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

Okay. Time to weigh in a bit of research, articles and statistics. I don't doubt that it will be dismissed as being not comprehensive enough, because, well, nothing is comprehensive enough.

Western Higher level education ranks highest in the world, the US mostly resting at the top, with Europe and a few Asian nations coming behind. Irelands own higher education standards score quite high considering the size of the country, and regularly receives praise for the quality of the overall educational system. If you want links for that, do a quick google search. Its not difficult to find a wide variety of reports.

So, to start, Ireland:

Taking the adult population as a whole (aged 25-64), the rate of tertiary attainment in Ireland was above the OECD average (47% compared to 39%). Ireland ranked sixth for this indicator with Canada, Japan and Israel ranked highest. EAG table A1.1.
Among the younger age group of 25-34-year Ireland ranked fourth in terms of tertiary attainment with 56 per cent, well above the OECD average of 44 per cent (or EU23 average of 43%). Figure A2. Only Korea, Canada and Japan ranked higher

[the end of the document explains who is included in the analysis. African and M.Eastern nations are not.]

Higher Education & Massification (it has bearing with poorer nations with large populations)

" In response to addressing historical situations, most public universities in South Africa were compelled to enrol students in excess of their capacity, resulting in the 'massification' of education with negative effects on the quality of teaching, learning and assessment.11,15 'Access' and 'quality' are mutually reinforcing and form the foundations for the successful transformation of higher education.16

Within a transformative agenda, the Chinese government had vigorously increased access and provided more opportunities for students in higher education. However, students became dissatisfied and began questioning the effectiveness of massification in higher education in achieving quality and in promoting competitiveness in the job market.17 Clearly, 'massification' has repercussions for quality assurance, as regulating standards and guaranteeing quality becomes problematic in the context of growth and globalisation"

In Regards to Higher education in non-western nations:

"The other is the sheer technical difficulty of providing adequate skills to a large number of persons with little previous educational background. Because of these difficulties, vocational and teacher education in most non-European countries have remained a smaller and less qualified portion of their higher education systems than the traditional ones"

"In in spite of obvious needs, public expenditures for higher education have been reduced in many countries both in absolute and in relative terms since the 1980's, due to competing social demands and the budgetary and administrative crisis of the public sector. This dim picture is related to the much broader phenomenon of economic stagnation and social deterioration that has affected most Latin American, African and Asian countries since the 1980's, after the positive expectations of the previous years. There are of course exceptions, most notably in Asia (Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and of course Japan) but in none of these cases it could be stated that their higher education institutions have played a significant role in their achievements (universal basic education, on the other hand, seemed to have been crucial)."

Africa:

"This reality implies that higher education institutions in Africa will have to rely on faculty without the requisite qualifications or part-time lecturers for students’ engagement. Since these part-time lecturers have a primary commitment in their substantive institutions, their services in these part-time institutions are limited both in terms of contact times and quality of contents. Lecturing in multiple institutions most likely lead to limited research output. Available records indicate that Africa produced 2.1% of the world’s academic publication compared with 33.1% by Asia and 32.9% by Europe. This results in the production of half-baked graduates for the African corporate society. "

Inter-University Council for East Africa, in 2014 worryingly found that across Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda, well over 50% of graduates were ill-equipped for the workplace. Five new universities approved by outgoing Nigerian president Goodluck Jonathan in June have attracted the ire of the academic community, who believe that the resources needed to launch such a large number of new institutions simply do not exist, particularly in terms of faculty. In Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole, there are around 50% more students per lecturer than the global average.

Many private institutions have cropped up in response to increased demand, but when we see 66 PhDs awarded between 2011 and 2013 by Kampala International University declared invalid (in a country, notably, where fewer than 1,000 people hold doctorates) one might begin to ask if the administrators’ priorities are not a little more Machiavellian than simply increasing access. Private institutions will soon outnumber public in Africa, so this is of particular concern. Indeed, they already outnumber public institutions by four to one in South African, and seven to one in Ghana, while in Somalia all 40 of the country’s institutions are private, according to the aforementioned TrustAfrica/Mail & Guardian report. While they may be improving access issues, there is also a question of what contribution such private institutions will make to research and innovation.

