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

Cordell

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

What you said was nonsense none of the things you listed will be introduced as laws in Ireland as a result of immigration. So any further discussion has nothing to do with this thread and its topic.

And now you shot me down

Or, should I say, you want this discussion beheaded because it doesn't align with your views?

WrenBoy

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Klaz you cannot be in support of immigration and at the same time against the idea of immigration or believe that immigration only brings negatives.

Those positions are in opposition to each other you cannot hold them both, you can argue about our current immigration practises and suggest ways to improve but you have done nothing of the sort.
So in what way are you supportive of immigration?

Just because you don't agree with the current immigration system does not make one anti-immigrant.
Neither does voicing frustration with crimes and welfare frauds committed by immigrants mean you are racist. IMO You cannot have a generous social welfare system and a loose immigration policy at the same time, it wont work.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

That's because I'm not

"Post: #5801
I have no issue with refugees as such. I have issue with the practicalities involved, the lack of a successful functioning system capable of providing what they need (and they do need more attention than native students by teachers), and more importantly, the lack of any serious drive to create employment for them."

" Post#5567
Ahh well.. I'd like for us for solve the problems within Irish society first before taking on more problems that we're ill-equipped to deal with. Once those problems have been solved, (rather than deferred on to the next generation), then I'd be perfectly happy with helping those in need. In a pragmatic manner, fully aware of the risks, and capable of actually doing some good. Rather than allowing in people so that they can languish at the bottom of the economy. It just seems so short-sighted and ignorant to me. Fix our own problems with the economy, wealth inequalities, our poor, our wonky support systems, our over-reliance on international companies, etc. But, nah.. sure, it'll be fine."

I could go back more, and provide a range of other posts, but the fact is that I'm not against immigration. I'm against badly planned immigration, with little consideration given to the practicalities involved.

Nuance. Just as you've decided to suggest that posters here are against immigration, regardless of whether they're against illegal/undocumented migrants, bogus Asylum seekers, or whatever. Instead, you've decided that just because posters deny the party line, they're anti-immigration. No room for compromise.

Once more you're showing your focus on absolutes. Either you're completely for immigration, or completely against it.

Scan the thread. I've posted many times as to what I would like to see happen with regards to immigration, and multiculturalism.

Is that your best effort, because there is nothing in the posts you presented above that's not anti immigration.
I deal only absolutes, I must be a sith so. :rolleyes:
I am very far from absolutes I have agreed with many of the anti immigrant posts here on certain topics. So lay off the hyperbole.

If your not anti immigrant then lay off the anti immigrant style posting. Every anti foreigner post in recent pages has you thanking them.
For fúck sake you thanked the image of canning which has nothing to do with European immigration and the immigrants under discussion in this thread and was only used to try and stifle discussion and for anti foreigner lols.

Honestly the fact your arguing this is comical.

:D:D

[Deleted User]

Cordell wrote: »

And now you shot me down
Or, should I say, you want this discussion beheaded because it doesn't align with your views?

:rolleyes:

TomTomTim

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Klaz you cannot be in support of immigration and at the same time against the idea of immigration or believe that immigration only brings negatives.

Those positions are in opposition to each other you cannot hold them both, you can argue about our current immigration practises and suggest ways to improve but you have done nothing of the sort.
So in what way are you supportive of immigration?

You're treating a complex topic with the greatest simplicity. Do you really think taking in Europeans is the same as taking in people from Africa or the Middle East? There's a greater cultural difference, a higher chance of issues because of said difference. You're trying to make it a black and white issue where all immigration has the same outcome, when we know that to be false. Cultures are different, some work well with each other, others don't. Some are simply incompatible with the west, especially if they are unwilling to adapt to our way of life.

Physicskid9

TomTomTim wrote: »

You're treating a complex topic with the greatest simplicity. Do you really think taking in Europeans is the same as taking in people from Africa or the Middle East? There's a greater cultural difference, a higher chance of issues because of said difference. You're trying to make it a black and white issue where all immigration has the same outcome, when we know that to be false. Cultures are different, some work well with each other, others don't. Some are simply incompatible with the west, especially if they are unwilling to adapt to our way of life.

