Migration Megathread

Sand · 11-12-2020 1:23pm

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Forgive me for not wanting to wade through a dormant, 56 page, thread to see if a question may or may not have been answered already.

You don't have to wade through it. There is a search function you can use. And given its a 56 page thread you can be fairly confident the "but what do you mean by X" diversion has already been tried.

I'd be more concerned about the formation of deprived enclaves in cities, which unlike UK and France doesn't appear to be happening here as of yet,

Is this view based on evidence, or just a hunch you have?

than those 3 items that you mentioned.

Those items are examples of costs of diversity placed on the indigenous people that that cant be avoided or escaped from. Ethnic enclaves in urban areas? You can escape to the country or an area with 'good schools' as is the practise in other countries blessed with diversity.

Chips Lovell · 11-12-2020 1:43pm

Sand wrote: »

...such as the introduction of so-called "hate speech" legislation...

Isn't this a little bit like saying "if there were no immigrants, there would be nobody to racially abuse and we wouldn't need hate speech legislation"?

Sand · 11-12-2020 2:01pm

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Isn't this a little bit like saying "if there were no immigrants, there would be nobody to racially abuse and we wouldn't need hate speech legislation"?

There is already legislation on the books (1989 The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act) which already criminalizes racially abusing someone. So 'hate speech' legislation isnt about protecting people. Its about attacking the indigenous people.

See the example of the UK girl who was investigated and convicted of a hate crime for quoting the lyrics of a rap song on her social media. That is how this legislation is intended to be used.

Brussels Sprout · 11-12-2020 2:58pm

Sand wrote: »

Is this view based on evidence, or just a hunch you have?

I'm sure you can appreciate that it's difficult to provide evidence for something that doesn't exist. Typically it's the absence of evidence to the contrary that would used to prove that and I'm not aware of any evidence of deprived enclaves of immigrant communities existing in this country.

Sand wrote: »

Those items are examples of costs of diversity placed on the indigenous people that that cant be avoided or escaped from.

I, an indigenous Irish person, to use your parlance, have literally never heard of anyone in real life worrying/complaining about any of those 3 things that you mentioned and I talk politics with friends, family and colleagues. I've heard plenty of conversations bashing immigrants but the only people I've seen constantly banging the drum about those particular topics are certain sections of Twitter and the Current/Affairs IMHO forum on here.

Chips Lovell · 11-12-2020 3:05pm

As far as I know, the draft legislation hasn't been published yet, but going by what the government has said to date, there appears to have been no mention of "attacking the indigenous people".

Sand · 11-12-2020 5:03pm

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I'm sure you can appreciate that it's difficult to provide evidence for something that doesn't exist. Typically it's the absence of evidence to the contrary that would used to prove that and I'm not aware of any evidence of deprived enclaves of immigrant communities existing in this country.

I fully accept you're not aware of the evidence on this topic you're discussing, but I assure you it exists. For example you can look as the ESRI paper from June 2019 on diverse neighborhoods which examined the issue. They found that non-EU migrants and those with little or no English are overly represented in urban electoral districts (forming up to a third of the population in those EDs), and those EDs have a higher incidence of unemployment and private rental properties - i.e. concentrations of non-EU migrants poorer areas. The most comforting conclusion that they could draw was that segregation was no worse than other European countries.

And this is only early days in the mass migration cycle for Ireland.

I, an indigenous Irish person, to use your parlance, have literally never heard of anyone in real life worrying/complaining about any of those 3 things that you mentioned and I talk politics with friends, family and colleagues.

You haven't heard about ethnic enclaves in Irish cities either, right? What you are or are not aware of in your own personal experience isnt actually an objective measure of what faces the country as a whole.

I've heard plenty of conversations bashing immigrants but the only people I've seen constantly banging the drum about those particular topics are certain sections of Twitter and the Current/Affairs IMHO forum on here.

Well, if you have more to contribute than attacking the posters, then maybe you could participate in those conversations too and balance things out a bit. I'd recommend you research the publicly available information on the topic first. It isnt anyone else's job to educate you.