Completion rates are another issue – a British Council report shows that a shocking 40% of South African students dropped out in the first year of study. Again, it’s worth reiterating that this is one of the most highly-developed and wealthy nations in the continent.

The Middle East.

"Turkey, Iran, and all the Arab states except Lebanon had another feature in common: education to the secondary level in these countries was planned and administered by a central ministry. These ministries were generally characterized by administrative weaknesses that severely handicapped the provision of education. University education could also be the responsibility of the ministry or—as in Turkey, Iraq, and Egypt—of a separate body.

Qualitative goals were also difficult to achieve. Financial, human, and physical resources were not able to keep pace with growing enrollments. As a result, the quality of primary and secondary education suffered. Split shifts, crowded classrooms, serious shortages of qualified teachers, and inadequate textbooks and curricula were common problems. The strict examination system used by most countries to determine which students may advance to the next level of education also hurt educational quality. Most experts agreed that the examination system did not provide a valid or reliable indication of student ability. Furthermore, they felt that it reinforced traditional tendencies toward memorization and a rigid classroom culture.

Every year more and more students of lower-class backgrounds received a university education, but the entrance examinations tended to limit admissions to the most desirable faculties (medicine and engineering) to students with elite backgrounds. The rising number of graduates with unneeded skills in turn aggravated problems caused by lack of coordination between education and employment needs. Except in the Gulf states, which had manpower shortages, governments faced the difficult task of absorbing poorly prepared graduates into the work force while they tried to find qualified managers, technicians and skilled workers."

None of which talks about the effects of more fundamental teachings of Islam on educational institutions, but I felt that would be pretty obvious...

The point being in that Western Education is superior, Irish Education is ranked pretty high within Western education.... and outside of western nations, Third level education is considered very low for all manner of reasons. An Irish migrant will have the educational background to compete effectively in their target country, because their visas will usually have a requirement for basic educational proficiency. And while a legal migrant to Ireland will have an educational requirement for the visa application, refugees and asylum seekers won't.

I did actually have a look to see how many Irish born citizens who might have claimed asylum or refugee status in other countries but I couldn't actually find any such references. No doubt there are a few, but even then, they're likely to have better educational backgrounds than most migrants coming from Africa. (In terms of quality.. not simply by having a degree)

That's not to say there aren't top level institutions. There definitely are... but it's highly questionable that refugees would have access to such, and if they did, they would have done just as well working in the Gulf States..

In any case, I don't really have any issue with legal immigrants who have the educational backgrounds and skills to compete in the Irish job market. Which you would know if you had been following the thread..

I could add more, but I suspect most of this will be deflected, as would anything else I provided.

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

As I said before, migrants dont take peoples jobs. That is a myth, but what isnt a myth is that integration is really hard. Normally there are pockets of disadvantage no matter where you look. Given how much we struggle to integrate travellers, the chances of integrating people with far more different cultures is poor. years later when the integration fails we get blamed for it and shamed even though there was very sincere decent attempts to prevent the problem.

There's the added problem that many cultural groups have little interest in integration because western cultural norms aren't similar to their own. There's few opportunities to make good relationships with Irish people apart from work and schooling for children, and even there, true opportunities are limited. In companies who hire foreign staff, typically you'll find large groups from the same cultural background. For example, Ericsson, hires heavily programmers and technicians from India and Pakistan, who will be more interested in spending time with those of their own group, than integrating with Irish people, and Irish social activities.

With the death of pubs outside of the main population centers, Irish social activities are pretty lacking except for sports, but even with sports, Irish sports are still generally more popular which limits interactions. Many cultures, in any case, won't have an interest in any kind of pub culture. For example, here in China, while bars are growing, traditionally Chinese people didn't go to bars because of a stigma.

