Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP
Options
Comments
-
Alejandro68 wrote: »Is new Irish meaning people who immigrated here and got citizenship?I immigrated here and have no desire to take citizenship.I am not not Irish and my current GNIB card still allows me too live and work here.And pay taxes.
I don't have anything negative against the Irish or Ireland.As it is now my home,but I am also proud of my nationality and where I come from.And I do assimilate here as much as I can.But I don't think that would make me Irish.
I hope that comes across as nice as it is in my head to explain it for myself.
You're very welcome here. You are precisely the type of person we should be encouraging to come to Ireland. Migrates legally, works, pay taxes, contributes, and respects the pre-existing culture. As you spend more time here, you may feel more part of the 'Irish family' in future, and decide to take out citizenship. You never know.
What many posters here oppose is the significant numbers of people who have arrived in Ireland in spurious circumstances throughout the last two decades. Some of these folks either cannot or will not participate in the labour force and we are seeing social issues emerge with the second generation born in this country.
Another bone of contention is the failure of our government and the media to permit debate around migration and future integration. There's never any discussion around the numbers of people that Ireland can reasonably accommodate or prioritizing migration from culturally compatible societies. As you can see from this thread, anybody who attempts to discuss migration logically, is immediately labelled a 'xenophobe', 'racist', or 'isolationist'.
The "new Irish" epithet is used primarily to describe migrants who may or may not have Irish citizenship. It's not common parlance amongst the general Irish population. It's a nauseating term invented by media to educate / scold / berate us 'old' Irish, whose families have lived here for centuries; a futile attempt to convince us that a migrant who arrived here in recent years is just as Irish as us natives. To the chagrin of the media types, regular Irish people typically refer to people who move here as immigrants or foreigners, never 'new Irish'.
Ironically, the media use this term, regardless if the migrant perceives him/herself as Irish or not. Fundamentally, it's a tool to silence any dissent amongst the population and to convince us that multiculturalism is unequivocally a force for good. The challenge they face is that large swathes of Irish people are far too smart to lap up their propaganda and can see with their own eyes, the challenges posed by migration, particularly those of us who live in 'diverse' areas.
Anyway, I'd like to reiterate my 'welcome to Ireland' message and hopefully this gives you some insight into the debate that's currently happening in this country around inward migration.0 -
I hate the fact that there is no debate with regard to the racial issue on this. I have no issue with anybody coming here, from any country if they want to contribute to society and basically just not cause trouble. But why should we accept these thugs? And the virtue signallers will say "oh, well we have plenty of Irish criminals here", to which my response is "Well, would you feel happier and safer if those Irish criminals were still in the country?". And why do we judge them against the lowest in society!!
I doubt the Government have any choice in these sort of things any more. Since the bailout, the EU owns us. If they want us to house 100,000 families from any country and we say "no", then there will be more threats of a "bomb going off in Dublin". I get really depressed about the state of the country.0 -
RandomName2 wrote: »Actual asylum seekers are likely to echo our own values. Persecution due to anti-feminism, anti-democracy, homophobia, religious intolerance is all more than likely to push people who are more 'Western' to.. well.. the West. Defectors from North Korea are unlikely to be waving communist flags and chanting 'death to capitalists'.
People who are fleeing persecution absolutely merit sanctuary. They are guaranteed it under UN human rights. We do not border any country that is likely to exact such persecution. Unfortunately, were we to receive a refugee from one of our neighbors (let's say Snowden from America) I doubt we would treat them as such, but instead would likely immediately bow to the pressure of our allies to ignore these individuals' right to asylum.
The Vietnamese boat people that Ireland received were a good example of genuine asylum seekers, received in a controlled and organized fashion. I would be surprised if Ireland didn't benefit from this small influx of people in the long run.As RandomName2 noted they're more likely to echo our values and be grateful for their new home. Plus they're going to be a small number of people, not tens of thousands, so more likely to integrate over time.
Take the example of the Vietnamese boat people mentioned. What not so many people realise, or have forgotten was Ireland was publicly pressured into taking them, because we weren't into inward immigration at all(same with the Hungarian Refugees in the 50's, never mind pre war Jews). Plus there were only a couple of hundred people involved and the usual Asian cultural background of strong parental and familial bonds and work ethic and self sufficiency meant they have tended to have been a positive wherever they ended up.
