive to work, and for some people, better paid to stay unemployed. That needs to be addressed, and has done for years.
That is not any argument against multiculturalism, it is an argument against government policy.

CtevenSrowder

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm aware of your obsession with Sweden!
You may think it doesnt work, but the Swedes I worked with, don't have nearly as much of an issue as you do. Yes, there are some problems, but there are problems everywhere when there is low education and unemployment.

Are those swedes from Malmo? I live in Scandinavia and the Swedes I've met from Malmo have all been somewhat concerned about what's happening to their city. Still supposed to be a great place however, it's not gone through the looking glass yet. I hope to visit after Covid to see the place for myself.

Sand

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never acknowledged any such thing? Biko asked what are the positives for him personally, I said there aren’t any. I never said there are only negatives for the indigenous people.

So your position is there is no benefit for indigenous people, but there is benefits for the indigenous people. Regardless of the merits of making that distinction what benefits are you claiming exist?

They are? You don’t need to grant the premise for the sake of argument because the argument already consists of people’s opposition to immigration being based upon the idea that immigrants do not share the values of the indigenous population.

My opposition to mass migration is based on the reality that its bad for the indigenous people. The values, or educational attainment or wealth of the peoples that are mass migrating into the homelands of the indigenous people - legally or illegally - doesn't matter. Numbers matter.

I didn’t imagine I needed to explain to people who claim I share their values that the indigenous population have that obligation because we’re all morally and intellectually superior to immigrants! If people don’t share our values, we take their kids, that’s just the way we roll in our bubbles of moral and intellectual superiority.

You really do need to explain it, which you've failed to do again. Why do indigenous people have to create multicultural societies to mentor foreign groups in their 'values'?

That issue has fcukall to do with immigration. It’s not as though anyone prefers to be raped by the natives. It’s a stupid point, frankly.

When the evidence shows migrant groups are hugely over represented in rapes, then it has a lot to do with immigration. It's entirely reasonable to conclude that if those migrant groups had not been created, the indigenous people would suffer far less rapes than they do.

No it’s not. What you’re referring to is called direct democracy which as far as I’m aware only exists in Switzerland. It certainly doesn’t exist in Ireland which is a representative democracy, which is why politicians only show up on your doorstep any time there’s local or general elections claiming to give a fcuk for your opinion as they wish to represent your opinions at local or national level, but they’re working off their own mandate, not yours.

Look, while your argument on this side issue helpfully highlights things, its still a side issue. Go look up mandate in the democratic or political sense and have your argument with the dictionary.

bubblypop wrote: »

Well firstly, I don't get afraid when I hear about foreign births, because I know in Ireland for example, most foreign births are in the UK, most of them to one or more Irish parents. Sweden I believe has a large number of Finnish born persons.

That sounds kinda odd, that you are less concerned about foreign births because they are neighbours.

It doesn't matter if every single foreigner in Ireland were white Scottish.
Ireland should be 90% Irish people that have spent generation making this country into what it is now, warts and all.
The same goes for Italy, Syria, Nigeria etc

Fun fact - in 2017 the Syrian population overtook the Finnish population in Sweden.
Finns have been in Sweden since the second world war, Syrians maybe 10 years.
But there's nothing to worry about yeah?

biko wrote: »

That sounds kinda odd, that you are less concerned about foreign births because they are neighbours.

It doesn't matter if every single foreigner in Ireland were white Scottish.
Ireland should be 90% Irish people that have spent generation making this country into what it is now, warts and all.

Not because they are neighbours, because they are Irish. So not really 'foreign'

You just believe Ireland should be 'for the Irish ' I don't mind how much the percentage of foreign born, or even foreigners in the country is.
So long as government actually do their job and get people working instead of sitting around on benefits, then it really doesn't matter what their country or origin is.

bubblypop wrote: »

Not because they are neighbours, because they are Irish. So not really 'foreign'

You just believe Ireland should be 'for the Irish ' I don't mind how much the percentage of foreign born, or even foreigners in the country is.
So long as government actually do their job and get people working instead of sitting around on benefits, then it really doesn't matter what their country or origin is.

So Brits/Polish/Pakistani in Ireland are Irish? That doesn't sound right.

I agree on that it doesn't matter what country of origin people from other countries are, as long as there isn't more than 10% of them.

I am conservative. If you look up the definition it's:
adj. Favouring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
adj. Traditional or restrained in style.
adj. Moderate; cautious.

When I look at other countries, like Sweden, I see much problems we don't have, and then I see people here that apparently want the same societal issues they have in France, Germany, UK, now also in Ireland.

What is the problem in Ireland that you hope to fix with immigration?

So, people born to Irish parents are not irish?

There is no problem I wish to solve with immigration, neither do I believe immigration is a problem.
I don't believe the usual chat on here from people about every other country is a failed society because of multiculturalism. It's just not true.

bubblypop wrote: »

So, people born to Irish parents are not irish?

People born to Irish parents should be considered Irish, even when born in Finland.
People born to Italian parents should be considered Italian, even when born in Finland.
Are you ok with that?

bubblypop wrote: »

There is no problem I wish to solve with immigration, neither do I believe immigration is a problem.

Do you think countries should have open borders?
Should anyone be allowed to live where they want?

TomTomTim

bubblypop wrote: »

So, people born to Irish parents are not irish?

There is no problem I wish to solve with immigration, neither do I believe immigration is a problem.
I don't believe the usual chat on here from people about every other country is a failed society because of multiculturalism. It's just not true.

You're really showing your hand here. Even if I was a big immigration supporter, I wouldn't go down your road, which is to deny that issues come with it even if you support it. It's an irrational position, and also highlights the fact that no matter how big the problems get, you'll still deny them. It's part of the reason why debating people like you is pointless, as you are immovable.

biko wrote: »

People born to Irish parents should be considered Irish, even when born in Finland.
People born to Italian parents should be considered Italian, even when born in Finland.
Are you ok with that?

Do you think countries should have open borders?
Should anyone be allowed to live where they want?

Yep, I'm ok with that. I also think that those Italian children born in Finland, should be given some opportunities to become Finnish if they do wish, on certain conditions.
No I don't believe there should be open borders.