We're racist, as we never knew they were coming?

Zombrex

axer wrote:

Immigration can cause problems if not managed correctly.

Well by definition anything that isn't managed correctly causes problems.

I don't hold out much hope that the government will manage integration properly, but then I don't hold out much hope that the government will manage anything properly. As has been mentioned the way the State has handled the urban sprawl is a text book example of how not to handle urban sprawl. The Health care system is imploding. Education is in trouble. The economy is weakening.

I think people put far too much faith in this idea that if we just discuss the issue of immigration everything will be sorted out. We discuss health care, education, crime etc all the time, and that doesn't seem to do much.

Immigration might be one issue where lack of government interference may be an advantage.

axer

djpbarry wrote:

Are you serious? When was the last time you were in a hospital? Are you aware of the large number of foreign doctors and nurses working in our health system?

Most immigrants that come to this country are relatively young and don’t put much of a burden on the health service. Besides, if they’re paying taxes, they’re contributing towards its maintenance.

Are you telling me that a health system that could not even deal with the amount of patients before the majority of new immigrants came does not feel *any* extra strain with an increase population?

djpbarry wrote:

You are implying that the number of homeless people in this country has increased rapidly as a result of immigration. I am telling you that I do not believe this is the case (I am not saying there are NO foreign, homeless individuals), but feel free to prove me wrong.

No. See here for an example of homeless services being utilised by immigrants in Edinburgh. I remember seeing something similiar on the news in Ireland. It can be a problem. I am not saying it is here at the moment.

djpbarry wrote:

I am telling you that you are blowing this out of all proportion. Yes, there are people coming to this country who are not fluent in English, but it is hardly going to result in the nation grinding to a halt because of communication problems.

Who said the nation would grind to a halt. You refuse to accept that immigration can bring problems. That is a totally unrealistic opinion.

djpbarry wrote:

With regard to immigrant children who are not fluent in English, this problem is being dealt with. As far as I am aware, there are over 1,000 teachers in this country whose sole job is to teach English as a second language.

Not half enough so that is why many resource teachers are being used aswell.

djpbarry wrote:

But that is not the point. You are claiming that the job of the Gardaí (specifically, in tackling human trafficking) is being made more difficult by the supposedly massive number of non-English speaking people in this country. That does not take away from the fact that human trafficking is a criminal activity and is a separate issue to immigration. An immigrant comes to a country of their own free will. An individual who is trafficked into a country (often against their will) is the victim of a crime and, as such, cannot be put into the same category as a “regular” immigrant. How “difficult” it is for the Gardaí to deal with this does not make it any less of a criminal activity.

I am not arguing whether it is crimminal or not just whether the job for the gardai is harder. You are completely missing the point.

djpbarry wrote:

And once these “experts” have wasted our money doing these studies, then what? What good will it do us knowing there are x number of Poles working in coffee shops?

What? - you don't believe there are experts who would know more about immigration than you? :rolleyes: It matters as we can target certain services at them. We can plan better.

djpbarry wrote:

Do you not think it would be a bit daft allowing someone enter the country if you’re not going to allow them to work? You have to be making PRSI contributions for a minimum of 2 years (I think) before you can claim welfare.

No it is not. Why would someone move to a country if they could neither work there nor get social welfare - would that not be daft? I believe they call it immigration control.

djpbarry wrote:

This is for a limited period and besides, (in my opinion) it goes against everything the EU stands for.

It is obviously not the opinion of those in power in the EU otherwise it would be illegal.

djpbarry wrote:

In some cases, such as the US, ghettos were formed because, by law, non-white people were forced to live in certain areas. In other countries (such as Ireland), immigrants will always gather in areas that offer the cheapest accommodation, e.g. in Dublin’s north city centre. It’s difficult to see what can be done to change this.

It is not a good idea to allow it to happen and it is a problem associated with high immigration.

djpbarry wrote:

This is pretty wishy-washy stuff. How is my freedom of speech impacted upon by the Polish couple living next door?

Nobody said it was impacted by the polish couple living next door. Do you fail to see the point? Take a look at other countries that have been affected by immigration and see what has happened there or are we a special country? :rolleyes:

djpbarry wrote:

Absolute nonsense.

