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

I would like to see a Boards.ie Consensus.

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

Agree/Disagree?

Mod:

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

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

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

Find more posts tagged with

racism

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

we're-not-racist

Quick Links

Comments

Deleted User wrote: »

Come on, you can't be this blind to the practicalities of immigration, and hosting different groups in a foreign (foreign to them, and so, without the usual supports) nation.

There has to more nuance than this blanket statement. We already host many foreign born people in our nation. The European project and its open borders and free movement of EU nation people means we have already chosen as a nation to accept foreign born people. And Irish people are overwhelmingly supportive of EU membership and the benefits it brings and with that we accept the movement of foreign born EU peoples into our country. So it is not the movement into the country of foreign born people that is a problem.
Unless you have an issue with EU freedom of movement.

Deleted User wrote: »

I shouldn't need a disclaimer here but I can see I need one with you.

First, my opinions are my own. Nothing to do with Wibbs or other posters. They might like my post, but i know they don't agree with everything I say..
Second, this is not about migrants being good or bad individually. These are generalisations. If you can't accept that.. well.. I wonder why you're discussing such a topic at all.

I will take thanks and defence of another posters comments as acceptance of those comments otherwise all discussion should be moved from the main forum and be conducted only by PM.

Deleted User wrote: »

Now.

Immigration groups:

Genuine Asylum seeker. No problem at all. If they meet the requirements, I'd welcome them with open arms.. although I do think the requirements need to re-evaluated from time to time, and not from the perspective of the UN, but from the perspective of the host nation (that's the one receiving them)

Ireland does indeed set its own requirements for asylum seeker applications
The UN site states as much
https://www.unhcr.org/en-ie/frequently-asked-questions-for-asylum-seekers-and-refugees-in-ireland.html

http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/apply-for-asylum

So genuine asylum seekers are ok you say and the asylum application process is supposed to ensure that only valid applications are approved. If you have concerns around this raise it with candidates during the next election when you meet them at your doorstep or write to your TD and the minister for justice outlining your concerns.

I will state I am reasonably happy in the work the INIS do in trying decide asylum applications. It is not easy and because it is a legal process can take some time to ensure all due process is adhered to. That is correct IMO.

Deleted User wrote: »

Economic migrants. Temporary. (which is important)
Two distinct groups.
Skilled/educated migrants who are meeting established needs within the economy. Totally welcome. They'll work hard, save money, pay their taxes, and move on eventually.
Unskilled/low educated migrants. I've said it before, and no doubt I'll say it again.. Ireland doesn't have the economy or industry focus to support large numbers of unskilled labor. Other countries such as Germany or France do.. and even they're having issues with employing them consistently.

Does this include EU and UK citizens?
What about meat factory workers and farm labourers for example they are hardly high skilled jobs and are largely done by migrant workers is that an acceptable usage of transient migrant workers?

Deleted User wrote: »

Economic migrants. Permanent, residency or citizenship.
Skilled/educated migrants who are meeting established needs within the economy. Again, totally welcome.
Unskilled/low educated migrants... cost the state too much to upskill and provide for during the period that they're being upskilled. Results across Europe show a surprisingly low success rate in educating such migrant groups, and while the blame is being directed at the nations involved, simple logic suggests that some must rest with these migrants. A large percentage stay on welfare during their education, and return to it after.

Again does this statement include EU and UK citizens?
Are building labourers for example skilled migrant workers to you?

Deleted User wrote: »

Refugees. That's a tough one because it's been allowed to expand into economic as opposed to purely due to war. I don't believe we should be accepting them, and that they should be heading to neighboring countries, waiting until they can return home to rebuild. Hopefully, leading their country into a new future of enlightenment and peace.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/asylum_seekers_and_refugees/the_asylum_process_in_ireland/refugees_asylum_seekers_introduction.html

Refugee is a loaded term and I'm not really sure what you mean. A successful asylum application becomes a refuge I which case if that is what you mean see my answer above for asylum seekers.

Or perhaps you mean
Programme refugee
A Programme refugee is a person who has been invited to Ireland under a Government decision in response to a humanitarian request, usually from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), either for the purposes of temporary protection or resettlement.

In which case the government has invited them so I see no issue. If you disagree with government actions the correct action is to vote for someone who will do what you please at the next election.

Deleted User wrote: »

As OEJ said earlier, I do favor the Australian approach to immigration. I don't see the point in importing an underclass of unskilled/lowly educated people into the country, when we already have such groups of our own. Europe has a rather large unemployment rate depending on which countries you examine, and I feel that we would be much better off tapping into that labor market than importing or encouraging groups from countries which are distinctly different than ours culturally.

Again are you referring to EU citizens here when you say Europe?
For example I believe Spain has one of the highest unemployment rates in the EU but you know what their citizens have one of the lowest outward migration rates in the world. Are you suggesting we should entice these unemployed people to come and how would this benefit Ireland?