Oh and this is muy importante, those Vietnamese chose to come to a country that was one of the poorest in the EEC at the time. They didn't show up en masse when we had the Celtic Tiger. Bugger all Africans, or Georgians or Roma came here in the 70's or 80's. Funny that.
And legal immigration is about bringing in vetted people who have skills or resources that are positives for Ireland. We have a couple of hundred thousand Poles, Germans, Brits, Spaniards etc here legally as they're EU citizens and no ghettos and not exactly a load of gang stuff and other anti social behaviour.
However you still haven't answered my question about listing positives of multiculturalism. Again if they're so self evident why not? Surely it's an easy question to answer?
Neither have you said what the benefit is of accepting asylum seekers. You just stated why you find them acceptable, not how they benefit the country. The best Wibbs could come up with is in relation to a specific group of asylum seekers and the benefit is that Asians have a good work ethic. Surely you must be able to point to one tangible benefit to the country from accepting asylum seekers? It must be easy if you are demanding a simple answer to the same question from others.0 -
Yesterday saw 7 blacks been evicted from a house on berkeley Rd d7 gardai involved they had broken into the property 2 yrs earlier antisocial and littering had brought added attention
Then put up a fight before been force out place was wrecked inside i spoke to owner
Total knackers all on social 5 males 2 women0 -
Slowyourrole wrote: »Neither have you said what the benefit is of accepting asylum seekers. You just stated why you find them acceptable, not how they benefit the country. The best Wibbs could come up with is in relation to a specific group of asylum seekers and the benefit is that Asians have a good work ethic. Surely you must be able to point to one tangible benefit to the country from accepting asylum seekers? It must be easy if you are demanding a simple answer to the same question from others.
Except the circumstances and numbers are different. Look. Historically, Asylum seekers accounted for an extremely small number of people, so their acceptance into a nation would have very little impact. Due to the numbers, and their circumstances, they would have lived quiet lives, and kept to the background (as they were being persecuted abroad, and fear of retribution following them).
However, when we look at Asylum seekers today, the scope of that status has shifted dramatically due to the relative ease by which transportation links have improved. It's far easier than before to travel, and so, those seeking asylum have increased.
Asylum would have very few actual benefits to the host nation, except in rare situations (such as gaining an Einstein, or similar) The benefit was in showing the nations virtue in helping out. Fair enough. The numbers involved were tiny, and their impact, regardless of their behavior, was minimal. However, with the rise of NGOs, the internet, etc, both the numbers and their impact has shifted dramatically.
Genuine asylum seekers still represent an extreme minority (as long as the scope of that identification isn't expanded... which we've seen happen before with all manner of terms/classifications). As such, they're generally not an issue...The problem is with the bogus or inappropriate claims of asylum.
Now. There is a major difference between all other migration and asylum seekers. Asking for the benefits of multiculturalism should be done, because we're expected to accept far more in terms of numbers, with no limit being put in place for the future. Accepting genuine asylum seekers is unlikely to match, even remotely, the number of other migration applications.
As for me, I feel that Asylum should be a temporary measure, with cases being reviewed periodically, so that if the circumstances which caused the application for asylum have changed, then the seeker should be sent home. Asylum shouldn't be a way to sidestep normal migration policy.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,092 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59021
They add or subtract little benefit in general, but the numbers are so small that any positives or negatives are minimal and people under genuine threat to life, limb and liberty are helped and the host nation gets to feel good about itself. It's as simple as that.Slowyourrole wrote: »Neither have you said what the benefit is of accepting asylum seekers. You just stated why you find them acceptable, not how they benefit the country.
