"Yes" landslide

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
I'm not trying to do that. You're saying that other countries have more resources to sort out real from false asylum claims, and you also said you'd have no problem if the "real" asylum seekers came here and worked/lived.
If their claim was processed elsewhere and then they moved here they would be immigrants would they not?

Correct.

How do you know the ones on your estate aren't genuine then? Did your landlord tell you?

I don't know anything other than they are asylum seekers but why do they have to be in €1100 a month 4 bed luxury houses??
As I've said before, theres other places that money could be spent whilst still providing more frugal accomadation for these asylum seekers.
The mind boggles.

So I'm not accused of misrepresenting what you're saying again, I'll point out the contradiction in your own post (in the context of the above quote)

Well ok, I see where you get that from, let me clarify then, that I would exclude luxury four bed houses as being a necessary goody for an asylum seeker.
Mosney is fine though,It's actually very fine given that many of these people are actually flee'ing persecution and are thankfull for it as a restbite.

Originally posted by Hobbes
You have proof of that? Please post it.

Everything I have seen to date shows this is not the case.

Short of names and addresses,that would not be a good idea.
If this was a public meeting that we were addressing,I'm sure addresses would be mentioned, but putting them here would be a big no-no.

Originally posted by pete
AS posted above, the facts are all here http://www.oasis.gov.ie/moving_country/seeking_asylum/direct_provision.html

Asylum seekers are just NOT accommodated in 4 bed semis.

Pete,I have every faith in your faith as to what is supposed to be the situation,unfortunately what goes on, on the ground doesn't necessarily comply with that.
Don't ask me why as I simply don't know.
But if you ask me should this be the case,I'll say it most definitely should not.

dathi1

Pete ...on my road alone in Firhouse, the Eastern Health board has 11 houses worth 350,000 accommodating Algerian and Nigerian families. This is a left over from the early years whereby most people coming in where granted housing on the top of the waiting list. (I work for the landlords) this has now been slightly scaled back but when the property is to be sold by the land lord the EHB then has to re settle families to the same standard accommodation. I have had Asylum seekers handing leaflets through my door looking for rented property.

Rock Climber

Phew!!
Thanks for that Dáithi.
I feel vindicated and at several points here I thought Frank Grimes thought I was lying

Hobbes

Originally posted by Rock Climber

Short of names and addresses,that would not be a good idea.
If this was a public meeting that we were addressing,I'm sure addresses would be mentioned, but putting them here would be a big no-no.

Then you have no proof what so ever then.

They are not given these houses. They are temporary placed in houses then removed from them once their asylum has been approved/denied.

Like I said.. if you have proof post it. You don't.

Yawn.....
The people voted get over it lads

Originally posted by Hobbes
Then you have no proof what so ever then.

They are not given these houses. They are temporary placed in houses then removed from them once their asylum has been approved/denied.

Like I said.. if you have proof post it. You don't.

*Cough*
Thats the craziest reply,I've read to date,I've seen lots of stuff posted on this forum thats anecdotal.
So you think Daithi and rock climber are lying then?

Or do you want them both to put other peoples addresses on the interweb?
Perhaps you should take your dis belief up with daithi1-he has stated that he works for landlords that are providing housing for asylum seekers paid for by the Eastern health board...
I for one believe both of them

Sometimes it astonishes me, the extent to which posters here sometimes disregard what people directly involved say and who are on the inside track just because it doesn't go along with the opposing posters pre conceived dogged beliefs.
On the outside looking in at the debate,in this case it' looks like a blatant case of being blind to the facts.
{off-topic}
By the way, I've been reporting hot sunshine and temps in the south east in the high twenties for the last couple of days now.
It was raining and only 14 degree's in Finner camp in Co Donegal today though...
Must I attach photo's of this sunshine now and a weblink to NRA roadside thermomenters lest any poster in Donegal doesn't believe me {/off-topic }