Deleted User wrote: »

Which leads into multiculturalism, where I feel Ireland would be better off focusing on improving links to other European countries, rather than bringing in peoples whose values and beliefs are often distinctly different from ours.

Improving links in what way?
Build a bridge to mainland europe?
We are a member of the EU we accept the free movement of EU citizens and are an active and willing participant in the EU. Irish people are already one of those most supportive groups of people of the EU project.

Deleted User wrote: »

The effects of multiculturalism are well documented throughout Europe, which rarely show any friction between European cultural groups, but has shown increasing friction with groups from outside Europe. I'd favor a set limit on immigration from Africa, M.East and S.America. I'm less bothered by Asians, as they tend to avoid any trouble leading to friction, don't demand recognition of their culture, and are usually very successful in finding work.

Rarely any friction except the two world wars and if we ignore places like the Basque and northern Ireland.
It would also be remiss of us to ignore the role European imperialism caused in the issues still present in modern day in Africa and the middle east.

But outside of Asylum applications I believe work visa applications need to meet one of the 9 criteria to gain a work visa for Ireland for all non EU/EEA applicants. This covers all the geographic areas above you mentioned.
I would not be in favour of writing hard limits on any particular country or region and would hope that the 9 criteria should be enough and if not meeting the needs then clean up the requirements under those criteria.

https://enterprise.gov.ie/en/What-We-Do/Workplace-and-Skills/Employment-Permits/Permit-Types/

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm interested in a pragmatic system being put in place, that provides what migrants need to be a success (education, work placement, etc) but sets a time limit for how long migrants can fail before becoming self-sufficient. I'd favor deportations for any migrant who fails to become self-sufficient within a 10 year period (assuming that education acquisition was part of that). Any children born during that period would leave with the parents should the fail to meet the requirements.

The government must have a legal system in place for how to deal with migrants and perhaps some of the rules could be tightened up I will not argue on that and I can agree that a faster method for the removal of failed migrants should be addressed but it has to be legal and fair system. And the system must meet EU laws on the matter.

But again I assume the above section does not apply to EU citizens

Deleted User wrote: »

As for multiculturalism and Islam.. Yup.. I have a bone there. Not because I have anything against Islam (or Muslims themselves).. since I've spent time in the M.East and think they're entitled to their cultural choices. However, I do have concerns about Islam in Europe, for example, with what's happening in France, (not just the violence, but the ethnic enclaves, and the colonialism of certain areas by migrant groups).. The issues with Islam and the failure of integration highlight the problems with integration for other racial/cultural groups.

So.. there you go. A decent and detailed answer. We'll see whether you deal with it in good faith, or continue as you have so far.

I don't think we can too much conflate the ghettos of France as a result of their colonial past with Irelands current issue with migrants.
Many of the Muslims and African heritage underclass in France are in fact French citizens. Are these some of the unemployed EU workers you were talking about earlier in your post, you wanted us to entice here?

As for Islam and religion in general I would support any call for a more secular state and stricter control over religions and religious education in Ireland.

On to islam and muslims in general
I have worked with a number of muslim persons over my years in employment and to be honest I have found them a mixed bag much as I have found Irish people.
However I also support freedom to practise your religion so long as it is does in private homes or places of worship and does not breach any laws of this nation. So I can't support any ban on migrants based on religious belief. In fact it would be in breach of our own Equal status Act as religion is one of the 9 protected grounds and for the most part I am supportive of our various government parties and see no major issues with them (apart from wishing we as an electorate could move further from civil war politically alignment. But that is happening somewhat)

Klaz again thank you for taking the time to post your opinion in this way it does more to further discussion than much of the comments over the past number of pages.

Robbie

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I will take thanks and defence of another posters comments as acceptance of those comments otherwise all discussion should be moved from the main forum and be conducted only by PM.

Spit it out man. Name names. Don't hint, own your opinions.

Rarely any friction except the two world wars and if we ignore places like the Basque and northern Ireland.

Indeed, though we've settled down a lot since then and have had one of the most continuously peaceful and prosperous periods in European history and yet we should seek to import more possibilities of interethnic friction? Sounds like a good plan.

It would also be remiss of us to ignore the role European imperialism caused in the issues still present in modern day in Africa and the middle east.

And present generations of Europeans are in hock for the sins of our great great grandparents? The same imperial powers didn't exactly treat their own peasantry too well. There was a reason for the French Revolution and the Russian one. Never mind the Far East was also affected by European imperialism and yet they're the rising economic force in the world today and many states in the ME are swimming in riches.

What about meat factory workers and farm labourers for example they are hardly high skilled jobs and are largely done by migrant workers is that an acceptable usage of transient migrant workers?

"Transient" and "workers" being the operative words here. A bit different to more permanent and more unemployed.