Great arguement :rolleyes: What do you think resource teachers would be doing if they were not teaching non-english speaking students english?

djpbarry wrote:

You cannot compare our situation to the likes of Britain, France and Holland. These were colonial powers that had vast empires overseas.

What has that got to do with it?

I guess Ireland is special :rolleyes:

djpbarry wrote:

I never said that, but the so-called “problems” that you are pointing out either don’t exist or, if they do, you are blowing them out of proportion. For example, how often do you encounter someone in Ireland, through the course of your daily routine, who doesn’t speak English (who is not a tourist)? I honestly cannot recall a single such encounter.

So you either do or do not agree that immigration can create many problems?

djpbarry wrote:

I personally do not see the value in conducting mass studies on immigration (with government funding, presumably?). What are they going to tell us that we do not already know? What makes you think they will be any more reliable than the census?

What makes you think you know better than experts in the field? Who is this "we" that you think already knows the answers?

djpbarry wrote:

I would much rather the money and resources were channelled into the far more serious problems facing this country, such as our:

• Shambolic health service
• Poor (non-existent in some parts of the country) public transport
• Over-dependence on imported energy.
• Under-staffed and under-funded police force
• Under-funded education system

Let me put it like this; let’s suppose the government commissions a number of academics to conduct a rigorous, in-depth study of migrants in Ireland, at a cost of say €5 million. Let’s also assume, for the sake of argument, that there are zero errors in their final report. Great, we now know that there are exactly 11,538 Lithuanians working in retail in Ireland. So what? How will this information benefit us, bearing in mind that this money could have been much better spent elsewhere (in my opinion), e.g. on a new school?

How do you know where to build this new school? How do you know how many language teachers to have in this new school?

djpbarry wrote:

It’s also worth mentioning that I would be very surprised if there are not academics (sociologists, etc.) in this country who are already conducting research in this area.

There are and they say there are problems and we will have more problems if we do not control things.

Do you honestly believe immigration causes no problems?

axer

Wicknight wrote:

Well by definition anything that isn't managed correctly causes problems.

Lack of immigration control can have serious long term consiquences.

oscarBravo

But we have immigration control. So that's alright then.

Zombrex

axer wrote:

Lack of immigration control can have serious long term consiquences.

As Oscar points out we have immigration control. I'm also not sure of any country in the last 500 years that hasn't had immigration control, so I'm not quite sure what cases you are referring to. What country has no immigration control?

Anyway my understand was that you were discussing issues facing integration rather than immigration. Within this regard you made some good points about the lack of planning towards integration.

axer

I meant to say proper immigration control. Sorry. As in planning who we want and setting our policies accordingly.

Zombrex

axer wrote:

What control would that be then?

Are you serious?

http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=8777
http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/home/index.aspx?id=8605

Zombrex

axer wrote:

I meant to say proper immigration control. Sorry. As in planning who we want and setting our policies accordingly.

We do that.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/employment/migrant-workers/employment-permits/work_permits

Labour market needs test

A new application for a work permit must be accompanied by documentary evidence that a labour market needs test has been carried out. The test requires that the vacancy must have been advertised with the FÁS/EURES employment network and in local and national newspapers for 3 days. This is to ensure that, in the first instance an EEA or Swiss national or in the second instance, a Bulgarian or Romanian national cannot be found to fill the vacancy. Applicants for spousal/dependant work permits are exempt from the labour market needs test.

Occupations that are ineligible for work permits

Since April 2004 the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, following consultation with FÁS, has announced, on a quarterly basis, occupational sectors that are considered ineligible for work permits.



Still not quite sure what this has to do with integration ...

djpbarry

axer wrote:

Are you telling me that a health system that could not even deal with the amount of patients before the majority of new immigrants came does not feel *any* extra strain with an increase population?

I am arguing that our health system has benefited more form immigration than it has suffered.

axer wrote:

Who said the nation would grind to a halt

You have said that our public services are affected by the number of immigrants in Ireland who do not speak English, yet you have failed to provide one single example. I am saying that our poor public services have nothing to do with non-English speaking immigrants.

axer wrote:

Not half enough so that is why many resource teachers are being used aswell

Sources please. Quote from Friday’s Indo (emphasis mine):

“She (Mary Hanafin) says there are 1,450 teachers whose sole job is to teach English to immigrant children.”