Trebor

what does it matter if they are put up in houses? they have to be put some where and i am sure that if there was room in mosney then they would be put there. the reason why the govrnt is paying outlandish rental prices for these people is due to their failure to build social welfare housing and the stock they have at the moment they sell to the occupant. if they can buy a house then they should move out and let someone else have their council house.
i think also that people are assuming that the people in the houses are asylum seekers, are you sure that they are not refugees? cause if they are then they are entitled to rent allowance and again from my point above they have no houses to put them in so they have to put them in rented accommodation.

why is most of the Yes voters complaining that the asylum seekers are getting all these things for free. why are they not complaining about the lack of enforcement by the govrnt and the lack of funding by this govrt to social projects? Or could it be that they would rather have another tax break instead?

pete

Originally posted by dathi1
Pete ...on my road alone in Firhouse, the Eastern Health board has 11 houses worth 350,000 accommodating Algerian and Nigerian families. This is a left over from the early years whereby most people coming in where granted housing on the top of the waiting list. (I work for the landlords) this has now been slightly scaled back but when the property is to be sold by the land lord the EHB then has to re settle families to the same standard accommodation.

The point is that the suggestion that cushy "4 bed semi's" are currently "being supplied" to asylum seekers is completely untrue, and is as much of a lie as the free car / free mobile phone crap.

In the past - yes, some asylum seeker (families) were placed in health board funded accommodation. But now? No - it's simply not the case. (and if you know otherwise, please let me know - I'd be interested to see how it's being swung)

As to the old "jumping to the top of the waiting list" chestnut - i would dispute the use of the word "most", as I believe from my time in the department of social welfare (although don't have statistics to hand) that most asylum seekers were placed in temporary (ie completely unsuitable bed & breakfast) accommodation.

Emergency housing lists have always and will always give precedence to those in most need. A family with no place to go but the street will always "score" highly. This is why there's a points system in place, and as far as I know is the way the system works for everyone regardless of any individual's prejudiced assumptions... but again, this is historical and far, far removed from the current situation.

I'm not entirely sure of the relevance of the resettling point, as unless my maths are flawed it would lead to no nett increase in the numbers of families housed?

I have had Asylum seekers handing leaflets through my door looking for rented property.

Checked their papers, did you?

pete

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Pete,I have every faith in your faith as to what is supposed to be the situation,unfortunately what goes on, on the ground doesn't necessarily comply with that.
Don't ask me why as I simply don't know.
But if you ask me should this be the case,I'll say it most definitely should not.

Go back and read what the oasis page says. Please.

Do you think it's at all possible that your landlord doesn't know the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee???

pete

OK this is from the Socialist Workers Party website... it's almost free of spin, yet i can predict the reaction.

Do try to avoid the words "i think" or "i heard" or "a bloke down the pub said..." when contradicting it.

all asylum seekers who arrived in Ireland since April 1 2000 are in receipt of what's known as "direct provision" from the state.

This means that they are housed in "centres" with lots of other refugees and they have all their food provided for them.

- They receive reduced allowances under the Supplementary Welfare Allowance scheme of €19.05 per adult per week and €9.52 per child out of which they have to meet all their other needs.

Outside of this they are entitled to a medical card and access to legal services. They can, like any social welfare recipient, seek money under the Exceptional Needs Payments scheme.

- A recent report on direct provision centres in Cork found them to be overcrowded, the quality of food provided was poor and there was a lack of play and homework space for children.

- Asylum seekers have their dignity and freedom stripped from them.

Quite rightly no Irish social welfare recipient would endure this treatment and no homeless person should be expected to swap life on the street for a life of near imprisonment.

- Asylum seekers who arrived prior to direct provision are entitled to the same social welfare rights as any Irish citizen and have access to rent allowance.

They do not receive any additional monies beyond the rate that is set by government each year in the budget.