They do on average. The uncomfortable truth is that some cultures are quite simply better than others and further, some quite simply do better living in Western societies and others do worse. 20,000 East Asians in a European nation is generally a positive for the host society and for the East Asians, 20,000 Africans much less so. And before you go scrabbling around looking for pearls to clutch, "race" has feck all to do with it. Indian and Pakistani people are the same "race", yet the former diaspora outperforms the latter by nearly every metric. Not religion either. People point to the "Muslim rape gangs" in the UK and a general dodgy attitude to rape among some migrants in Germany and Sweden etc who are also Muslim, yet not even a hint of Yemeni rape gangs, or Bahraini, or Malay, or Jordanian, or Iranian, yet they're all Muslim cultures.The best Wibbs could come up with is in relation to a specific group of asylum seekers and the benefit is that Asians have a good work ethic.
I have, as has Klaz.It must be easy if you are demanding a simple answer to the same question from others.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Except the circumstances and numbers are different. Look. Historically, Asylum seekers accounted for an extremely small number of people, so their acceptance into a nation would have very little impact. Due to the numbers, and their circumstances, they would have lived quiet lives, and kept to the background (as they were being persecuted abroad, and fear of retribution following them).
However, when we look at Asylum seekers today, the scope of that status has shifted dramatically due to the relative ease by which transportation links have improved. It's far easier than before to travel, and so, those seeking asylum have increased.
Asylum would have very few actual benefits to the host nation, except in rare situations (such as gaining an Einstein, or similar) The benefit was in showing the nations virtue in helping out. Fair enough. The numbers involved were tiny, and their impact, regardless of their behavior, was minimal. However, with the rise of NGOs, the internet, etc, both the numbers and their impact has shifted dramatically.
Genuine asylum seekers still represent an extreme minority (as long as the scope of that identification isn't expanded... which we've seen happen before with all manner of terms/classifications). As such, they're generally not an issue...The problem is with the bogus or inappropriate claims of asylum.
Now. There is a major difference between all other migration and asylum seekers. Asking for the benefits of multiculturalism should be done, because we're expected to accept far more in terms of numbers, with no limit being put in place for the future. Accepting genuine asylum seekers is unlikely to match, even remotely, the number of other migration applications.
As for me, I feel that Asylum should be a temporary measure, with cases being reviewed periodically, so that if the circumstances which caused the application for asylum have changed, then the seeker should be sent home. Asylum shouldn't be a way to sidestep normal migration policy.They add or subtract little benefit in general, but the numbers are so small that any positives or negatives are minimal and people under genuine threat to life, limb and liberty are helped and the host nation gets to feel good about itself. It's as simple as that.
They do on average. The uncomfortable truth is that some cultures are quite simply better than others and further, some quite simply do better living in Western societies and others do worse. 20,000 East Asians in a European nation is generally a positive for the host society and for the East Asians, 20,000 Africans much less so. And before you go scrabbling around looking for pearls to clutch, "race" has feck all to do with it. Indian and Pakistani people are the same "race", yet the former diaspora outperforms the latter by nearly every metric. Not religion either. People point to the "Muslim rape gangs" in the UK and a general dodgy attitude to rape among some migrants in Germany and Sweden etc who are also Muslim, yet not even a hint of Yemeni rape gangs, or Bahraini, or Malay, or Jordanian, or Iranian, yet they're all Muslim cultures.
I have, as has Klaz.
So neither of you can answer the question but demand others provide you with an answer that suits you? If I understand it, you've (or someone asking the same question at least) has dismissed things like expanding the low wage labour pool, the exposure to different culture (food,language, traditions) and the connections forged with the home countries of the immigrants (such as we have with Poland and the U.S. has with us) as being beneficial. Are you talking a pure immediate financial benefit?0 -
I'd say connection forged with highly developed countries are more important than those with the 3rd world, for example a good relation with Israel has much more potential to be beneficial than those with Pakistan and Nigeria (even with all those princes).0
-
Slowyourrole wrote: »So neither of you can answer the question but demand others provide you with an answer that suits you?
Actually, I did answer your question, but since I'm against the current way that we evaluate/process asylum claims/appeals, you're not going to get a long post defending the Asylum process.
Although I do find it ironic that we're apparently "demand others provide you with an answer that suits you"... when that's exactly what you've been doing here. You've gotten a number of answers from different perspectives, but have dismissed them all as being not what you wanted.