Sand · 11-12-2020 5:08pm

Chips Lovell wrote: »

As far as I know, the draft legislation hasn't been published yet, but going by what the government has said to date, there appears to have been no mention of "attacking the indigenous people".

I didn't say it would state that in the legislation, I said that is how it would be used and how similar laws are used in other countries.

Chips Lovell · 11-12-2020 5:19pm

Sand wrote: »

I didn't say it would state that in the legislation, I said that is how it would be used and how similar laws are used in other countries.

To be clear, I didn't think you were claiming it would be stated in the legislation, I was more saying that the government, which will be introducing the legislation, has never said nor inferred it would be used for that purpose. Which is why I was curious why you were so sure that the legislation none of us have seen yet could and would be used for that purpose. Not to mention why in their right minds they'd even want to use it for that purpose?

Sand · 11-12-2020 5:29pm

Chips Lovell wrote: »

To be clear, I didn't think you were claiming it would be stated in the legislation, I was more saying that the government, which will be introducing the legislation, has never said nor inferred it would be used for that purpose. Which is why I was curious why you were so sure that the legislation none of us have seen yet could and would be used for that purpose. Not to mention why in their right minds they'd even want to use it for that purpose?

As I already point out, the protection of people from racist abuse - by any means - is already covered by the 1989 act. So 'hate speech' legislation is not necessary for that purpose you claimed.

Equally I have pointed out how similar laws have been used in the UK to ridiculously persecute people, such as that teen girl who posted a rap song on social media. Those sort of attacks are what is intended by the people lobbying for this law. I have no doubt that when those UK laws were being drafted, people like yourself were equally assuring people it wouldnt be misused. Yet it is.

Chips Lovell · 11-12-2020 5:44pm

In your view it may not be necessary but my understanding is that the review was prompted by concerns that the existing legislation isn't effective and is difficult to secure a prosecution. They ICCL for example feels it doesn't work.

In a submission to the Department of Justice review of the Prohibition on Incitement to Hatred Act, ICCL called for an investigation into whether the Act has been effective in prohibiting speech which amounts to incitement to hatred, and if not, why not. ICCL also said that, on the other end of the scale, the Act may be overly broad in criminalising less extreme categories of hate speech which should be dealt with in other ways.

Personally, I'd wait to see the legislation itself before deciding whether it's warranted or not, but the notion that the government wants to "attack the indigenous people" sounds pretty far fetched.

Sand · 11-12-2020 6:07pm

Chips Lovell wrote: »

In your view it may not be necessary but my understanding is that the review was prompted by concerns that the existing legislation isn't effective and is difficult to secure a prosecution. They ICCL for example feels it doesn't work.

The legislation is solid. If there aren't people being convicted under it, then it's either achieved its intended effect of deterring the offence or prosecutors & police need to do better gathering evidence. The effect of a law is not as simple as more convictions means a better law.

The ICCL themselves say only extreme cases such as incitement to genocide, war propaganda or clear incitement to violence should be criminalized. Yet they go on to complain convictions aren't secured! Does anyone here think that calls to genocide are a voiced often, or even at all in Ireland? It's madness.

Where is the example of an Irish person inciting a genocide and the 1989 legislation not being sufficient to secure a conviction?

Personally, I'd wait to see the legislation itself before deciding whether it's warranted or not, but the notion that the government wants to "attack the indigenous people" sounds pretty far fetched.

The groups lobbying for the legislation want to use it for that purpose. The government are just the tool. I'm sure those in the UK were told to 'wait and see' too, but look at where they are now - teenagers convicted for ridiculous reasons. All for the sake of diversity.

Brussels Sprout · 12-12-2020 1:59pm

Sand wrote: »

They found that non-EU migrants and those with little or no English are overly represented in urban electoral districts (forming up to a third of the population in those EDs), and those EDs have a higher incidence of unemployment and private rental properties - i.e. concentrations of non-EU migrants poorer areas.

