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

ArthurDayne wrote: »

But you can discuss one without the other

Oh we can discuss it, but it's largely academic, a subtle twist on the "doctors and engineers" meme and has few real world applications beyond debate itself, because as I've pointed out examples in Europe of professional classes only multiculturalism are just a little thin on the ground. That's the working reality of multiculturalism.

In my opinion, to be against multiculturalism is to be King Canute against the tide — it is to be doomed to rant and rail against an ever changing world that is destined to become more multicultural.

The Western world maybe, elsewhere and to the degree it can often be found in Western Europe, well there's little enough sign of that being a fait accompli. Take China, tipped as the next top superpower. It has dozens of ethnic minorities, but remains over 90% Han Chinese and those who from outside China number well under a million out of nearly one and a half billion. We could also easily see a hardening of attitudes to it, even within Western Europe. There's evidence of that happening already.

Irish culture will change, parts of it will disappear, new parts will be born — change driven by the Irish born and the non-Irish born. There is no stopping it — and to fantasise how much better the world would be if humans of their own free will just gave up millennia of intermingling in favour of living in entirely monocultural nations (and that successful nations wouldn’t eventually attract other peoples) is a pure fantasy.

For all those millennia of intermingling even within Europe and her often back and flow internal imperial movements there is considerable regional genetic continuity in play down to today. When any large scale intermingling did happen it was always because of colonisation and invasion, or a response to that. The revisionist history posts claiming "Ireland has always been multicultural" are a good example of this. Even with those essentially two invasions the genetic diversity of this country remained pretty stable and subtle. Never mind the centuries of strife attached to that "multiculturalism".

Nonetheless, there is room in the world of reality for those who want better immigration policy. If they really want to take the fight to those who they see as the “woke” drivers of poorly managed immigration or asylum, they need to ditch the King Canutes who drag them into futile discussions on multiculturalism. That way, they might find themselves in an expanded middle ground of those who want sensible immigration policy while accepting the inevitability of multiculturalism. And then maybe you would get somewhere.

A discussion that should have been had in the 90's, but the time has passed now and we'll have to navigate the hangover from that lack of discussion and better immigration management.

Deleted User wrote: »

You see, very few people (I actually can't recall anyone suggesting it) on this thread have said anything about stopping multiculturalism. It comes up as an objection by those arguing for a pro-multiculturalism stance. As if the only other option, apart from their views, must be some kind of mono-cultural setup.

Accepted Truths(c) are very similar to religions, they're based on faith, use interpretation as a weapon, don't delve too deeply into the tenets of their positions and see things as you're either black or white, with us or against us. Believer or pagan.

The objective is to regulate multiculturalism in a manner to produce the fewest possible negatives for the host nation.

and the possible negatives for the migrant groups too.

Bambi wrote: »

Is multiculturalism inevitable outside of the West?

Japan?
Russia?
Kuwait?
China?

Funny that.

For what it’s worth, I did actually mean the West. But to roll with your point, Russia and China are both multicultural, but their approach to it over history has been different and I would hardly say more successful. I know less about Japan and Kuwait but, on face value, geography and geopolitics seem very, very different to the situation of Europe.

There is also a fair degree of geopolitical context difference in the West. European powers conquered the world, spreading their political systems and languages globally — creating political, economic, diplomatic, military and educational ties which linger on to the present day. Europe tilted the balance of global wealth and influence in its favour in the days of imperialism, and continues to use those links to this day. Those ongoing ties, as well as shared language, have created channels between Europe and old colonies that naturally cause migration from those countries to gravitate towards Europe.

Swindled

Speaking of King Canutes,

Ghadiffi and ISIS done their version . . .and unleashed the "black flood" on Europe as Ghadiffi called it.

Turkey is at is as well, turning the flood on an off when the soft touch EU clowns don't play ball.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/gaddafi-planned-flood-europe-migrants-final-revenge-2354322.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2958517/The-Mediterranean-sea-chaos-Gaddafi-s-chilling-prophecy-interview-ISIS-threatens-send-500-000-migrants-Europe-psychological-weapon-bombed.html
ISIS threatens to send 500,000 migrants to Europe as a 'psychological weapon' in chilling echo of Gaddafi's prophecy that the Mediterranean 'will become a sea of chaos'

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-7-2011-002902_EN.html

ArthurDayne wrote: »

For what it’s worth, I did actually mean the West. But to roll with your point, Russia and China are both multicultural, but their approach to it over history has been different and I would hardly say more successful. I know less about Japan and Kuwait but, on face value, geography and geopolitics seem very, very different to the situation of Europe.

China isn't multicultural. [Not the way the pro-multicultural movement see Europe/Ireland becoming]. They have a single view of what Chinese (Han) culture consists of, and it remains dominant across the whole of the mainland. The other 56 ethnic cultures of Chinese people are "protected" but, for the most part, the Han are content to wait for them to die off, or to be bred out. In the 70s, China accepted upwards of 3 million North Koreans, due to a shift of their borders, and they've mostly been submerged within Chinese culture... losing their own connection with Korean culture/language. I've had students from that group, and there's little to tell that they're of Korean background, except for their physical features. [I get a list of all minorities at the beginning of each term, so that I can give greater attention to them]

Oh, China does have a wide range of cultures existing within its borders, but it's very clear that Chinese culture is supreme, especially outside of the first tier cities. Everything else operates under sufferance... and the government has started a variety of campaigns to bring Chinese people back towards appreciating traditional beliefs, and away from Western or Japanese/Korean values.