How is it any different? There's plenty of European country's who's cultures are vastly different from our own.

[Deleted User]

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Is that your best effort, because there is nothing in the posts you presented above that's not anti immigration.

Well, there we go then. You've just reinforced the point that you only deal in absolutes.

There's little point discussing anything further with you as long as you continue with this kind of logic.

So lay off the hyperbole.

It's not hyperbole. You, yourself, have shown the manner of your perspective on the topic and those who engage in discussing it.

If your not anti immigrant then lay off the anti immigrant style posting.

haha.. sorry.. I just can't stop laughing at this.

Honestly the fact your arguing this is comical. :D:D

True enough... and I won't be arguing anything further with you because it's obvious where you stand. I'm sure you'll be keeping your preferred fire-starters close at hand.

Justin Credible Darts

Physicskid9 wrote: »

How is it any different? There's plenty of European country's who's cultures are vastly different from our own.

you need only look at the UK for example, Irish went there, as did west indians, jamaicans etc,...all integrated,those that did not speak English learned the language etc.

looks at parts of bradford, leicest and countless other cities, where no english speaking areas are a no go, full of people with zero interest in adapting to the uk way of life, zero interest in learning the language.

Enlighten me, how is the UK benefiting from those immigrants ?

biko

TomTomTim wrote: »

You're treating a complex topic with the greatest simplicity. Do you really think taking in Europeans is the same as taking in people from Africa or the Middle East?

Tbh, immigration of Dubs into Galway is enough of a strain on town as it is. Never mind people from other countries..

Physicskid9

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

you need only look at the UK for example, Irish went there, as did west indians, jamaicans etc,...all integrated,those that did not speak English learned the language etc.

looks at parts of bradford, leicest and countless other cities, where no english speaking areas are a no go, full of people with zero interest in adapting to the uk way of life, zero interest in learning the language.

Enlighten me, how is the UK benefiting from those immigrants ?

We're not talking about the UK. That's comparing apples and oranges. There are plenty of studies showing the net benefit of immigration on the host nation you should look them up.

[Deleted User]

TomTomTim wrote: »

You're treating a complex topic with the greatest simplicity. Do you really think taking in Europeans is the same as taking in people from Africa or the Middle East? There's a greater cultural difference, a higher chance of issues because of said difference. You're trying to make it a black and white issue where all immigration has the same outcome, when we know that to be false. Cultures are different, some work well with each other, others don't. Some are simply incompatible with the west, especially if they are unwilling to adapt to our way of life.

No tomtomtim I'm not. To be honest all I am doing in this thread is firefighting anti immigrant sentiment.
What purpose did the caning image serve in furthering discussion on immigration?
What purpose did Cordells post that immigrants will cause us to make pets illegal serve a discussion on immigration?
Now I have Klaz not arguing about immigration policy but rather trying to somehow claim his anti immigration rhetoric is in fact pro immigrant :rolleyes:

That's the last two pages. Cultures are different you are right and yet for millennia cultures have shared ideas and furthered human civilisation but now mixing is bad.
We use arabic numerals in Europe and we can use language to trace the spread across civilisations but you want me to believe cultures cant mix and we must stay in our homogenous boxes and this is just búll****.

Most immigrants in Ireland are from the UK or other EU states yet that's not what we think of when we talk about immigrants is it.
Yet the most destructive immigration to Ireland was our closest neighbour and still a part of our country suffers as result yet its the people of colour who we should watch out for because they will stop us having pets or force us to introduce canning.

[Deleted User]

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

you need only look at the UK for example, Irish went there, as did west indians, jamaicans etc,...all integrated,those that did not speak English learned the language etc.

looks at parts of bradford, leicest and countless other cities, where no english speaking areas are a no go, full of people with zero interest in adapting to the uk way of life, zero interest in learning the language.

Enlighten me, how is the UK benefiting from those immigrants ?

Which parts of Bradford are a no go?

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, there we go then. You've just reinforced the point that you only deal in absolutes.

There's little point discussing anything further with you as long as you continue with this kind of logic.

