Migration Megathread

markodaly · 19-03-2019 12:55pm

Brian? wrote: »

Well sort of. If your parents are habitually resident when you're born here you're entitled to Irish citizenship. Which is an altogether sensible approach as Ireland was being used for citizenship tourism to gain access to the EU.

Which is my point. We voted in strong immigration policy to prevent people taking the piss.
Yet, I also remember people at the time telling us that to vote for it was racist.

The people of Ireland did not vote to no longer accept refugees or deny entrance to immigrants, which is kind of the matter at hand.

Taking away a big carrot for an immigrant to come here and have their kids is by defacto implementing policy towards more strict and stringent immigration.

Again, you say its sensible and I agree, yet people were there campaigning against this on the basis that migrants would feel less welcome and that the motivation was based on racism.

We had the same argument from OB stating that people should be shot because people were being trafficked across the Med by human traffickers. In a mocking way of course.

oscarBravo · 19-03-2019 3:54pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Non-nationals who arrive by boat on Italy's shore should be deported, says someone

So why not shoot them

Quips oscarbravo.

That translates as 'You are an extremist so your views do not need to be considered'.

I actually explained what I meant: if you're going to deny people the basic human right of due process for a self-evidently stupid reason "they're in a boat", you might as well deny them all human rights (including the right to life) for the same stupid reasons.

Now, if you think that's glib of me - if, for argument's sake, you think that it's perfectly acceptable to dehumanise people in boats in one way, but not in another, feel free to make that case rather than lazily paraphrasing me in a way that carefully erases my entire point.

Indeed, you explicitly say that people who are anti-immigration are basically in favor of genocide.

I don't recall explicitly saying that. Can you cite where I did so?

markodaly wrote: »

How many overt Islamaphobes are on this thread for example.
Do you think I am Islamaphobe? Recedite? Sand?

If someone is arguing that Muslims are unwelcome among us, why would they object to being described as islamophobic?

ancapailldorcha · 19-03-2019 5:24pm

Twitter dump deleted.

Midlife · 19-03-2019 6:59pm

recedite wrote: »

You're the one cherrypicking. The basis statistic is that each non-EU migrant is an £840 per year drain on the UK economy, on average. You picked out one statistic that reckons this average might improve over time if young kids are included, and if those young kids grow up as fully integrated, productive, and highly skilled citizens.

Sorry, you should read it properly. I completly acknowledge that it says that the average non-EU migrant costs 840 but the report goes to lengths to explain that this 'static' analysis doesn't give the true picture. You seem to give it massive credence in terms of methodology in one area (the bit which you want to be true) but then say it's flawed in other areas.

I accept the whole thing and it's obvious to anyone who takes the time to read it that to take a single statistic out as you are doing is painting an incorrect picture.

There may be evidence out there that migrants are not economically beneficial but this most definitly is not it.

I can't really see how you can honestly take the stance that you agree but disagree with the reports authors. You both accept and reject it?

MAC report wrote:

While a static model is useful in providing an assessment of the short-run
current net fiscal contribution, it can be misleading as a picture of the net
contribution over the longer-run. This distinction is clearest in the case of
expenditures on education. The education of children (whether migrant or not)
is an investment for the future (and most studies suggest it is a good
investment) providing returns in the form of higher earnings and tax receipts in
the future. The costs and benefits accrue over very different time horizons and
a static analysis cannot capture this.

For this reason, the OE report also presents a dynamic model for the 2016
cohort of migrants, assessing the expected costs and benefits over the lifecycle.

MAC report wrote:

All migrant groups are heterogeneous in terms of age, work and family structure
so the differences in net contributions within groups are much larger than the
differences between groups we have discussed so far. To illustrate this, Figure
4.2 shows, for four stylised households, how the net contribution varied with
total household income in 2016/17. For a young single adult (HH1),
consumption of public services is low so a household income of just over
£10,000 per year is sufficient to “break even” in the sense that taxes paid equal
benefits and public services received. This “break-even” income rises to around
£45,000 per year for a working couple with two dependent children (HH2)
though, as noted earlier, the costs of educating the children should be thought
of as investment for the future. As the couple ages and their children leave
home (HH3), the break-even point falls to around £25,000 per year (HH3). But
as they age and retire (HH4) the break-even point rises to £90,000, reflecting
rising pension and health costs.

