nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

I would like to see a Boards.ie Consensus.

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

Agree/Disagree?

Mod:

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

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

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

Find more posts tagged with

racism

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

we're-not-racist

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What criteria should they meet to be given permanent residency?

That they be refugees!

Justin Credible Darts

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, it has been answered quite a few times. Mostly it boils down to pretty superficial benefits that can be experienced without multiculturalism. There have also been a few serious attempts to answer the question.. although, again, they didn't stand up to any serious discussion.

The point is that nobody has been able to adequately defend their benefits of multiculturalism.. which should be easy considering how often we're told that it's wonderful.

except it hasnt been answered, or at least in a way that would back up their argument.

If as you say, the benefits are superficial and could be experienced without multiculturalism, then its not a benefit from multiculturalism then is it ?

I agree with you that all arguments made, hinting that it could have benefits have been ripped to shreds on here by multiple users, and has not deterred the people who still foolishly think somehow it will be a benefit.

I guess the point being not a single member has posted a reason that can stand up to scrutiny.

Hhhhh wrote: »

I believe that refugees should be given permanent residency from the outset, yes.

As to your other questions, the numbers directed by the EU should be lower, so scenarios such as this don't occur.

What criteria should they meet to be given permanent residency?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, they were refugees.

I find your logic to be quite strange. You suggest that Denmark should have allowed in a smaller number of refugees but have given them permanent residency.. what about the remainder of the refugees that applied for entry, or those who were directed to Denmark through EU policy? They should have been given help by another country instead of Denmark?

The belief that those who grew up or spent a significant amount of time in Denmark should be given some kind of preference in being allowed to stay, but at the same time, also saying that Denmark should be allowed to decide who should stay...

It just seems, to me at least, that you keep contradicting yourself in your views.

In any case, we can probably leave this at that, because we're at opposite ends in the discussion. I believe that all refugees should be told to leave after a reasonable period of time.. and if they want to stay, then they should reapply as normal migrants, with no preference given to them, that other migrants don't receive. You believe that a selection should be given permanent residency. Grand. All cleared up.

I believe that refugees should be given permanent residency from the outset, yes.

As to your other questions, the numbers directed by the EU should be lower, so scenarios such as this don't occur.

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

and still not a single pro immigration poster has answered the most basic simple question that has been asked by multiple others.
so I will ask it again
.

Actually, it has been answered quite a few times. Mostly it boils down to pretty superficial benefits that can be experienced without multiculturalism. There have also been a few serious attempts to answer the question.. although, again, they didn't stand up to any serious discussion.

The point is that nobody has been able to adequately defend their benefits of multiculturalism.. which should be easy considering how often we're told that it's wonderful.

Hhhhh wrote: »

Fair enough. But correct usage is important in this scenario. They are (or where anyway) refugees.

Yes, they were refugees.

These people should've been given permanent residency from the get go, and a smaller number taken in.
I believe it to be terrible policy as you have people, who were here legally, set up lives for themselves in a first World country now being forced to leave and essentially start from scratch again. I think it's particularly awful for those who came at quite a young age who won't know or just barely remember Syria, essentially Denmark will be all they know. There is the added aspect that men at the age of conscription are being given leave to remain, which has the potential to split families and put those men in quite a difficult situation ie stay and potentially be conscripted to an army you despise or be far apart from your family.

It is not as if these people were merely across the border in Lebanon which has quite a similar culture and way of life. Denmark is very different.

I find your logic to be quite strange. You suggest that Denmark should have allowed in a smaller number of refugees but have given them permanent residency.. what about the remainder of the refugees that applied for entry, or those who were directed to Denmark through EU policy? They should have been given help by another country instead of Denmark?

The belief that those who grew up or spent a significant amount of time in Denmark should be given some kind of preference in being allowed to stay, but at the same time, also saying that Denmark should be allowed to decide who should stay...

It just seems, to me at least, that you keep contradicting yourself in your views.

In any case, we can probably leave this at that, because we're at opposite ends in the discussion. I believe that all refugees should be told to leave after a reasonable period of time.. and if they want to stay, then they should reapply as normal migrants, with no preference given to them, that other migrants don't receive. You believe that a selection should be given permanent residency. Grand. All cleared up.

Justin Credible Darts

8, 584 replies to this thread.....thats 215 pages by my settings

and still not a single pro immigration poster has answered the most basic simple question that has been asked by multiple others.
so I will ask it again

What are the benefits of Multiculturalism ?

I am genuinely curious to know why some people still think this is a good idea when it clearly has been an absolute failure in the UK , Germany, France, and almost all of western europe, and make no mistake will be an absolute failure here.

So could one of the pro immigration posters who seem so convinced of their argument explain to us others what are the benefits.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Terminology. Refugees. Migrants. Asylum seekers. All have a different meaning, and reference in terms of this discussion. Others tend to blur between them which simply clouds the overall topic.