Being over-represented in an urban area does not make that area an enclave. In fact that ESRI report explicitly states:

The Migrant Integration Strategy (Department of
Justice and Equality, 2017) lists segregation as a potential future challenge, and
mentions EU nationals as a particularly at-risk group. While a certain level of coresidency can be important for access to support networks for migrants, high levels
of residential segregation can have negative implications for integration and access
to services. Based on this analysis, there is no evidence that foreign-born groups
are very highly concentrated in particular areas, and Irish cities show relatively low
levels of residential segregation compared to European and American metropolitan
areas.

It goes on to say:

However, there is evidence that those with poor English skills are by some measures
‘at risk’ of becoming segregated. They are distributed quite unevenly across the
country and their residential concentration is (weakly) associated with some
measures of socio-economic disadvantage. We also acknowledge that while the
broad groups we have considered do not show signs of residential segregation,
individual nationalities or ethnic groups may be more concentrated in particular
areas.

While that's something to keep an eye on what we currently have right now is not the isolated ghettoisation that is a problem in countries like France.

Sand wrote: »

You haven't heard about ethnic enclaves in Irish cities either, right?

That's right, because we don't.

An ethnic enclave is a geographical area where a particular ethnic group is spatially clustered and socially and economically distinct from the majority group.

definition link (There's also a similar definition in the glossary of the ESRI report)

Chapter 5 of the ESRI report states:

On the whole, we find little evidence that highly segregated communities or
disadvantaged ethnic enclaves are being formed.

and

Finally, far from living in ghettos, immigrants in Ireland appear to be concentrated
in affluent areas with above-average educational profiles. This is supported by
recent individual-level research on immigrants in Ireland, which shows that many
non-Irish nationals outperform natives in education and the labour market

Sand wrote: »

Well, if you have more to contribute than attacking the posters, then maybe you could participate in those conversations too and balance things out a bit.

Attacking the posters? I merely said that talk of these fringe issues is confined to that forum. Anything beyond that is your own wild extrapolation.

Chips Lovell · 17-12-2020 8:49am

New hate speech legislation is being published today. Government says it's taking a different approach to the UK:

The Government’s planned hate speech laws will contain a significantly higher bar for prosecution compared to similar laws that have led to controversial court cases in the UK.

[...]

Furthermore, unlike in the UK, the test for hate speech will be objective rather than subjective. There, speech can be treated as hateful if another member of the public believes it to be hateful. However under the Irish proposals, specific and pre-existing guidelines will be used to determine if speech is hateful, not just whether the alleged victim felt they were the victim of a hate attack.

Banana Republic 1 · 17-12-2020 9:07am

Chips Lovell wrote: »

New hate speech legislation is being published today. Government says it's taking a different approach to the UK:

Ireland has plenty of laws and whilst is true to say that they constantly require updating the biggest issue is the lack of enforcement. I’m not at all against a hate speech one or anything it’s just that the government seem sometimes to in act new laws to make it seem like there doing something.

Sand · 21-12-2020 12:11pm

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Being over-represented in an urban area does not make that area an enclave.

That is an interesting assertion of a view that the vast majority of people would find incorrect. It even contradicts with your own definition you provide later in your post (not that I agree with that definition).

It goes on to say:

While that's something to keep an eye on what we currently have right now is not the isolated ghettoisation that is a problem in countries like France.

You said you would be concerned about the formation of ethnic enclaves. I present you with evidence that such enclaves are forming with non-eu migrants and migrants with poor/no english consolidating in some EDs. Now you're no longer concerned with their formation. You're now only concerned if Ireland after 20 years has the same banlieues that Paris has after 70-80 years of mass migration. 70-80 years ago, your French equivalents were equally dismissive of any concerns about mass migration. Now the French people have an unsolvable problem that will burden them and their descendants with mayhem for many centuries to come.

Your assertion that everywhere else in Europe that mass migration was tried has got it wrong. But Ireland, uniquely in all historical experience, is getting it right. And to maintain that unproven assertion, you pretend the same problems are not emerging.

