Wibbs wrote: » No, realistic. Racism isn't going anywhere(and I'd contend it's much more than "some people" and across "races" too). That much is clear. Affiliations and prejudice along ethnic lines isn't going anywhere either. That much is also clear. It has been in play throughout recorded history and has always led to differing degrees of strife. It's in play in every single "multicultural" society on the planet and the same demographic trends follow similar patterns too. And yep racism is a huge part of it. I have never once denied that. The difference between us is that I look to the realities rather than hope and wishful thinking. The latter are very laudable and come from a good place, but that's not much use when reality comes a calling.
Wibbs wrote: » We can't, because that horse has bolted back in the Celtic Tiger and birthright passports and it has happened with a rapidity almost unknown among western nations. We've gone from well over 90% native population to 75% in a generation and the same patterns we see everywhere else are already in play here. We'll just have to live with the crap it will cause like every other nation that has tried to run this social experiment. And we've gone down this road with almost no discussion. When a debate was had over said birthright passports the Irish electorate closed that loophole by a landslide and by a higher percentage than either the SSM or choice votes, which we patted ourselves on the back over.
bubblypop wrote: » Yep, the answer to racism is to keep all different races and cultures away from each other. Yep. That's it! Genius.
Wibbs wrote: » You're avoiding the point like the plague. It seems there is no clear "answer to racism". Certainly none have come forth and have had much success in the long term and I'm not hearing any novel solutions from your position. Though I wouldn't expect any as it's a remarkably intransigent problem and has been since the egg. Hope? Education? Government campaigns? Maybe have an oul free concert or two. Been done, across many different nations and cultures and as I said here we are and BLM is just as much in play. And for good reasons. Again as this thread has demonstrated the positives of multiculturalism seem remarkably hard to pin down for the supporters of it, the negatives far easier to list.
RobbieTheRobber wrote: » I think we would need to group foreign born residents into two distinct groups here EU citizens and non EU citizens. Because the nation most definitely did get a choice on EU free movement of people. And EU citizens make up quite a large bloc of foreign born non ethnically Irish people resident in the country.
As for the rest the nations gets a choice every time there is an election. Because immigration policy is by Act of Government. If race and non ethically Irish people coming to Ireland is such an issue for the population why has it not become a bigger issue during elections, why has a single issue anti foreigner party not gained much traction?
RobbieTheRobber wrote: » The only thing this thread proves is that the majority of its posters are anti immigrant. With a portion being anti eu immigrant.
Wibbs wrote: » I would agree.
Wibbs wrote: » Lack of choice is the major reason. We have a political system and class that are barely distinguishable from each other. Flip a coin come election time. Rinse and repeat. The anti immigration parties and candidates are an utter waste of time across the board. Crowds like the National Party are a joke. Vanishingly few are going to vote for them because of the nonsense in their manifestos. The nazis were anti vivisection and anti tobacco, both laudable positions I'd agree with, but I wouldn't have voted for them either. As I pointed out when an anti non EU immigration ballot was put to the people - in the midst of many of our elected political class and RTE pundits shouting racism over it too - it came back with one of the most definitive answers in the history of this state; nope to more. If that vote had been cast before the influx we'd have significantly less multiculturalism than we do today. If that vote was held today I'd bet the farm the result would be similar. Those votes were cast by those who would come from all sides and parties of the political spectrum here, but that was the vote cast. Yet we have a chunk of the political class looking to row back on that clear democratic vote. Something they wouldn't dare to try over SSM or Choice, even though they passed with lower majorities.
clytemnestra wrote: » https://gcn.ie/nigerian-governors-anti-gay-comments-unacceptable-says-minister-joe-costello/ The link to the original Metro article is broken but it mentioned tht the Nigerian ambassador's horrible remarks about homosexuality received great applause from his audience. I have yet to reconcile the liberal views of the people supporting mass immigration with the frequently very illiberal views of those they are so keen to welcome. It's just another glaring logic fail
RobbieTheRobber wrote: » We haven't stopped car accidents is the answer no more cars. We haven't yet cured Cancer should we stop researching a cure.