There is also a fair degree of geopolitical context difference in the West. European powers conquered the world, spreading their political systems and languages globally — creating political, economic, diplomatic, military and educational ties which linger on to the present day. Europe tilted the balance of global wealth and influence in its favour in the days of imperialism, and continues to use those links to this day. Those ongoing ties, as well as shared language, have created channels between Europe and old colonies that naturally cause migration from those countries to gravitate towards Europe.

Re, migration to Europe... it's far more accessible than the US, and just as prosperous. People come here for the upgrade in the quality of life, far less intervention of the government/police in personal lives, and the opportunities to be wealthy.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

But to roll with your point, Russia and China are both multicultural, but their approach to it over history has been different and I would hardly say more successful.

Indeed and ours have hardly been successful for those who don't look like or have cultures that are European. As Klaz pointed out China is anything but multicultural in a Western sense, neither is Russia. For all her minority ethnicities it remains nearly 90% European and the overarching culture is most certainly Russian.

I know less about Japan and Kuwait but, on face value, geography and geopolitics seem very, very different to the situation of Europe.

Japan is culturally quite "multicultural" having imported quite a bit of Western culture tweaked to their own taste, but is and sees itself as quite monocultural. It's been quite resistant to any change to that.

There is also a fair degree of geopolitical context difference in the West. European powers conquered the world, spreading their political systems and languages globally — creating political, economic, diplomatic, military and educational ties which linger on to the present day. Europe tilted the balance of global wealth and influence in its favour in the days of imperialism, and continues to use those links to this day. Those ongoing ties, as well as shared language, have created channels between Europe and old colonies that naturally cause migration from those countries to gravitate towards Europe.

If we're talking of specific countries like the UK, France and Spain then there's a point to be made there alright, especially in the past, but the more recent influx has almost nothing to do with that imperial past(There can be a bit of the oul White Guilt imperial chickens coming home to roost in this argument too). Never mind that Ireland didn't have an empire, nor did places like Sweden(outside Europe) or Norway. The large influx of Middle Eastern and African migrants into Sweden over the last decade has pretty much nothing to do with the old European powers.

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh we can discuss it, but it's largely academic, a subtle twist on the "doctors and engineers" meme and has few real world applications beyond debate itself, because as I've pointed out examples in Europe of professional classes only multiculturalism are just a little thin on the ground. That's the working reality of multiculturalism.

It has nothing to do with the doctors and nurses “meme” really — it’s simply pointing out (and I don’t believe you seem to be disputing the point) that people appear to be less agitated by multiculturalism where it manifests itself in the form of migrants who have means (for example, professionals). It doesn’t really matter what the proportions are — though one does imagine that the vista of foreign professionals coming here to work will likely become more and more common unless there is a fundamental shift to how the Irish economy is positioned in the global market — what matters is that it’s not necessarily the presence of other cultures that really irks people, it’s the socioeconomic element.

Wibbs wrote: »

The Western world maybe, elsewhere and to the degree it can often be found in Western Europe, well there's little enough sign of that being a fait accompli. Take China, tipped as the next top superpower. It has dozens of ethnic minorities, but remains over 90% Han Chinese and those who from outside China number well under a million out of nearly one and a half billion. We could also easily see a hardening of attitudes to it, even within Western Europe. There's evidence of that happening already.

Indeed, but you only have to take the most obvious example of this hardened attitude in Europe — Brexit — to exemplify my point. Is the goal of the post-Brexit immigration system to cap or reverse multiculturalism? Does it prevent people from other cultures coming to the UK? No — it provides criteria that ostensibly set a higher socioeconomic / educational bar. The differing culture of the prospective migrant is not the filter, it’s the socioeconomics.

As for China — its a one party non-democracy where the State more or less does as it pleases and any discord can be crushed with little access to recourse against the State for the individual, be they minority or otherwise. Hardened attitudes or not, I’m not sure it’s a model many Irish people would like to see here.

Wibbs wrote: »

For all those millennia of intermingling even within Europe and her often back and flow internal imperial movements there is considerable regional genetic continuity in play down to today. When any large scale intermingling did happen it was always because of colonisation and invasion, or a response to that. The revisionist history posts claiming "Ireland has always been multicultural" are a good example of this. Even with those essentially two invasions the genetic diversity of this country remained pretty stable and subtle. Never mind the centuries of strife attached to that "multiculturalism".

Well, I do think “large scale” intermingling is a relative term — the effect of modern transport, telecommunications, urbanisation, population growth etc etc should be borne in mind. Nonetheless, it would be tempting to say that what you are describing here is actually an endorsement of how the modern Western approach to multiculturalism has harnessed the ever-present phenomenon of humans being on the move within an administrative system subject to the rule of law — rather than invasions and conquests.

Wibbs wrote: »

A discussion that should have been had in the 90's, but the time has passed now and we'll have to navigate the hangover from that lack of discussion and better immigration management.

Personally I’d go far further back than the 90s but things might have been better in Europe if there had been, as you say, better discussion and better management as regards immigration — rather than people getting annoyed over multiculturalism ....a debate which has achieved and continues to achieve nothing except hardening the so-called Left to the inaccurate position that their opponents are motivated purely by racist tendencies and hardening the so-called Right to the equally inaccurate position that the lack of implementation of their views is down to some woke conspiracy rather than a simple lack of realism in what they want.