- Newly arrived asylum seekers are assigned to one of three Reception Centres in Dublin: Parnell West Hotel, Kilmacud House or Baleskin.

- There are two overflow centres at Gardiner Place and North Frederick Street. They are required to reside at these centres for 8 to 14 days prior to dispersal.

While in the reception centre asylum seekers are issued ID cards, offered access to voluntary health screening and receive Supplementary Welfare Payments.

- The policy of dispersal began on the 20th of November 1999. By December 31 2001, 11,490 asylum seekers had been dispersed around the country.

- There are currently 72 accommodation centres in 24 counties. Asylum seekers have no choice and no say over where they end up.

- Asylum seekers are not allowed access to full time education and do not have the right to work. However anyone who applied for asylum on or before the 26 July 1999 and is still awaiting a decision on their application is allowed to take up employment.

All across the country intelligent, highly qualified, skilled and hard working people are being forced into welfare dependency when they are only too willing to work.

If asylum seekers are "costing the country money" we only have the government to blame for it.

Asylum seekers are not eligible for local authority housing. They are not accepted on local authority housing lists and not a single asylum seeker has got a house from a local council.

- Only after passing all the rigorous interviewing and having against all the odds had their reasons for fleeing their home country accepted as legitimate, can an application succeed.

- Those who are successful in their asylum application are granted refugee status and receive the same entitlements as Irish citizens - but encounter the same problems.

- About 2,000 refugees are still living in hostels or emergency B&Bs with another 500 to 600 in centres around the country because they can find no accommodation in either the social housing or private rented sectors.

- Only one third of local authorities have made any provision for refugees in their housing strategies.

http://www.swp.ie/resources/Racism%20in%20Ireland.htm

Pete,
This is interesting.
what is the department of social welfare/department of foreign affairs/local authority or whatever distinction in the treatment of a refugee and an asylum seeker?

The point is that the suggestion that cushy "4 bed semi's" are currently "being supplied" to asylum seekers is completely untrue, and is as much of a lie as the free car / free mobile phone crap.

what are the €350,000 value houses that daithi1 is talking about, he's directly involved,they are hardly dingey B+B's

As daithi works for the landlords,surely he's in a position to say whether these "tennants" are asylum seekers or residents who have been granted asylum.
surely the department tells the landlord and or his agents who they are putting in the house that they are renting?

Meh

Originally posted by pete
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0616/citizenship.html

The Irish Times has a bit more on those figures: http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/3405301?view=Eircomnet

The majority of non-Irish women giving birth [in the three main Dublin maternity hospitals] were from Nigeria, with 1,528 babies being registered as having Nigerian mothers.

Now, according to the 2002 census, there were 3,518 female Nigerian nationals living in the province of Leinster in 2002. So it appears that nearly 45% of Nigerian women resident in Leinster gave birth in 2003* -- an extraordinarily high birth rate by any standards, especially considering that many of them would not be of child-bearing age. And that's even ignoring any births inside Leinster but outside the main 3 Dublin maternity hospitals! Anyone care to hazard a guess as to the reason behind this mini baby boom?

* I'm assuming here that the Nigerian population in Leinster didn't increase significantly between 2002 and 2003. Given the fall in asylum claims in 2003, I think this is a reasonable assumption to make.

pete

Originally posted by Earthman
Pete,
This is interesting.
what is the department of social welfare/department of foreign affairs/local authority or whatever distinction in the treatment of a refugee and an asylum seeker?

A refugee is not a refugee until they have been successful in their claim for asylum.*

As to what daithi1 knows or doesn't know due to his working for the landlords I can't really comment - for all you or I know he washes the windows (although i'm pretty sure he doesn't) and I don't see why hearsay or someone's undeclared employment entitles them to be given more credence over and above the government's stated policy.

And while i hate to repeat myself, the policy since 1st April 2000 (ie 4 years ago) is that all asylum seeker accommodation is provided via direct provision, (ie camps not houses).