Sand · 21-12-2020 12:32pm

Chips Lovell wrote: »

New hate speech legislation is being published today. Government says it's taking a different approach to the UK:

I don't trust that assertion. As pointed out, we already have effective legislation for charging people who incite hatred. You've not been able to point to any examples of the legislation being ineffective. So, what can be the purpose of introducing new laws when we have a perfectly functional law already?

I'd make some obervations:

The planned Bill will also contain stronger sentences for existing crimes, where it can be shown that the alleged offender was motivated by hate for an ethnic, or religious group.

- What is the justification for increasing sentences in this scenario? Why is a murder, assault or rape worse if motivated by hatred of a group as opposed to hatred of an individual? Is there not already considerable scope for harsher sentencing where a Judge feels it is merited?
- Will Irish people or Catholics be recognised as ethnic groups? Will prosecutors seek to apply hate crime sentencing for crimes against Irish/Catholics as vigorously as they would crimes against minority groups? The article goes on to describe 'protected groups', not including either Irish or Catholic, so I think we can assume the effective outcome of this legislation is to give Irish people higher sentences than non-Irish would receive for the same crime and motivation.

Given fears about the rights to free speech, it will contain several safeguards to ensure the laws do not unnecessarily impinge on the constitutional right to freedom of expression. Chief among these is a recommendation of protections for “contributions to literary, artistic, political, scientific or academic discourse, and fair and accurate reporting”, the report states.

- This is not protection of free speech, it is protection of official Ireland. The great and the good will not have the same restrictions placed upon them as an ordinary citizen.

A person may be prosecuted for deliberately taking part in hate speech and for recklessly taking part in hate speech, for example where inciting hatred was not their main goal but they knew it was a likely outcome.

However someone who negligently, without intent, engages in hate speech will not have committed an offence.

This either makes the law wholly ineffective or is dishonest. If that is taken as true, anyone charged can state 'That was not my intent'. Case closed. So again, back to my original question - the law is so ineffective, why introduce it at all? Why not continue using the existing legislation?

And a lot hinges on 'reckless' vs. 'negligent' engagement in speech that someone later describes as hateful. What is the objective test there?

However it will not be required to show that someone was influenced by the speech “or persuaded to act upon it.”

Lowering the bar to a ridiculous level here.

Travellers will be explicitly included as a protected group.

“It was widely recognised by contributors to our consultation that Travellers are relentlessly targeted by hate speech, and that a significant portion of this is dismissed by mainstream opinion as if it were unintentional, or defended as if it were accurate.”

So, it seems the purpose of the law is to intimidate people who are discussing mainstream views, and that accuracy is no defence?

The Government is concerned that debate on the proposed Bill will be hijacked by far-right, anti-immigration or anti-LGBT elements, who argue that the State is trying to reduce their rights.

Well, the state is trying to reduce peoples rights. That is one of the costs of living in a multi-cultural society. It can only be held together by repression and policing of speech (see Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, increasingly the US and UK) so by definition it leads to a reduction of peoples freedoms.

Banana Republic 1 · 21-12-2020 2:56pm

Sand wrote: »

That is an interesting assertion of a view that the vast majority of people would find incorrect. It even contradicts with your own definition you provide later in your post (not that I agree with that definition).

You said you would be concerned about the formation of ethnic enclaves. I present you with evidence that such enclaves are forming with non-eu migrants and migrants with poor/no english consolidating in some EDs. Now you're no longer concerned with their formation. You're now only concerned if Ireland after 20 years has the same banlieues that Paris has after 70-80 years of mass migration. 70-80 years ago, your French equivalents were equally dismissive of any concerns about mass migration. Now the French people have an unsolvable problem that will burden them and their descendants with mayhem for many centuries to come.

Your assertion that everywhere else in Europe that mass migration was tried has got it wrong. But Ireland, uniquely in all historical experience, is getting it right. And to maintain that unproven assertion, you pretend the same problems are not emerging.

Your signature tag line explains the above opinions.

Sand · 21-12-2020 3:18pm

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Do you have any examples of any “ethnic enclaves” in Ireland?