Special needs teachers are a different entity entirely.

axer wrote:

I am not arguing whether it is crimminal or not just whether the job for the gardai is harder. You are completely missing the point.

No I am not, you are. You argued that human trafficking is a problem associated with immigration in this country. I am telling you (yet again) that human trafficking and immigration are two totally different things. How difficult it is for the Gardaí to deal with it is irrelevant. From the UN Office on Drugs and Crime:

“The smuggling of migrants, while often undertaken in dangerous or degrading conditions, involves migrants who have consented to the smuggling. Trafficking victims, on the other hand, have either never consented or, if they initially consented, that consent has been rendered meaningless by the coercive, deceptive or abusive actions of the traffickers.

Another major difference is that smuggling ends with the arrival of the migrants at their destination, whereas trafficking involves the ongoing exploitation of the victims in some manner to generate illicit profits for the traffickers. From a practical standpoint, victims of trafficking also tend to be more severely affected and in greater need of protection from re-victimization and other forms of further abuse than are smuggled migrants.”

axer wrote:

No it is not. Why would someone move to a country if they could neither work there nor get social welfare - would that not be daft?

You’re contradicting yourself. You’re the one who said:

“Eu immigrants would have to be let in but that does not necessarily mean that the person would have to be allowed work or claim social welfare.”

So, I repeat, why let someone enter the country if you’re going to refuse them the right to work?

axer wrote:

It is not a good idea to allow it to happen and it is a problem associated with high immigration

So what do we do about it then?

axer wrote:

Take a look at other countries that have been affected by immigration and see what has happened there or are we a special country?

Give me specific examples of countries where freedom of speech has declined as a direct result of immigration.

axer wrote:

What do you think resource teachers would be doing if they were not teaching non-english speaking students english?

As I have already pointed out, resource teachers are not teaching English; English language teachers are, surprisingly enough.

axer wrote:

What has that got to do with it?

Taking Britain as an example, the British Nationality Act of 1948 allowed large numbers of citizens of the British Empire to become Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC), thus resulting in mass migration to Britain.

axer wrote:

I guess Ireland is special

Not special, but different.

axer wrote:

What makes you think you know better than experts in the field?

I never said that.

axer wrote:

Who is this "we" that you think already knows the answers?

I would have thought it was obvious; “we” refers to the people of Ireland.

axer wrote:

How do you know where to build this new school? How do you know how many language teachers to have in this new school?

Yeah, sorry, you’re right, we have plenty of schools already :rolleyes: . And by the way, “e.g.” means “for example”.

axer wrote:

There are and they say there are problems and we will have more problems if we do not control things

Specifics please. And what is this “control” you keep referring to?

moe_sizlak

you know the main problem with our health service , there are far too many pen pushing public servants working in administrations who due to the unions stanglehold on this country and also bertie ahernes reluctance to take on any specific group no matter how innefficent they are for fear of him loosing a single vote , we have a health service that no matter how much money we throw at it , its all spent on wages on theese pen pushers

as eddie hobbs said in relation to the public service in general , its over staffed and over paid , a mass cull is needed in the health service but dont expect that to happen untill bertie steps down
the health service would be even worse than it is were it not for all the foreign nurses working in it
im not left wing but personally speaking , my biggest issue right now in this country is not immigration , its the grossly over paid and under worked public service , very few immigrants work in the public service bar nurses and while nurses are public servants , there not the kind of wasters im refferring to

purple'n'gold

moe_sizlak wrote:

you know the main problem with our health service , there are far too many pen pushing public servants working in administrations who due to the unions stanglehold on this country and also bertie ahernes reluctance to take on any specific group no matter how innefficent they are for fear of him loosing a single vote , we have a health service that no matter how much money we throw at it , its all spent on wages on theese pen pushers

as eddie hobbs said in relation to the public service in general , its over staffed and over paid , a mass cull is needed in the health service but dont expect that to happen untill bertie steps down
the health service would be even worse than it is were it not for all the foreign nurses working in it
im not left wing but personally speaking , my biggest issue right now in this country is not immigration , its the grossly over paid and under worked public service , very few immigrants work in the public service bar nurses and while nurses are public servants , there not the kind of wasters im refferring to

Shame on you for talking about benchmarking Bertie’s featherbedded, guaranteed index linked pension able and unsackable favourite people like that. You should be delighted that you are paying FULL prsi to maintain them in the life style they are accustomed to. (they don’t pay full prsi, that’s only for small people)

El Stuntman

moe_sizlak wrote:

my biggest issue right now in this country is not immigration , its the grossly over paid and under worked public service

second that, can Michael O'Leary please be put in charge of reforming public service?