Whereas, when it comes to asking the positives of multiculturalism, or even migration, we have received a few very vague comments, but nothing of any depth. Care to step up and provide that? Nah. I didn't think so.If I understand it, you've (or someone asking the same question at least) has dismissed things like expanding the low wage labour pool, the exposure to different culture (food,language, traditions) and the connections forged with the home countries of the immigrants (such as we have with Poland and the U.S. has with us) as being beneficial. Are you talking a pure immediate financial benefit?
Well, first off, it's kinda bad form to be directing that at Wibbs and me together, as while we agree on many things, there's just as much that we wouldn't. We would have different views on this. Just as my views are different to many of the other posters who dismissed labor concerns (not one I addressed previously)
For myself, I was looking for direct benefits to the nation by African migrants. I know all the negatives, but I'm not sure of the positives.
As for the low wage labor pool, that was dismissed because we already have a native population willing to do it, along with EU migration... we could easily encourage more Europeans to come in (Both Span and Italy being good candidates due to high unemployment), rather than looking to fill those demands with Africans or those from the M.East.0 -
I'd say connection forged with highly developed countries are more important than those with the 3rd world, for example a good relation with Israel has much more potential to be beneficial than those with Pakistan and Nigeria (even with all those princes).
I'd honestly question whether they care. Good relations tends to come about from trade practices and politics. Our accepting migrants from a country is unlikely to be important, considering the manner in which those countries tend to operate, and view their own people. If those countries were so appreciative and interested in the lives of their own people, far less people would be wanting to leave.
Some countries have greater concern about their own people, but lets be honest here, those kind of countries tend to be westernized in some manner.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,092 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59021
Eh no. I wasn't aware my answer or Klaz' was hidden. We answered you. I didn't even read K's post while I was typing mine and it's in broad agreement.Slowyourrole wrote: »So neither of you can answer the question but demand others provide you with an answer that suits you?
I'm beginning to wonder...If I understand it,
Nope. I don't particularly see it as a finely tuned balance sheet, more an overall overview of societal positives and negatives over time.you've (or someone asking the same question at least) has dismissed things like expanding the low wage labour pool, the exposure to different culture (food,language, traditions) and the connections forged with the home countries of the immigrants (such as we have with Poland and the U.S. has with us) as being beneficial. Are you talking a pure immediate financial benefit?
Expanding the low wage labour pool? A hiding to nothing for a few reasons. 1) why are we not expanding same from within Europe and legally? EG Spain is a lot closer than Sudan and has a high unemployment rate, but apparently that's the wrong kind of "diversity". 2) The low wage sector will contract in the coming decades, as it has contracted over the last few.
Exposure to different culture (food,language, traditions)? Turn on the telly or go on the internet. Ireland has been exposed to different cultures for decades and especially over the last 4 decades and we didn't require tens of thousands of non EU people here to do so. Never mind that the first generation of immigrants revert to local traditions and language, or ape external ones they think fit them more. EG Black youth going for the "gangsta" angle, Muslims staying or becoming more Muslim. The Irish American diaspora tends to be more diddly aye "Oirish" than Irish people. Hardly much cultural enrichment going on.
Connections forged with the home countries of the immigrants? Tends to be very much along "race" and common cultural lines that one. Or along ex colony lines, which we never had. Plus quite a bit of those "connections" on the more personal level is the transfer of money earned here back home. Quite a lot of it in the case of Ireland and Nigeria transfers. The Indo reckoned in 2019 at 500 million per annum and that was one year. Now Irish people overseas certainly sent money home, but when there's only supposed to be under 20,000 Nigerians living here, apparently 40% of whom are in receipt of social welfare 500 million is a puzzling figure. That's over 25,000 euro for every Nigerian man woman and child living here. Now the Polish sent 174 million back home, but there are over 120,000 of them here. Such Nigerian "connections" are ten times higher than Polish. Not suspicious at all at all.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Not true at all at all though.Such Nigerian "connections" are ten times higher than Polish. Not suspicious at all at all.