And now we're onto the EU.... Internal EU migration is what we signed up for and hasn't lead to ghettoisation in Ireland, though recent influxes of migrants from outside Europe are already setting up enclaves within some European nations. For the most part they're coming from similar liberal western European cultures with similar education and governmental systems and attitudes to religion or lack thereof(Poland could be seen as an outlier as there's still quite the conservative streak in play).

We're discussing multiculturalism and the modern multiculturalist politic barely recognises White, nominally "christian", Europeans in the mix. Even though nearly 200,000 of same currently live in Ireland. You mentioned "race", well the same modern multiculturalist politic is positively obsessed with it and identity politics and sees the group affiliation just as starkly as any hardline right winger and only seems to recognise "proper" multiculturalism on those terms. 200,000 White non native people in Ireland, not really multicultural, we need more Black and Brown people for some reason. For that matter East Asians barely get a look in either. In the US they've gone even further by removing East Asians from POC studies into education and economic surveys, because they to do better on average than other POC and better even than the White population, so skew the stats and make for uncomfortable questions.

And I note you still haven't answered the question I posed. Can you find me any European multicultural nation where those of African and ME origins(and nomadic peoples) don't tend to cluster at the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder and don't tend to set up urban enclaves? So why should we seek to import another more complex underclass on top of our own?

I have fully agreed that racism on the part of the native White population is a huge factor in that(though it's not the only factor, internal cultural differences can be at play too), but again how are we supposed to magically make things different? We've only had multiculturalism for about two decades and the self same trends and narratives are already in play, so it seems we won't make things different and instead can look forward to the same social issues and divisions as other multicultural nations before us.

Oh and before anyone gets too excited around the "race" bit, the different outcomes are clearly cultural. UK Pakistanis do notably worse on average than UK Indians. Same "race". Bahrainis do better than Turks, same "race". African immigrants to the US do better than African Americans. Same "race". Closer to home; Irish settled people do far better than Irish Travellers. Same "race".

Wibbs wrote: »

Spit it out man. Name names. Don't hint, own your opinions.

What are you being so aggressive about?
If you make a post (poster a) and poster b comes along to defend your position they cant later claim oh that's not my position. Plenty of examples in the thread find your own names rather than trying to get me to pick fights.

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed, though we've settled down a lot since then and have had one of the most continuously peaceful and prosperous periods in European history and yet we should seek to import more possibilities of interethnic friction? Sounds like a good plan.

Indeed after the scale the two wars took on human life in Europe you would hope for peace and after we all but wiped from Europe our favoured ethnic group to pick on. So our peace came at quite some price. I would hope you are not wishing that level of ethnic cleansing on any branch of our fellow Muslim humans.

Wibbs wrote: »

And present generations of Europeans are in hock for the sins of our great great grandparents? The same imperial powers didn't exactly treat their own peasantry too well. There was a reason for the French Revolution and the Russian one. Never mind the Far East was also affected by European imperialism and yet they're the rising economic force in the world today and many states in the ME are swimming in riches.

Those are your words wibbs I never expressed that sentiment. But I believe European nations for their own benefit should aid in the reconstruction of Africa after the damage some nations assisted in creating in that continent both socially and economically.
Or we can leave it to behemoth of far east asia (China) to steal in and further plunder the continent of its natural resources.

Wibbs wrote: »

"Transient" and "workers" being the operative words here. A bit different to more permanent and more unemployed.

Eh wibbs didn't I use transient and workers right under a section Klaz had titled "Economic migrants. Temporary" .
Is transient workers not acceptable terminology for Economic migrants. Temporary ?
It seems your arguing against something I didn't say. Again there is that aggression in your posting to me. Your set on attacking me not discussing anything.

Wibbs wrote: »

And now we're onto the EU.... Internal EU migration is what we signed up for and hasn't lead to ghettoisation in Ireland, though recent influxes of migrants from outside Europe are already setting up enclaves within some European nations. For the most part they're coming from similar liberal western European cultures with similar education and governmental systems and attitudes to religion or lack thereof(Poland could be seen as an outlier as there's still quite the conservative streak in play).

Can you name these enclaves in Ireland please so we can properly talk about what might have caused them.

Wibbs wrote: »

We're discussing multiculturalism and the modern multiculturalist politic barely recognises White, nominally "christian", Europeans in the mix. Even though nearly 200,000 of same currently live in Ireland. You mentioned "race", well the same modern multiculturalist politic is positively obsessed with it and identity politics and sees the group affiliation just as starkly as any hardline right winger and only seems to recognise "proper" multiculturalism on those terms. 200,000 White non native people in Ireland, not really multicultural, we need more Black and Brown people for some reason. For that matter East Asians barely get a look in either. In the US they've gone even further by removing East Asians from POC studies into education and economic surveys, because they to do better on average than other POC and better even than the White population, so skew the stats and make for uncomfortable questions.