* In the normal course of events. In the past people have automatically been granted refugee status, most recently bosnian refugees (who at the time were also denied the right to work)

Tuars

Originally posted by Earthman
{off-topic}
By the way, I've been reporting hot sunshine and temps in the south east in the high twenties for the last couple of days now.
{/off-topic }

Don't go shouting it from the rooftops for God's sake or we'll have another referendum on our hands. The fine weather is a huge incentive for the asylum seekers. Best close that loophole as well .

pete

Originally posted by Meh
The Irish Times has a bit more on those figures: http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/3405301?view=Eircomnet
Now, according to the 2002 census, there were 3,518 female Nigerian nationals living in the province of Leinster in 2002. So it appears that nearly 45% of Nigerian women resident in Leinster gave birth in 2003 -- an extraordinarily high birth rate by any standards, especially considering that many of them would not be of child-bearing age. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to the reason behind this mini baby boom?

Without seeing figures for the number of nigerian females resident in leinster in 2003(and if certain parties are to be believed, that figure would have skyrocketed) , it's rather disingenuous to attempt to calculate birth rate percentages.

Notwithstanding this, I don't think it's beyond the bounds of possibility that discovering she is pregnant might encourage a woman to flee Nigeria for reasons other than citizenship for the child http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

Tuars

Originally posted by Hobbes
What I find funny in all this, and the very vocal yes voters here fail to realise is the clause put into the change to the constitution when they voted yes.

Basically it allows a change to the rule without calling a referrendum. So for example a child is born here to non-national parents it is still possible for this child to become Irish if a law is passed to allow it (or a judge rules it afaik, ianal).

Of course it also allows them to change the rule so that say a child born to one Irish parent cannot become a citizen as well.

For me this is the key issue and the one that will have long term repercussions but it's been lost in all the hoohah about asylum seeker related issues (which despite the hopes/fears of the Yes/No advocates are not changed one bit due to this referendum).

We have given the government the right to mess about with the definition of Irish citizenship, a right previously reserved for the constitution and subject to change only by referendum.

All citizens should be concerned with this. We have compromised our own rights in an attempt to fix a fairly minor problem. It should have been possible to solve the problem without giving the government such powers.

Meh

Originally posted by pete
Without seeing figures for the number of nigerian females resident in leinster in 2003(and if certain parties are to be believed, that figure would have skyrocketed) , it's rather disingenuous to attempt to calculate birth rate percentages.

New asylum applications were down by about one third in 2003 over 2002, with 3,100 new applications from Nigerians. (http://www.refugees.org/wrs04/country_updates/europe/ireland.html)
There were 53 new work permits granted to Nigerians in 2003 (http://www.entemp.ie/publications/labour/2003/nattotal.doc)

If we make the completely unrealistic assumption that every single one of those 3,153 new Nigerian nationals was a woman of child-bearing age, and that every single one of them settled in Leinster, that's still nearly a 25% birth rate in one year -- still exceptionally high.

Notwithstanding this, I don't think it's beyond the bounds of possibility that discovering she is pregnant might encourage a woman to flee Nigeria for reasons other than citizenship for the child http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

That's a possibility, yes.

pete

Originally posted by Meh
If we make the completely unrealistic assumption that every single one of those 3,100 new Nigerian asylum seekers was a woman of child-bearing age, that's still a 25% birth rate in one year -- still exceptionally high.

I don't think it's entirely unrealistic to say that half (or maybe 52% ) of them may have been just that - I've nothing concrete to back this up, but i always thought that most asylum seekers would be younger adults, if only because they would be most able to migrate - ie those that would be old enough to be independent yet not so old that they're unable to travel in what can be quite unpleasant circumstances.

Are there any figures on age profiles available?

Anyways...