Deleted User wrote: »

China isn't multicultural. [Not the way the pro-multicultural movement see Europe/Ireland becoming]. They have a single view of what Chinese (Han) culture consists of, and it remains dominant across the whole of the mainland. The other 56 ethnic cultures of Chinese people are "protected" but, for the most part, the Han are content to wait for them to die off, or to be bred out. In the 70s, China accepted upwards of 3 million North Koreans, due to a shift of their borders, and they've mostly been submerged within Chinese culture... losing their own connection with Korean culture/language. I've had students from that group, and there's little to tell that they're of Korean background, except for their physical features. [I get a list of all minorities at the beginning of each term, so that I can give greater attention to them]

Oh, China does have a wide range of cultures existing within its borders, but it's very clear that Chinese culture is supreme, especially outside of the first tier cities. Everything else operates under sufferance... and the government has started a variety of campaigns to bring Chinese people back towards appreciating traditional beliefs, and away from Western or Japanese/Korean values.

Re, migration to Europe... it's far more accessible than the US, and just as prosperous. People come here for the upgrade in the quality of life, far less intervention of the government/police in personal lives, and the opportunities to be wealthy.

Apologies Klaz I didn’t have a chance to go back on your previous post but there’s a fair bit of overlap in my comments to Wibbs regardless.

Anyway — fair enough if we are going to get into the nitty gritty on a definition of multiculturalism but I suppose we can at least agree that Russia and China do have various cultures within their borders. The Chinese approach, by your description, seems to simply be to subsume all cultures into a single identity (and I suppose the first temptation there is to say that this is precisely what a one party authoritarian state would want of course). But there is a price to be paid for China’s muscular approach — and that is the State’s sheer power to crush whatever it sees fit to crush with very little scope for the rights of the individual to prevail. The Russians on the other hand, well, their model for approaching the ethnicities within their borders is a sorry tale written in blood.

Now I fully acknowledge that both these countries were raised as examples by a different poster, but I must confess that I don’t fully understand what it is we would envy or replicate about their approach to cultural or ethnic diversity within their borders. If we took a Chinese approach, and insisted on totally subsuming the cultures of migrants into a uniform identity, then it comes at a price for our approach to individual freedom (for example, it may involve highly invasive laws by which the State mandates us to behave in ways it considers Irish — a subjective standard which it would set and which would have to be policed to be effective).

But I guess it still comes back to the point that ultimately both countries still have to contend with multiculturalism — they haven’t avoided it altogether, but have simply approached it differently. Regardless of the pros and cons, and without at all suggesting that they should just follow the European approach, I can’t say I look at either of them from here in Europe with any particular sense of envy or with any sense that we should be replicating what they do.

99nsr125

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Europe#Immigration_from_outside_Europe_since_the_1980s

well that isnt sustainable whatsoever.

hosting pictures

Jesus Christ are the Swedes trying to ethnically cleanse themselves. They could just have more babies

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Apologies Klaz I didn’t have a chance to go back on your previous post but there’s a fair bit of overlap in my comments to Wibbs regardless.

No worries.

Anyway — fair enough if we are going to get into the nitty gritty on a definition of multiculturalism

Well... for the purposes of this thread, I think the consideration should be about foreign cultures, which don't tend to be immediately neighboring to their borders. So, for Ireland, having French people here wouldn't be much of an example of multiculturalism (since we share a wide variety of values), whereas having a population from Zambia would (since the cultural values are often far different). Integration of someone from France is far more likely than someone from Zambia, due to the similarities in culture.

So, while both Russia and China have a large number of native ethnic cultures, they wouldn't be good examples of multiculturalism in the modern sense. And while they also have foreign cultures, the numbers involved are far below that of the native population, and there is no expectation of receiving special status for that minority situation. Whereas with western multiculturalism, the focus tends to be on very different cultures, but also the giving of special privileges to those minorities.

but I suppose we can at least agree that Russia and China do have various cultures within their borders. The Chinese approach, by your description, seems to simply be to subsume all cultures into a single identity (and I suppose the first temptation there is to say that this is precisely what a one party authoritarian state would want of course). But there is a price to be paid for China’s muscular approach — and that is the State’s sheer power to crush whatever it sees fit to crush with very little scope for the rights of the individual to prevail. The Russians on the other hand, well, their model for approaching the ethnicities within their borders is a sorry tale written in blood.

This has been the Chinese policy going back three thousand years. This isn't a new approach by the CCP. The Chinese have always believed in assimilation, and it was one of the reasons they failed so badly when the Imperial powers arrived. They couldn't believe that anyone would resist their "superior" culture. In many ways, the way the imperial powers abused that approach to foreign cultures (both in China and Japan) laid further distrust of foreign influence in their countries, and desire to resist foreign influence.

I wouldn't seeking to excuse or justify the abhorrant approaches either country has towards minorities.

Now I fully acknowledge that both these countries were raised as examples by a different poster, but I must confess that I don’t fully understand what it is we would envy or replicate about their approach to cultural or ethnic diversity within their borders.