Again your attacking me over things I just simply haven't said. I am no spokesperson for identity politics so please address the things I'm saying and not the issues in your head.

Wibbs wrote: »

And I note you still haven't answered the question I posed. Can you find me any European multicultural nation where those of African and ME origins(and nomadic peoples) don't tend to cluster at the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder and don't tend to set up urban enclaves? So why should we seek to import another more complex underclass on top of our own?

It would be wrong to assume that all these "enclaves" have been caused by the same issues. Surely your not suggesting each of these undefined enclaves has the same events leading to their creation so perhaps it might be better to discuss each such enclave on its own merits. So name the first you like most and we can talk.

Wibbs wrote: »

I have fully agreed that racism on the part of the native White population is a huge factor in that(though it's not the only factor, internal cultural differences can be at play too), but again how are we supposed to magically make things different? We've only had multiculturalism for about two decades and the self same trends and narratives are already in play, so it seems we won't make things different and instead can look forward to the same social issues and divisions as other multicultural nations before us.

So if you can accept racism is one of the issues and one we as a people can address then should we not address that issue. It might not solve all the problems but it is something we can strive to correct regardless.

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh and before anyone gets too excited around the "race" bit, the different outcomes are clearly cultural. UK Pakistanis do notably worse on average than UK Indians. Same "race". Bahrainis do better than Turks, same "race". African immigrants to the US do better than African Americans. Same "race". Closer to home; Irish settled people do far better than Irish Travellers. Same "race".

The UK Muslim community is an interesting one and I'm not sure the same variables are at play in Ireland. I believe a large percentage of Uk muslims actually come from a quite small geographic area or maybe two and from specific ethnic groups and these geographically and ethnically similar groups have tended to stick together in those same groupings in Britain.

Also I don't think many of the UK Muslims were asylum seekers were they not encouraged to come in by the UK government to fill in labour shortages.
Anyway like I said I think there is enough difference between UK muslims and modern muslim immigrants to ireland to warrant considering if their might be different outcomes.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

There has to more nuance than this blanket statement.

Now you want to accept and apply nuance, when you were incapable of appreciating it before? I honestly did have high hopes that you wouldn't be repeating the posting style of yesterday, but those hopes have been dashed.

We already host many foreign born people in our nation. The European project and its open borders and free movement of EU nation people means we have already chosen as a nation to accept foreign born people. And Irish people are overwhelmingly supportive of EU membership and the benefits it brings and with that we accept the movement of foreign born EU peoples into our country. So it is not the movement into the country of foreign born people that is a problem. Unless you have an issue with EU freedom of movement.

Yup. I'm going to say it. Duh. And in spite of my suggestion that you read something of the thread, it's obvious that you haven't. European migration of natives from within the EU are not considered a problem.

You have this... problem with dealing with what has been written and going off on tangents that are unrelated.

And I could go through all your multi-quotes but you have just confirmed that while you will address points, you'll seek to twist them rather than deal directly with what's written.

Frankly, you're just a clone of a variety of posters who came through before, being obtuse for the sake of it, and avoiding committing to any true stance, except to pass judgment on other posters.

I gave you a respectable and polite response to your question, and you shat on it. Well done.

I will take thanks and defence of another posters comments as acceptance of those comments otherwise all discussion should be moved from the main forum and be conducted only by PM.

Naturally. Back to having those fire-starters handy.

Klaz again thank you for taking the time to post your opinion in this way it does more to further discussion than much of the comments over the past number of pages.

Robbie

It's quite possible that I've gone through your post (three times now) and misunderstood the attitudes shown.. Perhaps I have, but I don't think I did.

Now. I am truly finished with you, and won't be responding or posting to anything you write. I tried giving you the benefit of doubt but that seems to have fallen flat.

Deleted User wrote: »

Now you want to accept and apply nuance, when you were incapable of appreciating it before? I honestly did have high hopes that you wouldn't be repeating the posting style of yesterday, but those hopes have been dashed.

Yup. I'm going to say it. Duh. And in spite of my suggestion that you read something of the thread, it's obvious that you haven't. European migration of natives from within the EU are not considered a problem.

You have this... problem with dealing with what has been written and going off on tangents that are unrelated.

And I could go through all your multi-quotes but you have just confirmed that while you will address points, you'll seek to twist them rather than deal directly with what's written.

Frankly, you're just a clone of a variety of posters who came through before, being obtuse for the sake of it, and avoiding committing to any true stance, except to pass judgment on other posters.

I gave you a respectable and polite response to your question, and you shat on it. Well done.

Naturally. Back to having those fire-starters handy.

It's quite possible that I've gone through your post (three times now) and misunderstood the attitudes shown.. Perhaps I have, but I don't think I did.

Now. I am truly finished with you, and won't be responding or posting to anything you write. I tried giving you the benefit of doubt but that seems to have fallen flat.