Fair enough. But correct usage is important in this scenario. They are (or where anyway) refugees.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The relevance is your second last sentence. Why should they be given permanent residence at all? They were given a safe environment and benefits to live for a time... which is, naturally, what we should do to help others. However, why should that be extended to permanent residency for any numbers (based on their current status)? Recognized refugees, and Asylum seekers retain that special status throughout their time in a country.

And.. back to my original question, which you didn't answer. Why is it a terrible policy?

These people should've been given permanent residency from the get go, and a smaller number taken in.
I believe it to be terrible policy as you have people, who were here legally, set up lives for themselves in a first World country now being forced to leave and essentially start from scratch again. I think it's particularly awful for those who came at quite a young age who won't know or just barely remember Syria, essentially Denmark will be all they know. There is the added aspect that men at the age of conscription are being given leave to remain, which has the potential to split families and put those men in quite a difficult situation ie stay and potentially be conscripted to an army you despise or be far apart from your family.

It is not as if these people were merely across the border in Lebanon which has quite a similar culture and way of life. Denmark is very different.

Hhhhh wrote: »

Are those foreign nationals refugees? If not I don't see the relevance. I agree with you re Asylum seekers. But an asylum seeker isn't necessarily a refugee. So again, I don't see the relevance of your point.
These were people given refugee status. Denmark is perfectly entitled to now tell these people to leave 6, 7, 8 years later. However, the initial policy should've been to take a smaller number of people and give them permanent residence.

Terminology. Refugees. Migrants. Asylum seekers. All have a different meaning, and reference in terms of this discussion. Others tend to blur between them which simply clouds the overall topic.

The relevance is your second last sentence. Why should they be given permanent residence at all? They were given a safe environment and benefits to live for a time... which is, naturally, what we should do to help others. However, why should that be extended to permanent residency for any numbers (based on their current status)? Recognized refugees, and Asylum seekers retain that special status throughout their time in a country.

And.. back to my original question, which you didn't answer. Why is it a terrible policy?

AllForIt wrote: »

That's funny, some seem more than happy to move to the West, a place they don't even really know, after living all their youth in their native land.

Yes, likely because their homeland is mostly a complete dive, at least in comparison to the West. Not really sure of the point you are trying to make.

TomTomTim wrote: »

They are criminals, they are scumbags, but at least they are a diverse group of scumbags. This is all the proof that you need that we can all get along :pac:

You've missed the point. It could be worse, if the gangs were race based, such as in America. At least it hasn't gotten to that stage (yet, anyway).

Cordell wrote: »

Let me try, see if I'm doing it right:
Yes, it's quite bad. You can blame your parents for having you with no clear residency status, and you can blame Denmark for not deporting you sooner, and you can do both from Syria.

I'm happy we're both in agreement that it's a bad policy.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So what? They're refugees. Any acceptance of refugees should be temporary.. unless the country wishes to selectively invite them to stay permanently later.

I know foreign nationals who have studied in Ireland for 8-9 years.. should they be given the right to stay indefinitely? No. They shouldn't.. except if they follow the standard procedure for immigration later.

The same should be the policy for Asylum Seekers. When the situation that brings their lives under threat is considered to be ended, they should be told to leave, or apply as a normal immigrant, fully aware that their application may be denied if they don't meet the needs required for immigration.

Are those foreign nationals refugees? If not I don't see the relevance. I agree with you re Asylum seekers. But an asylum seeker isn't necessarily a refugee. So again, I don't see the relevance of your point.
These were people given refugee status. Denmark is perfectly entitled to now tell these people to leave 6, 7, 8 years later. However, the initial policy should've been to take a smaller number of people and give them permanent residence.

Justin Credible Darts

bubblypop wrote: »

There are plenty of Chinese gangs operating in Ireland, and yes they have been involved in street violence.
Eastern European gangs are affiliated with organised crime gangs and dissident republican gangs in Ireland.
Just because you just read articles about black teenagers engaging in crime, doesn't mean there isn't plenty more.

Crime is everywhere, committed by all backgrounds and races.

I see you completely chose to ignore the term street gang...no surprise,.
I have yet to see a chinese or indian gang, loitering on street corners causing trouble, or mugging people over here.

This notion every race commits crime is a blanket statement.

Muslims have committed more rapes in the UK despite being the minority....

Blacks for example who only take up 13% of american population commit more than half of all crimes in the us.....

all the mass shooters in the us in schools tend to be all white

The travelling community make up something like .6% of the population here...6 in a thousand, yet take up 11% of the male prison population and 22% of the female prison population....that is almost 37 times that of a settled person...how do you explain stats like these ?

