bubblypop wrote: » Yep, that's correct. Just because your ancestors lived somewhere, it doesn't give you automatic rights over something. I'm not sure why anyone would think they have rights to any area, except for any property they own themselves.
No one can chose their neighbours.
bubblypop wrote: » Just because your ancestors lived somewhere, it doesn't give you automatic rights over something.
Wibbs wrote: » Well apparently the non Irish people are "traumatised". What do you say of their mental health? Still avoiding...
Wibbs wrote: » It should be pretty clear. The multicultural politic holds that diversity works, that it's an overwhelming positive and because of that demographic changes are largely ignored and any questions avoided around such changes. This leads to complacency in government until they're forced to react when things get a little too obvious to ignore. The pace of change was so rapid in Ireland that this complacency was even more in play. The first obvious reaction to it, a few years too late was the 2004 referendum.
Wibbs wrote: » No problem. This was the change put to the Irish voter.Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, a person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, who does not have, at the time of the birth of that person, at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law.
Wibbs wrote: » Being simply born here does not automatically make one Irish. Because of the GFA it did for a time and we got "anchor babies". That was the question put to the voters. It was entirely about that trend and it was all over the media at the time and the answer from the Irish electorate was resoundingly clear. Or maybe it was something else in your mind. Please feel free to add lots of smileys and accusations of "racism" at your leisure.
Wibbs wrote: » No it does not. You have freely stated your family background and that your Irish children have a mum who is not Irish. I simply asked why their other heritage appears to be left out of the equation. For clarity I am not looking for you to expand any more on your private life. You were the one brought it up. You could have easily run with a hypothetical to get the points across.
Wibbs wrote: » I consider it a waste of keystrokes tbh. You will avoid it and then when the blood's up come back with an excess of smileys, accusations of racism and accusations of some personal attack. Whatever question I pose in good faith will almost certainly not be returned in that fashion. I'm sorry, but that my opinion of how this will go.
Wibbs wrote: » People do. All the time. Unless someone is in social housing(and even there a choice exists), people choose the neighbourhoods they want to rent or buy homes in and the bigger their budget the more choice they apply.
Cordell wrote: » Oh but it does, that's just how the world works and how it came to be as it is today.
TomTomTim wrote: » What? My parents are my ancestors, so I get my rights as an Irish citizen from them as a product of ancestry, the same way they did with their parents. This is how the world has worked since the creation of nation states and rights. Are you disputing that, or am I missing something?
bubblypop wrote: » Yep, that's correct. Just because your ancestors lived somewhere, it doesn't give you automatic rights over something. I'm not sure why anyone would think they have rights to any area, except for any property they own themselves. No one can chose their neighbours.
RobbieTheRobber wrote: » So your support Zionism right? I mean the Jewish peoples ancestors were in Israel so your support their right to that land then, yeah?
Cordell wrote: » That's a very convoluted mental gymnastics. So no.
RobbieTheRobber wrote: » Who is multicultural politic. Two political parties have held power between them since the founding of the state which one or maybe its both you are accusing of being multicultural politic?
That is indeed the suggested amendment put to the people. Where in that amendment is your question about anchor babies. I don't see it. Can you point it out?
Yes Wibbs i provided limited information about my family and you tried to use that limited information to get an angry response from me by denying my legally Irish children's right to call themselves Irish. As I said really low brow stuff.
Taking your ball and going home. When next and despite you posting that you have positive personal experiences, will your next post be proclaiming there is no positives to multiculurism?
RobbieTheRobber wrote: » An I misinterpreting what you meant Cordell, please explain?
Thelonious Monk wrote: » I don't know why anyone even cares. Ireland will be unrecognisable in 50 years much like it was 50 years ago, and it will be a lot more multicultural than it is now. You could try starting a political party to stop this but I doubt you're going to do that, and you probably wouldn't get much votes going up against the status quo parties. Life is short, you'll be dead in a few decades, just count yourself lucky you were born in a rich country like Ireland in a time of peace. We ain't seen nothing yet anyway, the recent events in Ceuta are pretty scary, 1000s scrambling into the Spanish enclave. With bursting populations and people being displaced by climate change, this is going to get worse and worse. The world as we know it probably doesn't have long left, just enjoy your life if you can.
bubblypop wrote: » Choose their neighbourhood not their neighbours. You have no say as to who moved in next door.
Wibbs wrote: » Why does "White Flight" occur? People say "nope, don't want these neighbours" and leave when they can. Why do ethnic enclaves form? People say "I want to live in an area with more of my own" and choose to move into those areas. It works along economic lines too. The middle classes/upwardly mobile move into areas with similar. In some cases they will run the gentrification angle and more and more move into previously working class areas pricing the original inhabitants out of the market. People have little enough say on the individual neighbours they live beside alright, but it seems they do and exercise plenty of say on the general makeup of their neighbours and neighbourhood.