Either in 2013 when Niall Collins asked the question, or in 2019 when Noel Grealish asked the question.
https://www.thejournal.ie/personal-remittance-ireland-to-nigeria-world-bank-4891522-Nov2019/0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,092 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59021
Actually both figures are estimates, so it boils down to whom does one put more faith in? The World bank or the CSO. One difference that's notable between them is the CSO figures stay oddly the same over the years, the World bank figures vary. Plus the CSO has been well known for inaccuracies on quite a few figures, including immigration data.Not true at all at all though.
Either in 2013 when Niall Collins asked the question, or in 2019 when Noel Grealish asked the question.
https://www.thejournal.ie/personal-remittance-ireland-to-nigeria-world-bank-4891522-Nov2019/
Never mind that Nigeria is a powerhouse for remittance payments and is fifth in the world rankings.
And as that article points out: Meanwhile, it has been widely established that the officially recorded remittances into the country are much lower than the actual remittances that take place through unofficial channels. This means a chunk of Nigeria’s remittances flows through the unofficial channels.
Well we've already had a case of a Nigerian gang having a go at the oul money laundering here.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Actually, I did answer your question, but since I'm against the current way that we evaluate/process asylum claims/appeals, you're not going to get a long post defending the Asylum process.
Although I do find it ironic that we're apparently "demand others provide you with an answer that suits you"... when that's exactly what you've been doing here. You've gotten a number of answers from different perspectives, but have dismissed them all as being not what you wanted.
Whereas, when it comes to asking the positives of multiculturalism, or even migration, we have received a few very vague comments, but nothing of any depth. Care to step up and provide that? Nah. I didn't think so.
Well, first off, it's kinda bad form to be directing that at Wibbs and me together, as while we agree on many things, there's just as much that we wouldn't. We would have different views on this. Just as my views are different to many of the other posters who dismissed labor concerns (not one I addressed previously)
For myself, I was looking for direct benefits to the nation by African migrants. I know all the negatives, but I'm not sure of the positives.
As for the low wage labor pool, that was dismissed because we already have a native population willing to do it, along with EU migration... we could easily encourage more Europeans to come in (Both Span and Italy being good candidates due to high unemployment), rather than looking to fill those demands with Africans or those from the M.East.Eh no. I wasn't aware my answer or Klaz' was hidden. We answered you. I didn't even read K's post while I was typing mine and it's in broad agreement.
I'm beginning to wonder...
Nope. I don't particularly see it as a finely tuned balance sheet, more an overall overview of societal positives and negatives over time.
Expanding the low wage labour pool? A hiding to nothing for a few reasons. 1) why are we not expanding same from within Europe and legally? EG Spain is a lot closer than Sudan and has a high unemployment rate, but apparently that's the wrong kind of "diversity". 2) The low wage sector will contract in the coming decades, as it has contracted over the last few.
Exposure to different culture (food,language, traditions)? Turn on the telly or go on the internet. Ireland has been exposed to different cultures for decades and especially over the last 4 decades and we didn't require tens of thousands of non EU people here to do so. Never mind that the first generation of immigrants revert to local traditions and language, or ape external ones they think fit them more. EG Black youth going for the "gangsta" angle, Muslims staying or becoming more Muslim. The Irish American diaspora tends to be more diddly aye "Oirish" than Irish people. Hardly much cultural enrichment going on.
Connections forged with the home countries of the immigrants? Tends to be very much along "race" and common cultural lines that one. Or along ex colony lines, which we never had. Plus quite a bit of those "connections" on the more personal level is the transfer of money earned here back home. Quite a lot of it in the case of Ireland and Nigeria transfers. The Indo reckoned in 2019 at 500 million per annum and that was one year. Now Irish people overseas certainly sent money home, but when there's only supposed to be under 20,000 Nigerians living here, apparently 40% of whom are in receipt of social welfare 500 million is a puzzling figure. That's over 25,000 euro for every Nigerian man woman and child living here. Now the Polish sent 174 million back home, but there are over 120,000 of them here. Such Nigerian "connections" are ten times higher than Polish. Not suspicious at all at all.
Again, neither of you have provided a benefit of accepting asylum seekers. The only thing you briefly referenced, klaz, was looking virtuous. You're both just telling me why asylum seekers are different to migrants but not actually showing any benefit to the host nation for them.