The advantage would be to avoid the problems that most of Europe has been facing over the last three decades (and the US for longer), due to a focus on personal identity based along cultural/national lines. A sense of unity is far better for a nation as opposed to the divisions that comes with multiculturalism.

And for the most part, these two countries don't abuse foreign cultures within their borders. They simply don't provide any special status to them, treating them as being slightly lesser than their own, but not in any particularly nasty way.

If we took a Chinese approach, and insisted on totally subsuming the cultures of migrants into a uniform identity, then it comes at a price for our approach to individual freedom (for example, it may involve highly invasive laws by which the State mandates us to behave in ways it considers Irish — a subjective standard which it would set and which would have to be policed to be effective).

Hardly. That's an extreme take. It would simply be a return to the previous philosophy towards foreigners that existed 30-40 years ago. No special status. No special protections as foreign cultures. The expectation that those who live within a nations borders would integrate, and ultimately over time, assimilation would naturally occur. And those who couldn't accept the host culture, and not want to integrate, would just have to deal with it, or leave.

But I guess it still comes back to the point that ultimately both countries still have to contend with multiculturalism — they haven’t avoided it altogether, but have simply approached it differently. Regardless of the pros and cons, and without at all suggesting that they should just follow the European approach, I can’t say I look at either of them from here in Europe with any particular sense of envy or with any sense that we should be replicating what they do.

Neither do I. It wouldn't work for us anyway, because we have such a different culture and history. However, that's not to say we can't learn from them, and apply aspects of their policies in dealing with foreign cultures within our own borders. Just as I definitely don't want Europe to adopt the US manner of dealing with cultures, although we can learn from their actual successes and failures. Regardless we will have to find a method that is unique to us, either as Ireland or as a part of Europe.

BTW, I'm enjoying your posts. A lot of good points for consideration. I don't really agree with you, but your opinions are thought provoking, and that's important.

Deleted User wrote: »

BTW, I'm enjoying your posts. A lot of good points for consideration. I don't really agree with you, but your opinions are thought provoking, and that's important.

+1 It makes a nice and sadly rare change.

MarkEadie

Wibbs wrote: »

+1 It makes a nice and sadly rare change.

It's common sense stuff he's posting though isn't it? It's clearly delusional how some anti immigration people see things. He does articulate himself pretty well.

WrenBoy

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Do you know who host was?

I fairly sure it was the Newstalk breakfast show, so whoever the male host of that is. I don't know the names sorry.

MarkEadie wrote: »

It's common sense stuff he's posting though isn't it? It's clearly delusional how some anti immigration people see things. He does articulate himself pretty well.

Common sense? and then you use the term anti-immigration?

there is extremely little expression of anti-immigration sentiment on this thread. Wanting greater controls on immigration doesn't make someone anti-immigration. It's been said many times on the thread, that people want skilled immigrants who are capable of supporting themselves, as opposed to those who arrive to end up on the bottom of the socio-economic pile...

The simple truth is that most people in this thread are pro-immigration...

Mike Murdock

MarkEadie wrote: »

It's common sense stuff he's posting though isn't it? It's clearly delusional how some anti-immigration people see things. He does articulate himself pretty well.

No, most people on here are pro-immigration for those that possess skills that mean they can a) fill high value skills gaps that exist here and b) pay straight into the tax take without any Government subsidies.

As for the undocumented migrants (the 17k +), I would vet them stringently. Nurses and those with necessary skills that have overstayed their visas? Give them an amnesty and let them and their families stay.

Kebab shop/Fast Food workers, Rickshaw, Deliveroo or Taxi drivers? Not a chance.

I'd also crack down heavily on English language "colleges", which are just visa farms. And they are ripping off overseas students anyway with their fees.

WrenBoy

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Do you know who host was?

Found it
https://www.newstalk.com/listen-back
if you select Newstalk Breakfast on yesterdays date. and skip to the 1hour 50mins mark.

Swindled

Mike Murdock wrote: »

No, most people on here are pro-immigration for those that possess skills that mean they can a) fill high value skills gaps that exist here and b) pay straight into the tax take without any Government subsidies.

As for the undocumented migrants (the 17k +), I would vet them stringently. Nurses and those with necessary skills that have overstayed their visas? Give them an amnesty and let them and their families stay.

Kebab shop/Fast Food workers, Rickshaw, Deliveroo or Taxi drivers? Not a chance.

I'd also crack down heavily on English language "colleges", which are just visa farms. And they are ripping off overseas students anyway with their fees.

Not a chance that is going to happen ? Since when did Irish politicians and public service ever vet anything stringently ?

Deleted User wrote: »

No worries.

Well... for the purposes of this thread, I think the consideration should be about foreign cultures, which don't tend to be immediately neighboring to their borders. So, for Ireland, having French people here wouldn't be much of an example of multiculturalism (since we share a wide variety of values), whereas having a population from Zambia would (since the cultural values are often far different). Integration of someone from France is far more likely than someone from Zambia, due to the similarities in culture.

So, while both Russia and China have a large number of native ethnic cultures, they wouldn't be good examples of multiculturalism in the modern sense. And while they also have foreign cultures, the numbers involved are far below that of the native population, and there is no expectation of receiving special status for that minority situation. Whereas with western multiculturalism, the focus tends to be on very different cultures, but also the giving of special privileges to those minorities.