MAC report wrote:

Figure 4.3 shows how, averaging across all household types, the net fiscal
contribution of EEA and non-EEA migrants varies with annual household
income. The “break-even” point seems to be about £30,000 for EEA migrants
and UK-born and nearer to £38,000 for non-EEA migrants. The “break-even”
point is higher for non-EEA migrants than EEA because non-EEA migrants are
more likely to have dependent children and non-working adults in part because
family migration is more important.

MAC report wrote:

While the static analysis is useful as a snapshot of the net fiscal contribution of
migrants in the current fiscal year it can be misleading as a measure of the net
contribution over the lifecycle. For most individuals their net fiscal contribution
is negative while children, positive while of working age and turning negative again in old age. A lifecycle perspective offers an assessment of the longerterm net fiscal contribution. The OE report does this for the 2016 migrant cohort.

MAC report wrote:

A lifecycle analysis requires making some assumptions about the future.
Whether there is an overall deficit or surplus in the public finances matters, as
does the emigration rate of migrants, and the earnings progression of those
who remain in the UK. The OE report makes reasonable assumptions about
the future but it is important to be aware of the considerable uncertainty that
inevitably is attached to those assumptions. One other difference from the static analysis is the children of migrants are considered as individuals in their own right.

MAC report wrote:

The annual average fiscal contribution over the lifecycle for
the 2016 cohort of arrivals, shown by age of migrant. The lifecycle can be seen
clearly: those arriving as working-age adults start with a positive net fiscal
contribution which eventually turns negative as they age. Those arriving as
children have a negative net contribution initially which then becomes positive
as they start to work.

MAC report wrote:

The 515,000 migrants who arrived in 2016 are expected to make a discounted
net contribution of £26.9bn over their lifetime in the UK. We estimate that each
additional migrant from the EEA will make a total discounted fiscal contribution
of approximately £78,000 over his or her lifetime in 2017 prices. Non-EEA
migrants, who had a negative net fiscal contribution in the static analysis, are
estimated to have a positive lifetime contribution of £28,000 per head.

Sand · 19-03-2019 7:19pm

recedite wrote: »

You're the one cherrypicking. The basis statistic is that each non-EU migrant is an £840 per year drain on the UK economy, on average. You picked out one statistic that reckons this average might improve over time if young kids are included, and if those young kids grow up as fully integrated, productive, and highly skilled citizens.

And that hope is not supported by the evidence. UK unemployment figures from the end of 2018 show that someone from a BAME background is twice as likely to be unemployed as someone from a indigenous background. People from a Bangladeshi background were 4 times as likely to be unemployed.

Mass migration is a objectively an economic burden on the indigenous people, and it continues to be an economic burden to future generations of the indigenous people.

Sand · 19-03-2019 7:46pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You cited Connolly in a conversation about immigration being a bad thing. Merely pointing out he was an immigrant and a terrorist. Personally I think we could do with more like him but without the violence

No I cited him to contest your focus on the economy as the prism through which to view and measure immigration. I'm pointing out Connolly didn't consider himself an immigrant, and the Irish state would have recognised him as an Irish citizen regardless of where he was born.

It's about what's best for people

Yes, European people. Europeans have the legitimate expectation that policy will be made by European politicians in line with what is best for Europeans.

We should curtail immigration were it causes trouble to society.

There is a enduring Islamic insurgency in Europe where suicide bombings, mass shootings and truck attacks are now just part and parcel of living in a big city. What must your definition of 'trouble to society' be that it has not already been breached?

We should take in an immigrant from Syria with the same sentiment we welcome one from Australia.

That is a ludicrous comparison.

Do you view Europe as a defined static state of being? What needs protecting? Economies? If so sure curtail immigration if needed.

Europe is not static. Again, the false dichotomy between mass migration and cultural decay. I note that you prioritise the economy when determining if immigration should be curtailed. Again, I make the point that Connolly did not sacrifice his life for greater economic output.

Brian? · 19-03-2019 7:50pm

markodaly wrote: »

Or to put it bluntly, on this forum, it would not be tolerated.

Maybe I put it to you. Is it ever OK to discuss immigration policy, without being accused of engaging in dog whistling?

Absolutely it’s ok to. But it rarely happens in my experience. In my experience one side is bigoted and accuses the other of wanting unlimited migration and open borders. The other side points out the bigotry and gets called PC. Repeat.