Like I said, you want an answer that suits you but you value things differently to the people you are asking. So you won't get an answer that suits you. Which is why Wibbs just completely dismissed the three things I mentioned. Yet when asked to show a benefit to asylum seekers using your value system, you can't.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,092 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59021
Have you lost the ability to read plain english? I didn't dismiss the three points, indeed I devoted a paragraph to answering each one. Just because you choose to not like the answers is not my problem.Slowyourrole wrote: »Again, neither of you have provided a benefit of accepting asylum seekers. The only thing you briefly referenced, klaz, was looking virtuous. You're both just telling me why asylum seekers are different to migrants but not actually showing any benefit to the host nation for them.
Like I said, you want an answer that suits you but you value things differently to the people you are asking. So you won't get an answer that suits you. Which is why Wibbs just completely dismissed the three things I mentioned. Yet when asked to show a benefit to asylum seekers using your value system, you can't.They add or subtract little benefit in general, but the numbers are so small that any positives or negatives are minimal and people under genuine threat to life, limb and liberty are helped and the host nation gets to feel good about itself. It's as simple as that.
Actual asylum seekers are tiny in number. Illegal and quasi legal economic migrants are higher in number by quite the degree. Scale makes a big difference.
People who are genuinely in danger are helped.
The host nation gets a feel good factor.
Actual asylum seekers are more likely to be people who would have stayed in their homeland if it hadn't gone to hell and more likely to be more qualified.
If that isn't clear enough for you I'll have to break out the finger paints, because your blinkered refusal to debate in good faith is beyond bloody irritating at this stage.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Slowyourrole wrote: »Again, neither of you have provided a benefit of accepting asylum seekers. The only thing you briefly referenced, klaz, was looking virtuous. You're both just telling me why asylum seekers are different to migrants but not actually showing any benefit to the host nation for them.
Again, the question was answered. You seem to be a bit confused because you're asking me to defend Asylum seekers, when I'm obviously against the migration policies in Ireland.
I get the feeling you're not really reading the answers you're getting to your posts.Like I said, you want an answer that suits you but you value things differently to the people you are asking. So you won't get an answer that suits you. Which is why Wibbs just completely dismissed the three things I mentioned. Yet when asked to show a benefit to asylum seekers using your value system, you can't.
And like I said, you're doing the very thing you accuse others of doing. We asked for specific advantages to multiculuralism, and migration, rather than the vague comments given so far. You provided three examples, two of which were more of the same vague remarks, and one that was more specific, which I addressed. Wibbs addressed each of your points, but rather than actually deal with what he or I wrote, you're returning to your original point as if nobody had answered it.
Basically, you're deflecting rather than argue in good faith.0 -
Have you lost the ability to read plain english? I didn't dismiss the three points, indeed I devoted a paragraph to answering each one. Just because you choose to not like the answers is not my problem.
You did dismiss them. The fact you explained why you were dismissing them doesn't change that. It's not that I don't like your answers, I just don't agree with you because I see value in different things than you.
I am surprised the closest either of you have come to describing a benefit to the host nation of accepting asylum seekers is looking virtuous.0 -
Slowyourrole wrote: »I am surprised the closest either of you have come to describing a benefit to the host nation of accepting asylum seekers is looking virtuous.
Ok, then you tell us the benefits... :rolleyes:0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Again, the question was answered. You seem to be a bit confused because you're asking me to defend Asylum seekers, when I'm obviously against the migration policies in Ireland.
I get the feeling you're not really reading the answers you're getting to your posts.
And like I said, you're doing the very thing you accuse others of doing. We asked for specific advantages to multiculuralism, and migration, rather than the vague comments given so far. You provided three examples, two of which were more of the same vague remarks, and one that was more specific, which I addressed. Wibbs addressed each of your points, but rather than actually deal with what he or I wrote, you're returning to your original point as if nobody had answered it.
Basically, you're deflecting rather than argue in good faith.