(I don't really want that but it would be fun to watch)

axer

@djpbarry: You forgot to answer this most important question. Do you honestly believe immigration causes no problems?

liberty 2007

oscarBravo wrote:

That's an extremely lazy contribution. Immigration (and, by definition) emigration - in short, migration - is a constant throughout history. Are you suggesting that nobody should ever change their country of domicile, and that conflict and persecution would thereby be eliminated?

oscarBravo wrote:

That's an extremely lazy contribution. Immigration (and, by definition) emigration - in short, migration - is a constant throughout history. Are you suggesting that nobody should ever change their country of domicile, and that conflict and persecution would thereby be eliminated?

There are many reasons for conflect. Migration is Just one of them. It's not Just migration, it's the idea of encouraging different religions and cultures to live together as one. It may work for a period of time. but sooner or later something will happen to bring about conflect.
Take a look at Africa, divided up by European powers without considering the ethnic divisions between the peoples. There was probably no negative effict for over 100 years. then the Europeans left and the place is a mess with ethnic conflect.
Srilanka, Hindos from India migrate throughout the 19th certury. No problem until the British leave.
We often here how the Irish were able to emigrate to America, well there's an old saying over there. The only good Indian is a dead Indian. The man who said that was probably born in Co Cavan and traveled to America as an infant with his perents to make a new life for themselves. General Sheridan was his name and the unfortunate natives were wiped out.
I could go on, but I'll finish by saying, the only window to the future is through the past. we ignore it at our peril.

djpbarry

axer wrote:

You forgot to answer this most important question. Do you honestly believe immigration causes no problems?

I would agree with Wicknight in that there are challenges posed by integration, rather than immigration. Migration of people has been a constant throughout history and it is something that everyone in this country is going to have to live with, like it or not. Integration is a different matter entirely and I don’t think there are any simple, black and white (no pun intended) solutions. For example, if a Chinese couple move to Ireland, it is quite likely that they will socialise with other Chinese people – we cannot force them to go drinking in a pub, to “integrate” with the Irish, if they do not wish to. The same is true of Irish people who move abroad.

I would also agree with the fact that simply “talking” about something isn’t necessarily going to solve any problems. I’m not sure what it is people like Kevin Myers want, although it is quite obvious he has his own agenda. I don’t understand this claim that immigration / integration is not being discussed in public – of course it is. Is that not what we are doing right now? Seldom has a day gone by in recent times when the word “immigration” has not appeared in an article in a newspaper in this country. And to those who are apparently frustrated by the lack of dialogue on the subject in Dáil Eireann; how exactly should the issue be raised in the Dáil?

Enda Kenny: “So, lads, these foreigners. What’s the story?”

axer

djpbarry wrote:

I would agree with Wicknight in that there are challenges posed by integration, rather than immigration. Migration of people has been a constant throughout history and it is something that everyone in this country is going to have to live with, like it or not. Integration is a different matter entirely and I don’t think there are any simple, black and white (no pun intended) solutions. For example, if a Chinese couple move to Ireland, it is quite likely that they will socialise with other Chinese people – we cannot force them to go drinking in a pub, to “integrate” with the Irish, if they do not wish to. The same is true of Irish people who move abroad.

I would also agree with the fact that simply “talking” about something isn’t necessarily going to solve any problems. I’m not sure what it is people like Kevin Myers want, although it is quite obvious he has his own agenda. I don’t understand this claim that immigration / integration is not being discussed in public – of course it is. Is that not what we are doing right now? Seldom has a day gone by in recent times when the word “immigration” has not appeared in an article in a newspaper in this country. And to those who are apparently frustrated by the lack of dialogue on the subject in Dáil Eireann; how exactly should the issue be raised in the Dáil?

Enda Kenny: “So, lads, these foreigners. What’s the story?”

The problem of integration has arose because of the large scale immigration Ireland has received. Integration is just one of the problems/issues we face as a result. Population increase is another issue to be looked at as a result of the immigration we have received.

Talking won't solve anything but it creates awareness. At least 10% of the Irish population were not born in Ireland - some estimate this figure at 15% but we do not know the true figure. There are issues associated with the rapid population change and integration. How that has never come up in the dail is beyond me.

Zombrex

djpbarry wrote:

I would agree with Wicknight in that there are challenges posed by integration, rather than immigration.

When ever I'm asked if immigration causes problems I reply "Yes, it does. Whats your point?"

The assumption seems to be that if immigration causes problems it is automatically bad. Of course the question is normally asked by people who view immigration as simply bad in the first place.

Immigration does cause problems because change causes problems. This is true in all areas. Life is one big long problem, one big long challenge for society. If that wasn't the case why would we have a government? We wouldn't need them, we would just get it right once and leave it as it was.

So if immigration causes problems why do we allow it? Well because immigration also causes great improvement. Our economic growth in the last 15 years was sustained by immigration into the country.

There is also the issue of fair is fair. For decades the Irish went abroad to find work and a better life for themselves. It would be nonsense of us now to feel bitter towards foreign workers who come to Ireland to work and live in hopes of a better life.

So the question is loaded, the assumption is that immigration is something we can simply turn off because it is causing problems and thus solve all these problems. Which is nonsense.

It always pays to be honest. Does immigration cause problems? Yes. Are these problems so difficult to deal with, so much worse than any benefits, that we should heavily restrict or stop altogether immigration into this country? No

djpbarry wrote:

For example, if a Chinese couple move to Ireland, it is quite likely that they will socialise with other Chinese people – we cannot force them to go drinking in a pub, to “integrate” with the Irish, if they do not wish to. The same is true of Irish people who move abroad.

That is a good point.

Some people talk about integration as if it is something you should force immigrants to do. It is actually the exact opposite, it is something you should encourage immigrants to do, because integration only works if the immigrants want to integrate

An example, going back to the point of this thread, is making it easier, not harder, for immigrant families to get their children into schools with a largely native Irish pupils.

djpbarry wrote:

I don’t understand this claim that immigration / integration is not being discussed in public – of course it is. Is that not what we are doing right now?

In my experience people make that claim not because a topic isn't being discussed, but because their particular opinion is in the minority and not widely expressed.

So they blame this on a "lack of discussion" rather than flaws in their own argument.

djpbarry

Interesting letter on the subject in today's Indo:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/all-irish-people-are-immigrants-1139644.html

HollyB

Liam Byrne wrote: »

1) If you build a playground for YOUR kids, should other kids be allowed to use it ? Should you be able to say who can and can't come in ?

Now, if you got some bit of a grant for that, does the argument still apply ?

At what level of a grant should the argument stop applying ?

Coming late to the thread, but the above caught my attention.

It's an interesting question, but I think that you're looking at it in the wrong way. It's not the level of the grant that should count, but the circumstances under which the grant is given.

Using your analogy, if I build a playground for my children on private property, then of course it should be up to me to decide whether or not other children should be allowed to use it, and if I did decide that I would allow a few other children to use it, it would be up to me to decide which kids would use it, and under which circumstances - ie. my next door neighbour's children can use the playground on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays.

If I am given a grant, on the clear understanding that the playground is intended for the use of my own children and that the decision whether or not other children will be allowed to use it will continue to be mine and mine alone, then regardless of whether that grant is €1 or €1,000,000, I am in no way obligated to let other children in unless I want to.

If, however, I claim that the playground will be for the use of all of the children in my neighbourhood when I am making my application for a grant, then I should be obliged to either allow them to use it or forfeit the grant.

Of course, one could argue that the authority making the grant had no business to give me so much as a cent for a playground that they knew was for my children and my children only, but if they did give me the grant, knowing my intentions, their being wrong wouldn't make me wrong to keep the playground for my own children's use if I had never misled them into believing that I would do otherwise.