Well these are delicate subjects and I can understand why the ears prick up if one starts to go there. Yet, sometimes, not always but sometimes one has to take a step back and look, discuss what is happening. On our own Island, the Ulster plantation can be viewed in the same way. Tell me, did this improve the situation in Ulster and on our Island as a whole?

I don't think anyone with hindsight would view the Ulster plantation in a positive light historically speaking given the sectarianism which has manifested itself in that part of the country and still exists to this day.

Because maybe I am not a bigot?

Did I not just say that?

Brian? · 19-03-2019 7:52pm

markodaly wrote: »

Which is my point. We voted in strong immigration policy to prevent people taking the piss.
Yet, I also remember people at the time telling us that to vote for it was racist.

Taking away a big carrot for an immigrant to come here and have their kids is by defacto implementing policy towards more strict and stringent immigration.

Again, you say its sensible and I agree, yet people were there campaigning against this on the basis that migrants would feel less welcome and that the motivation was based on racism.

We’re they? I don’t remember

We had the same argument from OB stating that people should be shot because people were being trafficked across the Med by human traffickers. In a mocking way of course.

Are the children of refugees not entitled to citizenship if their parents are here for 2 years? I am not sure whether seeking asylum constitutes being habitually resident.

Midlife · 19-03-2019 8:16pm

Sand wrote: »

And that hope is not supported by the evidence. UK unemployment figures from the end of 2018 show that someone from a BAME background is twice as likely to be unemployed as someone from a indigenous background. People from a Bangladeshi background were 4 times as likely to be unemployed.

Now that's actually accurate.

It's kind of expected to be honest though. I mean you wouldn't really expect people migrating over jobless to be as successful as people long settled in the country when it comes to employment.

Having slightly higher unemployment rates simply just means less beneficial than in terms of economics. We've long since established this for both England and Ireland.

I think you and others are guilty of equating 'less positive' with 'negative'.

Sand wrote: »

Mass migration is a objectively an economic burden on the indigenous people, and it continues to be an economic burden to future generations of the indigenous people.

Can we see evidence for this please? You mentioned that you produced it before but I can't find it.

It's not in the piece you just cited. It's not in the report cited a couple of days ago. That report actually says the opposite of what you just did.

I'm not sure exactly how this works but I think for the benefit of all on this thread that these statments about economic impact be backed up or retracted.

RandomName2 · 19-03-2019 8:20pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I actually explained what I meant: if you're going to deny people the basic human right of due process for a self-evidently stupid reason "they're in a boat", you might as well deny them all human rights (including the right to life) for the same stupid reasons.

We both know why you did it. You'd say 'gas chambers' but you are too shrewd for that.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Now, if you think that's glib of me - if, for argument's sake, you think that it's perfectly acceptable to dehumanise people in boats in one way, but not in another, feel free to make that case rather than lazily paraphrasing me in a way that carefully erases my entire point.

Lazy

Paraphrasing

and ignore the point.

My point was that I didn't object to your point (I disagree with it, but that's different). I object to your modus operandi, not that it's your MO in any way exclusively, I just think you are a really good example of it.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't recall explicitly saying that. Can you cite where I did so?

If I'm to learn from you I should learn to coach my words more like you. It would have been preferable to say

It seems that some people here are inclined to equate being anti-immigration with genocidal tendencies.

Because you can endlessly tease out how much your explicit use of the Christchurch shooting as being a logical conclusion for being anti-immigration is not in direct reference to any particular poster (but when quoting someone who has just expressed an anti-immigration view, in a thread about immigration, the inference is pretty clear).

Wait you don't actually use the term anti-immigration.. how do you describe the position? Ah.. 'Muslims don't deserve to live among us'. Has anybody actually said this line, in this thread, other than yourself? That there is a rhetorical question.

I once asked you what sort of ceiling you would place on immigration numbers, and you just dodged the question, because all of this is just a vehicle for pathos for you.

Brian? wrote: »

Serious question. Who on this thread is a 'liberal' in your view?

Sorry, but I'm not sure what answer you are looking for here. It's not a pejorative term (or at least I don't believe it is). Would there be a term you would prefer I use? My use of quotes around the term liberal is because I don't think it is an accurate description, I think the term 'redistributer' would be more accurate, but 'liberal' is common parlance. If you are thinking I am being critical of political tribalism, then that would be an accurate assessment.