Not at all. I'm pointing out how disingenuous the question is. The benefit to the host nation doesn't change depending on whether someone is an economic migrant or asylum seeker. They both have the same potential. The only thing that's different is how deserving you think they are. If you want to pretend you are just concerned about cost/benefit of immigration then go ahead, but the fact you don't apply that same criteria to asylum seekers shows that it's not the real reason behind your objection.0 -
Slowyourrole wrote: »Not at all. I'm pointing out how disingenuous the question is. The benefit to the host nation doesn't change depending on whether someone is an economic migrant or asylum seeker. They both have the same potential. The only thing that's different is how deserving you think they are. If you want to pretend you are just concerned about cost/benefit of immigration then go ahead, but the fact you don't apply that same criteria to asylum seekers shows that it's not the real reason behind your objection.
Except... I've made no such distinction between asylum seekers and migrants. You did that through your leading questions, and dismissal of the answers. Everything I've said about multiculturalism, or the migration policies of Ireland relates to both equally.
What? You really think we wouldn't have noticed where you were leading with this? funny.
:pac::pac::pac::pac:0 -
Advertisement
-
Actually both figures are estimates, so it boils down to whom does one put more faith in? The World bank or the CSO. One difference that's notable between them is the CSO figures stay oddly the same over the years, the World bank figures vary. Plus the CSO has been well known for inaccuracies on quite a few figures, including immigration data.
Never mind that Nigeria is a powerhouse for remittance payments and is fifth in the world rankings.
And as that article points out: Meanwhile, it has been widely established that the officially recorded remittances into the country are much lower than the actual remittances that take place through unofficial channels. This means a chunk of Nigeria’s remittances flows through the unofficial channels.
Well we've already had a case of a Nigerian gang having a go at the oul money laundering here.
No issues with that.
The CSO estimated figures atually seem to me like they are based on sound calculations per person, but the CSO undercounts the number of people. For example, they exclude people with dual Irish-Nigerian nationality, even though a Nigerian acquiring Irish citizenship isn't going to immediately stop sending money home.
And there are the other issues with unofficial channels that you mentioned.
That said, my point remains that the 500million a year figure you mentioned, which is something Nigeria supply to the World Bank, is a figure which even the bank itself recognises is nonsense.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,092 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59021
And yet struggle to cogently explain these nebulous values?Slowyourrole wrote: »You did dismiss them. The fact you explained why you were dismissing them doesn't change that. It's not that I don't like your answers, I just don't agree with you because I see value in different things than you.I am surprised the closest either of you have come to describing a benefit to the host nation of accepting asylum seekers is looking virtuous.
Seems like I was correct.Me. Being accurate. wrote: »Have you lost the ability to read plain english?
And again for the cheap seats:
Actual asylum seekers are tiny in number. Illegal and quasi legal economic migrants are higher in number by quite the degree. Scale makes a big difference. It's a lot easier to accommodate and assimilate (on both sides) 2000 people compared to 20, or 40000. Benefit.
People who are genuinely in danger are helped. Benefit.
The host nation gets a feel good factor. Benefit.
Actual asylum seekers are more likely to be people who would have stayed in their homeland if it hadn't gone to hell and more likely to be more qualified. Benefit.
Just in case sums aren't a strong point either, that's four benefits compared to illegal and legal loophole migrants we dealt with before the law was changed. I'll even add more:
Actual asylum seekers are more likely to be welcomed by a host nation compared to illegal migrants. Benefit.
Actual asylum seekers are less likely to window shop for an upgrade in nations than illegal migrants(QV the Viet Boat people who chose to come here when the place was one of the poorest in Europe). Benefit.
Actual asylum seekers are less likely to be involved in criminality and even modern terrorism compared to illegal migrants. Benefit.
Actual asylum seekers are less likely to be in need of social welfare safety nets over time compared to illegal migrants. Benefit.
Actual asylum seekers are more likely to be in the tax net and other civil frameworks than illegal migrants. Benefit.
Set against cheap labour, exoticism of food and customs, few "connections" between nations beyond remittances and vague references to different "values" that seem resistant to any sort of definition. There really doesn't seem to be a lot of arrows in the multiculturalist's quivers, as we've seen throughout this thread and others.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
And again for the cheap seats:
You've answered with a lot of benefits; but wasn't the question what benefits are there for the host nation?- Actual asylum seekers are more likely to be welcomed by a host nation compared to illegal migrants. Benefit. [Benefit to asylum seekers?]