Wibbs wrote: » Oh there's much truth in that and I agree it's likely going to get worse here, if other European nations are anything to go by. Tactics to avoid the worst of it are move out of urban areas.
Wibbs wrote: » No accusations required. The multicultural politic and philosophy gained wider ground in European thought from the 70's on. It came later to Ireland on the back of a rapid influx of people in the late 90's. Both parties bought into it. Parties like SF and Labour bought into it hook line and sinker. Ireland's politics were very much against it pre the 70's. We took in vanishingly few actual refugees and the UN had to strong arm us as late as the 1970's to accept the Vietnamese "Boat people" and we only took in 200.
Wibbs wrote: » Now you're just being obtuse. The referendum was run on the back of wider concerns that our jus soli citizenship law brought in on the back of the GFA was being abused. IE "anchor babies". And that was put to the electorate. A court case involving a Chinese woman brought it to more public notice, as did the media reports of a jump in non EU women showing up in Irish maternity wards. The Justice Minister publicly stated(to some kickback) that 50% of non EU nationals were giving birth in Ireland to gain passports. The Greens, Labour and SF opposed the referendum on grounds of racism. The Irish council for civil liberties and other NGO's also opposed it, as did the government's own Irish Human Rights Commission. Maybe you had your own reasons for voting for the change, but lord knows what they were. Unless you were reading another referendum you voted to remove the automatic right of a child being born her becoming an Irish citizen by default, thereby reducing the number of immigrants and their children who could claim that.
Wibbs wrote: » That's entirely your perception and responsibility in your response. I did no such thing. I simply asked a question based on information you freely gave. At no point did I ask you for more personal information, nor would I. As I said you could have quite easily made it a hypothetical and avoided any such potential insult on your part. You really can't seem to tease out the differences between the personal micro scale experiences and the macro scale of societies.
Cordell wrote: » Yes, you're missing the context and the exact meaning of his post. It's about land continuously inhabited by generations, where the current living generation have rights due to their birth place and ancestry.
RobbieTheRobber wrote: » The only due property rights in Ireland are granted by way of property laws in Ireland. Nothing to do with ancestry. :rolleyes:
Salvation Tambourine wrote: » Controlled immigration that has allowed, according to the Department of Justice, at least 17,000 people become undocumented. Controlled immigration that when asked cannot give figures on how many people have been deported after being given a deportation notice. Does that sound controlled?
Salvation Tambourine wrote: » I see you're back on the thread Bubblypop. You said we had controlled immigration. The above suggests it's not as controlled as we would probably want. Do you agree?
bubblypop wrote: » Just backing me up there! No choice in your neighbours, don't like it? Move. Simple.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » What are you trying to avoid exactly?
RobbieTheRobber wrote: » So when you say multiculural politic you mean all political parties in Ireland, except parties like the national party. And the overwhelming majority of the nation votes for the parties you say bought into the "politic". Doesn't that seem to give tacit approval by the people for this policy?
Ireland was a basket case economy in the 1970's. Life then in Ireland to now is not the same at all. But you probably don't believe that though right because humans can never change always them same generation after generation. There is no progression!
Oh no NGO's were opposed. So what!
Yes I voted to remove the automatic right as enshrined in the constitution by the GFA amendment. It was a terrible place for it to be placed. It is much better if the Government of the day can legislate should it need to and not be bound by the constitution.
I don't need to you to admit what you did. I know what you intended and have stated it here so you know I know.
bubblypop wrote: » It is controlled. As best it can be. You are allowed entry to the state by various systems. We cannot control people's behaviour however, people can and do break rules and laws all the time.
Tony EH wrote: » Exactly. If climate change is going to hit like some people say it will, Europe better get ready for much, MUCH, more immigration. There'll be areas of the world that will become simply uninhabitable and people will migrate.
Wibbs wrote: » Why? At least with the constitution any changes must be sought with the direct democratic will of the people, not at the whim of civil servants or incumbent politicians. Would you choose to bring it back in now? Do you support the Labour party's drive to do so? Again I ask; did you vote for the change knowing it would reduce the number of immigrants and non EU residents getting automatic citizenship? Yes or no.
LostinBlanch wrote: » Well, let's say a government of the day, or group of senior civil servants decided to roll back say the right to choose, or same sex marriage and influenced the government to over ride either of those constitutional amendments, would the reaction from certain quarters be so blase? I think we all know exactly what the reaction would be.
Wibbs wrote: » Indeed, but in the usual run of things we don't as a society reward them for doing so. Our Justice Minister is going to reward nearly 20,000 people for breaking a number of our laws and over many years.
clytemnestra wrote: » Go and tell that to the native Americans, then. Or the Palestinians.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/20f4606d019ca0b240328ff30d91e82b.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/82b9314ae845d8523534648f9bd7209e.svg)