If my application satisfied the requirements for a grant, then short of changing those requirements - which would probably affect others in a similar situation in the future rather than causing me to lose the grant I had been awarded - there's nothing to be done about it.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

3) When are we going to get the balance right ? WE have to bow down to immigrants' customs (headgear for Gardai, burcas, etc, etc) but when it comes to the CC, everyone decides that ITS traditions and customs can be thrown out the window to accommodate everyone else ?

The vast majority of the population are, officially at any rate, Roman Catholics. Because they are perceived to be in a position of power, they are perceived to be less in need of protection than minority groups, including immigrants.

Words like 'quota' have been cropping up quite a bit recently - a recent article in the Sunday Tribune included a recommendation by a teacher that all schools in certain areas should be obliged to take a certain percentage of newcomer children.

That may sound good in theory, but let's imagine that the school in question is a Catholic school, St NoName's. St. NoName's employs an enrolment policy giving priority to siblings, to the children of former pupils, and to Catholics and has sixty Junior Infants places for next year. Tomorrow morning, St. NoName's are told that twelve of those places must go to newcomer children. What happens next?

Given the demand for school places in the area, all sixty places are already taken - and the vast majority of the children signed up for those places have had their names down since before their first birthday. Is it right that the parents of twelve of those children should be told, "Sorry, you've got to go elsewhere"?

If you believe that St. NoName's should be obliged to turn away twelve of the children who have signed up for next year and take newcomer children in their stead, how should they decide who the unlucky ones will be?

a) Should they rank the children in order of priority and date of application, then tell the last twelve on that list that they will have to go elsewhere - if any non-Catholics have succeeded in getting places, chances are that they'll be in this group, so there'd be a lot of complaints about that.
b) Should they put all of the children's names in a hat, pick out twelve names, taking school places away, at very short notice, from children whose parents obviously cared enough about their education to make arrangements well in advance? What if one or more of the unlucky children has a sibling still in the school?
c) Should they simply turn away the last twelve to sign up - even though their parents had their places reserved years earlier?

As far as I can see, there isn't a fair way to choose which twelve children should be denied their places at St. NoName's, because whichever way you look at it, the children are effectively being punished for having Irish-born parents.

If it was a case that a Catholic child of newcomer parents was denied a place in favour of a Catholic child of Irish-born parents, even though neither child had a sibling in the school and the child of newcomer parents was signed up first, then that's a situation that needs to be looked into urgently but as long as the Catholic schools have an enrolment policy that is legal and transparent, they should be as free to apply it as every other school.

Logically, the Catholic Church have undertaken to educate their own children, so if they are taking any non-Catholic pupils, they are going above and beyond the call of duty. The idea that they should be put in a position where they would have to deny a place to a Catholic child in favour of a non-Catholic child - unless it's a case where the latter has a sibling attending the school and the former does not - is, in my opinion, ludicrous.

Imagine that we were talking about an all-girls' school instead - would anyone seriously expect them to turn a girl away because a boy was looking for a place?

If there were not enough places in the local mixed and/or all boys' schools for the boy, then it would be a failing on the part of the Department of Education and the local authorities to see that there were sufficient places available. It is not the responsibility of the girls' school to pick up the slack.

Naturally, the rights of minorities need to be protected but care needs to be taken to ensure that a situation does not arise where the rights of the majority are being ignored.

Hotblack Desiato

HollyB wrote: »

If there were not enough places in the local mixed and/or all boys' schools for the boy, then it would be a failing on the part of the Department of Education and the local authorities to see that there were sufficient places available. It is not the responsibility of the girls' school to pick up the slack.

Sex-segregrated education, like religion-segregated education, should be consigned to the dark ages of history where it belongs.

Naturally, the rights of minorities need to be protected but care needs to be taken to ensure that a situation does not arise where the rights of the majority are being ignored.

Arguably the majority in this country are Catholic in name only and would be happy with non-religious education, were it available.

France, for example, is also a nominally Catholic country but there's no messing around when it comes to education. State schools are strictly secular.

HollyB

ninja900 wrote: »

Sex-segregrated education, like religion-segregated education, should be consigned to the dark ages of history where it belongs.