I have answered your post in good faith and honestly. I have refrained from aggressive posting or any abuse.
This thread is over 400 pages long and I'm not going down that rabbit hole. If there is a post in particular you want me to read by all means link it for me but I am not going back over the last 400 pages much of what amounts to drivel.

If you don't want to discuss with those of a different opinion then maybe you shouldn't reply to me. But that is your choice.

*Jackson Popcorn*

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

What are you being so aggressive about?

Man, you define "aggressive" rather loosely.

If you make a post (poster a) and poster b comes along to defend your position they cant later claim oh that's not my position. Plenty of examples in the thread find your own names rather than trying to get me to pick fights.

You were the one who brought it up, so it behoves you to be clear, not anyone else.

Indeed after the scale the two wars took on human life in Europe you would hope for peace and after we all but wiped from Europe our favoured ethnic group to pick on. So our peace came at quite some price. I would hope you are not wishing that level of ethnic cleansing on any branch of our fellow Muslim humans.

Ah yeah sure... that's what I was implying. :rolleyes:

Those are your words wibbs I never expressed that sentiment.

And yet you go on to say

But I believe European nations for their own benefit should aid in the reconstruction of Africa after the damage some nations assisted in creating in that continent both socially and economically.

So it is our responsibility to atone for and fix the deeds of our forebears? Apparently for some nebulous benefit.

Or we can leave it to behemoth of far east asia (China) to steal in and further plunder the continent of its natural resources.

It's up to various African nations, their people and their leaders to stop that plunder, or are they somehow not capable of that?

Never mind that the West has spent untold billions in aid to many African nations and continues to do so yet here we are. To take Nigeria as one example, it has one of the most natural resource rich countries on Earth, has a very long history of different cultures and civilisations and has been independent for 60 years it should be among the better off and yet it's not and is crippled by corruption from top to bottom. At some point enough is enough. Sort your own house out before you look for more money for the money pit. I fully support supporting to the hilt locals who want to make these changes, but beyond invading the place again and setting up a new government and public service system I don't know what good will come from doing the same thing we've always done.

It seems your arguing against something I didn't say.

The lack of self awareness is staggering.

Can you name these enclaves in Ireland please so we can properly talk about what might have caused them.

It would be wrong to assume that all these "enclaves" have been caused by the same issues. Surely your not suggesting each of these undefined enclaves has the same events leading to their creation so perhaps it might be better to discuss each such enclave on its own merits. So name the first you like most and we can talk.

You're avoiding my actual question like the very plague. Again this is my question:

Can you find me any European multicultural nation where those of African and ME origins(and nomadic peoples) don't tend to cluster at the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder and don't tend to set up urban enclaves?

Forget enclaves as I'm getting the feeling of yet another deflection, can you please answer that first part? Different European nations, different European political systems, different European economies, climates local cultures etc, yet the exact same trends.

But if we want to talk of enclaves? OK. It is an observable part of human nature throughout human history and throughout the world that people prefer to be around those most like themselves. The same socioeconomic backgrounds, the same "race", ethnicity, language, religion, culture, politic. Go to any long established large multicultural city on the planet and you will find the same thing. Go to say New York and ask a local where do the Italians/Jews/Irish/African Americans/Russians/Chinese/Vietnamese tend to live and they'll be able to point you in that direction(ditto for the rich/middle class/poor of same or in general). It's what people do. It's innate. So in Dublin you have areas with more Muslims that cluster around places of worship, same for Jews. You have more Black people in Blanchardstown compared to similar areas. Human nature. So how do you stop that? Do you legislate quotas per area. Oh I'm sorry Mr Khan you can't move into the South Circular road because our quota for Muslims is filled at the moment, we're only renting/selling to people with O' or Mc in their second names. Add in socioeconomic factors where lower skilled migrants can only afford places in certain areas and that compounds the problem further. Now you can go the more social housing route, but again people will request to be around friends and family and community.

Take ethnicity out of it entirely and look at social housing in the wider context. We have legislation that requires a percentage of new builds to go to social housing and what tends to happen is people who bought in the area aren't too happy about it and those in the social housing don't feel nearly so welcome because of economic differences. Add in obvious racial and cultural differences and that becomes amplified.

So yes enclaves strongly tend to have the same reasons for creation and continuing to exist and get reinforced over time and the guts of these reasons is quite understandable human nature.

Or this question, which nobody seems willing to acknowledge never mind answer:

So why should we seek to import another more complex underclass on top of our own?

So if you can accept racism is one of the issues and one we as a people can address then should we not address that issue. It might not solve all the problems but it is something we can strive to correct regardless.