- Actual asylum seekers are less likely to window shop for an upgrade in nations than illegal migrants(QV the Viet Boat people who chose to come here when the place was one of the poorest in Europe). Benefit. [This indeed is a benefit for Ireland, but through less asylum seekers, not more as was the original question]
- Actual asylum seekers are less likely to be involved in criminality and even modern terrorism compared to illegal migrants. Benefit. [This is a fair point although I haven't seen the data, can anyone point me to it?]
- Actual asylum seekers are less likely to be in need of social welfare safety nets over time compared to illegal migrants. Benefit. [Same as above]
- Actual asylum seekers are more likely to be in the tax net and other civil frameworks than illegal migrants. Benefit.[Same again, more pertinent would be, is their arrival a net positive?]
You could ask me the benefits of accepting strangers into your house. I could then list off how much better it is than accepting criminals into your house. Doing so wouldn't be answering your question, though.0 -
What a privilege it is to be sitting here in our safe country debating about "multiculturalism" aka anti-immigration while others simply had the bad luck to be born where they were. Many without peace and safety for themselves or their children, lack of food and housing, stability or opportunity. Some people are just trying to live and if the shoe were on the other foot and we faced the same challenges we would hope that others would accept us. 126 pages bickering about the worth of human lives. This thread is disgusting.0
-
Are you saying that anybody who wants to come here because they were born in a less developed poorer country should be welcomed with open arms so? No matter how many.Stateofyou wrote: »What a privilege it is to be sitting here in our safe country debating about "multiculturalism" aka anti-immigration while others simply had the bad luck to be born where they were. Many without peace and safety for themselves or their children, lack of food and housing, stability or opportunity. Some people are just trying to live and if the shoe were on the other foot and we faced the same challenges we would hope that others would accept us. 126 pages bickering about the worth of human lives. This thread is disgusting.0 -
iebamm2580 wrote: »Are you saying that anybody who wants to come here because they were born in a less developed poorer country should be welcomed with open arms so?
Are you saying that if you were from a different country and faced horrible challenges for you and your family that you wouldn't hope to be welcomed somewhere safer?0 -
Stateofyou wrote: »Are you saying that if you were from a different country and faced horrible challenges for you and your family that you wouldn't hope to be welcomed somewhere safer?
Could you answer the question i asked first?0 -
iebamm2580 wrote: »Could you answer the question i asked first?
I don't think your question is a valid one. You're the one who put words in my mouth by posing a question about it. There are challenges to immigration that can be met in different, more humane ways. Including bigger effort to help countries problems at their source. We need better systems of immigration, not inhumanness. What I see on this thread ranges from xenophobia to racism and ugly discussion about the worth and benefits of other human beings.
If the shoe were on the other foot, and you and your family were refugees (definition: a person/people who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster) or lacking in any basic opportunity doomed to a life of struggle and hardship and pain, what would you hope for?0 -
I will not answer you're question as according to you're logic you have put words in my mouth.Stateofyou wrote: »I don't think your question is a valid one. You're the one who put words in my mouth by posing a question about it. There are challenges to immigration that can be met in different, more humane ways. Including bigger effort to help countries problems at their source. We need better systems of immigration, not inhumanness. What I see on this thread ranges from xenophobia to racism and ugly discussion about the worth and benefits of other human beings.
If the shoe were on the other foot, and you and your family were refugees (definition: a person/people who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster) or lacking in any basic opportunity doomed to a life of struggle and hardship and pain, what would you hope for?0 -
Advertisement
-
Stateofyou wrote: »What a privilege it is to be sitting here in our safe country debating about "multiculturalism" aka anti-immigration while others simply had the bad luck to be born where they were. Many without peace and safety for themselves or their children, lack of food and housing, stability or opportunity. Some people are just trying to live and if the shoe were on the other foot and we faced the same challenges we would hope that others would accept us. 126 pages bickering about the worth of human lives. This thread is disgusting.
You sound like a Trócaire ad“The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”-― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov1
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement