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

the_syco

Wicknight wrote:

Have you actually read the Dublin II convention?

Sorry, my mistake. You must apply for asylum in the 1st European country you land in, or you'll be sent back there to apply, if they want you.

Interesting idea, but slightly useless. Who aside from Ireland will take in anyone? France? Italy? I really doubt it.

=-=

Hmmm... €74 to get to Dublin, from Agadir. Nice. But flights are very rare, it would seem.

=-=

That's what I like about these debates: they're informative. The media always told me that there were no direct flights, and unless I knew what the African airports were called, I wouldn't know how to find them.

Shutuplaura

Fratton Fred wrote:

people only migrate to countries where they believe there is a better standard of living. to some extent, the increase in immigration is a sign of the level of success the country has enjoyed. to an extent, Immigration is an inevitable result of a booming economy.

Well said Fred. A failure in planning is the cause of this row, not the church who don't want or shouldn't be expected to run all of the schools in the country. There is far more legal migrants than Illegal ones in the country and the government has been encouraging Irish people who moved abraod in the 80's and 90's to come back for at least a decade. So I really think the fault is theirs for not providing for the anticipated new population growth. And believe me, its not just schools that are underfunded. The lack of investment in new suburbs in Galway for one city i know well, and from what i hear, Dublin too is going to cause a lot of problems in the future. Just like it did in Tallaght and Ballymun in the 80's. But now i suppose we can blame blacks and muslims....

Anyway, I agree with B'man. It most definately is rascist.

Quatre Mains

I'm surprised to see the level of attention given to illegal immigrants in the thread. In some communities I guess there is a much higher African population than where I am which might cause an issue for spaces. However, as already pointed outthe vast majority of immigrants here are legal. This is important because;

1. They come here by CHOICE. Part of making that choice should be to research what education is available to their kids before coming over.

2. As a result, unlike immigrants who are/were in the asylum process, they are free to leave to return home without consequence or go elsewhere within the EU whenever they like. If they are not happy, then they should quit whinging & just leave. Plenty of other jobs around the EU for them.

As soon as the economy falls on its face many of them will leave, especially when the accession ban in the rest of the EU is lifted -thats natural, I'm not damning that decision in any way. But what level of investment into secular education is appropriate if thats a future scenario? I feel sorry for families who cant get their kids into schools but I have no sympathy for those who moan about there being no schools to suit their specific religious needs etc. If you can get that education in another country, then go!

purple'n'gold

I or no one I know for that matter has any problem with people from other EU countries living and working here. Or having their families living and being educated here. But, I cannot understand for the life of me why people from outside the EU without proper documentation are not detained at the point of entry and shipped back to where they came from ASAP. This is not rocket science; it can be quiet easily done if the political will is there. And I bet that if there were a vote on this issue in the morning the vast majority of people in this country think along the same lines.

Hotblack Desiato

Johnnycabs wrote:

But what level of investment into secular education is appropriate if thats a future scenario?

We should do it for two very good reasons : it's the right thing to do - publicly funded education should be secular; and a lot of Irish parents are forced to enrol their children in church schools against their wishes because of a lack of alternatives.
It's wasting everyone's time to be marching children off to class masses when hardly any of their parents go to church. It's also extremely hypocritical.

I feel sorry for families who cant get their kids into schools but I have no sympathy for those who moan about there being no schools to suit their specific religious needs etc. If you can get that education in another country, then go!

What about Irish parents who cannot access secular education for their children, should they go too?

Zambia

ninja900 wrote:

What about Irish parents who cannot access secular education for their children, should they go too?

they may have to consider moving house.

Fratton Fred

Zambia232 wrote:

they may have to consider moving house.

property around the 9 state owned schools would get very expensive

Zambia

Fratton Fred wrote:

property around the 9 state owned schools would get very expensive

This is true.

We have a case in Derry at present where several Donegal kids by reason of their granny's address are attending School in the UK.

dereko1969

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I'm delighted with the arrival of immigrants. They will be the final nail in the coffin of closed, Catholic, pseudo-republican Ireland. I love it when they have Irish accents, speak Irish, play GAA and immerse themselves in Irish culture, while all the time bringing in their own culture.

The shortage of schools has been for the most part caused by allowing developers to profit from housing schemes without building infrastructure. This is the kind of politics that is supported in Ireland. Adamstown in Co. Dublin is a radical departure and long overdue.

The state must keep a close watch on what families are doing to children. that is why education falls to the state.