I wonder for how many people it would be true that you could ask them their opinion on a single, arbitrary, political issue, and thereby know their position on virtually every political issue.

tretorn · 19-03-2019 8:28pm

Brian? wrote: »

Well sort of. If your parents are habitually resident when you're born here you're entitled to Irish citizenship. Which is an altogether sensible approach as Ireland was being used for citizenship tourism to gain access to the EU.

I doubt it too. Which is because the amendment wasn't taking away birth right citizenship entirely, as above. It was a very common sense approach.

The people of Ireland did not vote to no longer accept refugees or deny entrance to immigrants, which is kind of the matter at hand.

If the people of Ireland were asked to vote to limit immigration from third world countries there would be a stampede to the polls. They were given an option about anchor babies and they emphatically said we want an end to that.

Irish people dont want housing/ hostel or Direct Provision in their neighbourhoods, the Irish Government know this so hence new immigrant centres are located in low population centres so locals cant mount opposition. Some locals are so incensed by being dumped on like this that they take matters into their own hands and set fire to buildings and then the liberals in their nice residential conclaves can point their fingers and call the rural folks red necks.

Lavinia · 19-03-2019 8:30pm

No burka bs in this country
Otherwise don't care really but this is disgusting to see..

Brian? · 19-03-2019 8:33pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

We both know why you did it. You'd say 'gas chambers' but you are indeed too glib for that.

Lazy

Paraphrasing

and ignore the point.

My point was that I didn't object to your point (I disagree with it, but that's different). I object to your modus operandi, not that it's your MO in any way exclusively, I just think you are a really good example of it.

If I'm to learn from you I should learn to coach my words more like you. It would have been preferable to say

It seems that some people here are inclined to equate being anti-immigration with genocidal tendencies.

Because you can endlessly tease out how much your explicit use of the Christchurch shooting as being a logical conclusion for being anti-immigration is not in direct reference to any particular poster (but when quoting someone who has just expressed an anti-immigration view, in a thread about immigration, the inference is pretty clear).

Wait you don't actually use the term anti-immigration.. how do you describe the position? Ah.. 'Muslims don't deserve to live among us'. Has anybody actually said this line, in this thread, other than yourself? That there is a rhetorical question.

I once asked you what sort of ceiling you would place on immigration numbers, and you just dodged the question, because all of this is just a vehicle for pathos for you.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what answer you are looking for here. It's not a pejorative term (or at least I don't believe it is). Would there be a term you would prefer I use? My use of quotes around the term liberal is because I don't think it is an accurate description, I think the term 'redistributer' would be more accurate, but 'liberal' is common parlance. If you are thinking I am being critical of political tribalism, then that would be an accurate assessment.

I wonder for how many people it would be true that you could ask them their opinion on a single, arbitrary, political issue, and thereby know their position on virtually every political issue.

You’re using the word ‘liberals’, not me. I want to know who you’re aiming your comments on liberals at. Do you mean people who aren’t anti immigration?

You don’t like tribalism, me either, so why group people with a term like liberal. Pick the issue, debate the issue

You say ‘liberal’ is common parlance, fair enough. It usually means anything from communist to centr right when used. It’s meaningless.

Brian? · 19-03-2019 8:36pm

tretorn wrote: »

If the people of Ireland were asked to vote to limit immigration from third world countries there would be a stampede to the polls. They were given an option about anchor babies and they emphatically said we want an end to that.

Irish people dont want housing/ hostel or Direct Provision in their neighbourhoods, the Irish Government know this so hence new immigrant centres are located in low population centres so locals cant mount opposition. Some locals are so incensed by being dumped on like this that they take matters into their own hands and set fire to buildings and then the liberals in their nice residential conclaves can point their fingers and call the rural folks red necks.

We take in asylum seekers because we have signed up to UN conventions on human rights. It’s not up to our politicians or phantom ‘liberals’.

tretorn · 19-03-2019 8:38pm

recedite wrote: »

You're the one cherrypicking. The basis statistic is that each non-EU migrant is an £840 per year drain on the UK economy, on average. You picked out one statistic that reckons this average might improve over time if young kids are included, and if those young kids grow up as fully integrated, productive, and highly skilled citizens.