It's not hyperbole. You, yourself, have shown the manner of your perspective on the topic and those who engage in discussing it.

haha.. sorry.. I just can't stop laughing at this.

True enough... and I won't be arguing anything further with you because it's obvious where you stand. I'm sure you'll be keeping your preferred fire-starters close at hand.

What about the thanking of anti foreigner\immigrant posting?
What benefit did the caning image serve the thread and why did you thank it?

Wibbs

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/policy-ideology-in-european-mass-publics-19812016/EC5CCE297E0EE5CC108EB87C4240E4A9#

While searching for immigrant value studies I came across this study which indicates that European attitudes to immigration has continued to soften over the period of the study data. 1981 to 2016
Which I must say after reading this thread and assuming that majority of anti immigrant views expressed in this thread where indeed the majority opinion has much cheered me up knowing that in fact they are not the majority opinion across Europe.

Soften eh? From the same study: Our measures indicate that since the 1980s, European publics have moved markedly leftward on social issues and modestly so on immigration. So the marked leftward trend in other areas of society aren't matched in attitudes towards immigration and the study looked at immigration as a whole, not attitudes to specific types of immigration.

EDIT I note you avoided my actual point. Again.

Physicskid9 wrote: »

We're not talking about the UK. That's comparing apples and oranges. There are plenty of studies showing the net benefit of immigration on the host nation you should look them up.

Actually in most cases the net benefits when shown are in countries with a long history of immigration because of their status as ex European colonies founded on immigration. And certainly immigration of a skilled integrating demographics regardless of origin are a net, not nearly so much with low skilled less integrating demographics. Again please show me any multicultural nation in Europe where certain demographics don't tend to cluster at the bottom socially and economically, with the all the attendant social problems. Nobody has been able to so far.

One eyed Jack

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Klaz you cannot be in support of immigration and at the same time against the idea of immigration or believe that immigration only brings negatives.

Those positions are in opposition to each other you cannot hold them both, you can argue about our current immigration practises and suggest ways to improve but you have done nothing of the sort.
So in what way are you supportive of immigration?

Is that any different to your being in favour of immigration, but not in favour of immigrants who have no intention of keeping their religion to themselves? You clearly see religion in the public sphere as a negative influence on society, but that’s not quite how they see it in Nigerian society for example. To be fair to him, and I know it’s a long thread, but klaz seems to be pretty much in favour of the Australian system of immigration where only those with skills necessitated in Australian society are permitted entry to the country.

Doublethink isn’t all that complicated to understand really - people are willing to overlook a lot in order to prioritise one thing over another. It’s why people can be in favour of Catholic Education for their children, while at the same time voting in favour of things like marriage equality and repealing the 8th amendment, or not being all that keen on the idea of secular schools turning out mini-philosophers à la the French education system because they figure the State is taking quite enough in income tax already to fund education.

Doublethink is also an issue for people in favour of multiculturalism, but when one delves into just what they mean by ‘multiculturalism’, it’s not multiculturalism at all, but rather an attempt to propagate their own ideas of how they imagine society should be, and not what it would be in reality. Immigrants are perfectly capable as Irish people of doublethink.

A good example to demonstrate the point is the impact upon Nigerian society of an internet celebrity by the name of Bobrisky. The Director-General of the National Council for Arts and Culture had some fairly strong feelings about Bobrisky’s influence on Nigerian society -

’Bobrisky A National Disgrace' — Olusegun Runsewe

I can’t say it was because Bobrisky’s fans prayers were answered*, but a couple of months and a national scandal later -

Olusegun Runsewe Sentenced To Jail By Court For Calling Bobrisky ‘A National Disgrace’

*You should read the comments under Nigerian celebrity culture videos on YouTube, religion is anything but a private matter, it’s a fundamental part of their culture, and they bring it with them when they immigrate into Western countries where they imagine multiculturalism means they’re also free to manifest their religion in the public sphere.

SexBobomb

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Is that your best effort, because there is nothing in the posts you presented above that's not anti immigration.
I deal only absolutes, I must be a sith so. :rolleyes:
I am very far from absolutes I have agreed with many of the anti immigrant posts here on certain topics. So lay off the hyperbole.