Zambia,
Go on, tell us. How far back are you prepared to go with this Britain Vs Catholic Ireland notion? 800 years?

what he said - btw see where zambia is from? another representative of MOPE (Most Oppressed People Ever).
This whole issue has been hijacked by the send'em home brigade, whereas the issue is really about taxpayers money being used to pay for religiously-run schools which is IMO against the constitution, and the State not providing state-run schools with the same taxpayers money. The issue also rears its head in the funding of hospitals and the healthcare system. Hopefully this issue, while terrible for the children who cannot get places in schools, will awaken the country into realising, much to zambia's disgust, that we can no longer be (and never should have been) a catholic state for a catholic people.

Zambia

dereko1969 wrote:

what he said - btw see where zambia is from? another representative of MOPE (Most Oppressed People Ever).
This whole issue has been hijacked by the send'em home brigade, whereas the issue is really about taxpayers money being used to pay for religiously-run schools which is IMO against the constitution, and the State not providing state-run schools with the same taxpayers money. The issue also rears its head in the funding of hospitals and the healthcare system. Hopefully this issue, while terrible for the children who cannot get places in schools, will awaken the country into realising, much to zambia's disgust, that we can no longer be (and never should have been) a catholic state for a catholic people.

If the state has not provided for schools ergo they pay religous bodies for school support I would happily see an end to this but the state Has to provide a secular alternative either by discussion with religous schools who may want to go secular. Or by building state schools.

No -one is saying any religon should educate the nation but the current alternative without enforcing leglislation out of Mugabes "How to run a country" handbook is what we have..

The initial opening comment was plain baffling , even though I suspect it was meant to be a dig of some sort.

edit
I never thought Ireland was a catholic country to be honest , it was, but back then it was a wholly catholic country so I dont see how that could have been avoided.

In conculsion your post was utter pants offering little if any understanding of basically anything.

dereko1969

when has ireland ever been a 'wholly catholic country'? granted before the reformation.....but before then?

mike65

Zambia232 thought all the Prods had been burned out to Britain.

Mike.

Zambia

dereko1969 wrote:

when has ireland ever been a 'wholly catholic country'? granted before the reformation.....but before then?

It was pretty much. Spelling mistakes aside

Jackie laughlin

I think the accurate description would be "Catholic dominated".

The decline in protestant numbers after independence is striking.

Dereko1969,
Careful now! That sounds like socialism; you could be excommunicated. They haven't gone away, you know!


Look, the state controls the curriculum. Secular education isn't a major problem if there were a decision to tackle it.

However, the shortage of school places will remain a problem until many years after a decision has been made to link the provision of schools and/or school places to planning permissions.

D!armu!d

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I'm delighted with the arrival of immigrants. They will be the final nail in the coffin of closed, Catholic, pseudo-republican Ireland. I love it when they have Irish accents, speak Irish, play GAA and immerse themselves in Irish culture, while all the time bringing in their own culture.

What's there to be delighted about? Take a look at england - did all the immigrants there end up drinking tea and playing cricket? They have ended up with major social problems as a result of their open door policy. We are in danger of sleepwalking into the same thing.

We never had an empire and the irish are amongst the most generous contributors of aid to africa so we have nothing to feel guilty about. Yes, let a controlled level of legitimate refugees in, but not the welfare migrants who bring the system into disrepute.

As for those who bring up the issue of illegal irish in america, the irish have made a very positive contribution to american society and have always been hard working and self-sufficient. you'd have a tough job finding any americans who think the illegal irish should be kicked out.

Jackie laughlin

Diroche,
The answer to your question is clearly stated in the quotation you use.

Yes, they did end up drinking tea and playing cricket. If you are referring to the recent bombers, they were 2nd generation English, not immigrants.

All of those black and brown people with British or other European citizenship are entitled to come and settle here by virtue of being EU citizens. That poor handful of "economic migrants" beloved of those who fret about race is numerically insignificant.

axer

diroche wrote:

As for those who bring up the issue of illegal irish in america, the irish have made a very positive contribution to american society and have always been hard working and self-sufficient. you'd have a tough job finding any americans who think the illegal irish should be kicked out.

How can you think one way about illegal immigrants into Ireland and another way about illegal Irish immigrants in America - that is hypocritisism. The illegal immigrants in Ireland should be kicked out as well as the illegal Irish immigrants in the USA.

TheBeach

Fratton Fred wrote:

If you use "We" to include the developed western world, then yes we do. If you mean "We" the Irish tax payer, no, of course we don't. I'm all for tighter controls on immigration providing it does not impact on those who need protecting, but I believe we should keep an eye on our moral duties as well. To have a 6 year old child going without an education while his or her parents go through a two year deportation battle is not, in my opinion, a responsible act.