As for the issue western fertility rates, that can be addressed directly.
But you can be sure migrants will be just as quick to latch onto any benefits there if they are allowed to.

Where have Muslim immigrants grown up to be integrated, productive and highly skilled citizens.

If this is the case why is there so much trouble in European countries where there are large Muslim populations for decades. Are the terrorists that have been caught an exception to the rule, ie the unemployed revolving prison door losers with no jobs and no qualifications to their names.

Does anyone know what is the average educational attainment level for Muslim women. I firmly believe muslim countries are backward feudal places for the most part because half the population are never allowed to reach their potential.

Anyone with a titter of wit would quake at this ideology getting a foot hold in Ireland and there is safety in numbers so less of these immigrants is more for us. It is utterly depressing to drive around Clonskeagh and see those women covered in that black garb in 2019 and to think what the muslim mens attitude is to the young female students dressed whatever way they like heading into UCD.

And who does the New Zealand Prime Minister think she is helping by covering her head with that fishwife scarf, why should anyone wear a scarf just because they are female. A male Prime Minister wouldnt get himself some Muslim clothing, he would go into a mosque dressed as he always dresses.

tretorn · 19-03-2019 8:45pm

Brian? wrote: »

We take in asylum seekers because we have signed up to UN conventions on human rights. It’s not up to our politicians or phantom ‘liberals’.

Thats us being coerced by the EU.

You posted that the Irish people dont want a limit to immigration. They most certainly do and there is increased support for far right politicans in this country as there is in every other European country where people are nervous about the numbers of non nationals arriving who live by dangerous ideology regarding womens rights .

And now we cant even express these fears without being called racist and blamed because some nutjob murders people in a mosque. And then Ardern in the heightened atmosphere chooses to wear a headscarf which to other women is a symbol of oppression and has no place in societies that value men and women equally.

recedite · 19-03-2019 11:07pm

Midlife wrote: »

Sorry, you should read it properly. I completely acknowledge that it says that the average non-EU migrant costs 840 but the report goes to lengths to explain that this 'static' analysis doesn't give the true picture. You seem to give it massive credence in terms of methodology in one area (the bit which you want to be true) but then say it's flawed in other areas.

I accept the whole thing and it's obvious to anyone who takes the time to read it that to take a single statistic out as you are doing is painting an incorrect picture.

There may be evidence out there that migrants are not economically beneficial but this most definitly is not it.
I can't really see how you can honestly take the stance that you agree but disagree with the reports authors. You both accept and reject it?

OK, let me explain...
The report contains statistics. It then uses these stats to make predictions, which it calls static and dynamic models.
The stats are the facts. The models are the speculation.
Earlier in this thread (several times) you pestered Sand, asking for facts, as for example here...

Midlife wrote: »

Any chance you could produce the citation for the facts you were stating yesterday. Please don't make this another month chase. Just cite the reference or retract your statement.
All I want you to post in response to this is where this information is from and exactly where it says this statement.

Let the record show that you were shown the facts, the source, and the full citation. You read the document but you steadfastly refused to accept its meaning.

Not because you were incapable of understanding it. You simply refused to allow yourself to comprehend what you were reading. Because if you did so, it might require you to admit you were wrong, and you might have to change your mind about some things.

Midlife · 20-03-2019 12:23am

[QUOTE=rece

recedite wrote: »

OK, let me explain...
The report contains statistics. It then uses these stats to make predictions, which it calls static and dynamic models.
The stats are the facts. The models are the speculation.
Earlier in this thread (several times) you pestered Sand, asking for facts, as for example here...

Let the record show that you were shown the facts, the source, and the full citation. You read the document but you steadfastly refused to accept its meaning.

Not because you were incapable of understanding it. You simply refused to allow yourself to comprehend what you were reading. Because if you did so, it might require you to admit you were wrong, and you might have to change your mind about some things.

I really can't see why this is causing so much trouble.

Anyway, to confirm ... you both do and don't accept the colclusions of the report.

You accept the static analysis but not the dymanic analysis.

So you're citing an economic report, disagreeing with many of it's conclusions, but then nonetheless citing it as factual proof you are correct.

All I'm saying recedite is simply that I have read the report and I agree with what the report says. There isn't a single thing in it I question.

It seems thorough. Oxford economic researchers are clearly better at this than you and I.

You however do not agree with it. There is a big part of it you think is wrong.

And it's my fault I don't agree with you because I should?