If your not anti immigrant then lay off the anti immigrant style posting. Every anti foreigner post in recent pages has you thanking them.
For fúck sake you thanked the image of canning which has nothing to do with European immigration and the immigrants under discussion in this thread and was only used to try and stifle discussion and for anti foreigner lols.

Honestly the fact your arguing this is comical. :D:D

You have failed the progressive purity test Klaz. Unlucky

Wibbs

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

That's the last two pages. Cultures are different you are right and yet for millennia cultures have shared ideas and furthered human civilisation but now mixing is bad.
We use arabic numerals in Europe and we can use language to trace the spread across civilisations but you want me to believe cultures cant mix and we must stay in our homogenous boxes and this is just búll****.

Actually your grasp of history and people movement is simplistic at best. Though this is an argument regularly trotted out in defence of modern multiculturalism so not a surprise. We use Arabic numerals in Europe, but we didn't have to import hundreds of thousands of Arabic folks to do so. Where Arabs did come into Europe it was as an invasion force and they naturally imposed their culture. We got printing all the way from China, same for the compass and the rudder and gunpowder, yet the number of Chinese folks living in Europe at the time would barely fill the crowd at a school GAA game in Mayo. We became a "celtic" country in culture, yet there is no evidence of any migration of celts from central Europe to here. Ideas from other cultures don't require the movement of people of other cultures to transmit them, it only requires contact and trade and a fertile ground of need to encourage them. The same spread of civilisations where and when it occurred on the back of mass movements of people was always down to invasion or conflict. Farming first came to Ireland 6000 years ago from peoples who had come from the near east and the original hunter gatherer people here went genetically extinct.

[Deleted User]

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

What about the thanking of anti foreigner\immigrant posting?
What benefit did the caning image serve the thread and why did you thank it?

Here's some nuance for you. Immigration and multiculturalism are not the same thing... and since the thread is about multiculturalism... my thanking of the image referred to some cultures which carry very negative habits.

I figure you just have to be trolling now to miss things so obvious.

In any case, I'm done with you. We're not getting anywhere, nor is this leading to any kind of meaningful conversation. It just leads to the kind of posting that got Hamachi banned from the thread.

CtevenSrowder

bubblypop wrote: »

Indeed, I have pointed out on this thread previously that I lived in a Muslim country were they held pride parades.

Was it pointed out to you that the balkans isn't a country?

[Deleted User]

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Was it pointed out to you that the balkans isn't a country?

Who thinks it is?

CtevenSrowder

bubblypop wrote: »

Who thinks it is?

Well then what country are you talking about? I'm not sure you ever clarified which one. Maybe I missed it though.

Cordell

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually your grasp of history and people movement is simplistic at best. Though this is an argument regularly trotted out in defence of modern multiculturalism so not a surprise. We use Arabic numerals in Europe, but we didn't have to import hundreds of thousands of Arabic folks to do so.[...]

Not only that, but those were totally different times, when other cultures actually had things to offer.

[Deleted User]

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Well then what country are you talking about? I'm not sure you ever clarified which one. Maybe I missed it though.

Kosovo

Justin Credible Darts

Physicskid9 wrote: »

We're not talking about the UK. That's comparing apples and oranges. There are plenty of studies showing the net benefit of immigration on the host nation you should look them up.

uk , Ireland or whatever, do you think because it happens in the UK it wont happen here ?

Enlighten me, how would things in Ireland be different ?
It would not be, the poor will still be the poor, look at France, Germany, spain,etc and look for yourself to see the demographics , social groups etc.

It does not take a degree to realize different cultures will fare differently, if you think otherwise , thats your choice but you are only deluding yorself

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

Soften eh? From the same study: Our measures indicate that since the 1980s, European publics have moved markedly leftward on social issues and modestly so on immigration. So the marked leftward trend in other areas of society aren't matched in attitudes towards immigration and the study looked at immigration as a whole, not attitudes to specific types of immigration.