The only thing this thread proves is that the majority of its posters are anti immigrant. With a portion being anti eu immigrant.
And no one not a single poster to this thread has yet proven that a mono cultural Ireland is possible or even for the benefit of the citizens left in a such a state.
You might agree wibbs but for many in this thread these is no distinction between EU and non eu immigration. So are you and I agreeing that the majority of EU migration has been positive for Ireland. In which case we have obvious positive multiculturalism in our society. Or do you think EU immigration has been negative for Ireland?
Wibbs the constitutional referendum you are referring to was brought about by and supported by the sitting government of the time and even supported by the largest opposition party at the time(FG). Yet your post seems to be making out the political establishment was opposed to this amendment but that isn't supported by the fact the government and largest opposition party being supportive of it. The government of the day campaigned for it while it FG merely offered no opposition but did not directly campaign for it. That's hardly our elected class opposing and shouting racism.
Deleted User wrote: » haha... I must admit that I'm starting to find this quite funny. The way that arguments tend to head in this direction so often. Its been said repeatedly by most of the regular posters that they're in favor of skilled immigrants who are filling a need in the economy. They're in favor of people who can completely support themselves, and their families once they move here. It's interesting that you can look at the thread and see an anti-immigration stance, whereas I look at the thread, and see posters wanting stricter rules for immigration, and less bypassing of those rules by politicians making feel-good gestures. The difference between EU migrants and non-EU migrants is simple enough. EU migrants tend to share similar values with Irish culture, in terms of aspects like justice, women's rights, homosexuality, etc. Non-EU migrants come from very different cultural backgrounds, and so, the likelihood that they will appreciate/follow Irish/Western values diminishes significantly. EU migrants are far more likely to integrate easily, whereas most non-EU migrants will remain apart holding on to their cultural identity, forming communities of their own. So.. the choice is... do we seek to bring in people who are more likely to appreciate our way of life, or those who won't? This claim of posters being anti-immigration is a push to the extreme. Just like your claim that the alternative to multiculturalism is a mono-culture. The alternative is not a single culture barring all others... but this has been done many times on the thread, and if you haven't gotten it by now, you're never going to get it.
Experience_day wrote: » The ones promoting this **** are just the useful idiots like they always have been. Their idea of utopia will be shattered by even more racial crime, a slide backwards for homosexuals and women and a deep mistrust of society leading probably towards a balkanisation of communities.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Its been said repeatedly by most of the regular posters that they're in favor of skilled immigrants who are filling a need in the economy. They're in favor of people who can completely support themselves, and their families once they move here. It's interesting that you can look at the thread and see an anti-immigration stance, whereas I look at the thread, and see posters wanting stricter rules for immigration,
Wibbs wrote: » Highly unlikely. What will happen if other European nations are anything to go by is multicultural urban areas with more social issues, poverty, crime, some with cultural attitudes that run contrary to the native culture and White Flight away from it to the suburbs and beyond(or cosseted enclaves within urban areas) and a proportion of successful people among the various ethnicities following them. Like your example of London. Western multiculturalism is almost entirely an urban thing and even there it's not so multicultural. As human nature drives these things, you tend to have areas along ethnic lines, just as you get them along socioeconomic lines.
RobbieTheRobber wrote: » So there are no anti immigrant posters in this thread is that your claim Klaz. No anti EU posters?
The vast majority of immigrants to Ireland were prior to Covid in employment and productive for Irish society. So by your definition the vast majority of immigrants should be welcome.
I think the largest immigrant worker group in this country is the EU citizens bloc again productive positive members of Irelands multicultural society.
So what exactly is the problem if the vast majority of immigrants meet your definition for being positive?
bubblypop wrote: » EU immigrants have the right to live and work here. Non EU immigrants have to satisfy conditions in order to live and work here. I'm not sure how you can get stricter rules?
Wibbs wrote: » Again with the silly comparisons. Car accidents have continued to drop across the board. Survival rates for cancer improve decade on decade, even year on year. Racism, the Them/Us, ethnic division and social issues have barely changed at all beyond the surface. I guarantee BLM protests or similar will be in play in 20 years and they'll be in play here too. Rinse and repeat.