Of course racism is one of the issues, it's one of the single biggest issues. Only a fool, an actual racist, or someone in complete denial would try to claim it's not, yet it doesn't seem to be going away any time soon after decades of education and attempts to reduce it across many different countries in Europe and across the world. Oh sure it gets less overt, more hidden and we have lovely catch phrases and feel good campaigns warning against the evils of it and yet again here we are. Ask any person who stands out above the background peoples in Europe and indeed Ireland and ask them. They'll tell you of their experiences of it first hand. Again how are we as a people going to change the Them and Us aspect of human nature? A trait that's been around since the egg and a trait that is not restricted to one or two groups. Hope is a great trait of human nature, but some reality has to come into it too.

Anyway like I said I think there is enough difference between UK muslims and modern muslim immigrants to ireland to warrant considering if their might be different outcomes.

and yet...

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/islamic-radicals-in-ireland-now-number-100-or-more-warns-cleric-35805820.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/uk-extremists-may-try-to-radicalise-irish-muslims-cleric-1.2501535

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/rise-in-far-right-and-islamic-extremism-activity-in-ireland-last-year-says-europol-1.4287646

https://www.irishcentral.com/news/irishvoice/ireland-and-its-muslim-population-in-a-post-charlie-hebdo-attack-world

The risks of things going nuts here to the same degree as England or France are low for the moment and hopefully it stays that way, but some aspects of radicalism are already here.

Deleted User wrote: »

You have this... problem with dealing with what has been written and going off on tangents that are unrelated.

And I could go through all your multi-quotes but you have just confirmed that while you will address points, you'll seek to twist them rather than deal directly with what's written.

Frankly, you're just a clone of a variety of posters who came through before, being obtuse for the sake of it, and avoiding committing to any true stance, except to pass judgment on other posters.

Sadly this.

Wibbs wrote: »

and yet...

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/islamic-radicals-in-ireland-now-number-100-or-more-warns-cleric-35805820.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/uk-extremists-may-try-to-radicalise-irish-muslims-cleric-1.2501535

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/rise-in-far-right-and-islamic-extremism-activity-in-ireland-last-year-says-europol-1.4287646

https://www.irishcentral.com/news/irishvoice/ireland-and-its-muslim-population-in-a-post-charlie-hebdo-attack-world

The risks of things going nuts here to the same degree as England or France are low for the moment and hopefully it stays that way, but some aspects of radicalism are already here.

Who is off on a tangent now.
I spoke about the nature of the UK Muslim immigrants coming from one or two main geographic areas and being of a specific ethnic group. Then you post loads of links about radicalisation.

But yeah wibbs its me going off on tangents. Your gas altogether.

:D:D

Anyway the sound of my posts have echoed around the chambers of this thread long enough now.

Good luck in the next election lads, I very much hope whatever anti immigrant political party you decide to support in that election is as successful as the last.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Who is off on a tangent now.
I spoke about the nature of the UK Muslim immigrants coming from one or two main geographic areas and being of a specific ethnic group. Then you post loads of links about radicalisation.

But yeah wibbs its me going off on tangents. Your gas altogether. :D:D

Nope. You said and I quote:

Anyway like I said I think there is enough difference between UK muslims and modern muslim immigrants to ireland to warrant considering if their might be different outcomes.

I merely pointed out that the different outcomes, outcomes that have radicalisation as a large part of the problem, are already here, albeit in a much smaller way. Not a tangent, except in your head or a way to avoid the point. Again.

I note you keep refusing to debate certain points, because you know you can't, or you know the debate won't go your way.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Anyway the sound of my posts have echoed around the chambers of this thread long enough now.

Good luck in the next election lads, I very much hope whatever anti immigrant political party you decide to support in that election is as successful as the last.

And we have the final act of the usual play. Start off apparently open for debate, when points are raised and debated further, add in a simplistic if hopeful understanding of history and cultures, run to deflection, or avoidance, throw in the hint of a tint of racism in other posters, add another hint of a tint of aggression in other posters, all capped with some of the oul passive aggression usually with added smileys, then some went the personal attack route(though to be fair to you, you didn't go there and didn't double down on personal attacks) and then leave citing "echo chambers" believing you've made your point.

At least the position is consistent I'll give it that.

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope. You said and I quote:

Anyway like I said I think there is enough difference between UK muslims and modern muslim immigrants to ireland to warrant considering if their might be different outcomes.

And where is the preceding bit that sets the up that comment Wibbs?
Talk about selectively quoting me to drive your own narrative and answer your own question and then moan that I didn't answer your question.
Like I said gas stuff altogether

But sure because I'm so helpful Wibbs I'll quote myself so you dont have to lie about what I typed.

The UK Muslim community is an interesting one and I'm not sure the same variables are at play in Ireland. I believe a large percentage of Uk muslims actually come from a quite small geographic area or maybe two and from specific ethnic groups and these geographically and ethnically similar groups have tended to stick together in those same groupings in Britain.