You don't think that parents should have a right to choose a single-sex school or a denominational school for their child, if they feel that it is in their child's best interests?

ninja900 wrote: »

Arguably the majority in this country are Catholic in name only and would be happy with non-religious education, were it available.

As I understand it, a recent poll showed that more than half of Irish parents favoured Catholic schools for their children. The Constitution protects their right to send their children to denominational schools.

I'm not a Catholic - haven't been since I was thirteen - but I could never support any changes to law or policy designed to strip them, or the members of any religion, of their right to send their children to a denominational school.

Hotblack Desiato

HollyB wrote: »

You don't think that parents should have a right to choose a single-sex school or a denominational school for their child, if they feel that it is in their child's best interests?

Sure, if they're willing to set up or support such a school. It shouldn't be the default option for almost everyone, as it is now, with exceptions few and far between.

As I understand it, a recent poll showed that more than half of Irish parents favoured Catholic schools for their children. The Constitution protects their right to send their children to denominational schools.

Can you provide a reference for that poll?
Even if that is the case, there is a very large minority of parents whose wishes are not being catered for at present. I'm about to become one.
Yes, the constitution protects that right, pity it does not (afaik) enumerate a right to an inclusive education.

I'm not a Catholic - haven't been since I was thirteen - but I could never support any changes to law or policy designed to strip them, or the members of any religion, of their right to send their children to a denominational school.

I wouldn't either, but if it were up to me I would be very slow to lend any state support to sectarian/sexist education.

HollyB

ninja900 wrote: »

Sure, if they're willing to set up or support such a school. It shouldn't be the default option for almost everyone, as it is now, with exceptions few and far between.

They are supporting the schools - taxes. Why on Earth is a taxpayer who wants to send their child to a religious school less entitled to have their child educated as they see fit than a taxpayer who would prefer a non-denominational school? Are you suggesting that parents who send their children to a private or denominational school should be entitled to a refund in their taxes?

Of course, maybe the alternative is to reduce income tax, VAT levels, stamp duty, etc, and provide no school with financial support from the Government. Individual communities can decide, at local level, what percentage of an education tax the members of the community will contribute and what kind of schools will be made available. The money collected in a community is used to fund the schools in that community.

GuanYin

Just a point of note here, Irish people traditionally do not integrate well abroad. They never have and they still don't. Irish people in the US city I am in, mix mostly with other Irish people, socially at least, and there are very few americans within that culture. Those that are there are of the "my great granny had a red setter so I'm part Irish: variety.

Their kids are american though.

Ireland is seeing the first wave of immigrants right now. They're home sick, they are in a strange country and they are clinging to what they know. If they are treated well, their kids will integrate better than their parents. Their grandkids will do so much better.

This has been true of the Irish abroad, the asians abroad and many other culture who migrate.

The only time it DOESN'T work, is when a culture is segregated, treated poorly and demonised within a community...... then you start getting bad things happening....

Compare an elderly Irish ex-pat with a recent ex-pat and you'll see alot of commonality. Compare their kids with them, and you certainly don't.

Hotblack Desiato

HollyB wrote: »

They are supporting the schools - taxes.

As is everyone else, including people with no kids. I was questioning why, in the 21st century in an increasingly secular and ethnically mixed Ireland is the default primary education model still the 19th century Roman Catholic dominated National School one?

Why on Earth is a taxpayer who wants to send their child to a religious school less entitled to have their child educated as they see fit than a taxpayer who would prefer a non-denominational school?

Because the state should not be funding religious indoctrination and perpetuating sectarianism with taxpayer's money.

Are you suggesting that parents who send their children to a private or denominational school should be entitled to a refund in their taxes?

Not unless people with no kids get one too! But there's nothing unjust about them CHOOSING a privately funded education if they wish to do so. There IS something unjust about everyone being forced to fund a 19th century system of religious dominated education which is inapprpriate to the needs of 21st century Ireland.

The money collected in a community is used to fund the schools in that community.

Thus perpetuating disadvantage indefinitely, perhaps why this sort of system is popular in America...

EamonnKeane

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Traditionally schools in this state have been denominational. It allowed the Catholic church to dominate education and to fill kids heads with illiberal, cruel notions. Eventually parents began to found non-denominational schools. In the meantime the Catholic church went into decline and the kids are no longer fed unacceptable viewpoints, or - where it continues - the kids don't pay a blind bit of notice.