EDIT I note you avoided my actual point. Again.

Actually in most cases the net benefits when shown are in countries with a long history of immigration because of their status as ex European colonies founded on immigration. And certainly immigration of a skilled integrating demographics regardless of origin are a net, not nearly so much with low skilled less integrating demographics. Again please show me any multicultural nation in Europe where certain demographics don't tend to cluster at the bottom socially and economically, with the all the attendant social problems. Nobody has been able to so far.

It has moved modestly on immigration in that period but was not starting from a negative position. The key take is that immigration is still viewed positively in the whole in Europe. Contrary to what some posters in this thread would have us believe.

Even the UK still has overall positive attitudes and they are being held up by some as a basket case scenario of immigration and multiculturalism.

What's with the mystery wibbs what is this key point I'm avoiding ask it straight and see if I avoid.

I notice you never came back to accept your assertion that the recent referendums where not overwhelming supported was wrong despite one having over 66% support and the other over 80% support very much contrary to your claims.

Invidious

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The key take is that immigration is still viewed positively in the whole in Europe. Contrary to what some posters in this thread would have us believe.

On what basis are you making that claim?

See: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/10/many-worldwide-oppose-more-migration-both-into-and-out-of-their-countries/

As the number of international migrants reaches new highs, people around the world show little appetite for more migration – both into and out of their countries, according to a Pew Research Center survey of 27 nations conducted in the spring of 2018.

Across the countries surveyed, a median of 45% say fewer or no immigrants should be allowed to move to their country, while 36% say they want about the same number of immigrants. Just 14% say their countries should allow more immigrants. (Those who said no immigrants should be allowed volunteered this response.)

In Europe, majorities in Greece (82%), Hungary (72%), Italy (71%) and Germany (58%) say fewer immigrants or no immigrants at all should be allowed to move to their countries.

[Deleted User]

Invidious wrote: »

On what basis are you making that claim?

See: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/10/many-worldwide-oppose-more-migration-both-into-and-out-of-their-countries/

On the basis of the report I provided a link for earlier which was published in the American Political Science Review (2019)

Edit: link provided again https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/policy-ideology-in-european-mass-publics-19812016/EC5CCE297E0EE5CC108EB87C4240E4A9#

[Deleted User]

Invidious wrote: »

On what basis are you making that claim?

See: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/10/many-worldwide-oppose-more-migration-both-into-and-out-of-their-countries/

Some interesting points for a thread on multicultiurism from that link Invidious.
Top 4 countries by percentage of immigrants
Australia (29%), More immigrants 18% About the same 42% less/none 38% (60% positive)
Israel (24%), More immigrants 9% About the same 15% less/none 73% (Overwhelmingly negative)
Canada (22%) More immigrants 19% About the same 53% less/none 27% (72% positive)
Sweden (18%). More immigrants 14% About the same 33% less/none 52% (47% positive)

Interestingly apart from Israel the other 3 from the top 4 countries for immigrants in their country in the study are not overwhelmingly negative.

Australia and Canada seem to view immigration positively based on the survey and the Swedish numbers would need more understanding to see which way the none and fewer breaks down.

Obviously Israel is a different kettle of fish in terms of its religious makeup and the likely religious makeup of immigrants seeking to enter the country.

Varik

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Australia and Canada seem to view immigration positively based on the survey and the Swedish numbers would need more understanding to see which way the none and fewer breaks down.

Obviously Israel is a different kettle of fish in terms of its religious makeup and the likely religious makeup of immigrants seeking to enter the country.

Australia is very restrictive on immigration so "about the same" isn't a ringing endorsement on it.

[Deleted User]

Varik wrote: »

Australia is very restrictive on immigration so "about the same" isn't a ringing endorsement on it.

For a country with 29% of the population made up by immigrants its hardly negative either.

The study from the Cambridge site I linked has some criticism for these single type question regarding immigration worth the read if you have time.

Edit: Some additional info on Australian immigration for year ending 2019

Australia's population increased by 239,600 people due to net overseas migration.

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/migration-australia/latest-release#:~:text=For the year ending 30,million migrants living in Australia.