Nigeria also has one of the lowest levels of modern family planning use in the world, though 26% of women of reproductive age report an unmet need for family planning. Nineteen percent of the population is between ages 19 and 24 and experiences high fertility and many unintended pregnancies. However, only 35% of young people have knowledge of contraceptive methods. The country suffers from 10% of the world's maternal deaths yet has less than 2% of the world's population.

Cultural and social pressures limit access to health care. In Muslim-dominated regions, some women need their husbands' permission to seek medical care, and having many children is highly valued. Doctors and nurses are scarce throughout the country, and, especially in the north, quality health services are hard to find.

Source: http://www.engenderhealth.org/ia/cbc/nigeria.html

And according to our pals in the CIA, Nigeria has uhh 2.64 x Ireland's birthrate.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2054rank.html

Put it all together and you have yerself a baby boom.

(edited for stupidity)

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Trebor
what does it matter if they are put up in houses? they have to be put some where and i am sure that if there was room in mosney then they would be put there. the reason why the govrnt is paying outlandish rental prices for these people is due to their failure to build social welfare housing and the stock they have at the moment they sell to the occupant. if they can buy a house then they should move out and let someone else have their council house.
i think also that people are assuming that the people in the houses are asylum seekers, are you sure that they are not refugees? cause if they are then they are entitled to rent allowance and again from my point above they have no houses to put them in so they have to put them in rented accommodation.

why is most of the Yes voters complaining that the asylum seekers are getting all these things for free. why are they not complaining about the lack of enforcement by the govrnt and the lack of funding by this govrt to social projects? Or could it be that they would rather have another tax break instead?

If you cross through 6 or 7 national EU boundaries to get to Ireland then it is impossible that could be a genuine refugee, if you define a refugee as someone seeking safehaven from war, famine or oppression. 80% of asylum-seekers in the Republic of Ireland get here via NI and the rest get here via other EU states (except for 1 in 200 according to statistics who didn't cross via other EU states). As far as I am concerned, an asylum-seeker in the UK who then travels to Ireland should not be considered a refugee, as the above criteria I have given for them being a refugee has not been met. 93% of asylum-applications were rejected last year.

The Government gave the local-councils the power to build social-housing that was supposed to be "affordable". However, "Affordable" means 100,000 nowadays and even that is costing the taxpayer a fortune. All the more scandalous when you consider they could have gotten all this in the UK etc.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Earthman
Thats the craziest reply,I've read to date,I've seen lots of stuff posted on this forum thats anecdotal.
So you think Daithi and rock climber are lying then?

Lying or mis-informed and I am only talking about rock climber.

The exact details of what Asulym seekers get has been listed. If they are getting free houses from the government which I most seriously doubt then by all means post up the details as I am sure with such proof you could bring the government to its knees.

But conjecture and hearsay is pretty far from proof.

Rock climber is making out they get free expensive houses when they don't.

what are the €350,000 value houses that daithi1 is talking about, he's directly involved,they are hardly dingey B+B's

As I read it, it was 11 houses worth 350,000. But when were they bought?

Meh

Originally posted by pete
And according to our pals in the CIA, Nigeria has uhh 2.64 x Ireland's birthrate.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2054rank.html

OK, so Nigerians living in Nigeria have a yearly birth rate of 38.24 per 1000, which is pretty high by world standards. Now, taking the 2002 census figure of 6717 Nigerians living in Leinster, and adding on the 3153 new Nigerian residents in 2003, and using the ERHA figure of 1528 births to Nigerian mothers in Dublin in 2003, Nigerians living in Leinster seem to have a birth rate of 1000 * (1528/(6717+3153)) = 154.81 per 1000!

Must be something in the water here I guess...

pete

Originally posted by Meh
OK, so Nigerians living in Nigeria have a yearly birth rate of 38.24 per 1000, which is pretty high by world standards. Now, taking the 2002 census figure of 6717 Nigerians living in Leinster, and adding on the 3153 new Nigerian residents in 2003, and using the ERHA figure of 1528 births to Nigerian mothers in Dublin in 2003, Nigerians living in Leinster seem to have a birth rate of 1000 * (1528/(6717+3153)) = 154.81 per 1000!