I'm sorry but if you show me a robust economic study and I accept it's findings, there's not much else i can do.

There are many reasons you could argue that migration from outside the EU shouldn't happen. I don't think the evidence is there to say that economics is one. It's good for business, good for the economy, good for the IMF and so on. Whether or not this benefit is seen by the man in the street is another thing but that's the same as any economic benefit these days.

I'll admit to having questions about how to make integration work. I'll admit to having questions about incompatible value systems.

They're the actual tricky issues. I't's fairly evident that it's good for the economy at this stage.

In fairness why else would they be doing it. Let's not kid ourselves and pretend that big business and gvt is anything other than financially motivated.

markodaly · 20-03-2019 1:15am

Brian? wrote: »

We’re they? I don’t remember

Yeap! Let me refresh your memory.

There was also this poster, written in Arabic advocating a No vote, which I thought was odd.

https://irishelectionliterature.com/2010/09/26/leaflet-in-arabic-urging-a-no-vote-in-the-citizenship-referendum-of-2004/

As we can see clearly, there were those who pushed the narrative that this amendment was racist.

This was also before Facebook and the mass proliferation of social media.
At least in 2004, there was some semblance of a debate. Now, if the same amendment was to happen every crank and malcontent would go to their favorite social media platform to advocate that this amendment was racist/islamophobic. etc...
I would also concede the fact that there would be genuine racists who would do the same mind you.

Regardless, the point stands. 1.4 million Irish people voted in favor of this 'racist' amendment. An amendment that most here would concede was not racist.

If we can agree on that then surely we can agree that there are times when people take the piss and abuse loopholes to circumvent current legislation in dealing with migration.

Are the children of refugees not entitled to citizenship if their parents are here for 2 years? I am not sure whether seeking asylum constitutes being habitually resident.

No idea to be honest.

markodaly · 20-03-2019 1:18am

Brian? wrote: »

Absolutely it’s ok to. But it rarely happens in my experience.

Hold on, you just stated a few posts ago that posters here we not engaged in overt racism and Islamaphobia, yet you are still holding this accusation in your back pocket to use as you wish.

Midlife · 20-03-2019 1:30am

markodaly wrote: »

This was also before Facebook and the mass proliferation of social media.
At least in 2004, there was some semblance of a debate. Now, if the same amendment was to happen every crank and malcontent would go to their favorite social media platform to advocate that this amendment was racist/islamophobic. etc...
I would also concede the fact that there would be genuine racists who would do the same mind you.

Completly agree. It's scary that you can't have a reasoned debate any more. People are so steadfast in their opinions and spend so much time in echo chambers that no-one is open in the least to being incorrect.

markodaly · 20-03-2019 1:36am

oscarBravo wrote: »

I actually explained what I meant: if you're going to deny people the basic human right of due process for a self-evidently stupid reason "they're in a boat", you might as well deny them all human rights (including the right to life) for the same stupid reasons.

This black and white, all or nothing language is what causes this polarisation.
The unrelenting emotive trench digging does no favors to actually discuss this topic in any way.

It would be like stating in all seriousness that those who were against repealing the 8th amendment would thus by an extenstion advocate that we should herd women into death camps or mandate the wearing of a Taliban-esque burka.
Of course, such leaps are plainly ridiculous and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone of reasonable intelligence.

And before you come back with another emotive gesture, I do believe that people should be given due process, even if they are on a boat.
The issue of course, which is self-evident that most people claiming asylum in Ireland are not deemed to satisfy the criteria of an Asylum seeker, whereby over 90% are denied.

In 2017 163 people were granted asylum, while 931 were issued deportation orders.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/sharp-fall-in-asylum-seekers-granted-humanitarian-reprieve-1.3379239

Maybe we can discuss the legislation and policies that can improve this situation whereby clearly there are people like those pre-2004 amendment taking the piss.

Or would that be just racist?

If someone is arguing that Muslims are unwelcome among us, why would they object to being described as islamophobic?

I see you didnt answer the question, so can you care to answer it rather than making another grandiose statement?

Brian? · 20-03-2019 6:29am

markodaly wrote: »

Hold on, you just stated a few posts ago that posters here we not engaged in overt racism and Islamaphobia, yet you are still holding this accusation in your back pocket to use as you wish.