Wibbs wrote: » What this thread proves and keeps on proving is that the pro multicultural argument is shockingly empty of points and positives, even in the most vocal of its proponents.
Wibbs wrote: » It's sadly not possible any more, or at least how things stand, because of bad management two decades ago. As for benefits? Nations more monocultural than ours are doing well enough socially and economically and those multicutural nations doing well economically aren't doing nearly so well in regard to many of the ethnic cultures that live within them. America is still for the moment the richest nation on earth and how are her Hispanic and African American demographics doing? Britain is doing well enough, but who of her citizenry are more likely to be in receipt of social welfare, housing, less economically active, in gaol, less healthy? White Britons? Nope.
Wibbs wrote: » The vast majority of EU migration was jobs related and legal and something we signed up for as a nation. The vast majority of non EU migration wasn't and we didn't. As it stands today our own justice minister is looking to amnesty 20,000 illegal immigrants, apologies, "the undocumented", people who are here illegally and not paying tax and working in the black economy many for years. I'll further bet that number will climb much higher. No mention of those Irish employers using them illegally either. We have the screwup that is direct provision that has lined the pockets of a few and its replacement is going to fast track non Irish/EU people into the social welfare and housing net. We weren't consulted about that either.
Wibbs wrote: » FF as usual smelled the populist vote, FG as usual played safe. Labour and Sinn Fein and your various PBP types had a mickey fit over it and were open about it being "racist". There was quite the bit of similar on the national airwaves about it too.
Swindled wrote: » Multiculturalism just means no culture. Like taking a palette of different paint colours and smearing them all into one featureless blob. It's been trialled and failed in the UK, France etc. to name but a few. Do we really aspire to having towns like Rotherham / Bradford etc. as per the UK ? What's so wrong with countries having their own distant culture, ethnicity, culture and heritage ? All countries should from Nigeria, to China to Ireland. - That's real diversity and multiculturalism.
Deleted User wrote: » Oh! Did you say that there were some? Nope? Come on. Stick by what you've written and stop shifting your own goalposts
anti /ˈanti/ INFORMAL preposition opposed to; against. "I'm anti the abuse of drink and the hassle that it causes" adjective opposed. "the local councils are anti" noun a person opposed to a particular policy, activity, or idea. "the threat to field sports from the antis is a serious one"
Cordell wrote: » The onus is on the ones supporting the change to bring forward the reasons the change is positive.
Cordell wrote: » I oppose large scale immigration while being an immigrant myself. How about that? And in general, is it anything wrong with being anti-immigration?
Swindled wrote: » Unforteunely Rochdale's, Brixton's and Bradford's are much more like the destination planned for most of Ireland's cities. They will never be new Londons/New Yorks. The ethnic Irish are a tiny population by international standards. The terms Irish and Ireland are now meaningless cheap brand names. As Pat Kenny recently let slip "Balbriggan is the template for Ireland", and they have poured millions of funding into the Balbriggan template model.
RobbieTheRobber wrote: » So what changes do you propose and what benefits should we expect from your anti immigration proposals?
Strumms wrote: » Look what’s happening in Balbriggan. Trouble, violence, intimidation.... not being perpetrated by the locals. I have family out there, my cousin wants back to her home area of Malahide ASAP because of it, but can’t afford it as her husband lost his job at the beginning of the pandemic... Balbriggan WAS a gorgeous little sleepy costal village, now....a template for disaster.
ThunbergsAreGo wrote: » Robbie, do you think the large growth in population has contributed to the housing crisis? And to be clear that is not blaming the immigrants
RobbieTheRobber wrote: » Tallaght was a lovely little country village before all the social housing. Jobstown would have been positively picturesque before they built the houses I can only imagine. Wait what was the point of this again.
RobbieTheRobber wrote: » Klaz anti means opposed to. By holding a position that you are against most immigration you are by default anti immigration. I did not say the majority of posters were racist. I said anti immigrant and I stand by that view. If a person is opposed to immigration they are by the very definition of the word anti-immigrant.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/20f4606d019ca0b240328ff30d91e82b.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