This has been the Chinese policy going back three thousand years. This isn't a new approach by the CCP. The Chinese have always believed in assimilation, and it was one of the reasons they failed so badly when the Imperial powers arrived. They couldn't believe that anyone would resist their "superior" culture. In many ways, the way the imperial powers abused that approach to foreign cultures (both in China and Japan) laid further distrust of foreign influence in their countries, and desire to resist foreign influence.

I wouldn't seeking to excuse or justify the abhorrant approaches either country has towards minorities.

The advantage would be to avoid the problems that most of Europe has been facing over the last three decades (and the US for longer), due to a focus on personal identity based along cultural/national lines. A sense of unity is far better for a nation as opposed to the divisions that comes with multiculturalism.

And for the most part, these two countries don't abuse foreign cultures within their borders. They simply don't provide any special status to them, treating them as being slightly lesser than their own, but not in any particularly nasty way.

Hardly. That's an extreme take. It would simply be a return to the previous philosophy towards foreigners that existed 30-40 years ago. No special status. No special protections as foreign cultures. The expectation that those who live within a nations borders would integrate, and ultimately over time, assimilation would naturally occur. And those who couldn't accept the host culture, and not want to integrate, would just have to deal with it, or leave.

Neither do I. It wouldn't work for us anyway, because we have such a different culture and history. However, that's not to say we can't learn from them, and apply aspects of their policies in dealing with foreign cultures within our own borders. Just as I definitely don't want Europe to adopt the US manner of dealing with cultures, although we can learn from their actual successes and failures. Regardless we will have to find a method that is unique to us, either as Ireland or as a part of Europe.

BTW, I'm enjoying your posts. A lot of good points for consideration. I don't really agree with you, but your opinions are thought provoking, and that's important.

I think if we are talking about implementing a philosophy though, it would need to be backed by law or else it would simply be aspirational. How does a State make effective an “expectation” that migrants assimilate without a legal basis on which to enforce it? What would be the consequences for a failure to assimilate? How would assimilation be defined?

So then we come to another problem — the further down the line you go in enforcing assimilation the further the dent you make in the Western European focus on individual liberty. Talking about the way things were in Ireland 30-40 years ago is problematic because our own culture has moved away from obedience and conformity to Catholic philosophy towards indivudualism and permissiveness. The more steps you take to ensure adherence to a State-defined uniformity, the more you run the risk that you are actually undermining a fundamental aspect of the culture you are claiming to promote.

That’s not to say that I don’t think we need be mere bystanders to the phenomenon of cultural intermingling — there are things I think we can proactively do. One if is the need to drive very heavily towards total and across-the-board secularism in the Irish education system — and that migrants must accept that this is the education system their children will pass through. All children in the State should be educated together — it should not be Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims being educated apart. Children growing up together promotes a better sense of unity and a better appreciation of coexistence with other races, ethnicities, religions etc etc. Growing up apart promotes discord, distrust, minsunderstanding and ultimately hatred — and I say that as someone who grew up in the North in a highly segregated society.

I’m not too caught up on assimilation of cultures because I think implemeting it in Europe lies somewhere between futility and the over-zealous suppression of individualism. To me, the absolute key is tolerance — that we forever defend and protect the idea that, subject to the rule of law, people should be able to believe, speak and act however they wish without fear of persecution (in full acknowledgement that certain quarters of the Left are themselves doing much to damage this) and that this trumps whatever ancient scripture says otherwise. This is is where all of our energy should be devoted and all of our collective intellect — because multiculturalism is probably going to become more prevalent in Ireland and the West generally. I can’t help but feel that the harder people fight it, the more damaging they are actually (and ironically) making it.

But anyway, it has been a good conversation.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I think if we are talking about implementing a philosophy though, it would need to be backed by law or else it would simply be aspirational. How does a State make effective an “expectation” that migrants assimilate without a legal basis on which to enforce it? What would be the consequences for a failure to assimilate? How would assimilation be defined?

Honestly, I don't know. We've always had a society where people were encouraged to conform to "acceptable" behavior, and while that has declined within the last few decades, there is still the expectation of people to behave in certain ways. We do have formal laws, to reinforce that expectation, but there are also a range of cultural expectations, which while less enforced, do have a basis for pushing conformity.

So then we come to another problem — the further down the line you go in enforcing assimilation the further the dent you make in the Western European focus on individual liberty. Talking about the way things were in Ireland 30-40 years ago is problematic because our own culture has moved away from obedience and conformity to Catholic philosophy towards indivudualism and permissiveness. The more steps you take to ensure adherence to a State-defined uniformity, the more you run the risk that you are actually undermining a fundamental aspect of the culture you are claiming to promote.

Individual liberty is a foreign idea, and in reality, it rarely exists. We've always been forced to live within certain constraints, either by law, or by society/culture. And in spite of the growing belief in personal freedoms, our society has implemented all manner of restrictions on people to control. Whether that's regulations regarding the requirements on having degrees/certifications for employment, to the requirement on people being qualified to do work... when in the past there wasn't such a need.

The funny thing is that living in China taught me just how much European countries, including Ireland, are regulated, and the levels of conditioning present in our society. China has a huge range of laws concerning behavior, but most of them are rarely enforced. As long as people avoid official notice, they're pretty much free to do as they wish. The opposite is true in Europe, because the reinforcement of certain values, like anti-corruption, or the desire for safety, ensure that people's actions are monitored far more. There are so many layers of rules, and laws in the West to control behavior... all for good reasons, but they exist there nonetheless.

The point being that we already have the framework for assimilation, although, I'm sure more would be needed to make it more obvious and efficient. When we give minorities rights to behave independently of the social norms, we are opposing the desire for assimilation. When Muslims can have multiple wives in the West, as per their own religious/cultural beliefs, that opposes assimilation, since the common norm is that marriage is between two people. A boundary on behavior that most Europeans have to live by.

That’s not to say that I don’t think we need be mere bystanders to the phenomenon of cultural intermingling — there are things I think we can proactively do. One if is the need to drive very heavily towards total and across-the-board secularism in the Irish education system — and that migrants must accept that this is the education system their children will pass through. All children in the State should be educated together — it should not be Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims being educated apart. Children growing up together promotes a better sense of unity and a better appreciation of coexistence with other races, ethnicities, religions etc etc. Growing up apart promotes discord, distrust, minsunderstanding and ultimately hatred — and I say that as someone who grew up in the North in a highly segregated society.

Not being smart, but you've provided a framework for assimilation there. I do agree with you but it does lay down grounds from the expectation that migrants conform to the systems within our own society... ie. the move towards secularism.

I’m not too caught up on assimilation of cultures because I think implemeting it in Europe lies somewhere between futility and the over-zealous suppression of individualism. To me, the absolute key is tolerance — that we forever defend and protect the idea that, subject to the rule of law, people should be able to believe, speak and act however they wish without fear of persecution (in full acknowledgement that certain quarters of the Left are themselves doing much to damage this) and that this trumps whatever ancient scripture says otherwise.

Ahh well, I'm of the opinion that certain cultures are simply opposites. While populations are low, it's easy to isolate these cultures and prevent any clashing from happening, but as numbers increase, there are greater demands to adapt the local area to reflect that of the foreign culture. That's been the case in France, where Islam used to be isolated, without any strong foundation to enforce their own values on others. However in recent years, numbers of people have increased to the point, where those foreign values can be enforced on others... and the demands for protecting personal freedoms, paralyses western societies from combating such a movement.

We should be encouraging the immigration of peoples with similar cultural backgrounds, because those similarities will minimize the chances of clashing relating to values. So, Ireland encouraging Europeans to come here, or other westerners, because we already share values on things such as women's rights, equality, violence towards children, etc. We already share social and legal changes, which are embedded in the conditioning we all experience. As such integration, and assimilation are far more likely to occur, and even without that happening, there aren't any common behaviors which are offensive to our own cultural/social norms. I'd extend the same for Asians, because in most cases, their values match ours, and even if they don't, they have no desire to transplant their cultures into western countries.

The issue arises when certain cultures want to be recognised as different, but also be protected. And that's an obstacle, because those who set themselves apart (expecting preferential treatment), will become a focus for distrust and contempt. Therefore increasing the chance of clashing happening, which will expand their own dissatisfaction, and their own desires for their own culture to become dominant in their own areas.

This is is where all of our energy should be devoted and all of our collective intellect — because multiculturalism is probably going to become more prevalent in Ireland and the West generally. I can’t help but feel that the harder people fight it, the more damaging they are actually (and ironically) making it.

The problem is that it hasn't been fought against. For the last two-three decades, multiculturalism has received widespread support, and anyone who objected, faced condemnation. If it had been examined, and researched properly before being implemented, then we'd likely to have avoided most of the problems that are arising. Less virtue signalling, and more practical consideration about how society would change, and the place at which these migrants would end up.

I said this before, but the truth is that we used to have a focus/assumption that assimilation would occur naturally, as those who arrived would recognise the superiority of our culture, or simply accept it because it made living there easier. Those who didn't conform, were such a small number as to be easily ignored.. and there was no expectation by migrants for any special privileges to be extended. They knew that dressing/behaving different would attract negative attention, and so, they kept it out of sight. Now, things have changed, and that assumption can no longer be made... even though what's replaced it is generating far more problems than what we had previously.

MarkEadie

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I think if we are talking about implementing a philosophy though, it would need to be backed by law or else it would simply be aspirational. How does a State make effective an “expectation” that migrants assimilate without a legal basis on which to enforce it? What would be the consequences for a failure to assimilate? How would assimilation be defined?

So then we come to another problem — the further down the line you go in enforcing assimilation the further the dent you make in the Western European focus on individual liberty. Talking about the way things were in Ireland 30-40 years ago is problematic because our own culture has moved away from obedience and conformity to Catholic philosophy towards indivudualism and permissiveness. The more steps you take to ensure adherence to a State-defined uniformity, the more you run the risk that you are actually undermining a fundamental aspect of the culture you are claiming to promote.

That’s not to say that I don’t think we need be mere bystanders to the phenomenon of cultural intermingling — there are things I think we can proactively do. One if is the need to drive very heavily towards total and across-the-board secularism in the Irish education system — and that migrants must accept that this is the education system their children will pass through. All children in the State should be educated together — it should not be Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims being educated apart. Children growing up together promotes a better sense of unity and a better appreciation of coexistence with other races, ethnicities, religions etc etc. Growing up apart promotes discord, distrust, minsunderstanding and ultimately hatred — and I say that as someone who grew up in the North in a highly segregated society.