Also I don't think many of the UK Muslims were asylum seekers were they not encouraged to come in by the UK government to fill in labour shortages.
Anyway like I said I think there is enough difference between UK muslims and modern muslim immigrants to ireland to warrant considering if their might be different outcomes.

Wibbs wrote: »

And we have the final act of the usual play. Start off apparently open for debate, when points are raised and debated further, add in a simplistic if hopeful understanding of history and cultures, run to deflection, or avoidance, throw in the hint of a tint of racism in other posters, add another hint of a tint of aggression in other posters, all capped with some of the oul passive aggression usually with added smileys, then some went the personal attack route(though to be fair to you, you didn't go there and didn't double down on personal attacks) and then leave citing "echo chambers" believing you've made your point.

At least the position is consistent I'll give it that.

You me and everyone in this thread at times refuses to debate points, none of us are under any obligation.
Have you got a problem with that?

And what's with bringing up the suggestion of personal attacks to try and confuse the issue.
I have never personally attacked anyone which you admit so why even bring it up?
You accuse me of deflection and then do the very same thing.

I am a lone voice for one side of an argument when I leave the argument that will leave only a single side of the argument discussing the point with its self if that is not an echo chamber or hollow debate then what is it?

There have been numerous ad hominem posts regarding me over the past few pages and I am changing no ones opinion nor anyone changing mine.
What possible purpose could there be for me to continue to argue for more days on this topic.
Nothing in this thread will change government policy or impact my life so why waste my time any further.

Then I have the decency to let you know I am leaving so no one wastes more time selectively quoting my posts looking for arguments about things I simply did not say.

Anyway I'm off to live my multicultural life with my multicultural wife and children where just so you know we are not living in some radicalised enclave in Ireland.

here have a few more emojis :eek: :pac:

And another one bites the dust.

Kivaro wrote: »

And another one bites the dust.

Only if its halal dust.

Justin Credible Darts

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I have never personally attacked anyone which you admit so why even bring it up?
You accuse me of deflection and then do the very same thing.

I think trying to infer the majority on here are racist is insulting.

As for deflecting, countless people have told you its not a race issue, but you have flat out ignored that and only hear what you want to hear.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Anyway like I said I think there is enough difference between UK muslims and modern muslim immigrants to ireland to warrant considering if their might be different outcomes.

I’m here racking my brain to think of any possible differences... and I really can’t think of any, or why you imagine there might be any differences between Muslims in the UK, and Muslims in Ireland, or what those differences might be. I expect the outcomes will be exactly the same as their UK counterparts - they integrate into any society only as much as they want to, but for the most part keep to themselves among their own communities, which is what a multicultural society actually is in reality.

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I think trying to infer the majority on here are racist is insulting.

As for deflecting, countless people have told you its not a race issue, but you have flat out ignored that and only hear what you want to hear.

Wibbs wrote: »

I have fully agreed that racism on the part of the native White population is a huge factor in that

Take that up with Wibbs who pointed out that "racism" is a "huge factor" in the issue most people have with immigration. :rolleyes:

I have never directly called anyone racist so the inference is entirely your own.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m here racking my brain to think of any possible differences... and I really can’t think of any, or why you imagine there might be any differences between Muslims in the UK, and Muslims in Ireland, or what those differences might be. I expect the outcomes will be exactly the same as their UK counterparts - they integrate into any society only as much as they want to, but for the most part keep to themselves among their own communities, which is what a multicultural society actually is in reality.

Well maybe the answer isn't in your brain. Maybe look somewhere else.

Here is that whole quote for you

The UK Muslim community is an interesting one and I'm not sure the same variables are at play in Ireland. I believe a large percentage of Uk muslims actually come from a quite small geographic area or maybe two and from specific ethnic groups and these geographically and ethnically similar groups have tended to stick together in those same groupings in Britain.

Also I don't think many of the UK Muslims were asylum seekers were they not encouraged to come in by the UK government to fill in labour shortages.
Anyway like I said I think there is enough difference between UK muslims and modern muslim immigrants to ireland to warrant considering if their might be different outcomes.

Justin Credible Darts

difference is wibbs did not accuse us on here of being racist ?

Are you even reading the posts ?

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

difference is wibbs did not accuse us on here of being racist ?

Are you even reading the posts ?

Are you white, do you have a problem with immigration?

Then wibbs implied a huge part in that is racism

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Well maybe the answer isn't in your brain. Maybe look somewhere else.

Here is that whole quote for you

The UK Muslim community is an interesting one and I'm not sure the same variables are at play in Ireland. I believe a large percentage of Uk muslims actually come from a quite small geographic area or maybe two and from specific ethnic groups and these geographically and ethnically similar groups have tended to stick together in those same groupings in Britain.

Also I don't think many of the UK Muslims were asylum seekers were they not encouraged to come in by the UK government to fill in labour shortages.
Anyway like I said I think there is enough difference between UK muslims and modern muslim immigrants to ireland to warrant considering if their might be different outcomes.