A few posts ago I said there was no overt racism, there's plenty of racist dog whistles.

markodaly · 20-03-2019 7:17am

Brian? wrote: »

A few posts ago I said there was no overt racism, there's plenty of racist dog whistles.

Dancing on the proverbial pinhead here.

One minute there is no overt racism, just dog whistling.

The next we have 'one side is bigoted and accuses the other of wanting unlimited migration and open borders. The other side points out the bigotry and gets called PC'

You want it every which way. When called upon the fact to point out actual overt racism and to name posters you shy away from it, wisely.

When tasked to explain if its ever OK to debate immigration policy you say 'of course' BUT 'it rarely happens' because people are bigots...

The argument du jour.

markodaly · 20-03-2019 7:20am

Brian? wrote: »

A few posts ago I said there was no overt racism, there's plenty of racist dog whistles.

Also, I notice you totally ignored the election literature I posted regarding the 2004 referendum.

According to the Labour party 'dog whistles' (see anyone can use that word) this referendum was racist.

Brian? · 20-03-2019 9:56am

markodaly wrote: »

Also, I notice you totally ignored the election literature I posted regarding the 2004 referendum.

According to the Labour party 'dog whistles' (see anyone can use that word) this referendum was racist.

I didn't ignore it. You probed your point, so I didn't think there was anything to reply to.

Brian? · 20-03-2019 9:57am

markodaly wrote: »

Dancing on the proverbial pinhead here.

One minute there is no overt racism, just dog whistling.

The next we have 'one side is bigoted and accuses the other of wanting unlimited migration and open borders. The other side points out the bigotry and gets called PC'

You want it every which way. When called upon the fact to point out actual overt racism and to name posters you shy away from it, wisely.

When tasked to explain if its ever OK to debate immigration policy you say 'of course' BUT 'it rarely happens' because people are bigots...

The argument du jour.

Again, I can't point out overt racism in this thread. Are you saying the racist dog whistles aren't being used?

markodaly · 20-03-2019 12:13pm

Brian? wrote: »

Again, I can't point out overt racism in this thread.

That is the 2nd time you said it so I will ask again.

Is it ever OK to debate the issues of migration policy?

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta · 20-03-2019 1:05pm

tretorn wrote: »

Where have Muslim immigrants grown up to be integrated, productive and highly skilled citizens.

I take it this is a question? If so, I am guessing you haven't been to many hospitals in the EU?

tretorn wrote: »

And who does the New Zealand Prime Minister think she is helping by covering her head with that fishwife scarf, why should anyone wear a scarf just because they are female. A male Prime Minister wouldnt get himself some Muslim clothing, he would go into a mosque dressed as he always dresses.

Honestly, this type of statement is a major part of the problem. On one hand, anti-muslim immigration proponents like to pretend it's not a racist thing, but then come out with statements like "fishwife scarf" and go after the appearance of the people in question.

However, to actually address the point I think you're trying to make, a male Prime Minister would absolutely wear a yamaka/kippah if they were entering a temple of either Jewish or Muslim faith. I'd suggest, both male and female would also do so in certain Christian denominations that require head coverings.

tretorn · 20-03-2019 1:20pm

Are most of those Muslim doctors not from Malaysia, the ones in Beaumont probably areanyway. They pay huge sums to the RCSI to study here and the other Universities are now mad keen to get their hands on this money too hence more pressure on. irish students who use their brains to get places in third level rather than the money Daddy has.

You might see a number of Muslim doctors who are children of immigrants but the reality is most Muslim second generation are living as outsiders in Muslim ghettoes in European cities. Is it my fault thst Begum and her wannabee fellow jihadi brides thought life in Syria was better than life in the UK, did the UK not offer her every opportunity to make a good life for herself.

The laughable thing about Ardern wearing that scarf was the fact that she would have been ushered into the eomen only section of the mosque, no muslim man would shake her hand and they wouldnt consider anything she had to say to be of relevance. They would be wondering what sort of wife and mother she was and thinking she should be at home in her kitchen.

I would be a lot more mindful of what Denmark is saying and doing, they are experiencing difficulties with integrating Muslims and firm action is being taken. I doubt if Muslims in Denmark can head off to a mosque to pray in the middle of the day and nor would I be allowed to take my child out of school to go and say a rosary somewhere, how dies putting your religious duties before other demands help integration.

Migration Megathread

Comments