I’m not too caught up on assimilation of cultures because I think implemeting it in Europe lies somewhere between futility and the over-zealous suppression of individualism. To me, the absolute key is tolerance — that we forever defend and protect the idea that, subject to the rule of law, people should be able to believe, speak and act however they wish without fear of persecution (in full acknowledgement that certain quarters of the Left are themselves doing much to damage this) and that this trumps whatever ancient scripture says otherwise. This is is where all of our energy should be devoted and all of our collective intellect — because multiculturalism is probably going to become more prevalent in Ireland and the West generally. I can’t help but feel that the harder people fight it, the more damaging they are actually (and ironically) making it.

But anyway, it has been a good conversation.

Good Post. The part about kids is very true. There were two mixed race guys in my class through school and they were popular nice guys everyone liked so it was a group where nobody in the area was racist. If you've had a friend of a different nationality as a child and bonded with them that is sufficient I'd say. And that's whats happening. In most schools today there will be different nationalities getting along in class, playing football together, hanging around together, dating each other etc. It's easy to see how attitudes would differ from the ones displayed by a few middle aged single men on here, who can't see their views are in the minority anyway. It's a different generation coming through and another one after that and so on. That's a big factor that is overlooked.the attitude of the new generations towards other nationalities etc will be world's apart.

Oh, just to add something about assimilation, and the laws involved. I think a strong step forward rests at the beginning, when visas are issued. I feel that a social contract should be signed by migrants whose ultimate goal is to settle permanently. Anyone who desires citizenship in a country not of their own, should be signing a social contract, that declares their support of certain values that are integral to that host nations society. A wide range of values could be listed, from secularism to defending equality for women in society. And then, these people would be under a probationary period of ten years, during which their stay is monitored to ensure that they are a welcome addition to our society.

For example, with Islam... there are many groups of Muslims with moderate and tolerant views towards western culture. These people are fully capable of coexisting in a western environment, and not be offended by the behavior of westerners around them, who don't conform to their own religious/cultural beliefs/taboos. At the same time, there are many groups of Muslims who are offended by the behavior of "free" women, behaving in ways that shouldn't be allowed. I've known a wide variety of Muslims, many of whom, would be extremely intolerant of western values... and would ultimately expect their local area to conform to Islamic standards, not western standards. After all, if everyone living there is Muslim, shouldn't their rules being applied? In reality though, they shouldn't, and the native culture should remain supreme.

I don't actually think we need that much in the way of laws to force assimilation. That initial contract agreement, with the followup monitoring, would set the theme for those who come here. It would provide a guide to show whether assimilation has occurred, or perhaps even whether tolerance has happened. Those who faked their probationary period, would know what is expected of them, and failure to accept the host culture, would be easily detected.. and what happens then? Withdraw the visa, or citizenship. I've never quite understood why citizenship must be a permanent status, irrespective of how people behave.

At some stage, we need to say that this is the society we want, and these are the values we consider worthy of protection.

Sand

I find the distinction between skilled or unskilled migration to be largely irrelevant. Firstly, that choice is not being given. Secondly, even if the choice was was being given, either option still disadvantages indigenous people. Either blue collar or white collar (or both - as in reality) workers are given the challenge of fighting tooth and nail for jobs, wages and housing with the third world. Thirdly, just because the first wave migrants are high skilled or good, honest, decent hardworking people it doesn't follow that their descendants equally will be. If we look at our nearest neighbors in the UK their experience is that the alienation emerges with the second and following generations. Migrants are not employees who can be summoned and dismissed at will. If you create a sustainable non-indigenous population in your country, you will have the resulting problems for centuries.

If the discussion is about multiculturalism and its indisputably negative impact to indigenous people, the issue is numbers. Legal or illegal, the issue is numbers. 1 in 5 of the people in Ireland were born abroad. That is not counting their children so the ethnic Irish are undoubtedly less than 3 in 4 of the people in their own homeland. This sudden turn has happened in just 2 or 3 decades. We are already seeing the all too predictable reality of ethnic strife (and how it will be leveraged by the NGO industrial complex) as in the George Nkencho case.

There isnt too much reason to believe that things will all just settle down and work themselves out after some initial teething problems. Ideally, Ireland being a European/Christian country ought to be able to assimilate migration from other European/Christian countries - but look at Northern Ireland for the grim reality. But it is not realistic to expect Ireland to be able to assimilate migration from entirely different regions of the world who have little or nothing in common with Ireland. And as we increasingly see, assimilation with the Irish isnt even a policy goal.

I really don't see how anyone looks at the path our European neighbours have taken and think that following it will turn out well.

Marcos

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh, just to add something about assimilation, and the laws involved. I think a strong step forward rests at the beginning, when visas are issued. I feel that a social contract should be signed by migrants whose ultimate goal is to settle permanently. Anyone who desires citizenship in a country not of their own, should be signing a social contract, that declares their support of certain values that are integral to that host nations society. A wide range of values could be listed, from secularism to defending equality for women in society. And then, these people would be under a probationary period of ten years, during which their stay is monitored to ensure that they are a welcome addition to our society.

For example, with Islam... there are many groups of Muslims with moderate and tolerant views towards western culture. These people are fully capable of coexisting in a western environment, and not be offended by the behavior of westerners around them, who don't conform to their own religious/cultural beliefs/taboos. At the same time, there are many groups of Muslims who are offended by the behavior of "free" women, behaving in ways that shouldn't be allowed. I've known a wide variety of Muslims, many of whom, would be extremely intolerant of western values... and would ultimately expect their local area to conform to Islamic standards, not western standards. After all, if everyone living there is Muslim, shouldn't their rules being applied? In reality though, they shouldn't, and the native culture should remain supreme.