Integration is more than something for the State to seek. It's part of society in general, but also, it concerns the cultural backgrounds of the migrants themselves. Few Muslims will accept the idea of going to a bar for social interactions, especially those from more traditional backgrounds. Just as few will see playing sports with westerners as being acceptable, although they may consider it if the activity consists of all Muslims.

"Multiculturalists" want to ignore that cultures don't particularly mix well. Generally throughout history, cultures sought to dominate their neighbors, by assimilating them or outright destroying them. In many cases, the migrants that are coming to Ireland or Europe are coming from countries with strong cultural backgrounds that are directly at odds with the values that are common within western culture (and subcultures)...

Slowyourrole wrote: »

We can only control our own actions. If other countries don't treat our people well because of their religion/race/nationality that doesn't mean we should do the same to their citizens.

Which countries aren't treating our people well because of their religion/race/nationality?

I think the point is that we're expected to treat others well because of their religion/race/nationality.... rather than expecting both ourselves and other countries to operate under the same general principle.

If you have the skills, educational background and/or experience to be a direct benefit to the country.... come on in. If you don't, you're outta luck.

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Saw some census lately that white population decreased for first time ever last decade while Hispanics increased substantially as well as African Americans but less of an increase, you would imagine in the next 20-30 years white people will be a minority too.

Depends on how "white" is defined. There's likely to be greater signs of the results from intermarriage between ethnic/racial groups, so there will be more people of mixed heritage..

I don't think we're going to find the US having a minority white population any time soon (within 50 years). They do manage their immigration policies and are enforcing stricter border controls so the effects of immigrants on the population will decline over time. The US isn't as open to migration as Europe is due to geographical factors, so as time goes by, with greater measures to manage their intake, we'll likely see the US continue as a predominately "white" nation.

Just as IMHO Ireland will continue to be a predominately White nation for a long time yet. The only real issue is that the future is unpredictable, nations are becoming more unstable (for political, social, economic and ecological reasons) so we're going to see ever increasing numbers of migrants wanting entry from Africa and Asia. (Contamination of land-based sources for drinking water is a prime example of how people will be driven out to find alternative places to live)

Wibbs wrote: »

Not so much underdeveloped, but weaker in the face of better weapons held by a more cohesive and wilful force. India had city civilisations when Europeans were barely out of the trees, but later on it was Europeans in the case of the Dutch and the British who were able to conquer the place.

Only in part. The American Indians, in terms of military strategy, were definitely the equal of the settlers (and better than the British Regulars). It was just a combination of population, economics/industry and the unwillingness to follow through on wiping out the enemy that caused them to fail. They couldn't comprehend a tribe who could take that much death, and continue coming on (but then, they had little understanding of the forces that pushed settlers west such as formal religion, or overpopulation).

India could have resisted the Europeans longer than it did, had they managed to unite, but the British simply turned the princes against each other. European Discipline was a major factor in battles, and the use of better steel (since Indian metal was very brittle) It's worth considering that there were multiple Muslim invasions into India before Britain took hold of any territory. It's interesting the way that Muslim expansion seems to be ignored whenever people think of conquering territory, but it's no accident that Islam can be found throughout many parts of Africa and Asia.

Cordell wrote: »

Yes, there were ancient civilizations that were much more advanced that the contemporary European ones, but not in North America.

That really depends on what you read. There were [apparently] civilisations which used advanced tools, and architecture, in North America, which simply... disappeared.

Archaeologists have found all manner of towns and structures built into Mesas, or cliff faces which suggest a high degree of development, but at the same time, little evidence of their existence among the racial memory of other tribes. I've seen ideas presented that there could have been a strong civilisation in ancient times that was simply wiped out with all records being destroyed. Similar to what's happened to a variety of pre-Egyptian civilisations who were considered taboo, and so, actual details were lost to time.