The point being it is not a simple statement that everyone commits crimes as some races are committing more certain type of crimes than others., and a simple blanket statement wont cover it.

kildare lad, if you're going to drop in a random video at least add some context or your own thoughts on it, and make sure it's relevant to the topic of the thread

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The crime stats for London and who carries them out are a real eye opener. Stabbings, muggings, knife crime, assaults etc. massively over reprensented by one demographic.

I'm sure that won't happen here ....

bubblypop wrote: »

Crime is everywhere, committed by all backgrounds and races.

Do you agree that certain demographics are massively overrepresented in crime figures?

Overheal wrote: »

Any waves of Chinese or Indian refugees?

I may be reading you wrong, but are you suggesting that crime gangs are related to an influx of refugees?

Again, I may have read you wrong.

bubblypop wrote: »

There are plenty of Chinese gangs operating in Ireland, and yes they have been involved in street violence.
Eastern European gangs are affiliated with organised crime gangs and dissident republican gangs in Ireland.
Just because you just read articles about black teenagers engaging in crime, doesn't mean there isn't plenty more.

Crime is everywhere, committed by all backgrounds and races.

I'm not talking about organised crime , btw triads keep everything in their own community so do most eastern European gangsters . But you don't get gangs of Chinese teens and Eastern European teens hanging around acting like thugs in Ireland . Maybe you could enlighten us were it's going on ??

Hhhhh wrote: »

Because some of these people have been here 7 years, 8 years. Imagine spending your whole teenage years in Denmark, a first world nation, only to hit adulthood and find yourself being sent back to a country you don't even really know. A better policy would've been to take a smaller number of people to permanently settle.

That's funny, some seem more than happy to move to the West, a place they don't even really know, after living all their youth in their native land.

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

odd how you dont see chinese gangs involved in street crime
or indian gangs for that matter

despite asians making up more of the population than blacks

Any waves of Chinese or Indian refugees?

TomTomTim wrote: »

They are criminals, they are scumbags, but at least they are a diverse group of scumbags. This is all the proof that you need that we can all get along :pac:

Michael Jackson was ahead of his time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsUXAEzaC3Q

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

odd how you dont see chinese gangs involved in street crime

There are plenty of Chinese gangs operating in Ireland, and yes they have been involved in street violence.
Eastern European gangs are affiliated with organised crime gangs and dissident republican gangs in Ireland.
Just because you just read articles about black teenagers engaging in crime, doesn't mean there isn't plenty more.

Crime is everywhere, committed by all backgrounds and races.

Deleted User wrote: »

They are criminals, they are scumbags, but at least they are a diverse group of scumbags. This is all the proof that you need that we can all get along :pac:

Hhhhh wrote: »

To be honest, these gangs being a mix of races is a positive in some sense.

Justin Credible Darts

odd how you dont see chinese gangs involved in street crime
or indian gangs for that matter

despite asians making up more of the population than blacks

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Irish multicultural stats - I'm lost after 1 and 2.

1/ Irish
2/ British
3/
4/
5/

I'm guessing 3 = Chinese, but I'm not sure.

Irish 82.2%, Irish travelers 0.7%, other white 9.5%, Asian 2.1%, black 1.4%, other 1.5%, unspecified 2.6% (2016 est.)

Non-Irish_Nationals_Living_in_Ireland_Infographic_1875_x_1025_72dpi.png

Non-Irish_Nationals_Living_in_Ireland_Infographic_1875_x_1025_72dpi.png

https://www.cso.ie/en/csolatestnews/presspages/2018/census2016-non-irishnationalitieslivinginireland/

Irish multicultural stats - I'm lost after 1 and 2.

1/ Irish
2/ British
3/
4/
5/

I'm guessing 3 = Chinese, but I'm not sure.

Hhhhh wrote: »

Because some of these people have been here 7 years, 8 years. Imagine spending your whole teenage years in Denmark, a first world nation, only to hit adulthood and find yourself being sent back to a country you don't even really know. A better policy would've been to take a smaller number of people to permanently settle.

So what? They're refugees. Any acceptance of refugees should be temporary.. unless the country wishes to selectively invite them to stay permanently later.

I know foreign nationals who have studied in Ireland for 8-9 years.. should they be given the right to stay indefinitely? No. They shouldn't.. except if they follow the standard procedure for immigration later.

The same should be the policy for Asylum Seekers. When the situation that brings their lives under threat is considered to be ended, they should be told to leave, or apply as a normal immigrant, fully aware that their application may be denied if they don't meet the needs required for immigration.

Hhhhh wrote: »

Because some of these people have been here 7 years, 8 years. Imagine spending your whole teenage years in Denmark, a first world nation, only to hit adulthood and find yourself being sent back to a country you don't even really know. A better policy would've been to take a smaller number of people to permanently settle.

Let me try, see if I'm doing it right:
Yes, it's quite bad. You can blame your parents for having you with no clear residency status, and you can blame Denmark for not deporting you sooner, and you can do both from Syria.