Deleted User wrote: » 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Swindled wrote: » Speaking to those I've worked who have been given Irish citizenship, it's the EU passport they want, so minor difference these days. The term Irish / German is now meaningless.
[Deleted User] wrote: » It seems to be men who worry on women’s behalf what effect 3rd world or Islamic immigration will have on them. Why is that? Why are women not worried for themselves.
Deleted User wrote: » It seems to be men who worry on women’s behalf what effect 3rd world or Islamic immigration will have on them. Why is that? Why are women not worried for themselves.
LostinBlanch wrote: » That article linked referred to him being rejected for German citizenship, not Irish.
Sand wrote: » This Lebanese man was rejected from Irish citizenship on the basis of him not shaking a woman's hand. This links Irish citizenship and membership within the Irish nation to "values". I completely disagree with that view and I think it is setup for failure.
WrenBoy wrote: » Your already off to a bad start when your explaining backwards cultural practices being brought into the West by comparing them to peoples actions in the West "A few hundred years back".. why would we want to go back to that ? the good ideas and practices endured the harmful and unhelpful were abandoned.
jmreire wrote: » The problems in the west re burning witches etc. were rightly known as the dark ages, but the west moved on from that, and thats where we are today. Problem with Islam is that it has not changed since the 6th century. Even Muslim immigrants to the west who adopt some western customs, drinking, women wearing whatever they like, listening to western TV and music, etc. But the minute they return to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, Saudi etc. the minute they step off the plane, ship etc. they will revert straightaway to Islamic culture and values.And that goes for the grandkids of the original immigrants. And when and where in the west they are in sufficient Nrs, they will replicate the Islamic way of life.
Deleted User wrote: » haha.. I'm not basing "my entire defense" on women's rights. The example was of a Lebanese man who refused to shake hands with a woman... hence the reference to women's rights and equality. I'm kinda surprised that I need to repeat that.
As for my entire defense, you haven't really provided any kind of attack on my argument that values matter, and that there are differences between cultures with regards to both the values themselves and the importance of them. You've simply disagreed... hardly a successful attack, by any measure.
Of course it does, since it falls into the western sphere of influence, and sharing of western culture through imperialism, the spread of Christianity, and social movements like feminism, anti-war movements, etc.
They may seek to impose those different values on Irish people, and that will cause degrees of friction. However, even if they don't impose those values on Irish people, would you be happy with slavery or child abuse being applied to foreign groups (in Ireland) simply because they have such a culture?
No. You introduced that perspective, and assigned it to me. Again, where have I even commented on such a thing previously? (Although I will say that I do believe the native population does have a greater claim on a country than any foreign groups, including second generations born)
As for that advice, nah.. I don't buy it. We are not obliged to open our borders and accept others without conditions being applied.
Ahh but I've repeatedly spoken about the values that are common within western culture. These are not exclusive to being Irish...
Sand wrote: » A few hundred years back, "western" cultures were burning women at the stake for being witches. Much more recently women were being denied basic equality such as being able to keep their job after becoming parents. Basing your entire defense of the west on the west's enduring defense of women's rights is a losing proposition. What even is the "west"? Is Australia part of the "west" despite being on roughly the same longitude as Japan? Different peoples have different historical experiences. If Ireland continues to bring in different peoples, then those peoples may indeed impose different values over those of the Irish. Then you're only committed to losing slowly. My advice to you would be to fully commit to open borders and just endorse the consequences. They don't. They change like the wind. They aren't. They don't. I think if challenged, you would struggle to find a value distinct and exclusive to Irish people that *all* Irish people share and *no* non-Irish person claims. Being up for the craic? It is. You're talking about values and I can guarantee I don't share your values. Are you Irish? If you are, am I not Irish because I don't share your values? Or are we both Irish, regardless of values. Because being Irish is not defined by something so ephemeral as values. It wasn't so long ago a woman was intimidated in an Irish court by a procession of her neighbors going up in court to shake the hand of the man convicted of raping her. Her parish priest testified on behalf of the rapist. Are the people who did these things not Irish in your view because they didn't demonstrate your definition of Irish values?
Sand wrote: » A few hundred years back, "western" cultures were.....
[Deleted User] wrote: » Victims of crime always find great comfort knowing that the law was broken.
bubblypop wrote: » The only thing that matters is the rule of law. Individual values are not important as such, what matters is the law of the land. Want to commit child abuse? Against the law. Want 5 wives? Against the law. Doesn't matter what someone's own personal values are, so long as they are legal.
WrenBoy wrote: » Found ithttps://www.newstalk.com/listen-back if you select Newstalk Breakfast on yesterdays date. and skip to the 1hour 50mins mark.
Sand wrote: » A few hundred years back, "western" cultures were burning women at the stake for being witches. Much more recently women were being denied basic equality such as being able to keep their job after becoming parents. Basing your entire defense of the west on the west's enduring defense of women's rights is a losing proposition.
What even is the "west"? Is Australia part of the "west" despite being on roughly the same longitude as Japan?
Different peoples have different historical experiences. If Ireland continues to bring in different peoples, then those peoples may indeed impose different values over those of the Irish.
Then you're only committed to losing slowly. My advice to you would be to fully commit to open borders and just endorse the consequences.
They don't. I think if challenged, you would struggle to find a value distinct and exclusive to Irish people that *all* Irish people share and *no* non-Irish person claims. Being up for the craic?
Deleted User wrote: » Western culture, including Ireland, places importance on the equality of the sexes.
Yes, values and customs do change over time. However, there are foundational/fundamental values within western culture, that has been due to social movements to generate the distinctive differences between our way of thinking, with that of most foreign countries. Do you think that Ireland will ever decide that women should lose all the rights they currently have and become second class citizens again? If not, then...
Huh? Where are you getting this from? Where have I ever suggested such a thing?
Values matter.
They're a core part of our culture,
and it shows a distinctive difference with other cultures/nationalities.
It's not some kind of mistaken defense or delaying tactic.
It's about what's important. I've seen how women are treated in many Islamic nations. I definitely don't want to happen here. Just as I've seen the range of abuse that happens to children in parts of Africa or Asia, again, something I wouldn't want to happen here. It is our values that ensure that such behavior does not become acceptable here.
Deleted User wrote: » It is our values that ensure that such behavior does not become acceptable here.
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.
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.
Sand wrote: » 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?
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.
Deleted User wrote: » What makes our customs and beliefs less valuable than those of others (within our own countries)?
Marcos wrote: » From the article, he stated that his religious beliefs forbade him from doing so.
Incidentally, is there any requirement for applicants for citizenship here to sign a similar undertaking as Germany has?
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5c014a6ccfbcc766be7a1899ed0f9420.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/05bfdb0bc9f81b358ccf2f55186422bb.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-6887794-1428834960-5638.jpeg.jpg)