Agree. And we did of course sign up to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Corinthian

I really don't see where immigration, let alone racism, comes into this picture.

Problem is that the population has grown faster than new school places could be created and the Irish educational system was essentially subcontracted to religious institutions. The Roman Catholic Church is the biggest of these, but by no means the only as there are numerous other such institutions that impose their own criteria for entry. One can hardly blame them for this.

An Irish protestant, orthodox, non-Christian (or child of atheists who was not baptized) would have the same problem with regard to the present waiting lists as any immigrant (regardless of whether they are fighting deportation or not).

So it happens every day to Irish parents too. It just doesn't make the papers because it's not as sexy as an immigration/racism story.

is_that_so

The "mejia" of late has been much to the fore in attempting to shape what we talk about and to tell us what is wrong here. Wave the race flag and there are column inches, radio and TV coverage and any amount of internet threads. Kevin Myers enjoys controversy, yet there is an element of truth in what he says but my impression is that the problem is far more complex than some people are making out. I also suspect the "racist flag" is a little too easily waved these days and is a poor reflection on those who do so.


I think the problem of school places has been a headache for some years. In fact it is more of an issue of infrastructure. In this I see three groups implicated.

Dept of Education

The underspending on infrastructure is well-documented and there are more than enough examples of schools in states of serious decay. Nonetheless they do have a very able minister who seems interested in helping to resolve the problems.

Local councils and their plans

Poor planning and a traditional approach to massive housing schemes without schools is also an issue. The problems(continuing I believe) of Laytown last year are a good example of this. For some councils it seems to be case that they ignored the fact that anyone was coming, whatever their nationality.

Over-representation of the Church in schools

These are the words that Diramuid Martin himself used this week in terms of management. He seemed to suggest that the Church has a disproportionate control over schools and was not averse to passing management on to others, such as Educate Together. That said the schools have a Catholic ethos and are fully entitled to look after their own.
From talking to parents with school-going kids it is more often parochialism that kicks in, ie kids from the local parish get first shout. This of course leads to people putting kids down years ahead.

One thing that is not clear from the recent "controversy" is how many of those kids were of an age where they had to go to school.

What is also clear is that the whole area of schools and school management needs change and joined-up thinking.

Jackie laughlin

Of course the Catholic schools are not being racist. It's just that the parents of the black or brown Irish kids are being honest about their religion and the outcome is there for all to see in the TV pictures: the excluded kids ARE for the most part not white.

A developer should be required to build infrastructure incl. schools when housing is erected but I guess these matters are sorted in the Galway tent.

A school should not have a "Catholic ethos" or a "Muslim ethos"; this is just cover for inculcating politico/ethical beliefs, many of which would be unaccepable in a civilised society.

djpbarry

diroche wrote:

As for those who bring up the issue of illegal irish in america, the irish have made a very positive contribution to american society and have always been hard working and self-sufficient.

And immigrants in Ireland have made a negative contribution, have they?

diroche wrote:

you'd have a tough job finding any americans who think the illegal irish should be kicked out.

No, not really. I spent three months working in the US four years ago and I was subjected to racial abuse. I also have an uncle who has lived and worked in England for over 30 years and he has had serious problems with racial abuse in the past.

Anyway, the issue here is lack of government planning, not immigration. I finished school in 2000 and my school was ridiculously over-crowded with (for the most part) Irish kids.

And could people please look up the difference between an immigrant and a refugee? To assume that a person is a refugee based on the colour of their skin IS racist. We actually have very few refugees in this country.

Zambia

djpbarry wrote:

To assume that a person is a refugee based on the colour of their skin IS racist. We actually have very few refugees in this country.

No its not its a short sighted but not racist, really wish people would stop getting so hyped up on that word.

A few facts to back your statement from the UNHCR

Around 320,000 people have come to live and
work in Ireland over the last 5 years. Asylum-seekers
are the smallest category of migrants entering Ireland.
• During the same 5 year period, the number of
applications for asylum were close to 33,000.

djpbarry

Zambia232 wrote:

No its not its a short sighted but not racist, really wish people would stop getting so hyped up on that word.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I know that people do throw the word around a bit too much these days, but I think this is an instance where it is justified.

Zambia232 wrote:

During the same 5 year period, the number of
applications for asylum were close to 33,000.

Yes and quite a small number of those applicants are granted asylum status - fewer than 10% (pending appeal) in 2006.

Zambia

djpbarry wrote:

Yes and quite a small number of those applicants are granted asylum status - fewer than 10% (pending appeal) in 2006.

Well Its possible those where fraudlent. The problem I would have with asylum seekers is that Ireland by its very location is a destination of choice not necessity .Asylum by its definition is a necessary option not one of choice.

Example I have to get out of Country X in a hurry surely I get a flight out as soon as possible and apply for asylum as soon as I land. So in most cases as has been mentioned refugees wait in a safe european country and then come to Ireland. Not a desperate acted but a calculated one.

It is my opinion they should follow the correct process apply in the country of landing and on being granted asylum simply pick where in Europe they wish to live.

And just for the sake of keeping on topic enrol their kids in schools.

Zombrex

Zambia232 wrote:

Example I have to get out of Country X in a hurry surely I get a flight out as soon as possible and apply for asylum as soon as I land.

Not if you don't think you will get a asylum in the country you land in.

TBH I never quite understood the logic often used around there that a genuine asylum seeker should/will stop in the first country they enter, only a immigrant would move one, so therefore everyone who ends up in Ireland is faking it.

The genuine asylum seeker moves on for the same reason the immigrant does, to reach some where they have a good chance of being accepted.

Sure the immigrant does it for fraudulent reasons, where as the refugee has genuine reasons, but the motivation for moving is the same.

People talk about genuine asylum application as if it is simply a case that you try again if you don't get it. But you don't, you are deported and sent home.

If someone is fleeing to say Spain, which has very restrictive asylum process, they will want to move on as quickly as possible rather than make there application there because it is difficult to get accepted. That is the same whether they are genuine or not, because even if you are genuine you may be rejected and sent back.

Catari Jaguar

I teach senior infants in inner city. I have 80% foreign kids, no Africans mind, but Romanian, Vietnamese, Indian... The junior infants class is 100% foreign kids including 2 Africans. This particular school is all boys and had a HUGE problem with behavioural management and aggresive pupils. Since the arrival of immigrants that is almost non existant. it's a pleasant, cooperative environment.

As for this Catholic Church bashing, for one thing, the Cath schools are NOT private. Private schools are fee paying. They are state run and funded. Just have a priest as BOM. As far as this Cath brainwashing goes, well I can't say I've ever told kids to hate gays etc. I follow the curriculum, the STATE approved and designed curriculum. Clicky linky

This here is the RE program.http://www.iol.ie/~pjackson/reaot1.htm Alive-o (overview of lessons for the different classes) Christian, not Catholic. I use it with all the children unless a parent says otherwise. All my kids say prayers at lunch and home time. They are also learning Irish. Seems they're bending over backwards to fit into this country no?

Catari Jaguar

..

lostexpectation

Wicknight wrote:

Not if you don't think you will get a asylum in the country you land in.

TBH I never quite understood the logic often used around there that a genuine asylum seeker should/will stop in the first country they enter, only a immigrant would move one, so therefore everyone who ends up in Ireland is faking it.

The genuine asylum seeker moves on for the same reason the immigrant does, to reach some where they have a good chance of being accepted.

Sure the immigrant does it for fraudulent reasons, where as the refugee has genuine reasons, but the motivation for moving is the same.

People talk about genuine asylum application as if it is simply a case that you try again if you don't get it. But you don't, you are deported and sent home.

If someone is fleeing to say Spain, which has very restrictive asylum process, they will want to move on as quickly as possible rather than make there application there because it is difficult to get accepted. That is the same whether they are genuine or not, because even if you are genuine you may be rejected and sent back.

most of what you say I agree with, but I don't consider economic migration to be fraudulent, its genuine reason to migrate.

also ireland has a good reputation generally, it has booming economy,its underpopulated, its known to africans etc via missionaries, its an english speaking country these are all reasons to travel to ireland. I don't consider these reasons fraudulent either.

djpbarry

Zambia232 wrote:

The problem I would have with asylum seekers is that Ireland by its very location is a destination of choice not necessity .Asylum by its definition is a necessary option not one of choice.

Example I have to get out of Country X in a hurry surely I get a flight out as soon as possible and apply for asylum as soon as I land. So in most cases as has been mentioned refugees wait in a safe european country and then come to Ireland. Not a desperate acted but a calculated one.

Your first mistake is assuming that most asylum seekers arrive in Ireland by plane - they don't. In fact, less than 10% did last year. As in the rest of Europe, the vast majority of asylum seekers arrive in Ireland by sea.

Zambia232 wrote:

It is my opinion they should follow the correct process apply in the country of landing and on being granted asylum simply pick where in Europe they wish to live.

And just for the sake of keeping on topic enrol their kids in schools.

Come on, you know it's not that simple! These people are desperate and they know their chances of being granted asylum in Italy or Spain, for example, are tiny. Although the journey to Ireland is far riskier, they stand a much better chance of being granted asylum if they make it here.