What are the pros and cons of multiracial multicultural society?

Norwesterner wrote: »

Think you'll find it's Foxrock, Blackrock, Greystones etc that has the lowest concentration of Non-EU residents.
Ironic, considering thats where all the hipster, open door policy folk live.

Any sources to back this up? The link in the post you quoted does state that 55% of the immigrant community live on the North side, leaving 45% for the South side.
So is there any statistic you have to show that the percentage of immigrants in Foxrock, Blackrock or Greystones is lower than the percentage in Finglas, where it's under 5%?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It's the story of modern capitalism basically. As I said at the beginning, they want mobile, docile, servile workers. They can achieve that with increased globalisation.
It's interesting to me that, given we live in an age of global media and affordable global transport, there has never been less need to move populations about in order to 'experience other cultures'. They're all there for you, either virtually on the internet or TV, or else in person, a plane flight away.
Yet that is the main reason offered in favour of multicultural societies.
No one seems to legislate for the other side of the equation. What about those who would rather not have other cultures inflicted upon them? They can turn off the TV or the internet, but when mass immigration arrives at their doorstep, it is an infliction on their civil liberties, since they were given no choice in the opening of the borders to all.
When you break it down, this is fuck all to do with cultures exploring each other and everything to do with making lots of money for a small number of rich people. What do they then do with that money? Why, they build big houses behind big gates to keep the immigrants out, of course.

Since when is it a right to pick your neighbours?

Norwesterner wrote: »

Take a walk around Foxrock, Greystones or Blackrock, then hop on the bus to Tallaght, Finglas or Blanchardstown and you tell me.
Do you really need a link??
How much social housing has been built for immigrants in the leafy suburbs where our elite, opinion formers live??

I wasn't aware that social housing was built specifically for immigrants?
I can't say I've ever met any immigrants living in social housing, most I know rent or have bought a house.

But I did have a feeling that you base your assumptions on the numbers of immigrants on the languages you hear on the busses.

So....The argument for immigration boils down(not intended) to better food and better sports players.Bravo.

Norwesterner wrote: »

I didn't mention UK Nationals.
If they are law abiding, hard working citizens I've no problem with any immigrant.
It's the open door policy that allows an entire Traid network to set up in Ireland unchecked or unnoticed , or pickpocket gangs to come here, claim the dole, get a house and work full time thieving that galls me.

I've read recently that Syrian refugees were refused entry to Ireland.
This is wrong in my opinion as these are genuine refugees and we should help them.
Unfortunately most of the refugees in Ireland are bogus, and have made it more difficult now for the genuine ones to enter.
The fact that we are unable to cope with an influx of genuine refugees (from Syria etc) is bluntly the fault of those who clumsily oversaw our immigration policy in the last decade.

The pdf you linked me to did mention them, though.
It also did mention, as I said, that EU nationals need to be able to prove that they have employment before being considered for social housing, and non-EU nationals not only have to be employed, but need to have lived in Ireland for 5 years before they can be considered.

I agree with you on the Syrians. But I know from back in Germany that asylum law in the EU are very complex indeed, and that fleeing a war is not considered grounds for asylum. They put that particular bit in place during the civil war in former Yugoslavia.
I doubt however that "most refugees in Ireland are bogus", Ireland accepts under 7% of applications for asylum. Over 93% are rejected, and consequently sent back home.
http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/PR07000171

Norwesterner wrote: »

So. Explain this.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/mosney-firm-paid-89m-for-housing-asylum-seekers-1.1313304

What's to explain? A private company that defrauded the government by providing for 600 asylum seekers, and taking more per person in administration fees than the asylum seekers themselves were granted per day?

“This sum has remained the same for 12 years – €19.10 per week for adults, just under €1,000 for the year, and €9.60 per week per child, just under €500 for the year while the centre operators received over €12,500 per resident for 2012."

Are you blaming the asylum seekers for government incompetence? Or for private sector greed?

Norwesterner wrote: »

Pretty self explanatory.
He said asylum is only given to those who arrived in the nearest country.
He said if any asylum seeker arrived in Ireland he/she would not be entitled to asylum and would be sent back to the first country they entered on fleeing.
My point was why aren't those in Mosney sent back to the first country they entered?

Before Nodin provided the link to extensive information, I would have guessed they arrived on direct flights, or via non-EU countries, so could not be sent back?

I think I can sum up the Multicultural-Lefts view on this both accurately and succinctly.

Pros

• Multiculturalism is just great. It just is. I know better than you. Though very likely my only experience of multiculturalism was getting that dark-skinned man to build my conservatory super-cheap

Cons

• There are no cons. If you think there are any problems with importing foreign cultures (no matter how vile and backward they are) or mass immigration, you're a racist. It's the only reason. That and you read the Daily Mail when everyone knows only the Guardian is fair and balanced.

I can finally use up the X, Y and Z pages of my address book

Herb Powell wrote: »

they don't engage in any crime

Hypothetically speaking, (and I'm not saying this is true) but suppose that immigrants from one culture/country were more inclined to commit crimes than immigrants from another.

Would it not make more sense to give preference to the latter?

Nodin wrote: »

...and those with no legs, women (OMG!!!) and war veterans.....probably leaving out a few there. Up north it was brought in to prevent sectarian discrimination.

I oppose "positive" discrimination but this is off topic, the disabled get preferential parking spaces and I'm fine with that though. And as for bringing Northern Ireland into it ... and you call me obtuse :rolleyes:

Folks, cut out the petty digs at each other. You don't have to make each post personal.

SeanW wrote: »

Hypothetically speaking, (and I'm not saying this is true) but suppose that immigrants from one culture/country were more inclined to commit crimes than immigrants from another.

Would it not make more sense to give preference to the latter?

It would make sense if all people of a particular were the same homogenous block, but crime transcends culture, and is present in every country. It makes perfect sense that there would be resentment towards those who come from a cultural background/community who seem to responsible for a lot of crime in an area. It makes sense why people would discriminate, but it doesn't make it ok.

I used the Chinese as an example, because they, and almost all other Asian cultures, are usually held in high regard, even by the bigots as being civilised. However, they have their own crime networks. The triads are as ruthless as any gangs. We hear about huge drug bust on asian-run operations pretty often.

So you see, saying that someone has a higher potential to commit crime just because of their cultural/racial background is nonsense. Like I said, crime is EVERYWHERE, and whilst there are many many many different cultures and ethnic groups, the common denominator of high crime areas/regions appears to be economic, rather than race-related. Poor people are more likely to turn to crime, not people of (x)-colour/whatever.