I am looking elsewhere, I was looking for an answer from you as to what these differences you refer to might be, because I tried, and I couldn’t think of any, so I figured best thing to do was ask you. I just quoted the last bit of your post because it was a summation of the same point you’d already made in the post. It wasn’t an attempt to take anything out of context if that’s what you think I was doing in not quoting the full post.

I’m still none the wiser on what you mean by the differences between Muslim communities in the UK and modern Muslim immigrants to Ireland, or what variables are in play that would demonstrate any differences?

Justin Credible Darts

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Are you white, do you have a problem with immigration?

Then wibbs implied a huge part in that is racism

again if you actually READ the posts on here you would have read where I have no issue with any color race etc coming here if they are willing to work.

my issue is with unskilled people who offer nothing and end up leeching of the system. I will say it AGAIN since you clearly are not grasping it, it is a finacial reason not a racial one.

and for the record, i am in a mixed race marriage, so dont give me that horsesh1t that because i am white i must be stereotypical.

Go take your agenda somewhere else.

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

again if you actually READ the posts on here you would have read where I have no issue with any color race etc coming here if they are willing to work.

my issue is with unskilled people who offer nothing and end up leeching of the system. I will say it AGAIN since you clearly are not grasping it, it is a finacial reason not a racial one.

and for the record, i am in a mixed race marriage, so dont give me that horsesh1t that because i am white i must be stereotypical.

Go take your agenda somewhere else.

Take your offence up with Wibbs he pointed out that one of the main reason the white national population was opposed to immigration was racism.
Why are you asking me about what wibbs said?

Where is this post in which I called you racist?

I have linked now twice to Wibbs comments where he accuses those of opposing immigration of being racist. Do you need the comments a third time to understand who posted it.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Take that up with Wibbs who pointed out that "racism" is a "huge factor" in the issue most people have with immigration. :rolleyes:

You appear to have a problem with reading what is actually written and I'm not sure if it's deliberate or not. I said racism is a huge factor in why some demographics fair much worse than others. That was what was being discussed NOT racism is why people may have a problem with immigration. Big difference. So roll eyes all you like.

Another perfect example of you reading what you want to read, or misrepresenting what others have written.

You me and everyone in this thread at times refuses to debate points, none of us are under any obligation.
Have you got a problem with that?

It's called debating in good faith. A reasonable expectation in any debate. I have a problem with avoidance, deflection and misrepresentation because someone can't argue the points.

And you still never answered my question...

Wibbs wrote: »

And you still never answered my question...

Nor you mine

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I have linked now twice to Wibbs comments where he accuses those of opposing immigration of being racist.

Now you're outright lying I'm afraid, or you can't read. It's one or the other. 1) I see no quotes of my posts on the matter and 2) well if you did quote them it would be quite clear to anyone reading that you're deliberately misrepresenting what I actually wrote and now are clumsily trying to goad posters with stuff like this:

Are you white, do you have a problem with immigration?

Then wibbs implied a huge part in that is racism

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Nor you mine

I answered your deflection about enclaves.

Wibbs wrote: »

Now you're outright lying I'm afraid, or you can't read. It's one or the other. 1) I see no quotes of my posts on the matter and 2) well if you did quote them it would be quite clear to anyone reading that you're deliberately misrepresenting what I actually wrote and now are clumsily trying to goad posters with stuff like this:

If I'm lying I am in good company.

For clarity given I'm being quoted arseways:

Me. Earlier. wrote: »

And I note you still haven't answered the question I posed. Can you find me any European multicultural nation where those of African and ME origins(and nomadic peoples) don't tend to cluster at the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder and don't tend to set up urban enclaves? So why should we seek to import another more complex underclass on top of our own?

I have fully agreed that racism on the part of the native White population is a huge factor in that(though it's not the only factor, internal cultural differences can be at play too), but again how are we supposed to magically make things different?

I'm clearly stating that one of the reasons and it's a big one some demographics are clustered at the bottom of multicultural societies is because of racism on the part of the native White population. I am not saying those against immigration or multiculturalism are racists. No doubt some are and some are not, but I did not say that. Again you either can't seem to read what others are writing or are misrepresenting them.

And again you avoided the first part of that.

Wibbs wrote: »

I answered your deflection about enclaves.

Can you find me any European multicultural nation where those of African and ME origins(and nomadic peoples) don't tend to cluster at the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder and don't tend to set up urban enclaves?

Is this the question you want me to answer?

Its really not an answerable question though is it.
First answer me this do all Muslims live in these so called enclaves in europe?

If they don't then where do all the Muslim people who don't live in them live?

You want me to find you places in Europe where something doesn't exist.
My Muslim neighbour does not live in an enclave and is not lower socioeconomic well at least not judging by the house prices around here.