Must be something in the water here I guess...

Nice sums, but you forget that the 38.24 births per 1000 head of population in Nigeria is per 1000 people aged from 0 - 100, whereas here you (probably) have a far higher proportion of younger adults which is (probably) going to skew the figures. Possibly.

pete

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
If you cross through 6 or 7 national EU boundaries to get to Ireland then it is impossible that could be a genuine refugee, if you define a refugee as someone seeking safehaven from war, famine or oppression. 80% of asylum-seekers in the Republic of Ireland get here via NI and the rest get here via other EU states (except for 1 in 200 according to statistics who didn't cross via other EU states). As far as I am concerned, an asylum-seeker in the UK who then travels to Ireland should not be considered a refugee, as the above criteria I have given for them being a refugee has not been met. 93% of asylum-applications were rejected last year.

Sources?

The Government gave the local-councils the power to build social-housing that was supposed to be "affordable". However, "Affordable" means 100,000 nowadays and even that is costing the taxpayer a fortune. All the more scandalous when you consider they could have gotten all this in the UK etc.

Relevancy?

Meh

Originally posted by pete
Nice sums, but you forget that the 38.24 births per 1000 head of population in Nigeria is per 1000 people aged from 0 - 100, whereas here you (probably) have a far higher proportion of younger adults which is (probably) going to skew the figures. Possibly.

I could respond that asylum seekers tend to be better educated and more urbanized, and these two attributes tend to be correlated with fewer children, but I think we're into the realms of speculation now. Can we agree that this birth rate is extremely high, and that there seems to be no immediately obvious explanation for it?

pete

Originally posted by Meh
there seems to be no immediately obvious explanation for it?

Ridin'

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Hobbes

Rock climber is making out they get free expensive houses when they don't.

Another misrepresentation.
I did not say that.
As you know and must have read, if you are reading this thread at all,I am talking about my landlords other tennants who are getting their houses Rent free
I never said the asylum seekers names were on the deeds which is what your convenient misrepresentation implies.
At all times I am being clear about the type of house they are living in and the fact that it's rent free.
Damn I even told you here what the rent on a house in the estate is... and that I'd prefer if that money was spent on something else and that the asylum seekers in question were put up somewhere more frugal
So where did I ever mention ownership and where are you getting that, other than to introduce it yourself as a misrepresentation of what I actually said by presenting something I didn't say at all.

pete

Originally posted by Rock Climber
I'd prefer if that money was spent on something else and that the asylum seekers in question were put up somewhere more frugal

Are these individuals? Couples? Families?

(oh and i'm still curious to know whether your landlord knows the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee. Perhaps you could pop round the corner and ask them directly yourself?)

Rock Climber

I'm not entirely sure of their interpersonal relationships or marital status.
Theres babies and toddlers there.
And one lass who is damn fine *







*note I'm not suggesting I've fathered any of these children

Lioness

In fact citizenship law has been very specifically left in the hands of the individual States. Spot the difference

You didnt read my post. I will state again, its only natural that ireland should adopt a stance re. this issue that is similar to its E.U counterparts. I never said it was law or anything to do with the law. its about co-ordination, being united and in harmony.

What heritage and culture is this, anyway? Watching Coronation St. and Friends and supporting Man United?

eh? culture means the traditions, identity and heritage of a country basicaly. are you Irish, your not very patriotic are you?! i think its a pure shame when people belittle their own country's value.

Have you any idea of the list of disparities in statutory functions between member states?

No i dont. funny, have you any idea about E.U regulations and decisions? In fact have you heard of the european court of justice??

The dilution of our culture?!!! Holy **** that is scary lioness, narrow minded, racist and facist.

Nope. its a FACT! if our country is flooded with a mish mash of cultures and ethnic groups, its what will happen.