I've already pointed to an ESRI report which shows them beginning to form in some urban EDs.

One thing this country does really well is integrate people

'This country' had to be redefined back in the 1920s because 'we' couldn't integrate people that lived on this island but originated from our nearest neighboring island and still held onto that identity for centuries. The only workable solution was a border between the two peoples, and even that left problems. There has been no evidence in the past 100 years to suggest your unproven assertion.

Chips Lovell · 21-12-2020 3:46pm

Sand wrote: »

Will Irish people or Catholics be recognised as ethnic groups?

Yes. The report lists the categories of people who will be protected under the proposed legislation. They include "white Irish" and Catholics.

Sand wrote: »

Well, the state is trying to reduce peoples rights. That is one of the costs of living in a multi-cultural society. It can only be held together by repression and policing of speech (see Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, increasingly the US and UK) so by definition it leads to a reduction of peoples freedoms.

There seems to be a sort of willful determination to see this as "a bad thing", so I do have to ask if you're viewing the proposals in a dispassionate light? I mean, you're essentially arguing that legislation attempting to curtail persecution is, by that very curtailment, a persecution.

Brussels Sprout · 21-12-2020 5:42pm

Sand wrote: »

I've already pointed to an ESRI report which shows them beginning to form in some urban EDs.

That's a reach.

Sand · 21-12-2020 7:06pm

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Yes. The report lists the categories of people who will be protected under the proposed legislation. They include "white Irish" and Catholics.

I don't see that as correct. "Native, white Irish" and "Catholics" were brought up in the public consultations as groups needing protection - see page 25. But in the actual conclusions (page 40) the only protected groups being added to those already covered by the 1989 legislation are disability and gender identity. If I've missed something please point it out.

There seems to be a sort of willful determination to see this as "a bad thing", so I do have to ask if you're viewing the proposals in a dispassionate light? I mean, you're essentially arguing that legislation attempting to curtail persecution is, by that very curtailment, a persecution.

It is a bad thing. "Hate speech" and "hate crime" are vague, undefined terms which can be abused and have been abused in other jurisdictions. Under the proposals, the concept is so open to abuse that "scientific or academic discourse, and fair and accurate reporting" need specific exemptions and protections to be protected from prosecution under this law. Fair and accurate reporting might otherwise be classified as "hate speech"! Ordinary people wont get the same protections though.

These laws are not used to combat "hate". They are instead used to persecute the indigenous people. I already gave the example of a UK schoolgirl being convicted because she posted rap lyrics on her social media. On the other hand, the Rochdale grooming gang who raped, tortured and abused English girls that they targeted on ethnic grounds - because they were English - were not charged with hate crimes, nor did they receive any higher sentences due to the ethnic targeting.

I think it's very telling that in the Irish times article government fears about "anti-immigration" elements hijacking the debate were reported.

Sand · 21-12-2020 7:14pm

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Except Northern Ireland being peaceful shows it is not an assertion.

A peace secured by an international border, and an ethnic power sharing arrangement between two groups exhausted by decades of murder and atrocity. Yeah, no problems there then.

Sand · 23-12-2020 11:51pm

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Yes it’s better than endless cycles of killings and bombings which some of us are old enough to remember.

It took for both sides to finally admit there are several cultures, extending of citizenship and having a path to democratic reunification in a new multicultural republic.

Peace was achieved by embracing multiculturalism.

The 'endless cycle of killings and bombings' were rooted in multiculturalism. Multiculturalism was the cause, not the solution. Two ethnic groups competing for power within the same territory is not a recipe for peace or good government. As it was, the solution was segregation in the form of a new international border between the North and the rest of Ireland. Within Northern Ireland itself, which remained ethnically divided, the only solution to date has been an ethnic power sharing arrangement which recognizes and legitimizes the ethnic conflict. It doesn't actually solve it.

I cant possibly guess as to why you want to create a similar ethnic conflict in the Republic and I know you don't know why either. But I can be extremely clear that it is absolutely not in the interests of the indigenous Irish to do so.

Migration Megathread

Comments