Actually, denominational education arose because when the national schools were founded in the 1830's (after a long period of oppression of Papists and Nonconformists), the Catholic and Presbyterian churches feared that, under a multi-denominational system, the Church of Ireland (being the state religion) would dominate affairs.

For the record, the figures for primary schools are:
Catholic 3,032
Church of Ireland 183
Multi-denominational 40
Presbyterian 14
Inter-denominational 5
Muslim 2
Jewish 1
Jehovah's Witnesses 1
Quaker 1

Hotblack Desiato

So not a single non-denominational primary school then?

ArthurDent

ninja900 wrote: »

So not a single non-denominational primary school then?

Nope not a one - why do you ask?

HollyB

ninja900 wrote: »

As is everyone else, including people with no kids. I was questioning why, in the 21st century in an increasingly secular and ethnically mixed Ireland is the default primary education model still the 19th century Roman Catholic dominated National School one?

Mostly because it has been convenient for the State to allow the Catholic church to continue to administer the schools, rather than building and running state schools. The Catholic church is providing schools for Catholic children, and going above and beyond by taking in non-Catholics when they have sufficient resources to do so.

It is for the State to provide state schools where those schools are needed and given that they have access to Census records, they should have a pretty fair idea how many non-Catholic children will be needing infant class places every year, where those children are and if there is sufficient class places in either schools of the child's denomination, or in multi-denominational or non-denominational schools nearby.

ninja900 wrote: »

Because the state should not be funding religious indoctrination and perpetuating sectarianism with taxpayer's money.

Bunreacht na h&#201 wrote: »

Article 42.3.1
The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

Article 42.4
The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

Constitutionally, parents are fully entitled to send their child to a Catholic school if they so choose. The State is obliged to give reasonable aid to those schools. If State funding was removed from those schools and all Catholic schools became private and fee-paying, then a very strong case could be made that parents were being obliged to send their children to State schools "in violation of their conscience and lawful preference".

ninja900 wrote: »

Not unless people with no kids get one too!

Now there's an idea! Back to the days of paid education. He who pays the piper calls the tune, so they can have whatever kind of school they like.

A bit unfair on the kids whose parents can't afford to pay for their education, of course - but then again, it's also unfair to expect some parents to fund an educational system that their child will not be allowed to benefit from if they exercise their right to choose a denominational school.

ninja900 wrote: »

But there's nothing unjust about them CHOOSING a privately funded education if they wish to do so. There IS something unjust about everyone being forced to fund a 19th century system of religious dominated education which is inapprpriate to the needs of 21st century Ireland.

Hold on a sec - aren't people still enrolling their children in denominational schools? Are you suggesting that every parent who enrols their child in a denominational school feels that they are sending their child into an outdated educational system that is inappropriate to today's needs? Why are they doing this if that is the case? They are not devoid of options. If they feel strongly enough about it, they are constitutionally entitled to educate their children at home if they so choose. They also have the option to push for the founding of non-denominational schools and/or multi-denominational schools in their area.

If parents don't want their child in a denominational school, push for the founding of an Educate Together school or similar. Have both state schools and denominational schools, fund both and allow parents to exercise their constitutional right to direct the education of their children and choose which school they will send them to.

If people truly feel that denominational schools will not meet their child's need, they will enrol them in the state schools. The numbers in the denominational schools will drop, until eventually those schools are in the minority.

However, perhaps it will turn out that there are significant numbers who favour denominational schools for their children and who will exercise their right to opt for those schools, in which case, the two systems will have to co-exist.

Sleepy

Why should denominational schools be allowed at all?

Seriously.

If a school has a given religion's ethos and uses any of the school day to provide religious instruction, they are failing their students. A school is a place of education, not indoctrination. The time spent on this indoctrination is time the students are missing out on. If parents want their children to be indoctrinated into their faith (which personally I'd disagree with), it should be on their time, not that of their child's education.

The state seriously failed the children of Ireland by passing up the chance to take the land the schools are built on in exchange for settling the bill for the Catholic Church's abuse scandals.