Well to prevent it happening why dont we restrict people NOT of our heritage and culture from using certain services

How will that prevent our own country from being swamped by other non-nationals exactly??I think their should be legislation in place to control the amount of people comming here. if foreigners are within the boundaries of the new constitution to come here then they can and should use all the services they want!!

make them sit at the back of the bus, make them were emblems so we can easily spot them.

what??!!! this is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING got to do with the issue at all!!! read my response to your above comment again..

Irish culture what is it? Name one thing that seperates us from any other nation in Europe?trying to identify a few charateristics that we can use to spot "real" irish people is futile and stupid.

nope I disagree. how about the Irish accent for one?? for your information I'll list a few things.. how about our culture of pubs, Irish dancing, Irish food-cabbage & bacon, stew, the Irish sense of humour, the friendlyness, Irish music?? I think it would be easy to spot a "real" Irish person among spainish or french or..

If you want to talk about ancestors and roots then most of us arent Irish as our ancestors came from outside Ireland, and current historical evidence and thinking is that the human race originated in Africa. In a sense we are all African, how far back do you want to go?

whats the point exactly??I never heard that we originated from Africa.

simu

eh? culture means the traditions, identity and heritage of a country basicaly. are you Irish, your not very patriotic are you?! i think its a pure shame when people belittle their own country's value.

No, I'm not patriotic at all. I am happy that I speak Irish and I'm fascinated by Irish literature but I don't think it's wise to "love" abstract entities such as nationstates (that's what patriotism is) because the ideals they proclaim to stand for can change considerably over the years and I worry that the ethos of the Irish state is becoming inward-looking and mean.

Look at what you wrote yourself - you put the word tradition in the plural form. There have been different cultural groups in this country for centuries - Irish speakers, English speakers, Catholics, Protestants, Heuguenots, Normans, Jews, the Anglo-Irish to name some that come to mind and now we're seeing the arrival of more cultures - I don't see why they wouldn't all be able to co-exist happily. My point is that if you try to find one cultural interest common to all these groups, it will be something banal like Man. Unt. or Friends.

nope I disagree. how about the Irish accent for one?? for your information I'll list a few things.. how about our culture of pubs, Irish dancing, Irish food-cabbage & bacon, stew, the Irish sense of humour, the friendlyness, Irish music?? I think it would be easy to spot a "real" Irish person among spainish or french or..

There are lots of different Irish accents and tbh foreigners who live here tend to pick up the local variety pretty fast. Some of them also get into pubs, Irish dancing and music as well, hell maybe there's the odd one who develops a liking for potatoes and cabbage (you'd certainly never find that on my dinner table - shock horror)! As for friendliness and sense of humour, this isn't an island populated by leipreachán automata - not everybody has the same sense of humour (many people around don't have any), not every body is friendly (ever taken a walk through an irish city at 3 am on the weekend?) - you seem to have a very stereotypical view of Irish people indeed.

Moojuice

Lioness,


Accent?? Oh yeah sure if you speak with an Irish accent are you Irish? If you eat cabbage and potatoes are you Irish? If you spend your time in a pub, every free hour you have are you Irish? What combination of these things makes you Irish? 1? 2? 3? The things you mention are superficial, I don’t have a strong accent, in fact I am always asked where I come from and people are surprised that I am Irish. I don’t Irish dance, I hate cabbage and potato.

Oh yeah and the amount of friendly Irish is diminishing everyday.


Do a bit of reading/study. Current historical and archaeological thinking and evidence suggests that the origin of the Homosapien species was in Africa. You obviously didn’t pick up on the connotations of what I was saying regarding people wearing emblems etc (National Socialism)

I think this is a great thread despite the numerous views I do not agree with. I welcome all the discussion and argument. However I think it has got a bit off topic and personal so I am going to refrain from posting for a while. Great debate in a lot of respects guys, thanks