I don't actually think we need that much in the way of laws to force assimilation. That initial contract agreement, with the followup monitoring, would set the theme for those who come here. It would provide a guide to show whether assimilation has occurred, or perhaps even whether tolerance has happened. Those who faked their probationary period, would know what is expected of them, and failure to accept the host culture, would be easily detected.. and what happens then? Withdraw the visa, or citizenship. I've never quite understood why citizenship must be a permanent status, irrespective of how people behave.

At some stage, we need to say that this is the society we want, and these are the values we consider worthy of protection.

There is the example of a Lebanese doctor who was denied citizenship after passing all the requirements including signing a declaration denouncing extremism and expressing loyalty to the German constitution. He refused to shake hands with the female official at the end of the ceremony. The administrative court of Baden-Wurttemberg saw this as violating the terms of equality outlined in the German constitution.

Denmark has proposed that applicants for citizenship to shake hands with officials as a requirement of getting citizenship.

Incidentally, is there any requirement for applicants for citizenship here to sign a similar undertaking as Germany has?

Marcos wrote: »

There is the example of a Lebanese doctor who was denied citizenship after passing all the requirements including signing a declaration denouncing extremism and expressing loyalty to the German constitution. He refused to shake hands with the female official at the end of the ceremony. The administrative court of Baden-Wurttemberg saw this as violating the terms of equality outlined in the German constitution.

Was his objection about shaking hands with a woman, or the simple act of shaking hands?

Based on your written paragraph, I wouldn't consider their denial of his application to be unreasonable.

Incidentally, is there any requirement for applicants for citizenship here to sign a similar undertaking as Germany has?

I don't think so. At least, I didn't see anything like that when I went through the website before. Although, you could check here.

Marcos

From the article, he stated that his religious beliefs forbade him from doing so.

TomTomTim

MarkEadie wrote: »

Good Post. The part about kids is very true. There were two mixed race guys in my class through school and they were popular nice guys everyone liked so it was a group where nobody in the area was racist. If you've had a friend of a different nationality as a child and bonded with them that is sufficient I'd say. And that's whats happening. In most schools today there will be different nationalities getting along in class, playing football together, hanging around together, dating each other etc. It's easy to see how attitudes would differ from the ones displayed by a few middle aged single men on here, who can't see their views are in the minority anyway. It's a different generation coming through and another one after that and so on. That's a big factor that is overlooked.the attitude of the new generations towards other nationalities etc will be world's apart.

It's not at all. This is simply shifting the blame back to the native, and implies that a lack of a humanitarian view of the world is the issue, when it's not. It's the old "love and compassion" can fixed everything view. Look at the UK, with their Islamic issues. No amount of trying to accept these people will make them change their ways; they are devout Muslims and nothing in the world will change that. Some people don't want to change, and no amount of progressive secularism will reverse that.

Marcos wrote: »

From the article, he stated that his religious beliefs forbade him from doing so.

Then his religious beliefs are incompatible with a basic value within western culture. That women are equal to men, and should be respected in that fashion.

If you sought citizenship in Lebanon, or a similar nation, you would be expected to obey the standard customs of that nation. In fact, you'd receive outright public censure for breaking many of their religious taboos. I've spent time in Islamic nations and followed the expected behaviors, respecting their customs, and keeping my own beliefs to myself (since it's known that such opinions would be unwelcome).

What makes our customs and beliefs less valuable than those of others (within our own countries)?

Sand

TomTomTim wrote: »

Look at the UK, with their Islamic issues. No amount of trying to accept these people will make them change their ways; they are devout Muslims and nothing in the world will change that. Some people don't want to change, and no amount of progressive secularism will reverse that.

I agree with your general point, but I'd point out that a fairly common factor in the characteristics of "homegrown" Islamic terrorists in the UK was that they were not devout Muslims. They tended to drink, party and otherwise engage in the consumption driven behavior considered to be indicative of being a moderate/friendly Muslim. At some point they rejected that existence and turned to something else to give themselves meaning. I only raise the point because the idea being that if only they were 'moderate' then mass migration would be okay is wrong. Ethnic conflict in the context of multiculturalism is inevitable.

Deleted User wrote: »

What makes our customs and beliefs less valuable than those of others (within our own countries)?

When did being Irish become reduced to shaking a woman's hand? Or to any value anyone might claim?

I recall my grandmother used to wear a shawl over her hair everytime she went out and about. That expression of her values - and the values of Irish people of that time - didn't make her Muslim. She was Irish regardless. If you go back and interview our ancestors 100 years back or 1000 years back I can guarantee they will hold values wholly alien to our own. But they are still our people.

My point is "values" is not a defining characteristic of a people. The values a people hold shifts and changes with time and experience. The people themselves endure much more strongly. Today some people's "values" don't amount to much more than liking Marvel superhero movies and going with the flow.

Irish "Values" and "legal immigration vs. illegal immigration" are just a delaying tactic, not a successful defense. Either you think the Irish people have some claim to their own homeland, or you don't. If you don't think they do, then why should anyone else?