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

JimiTime

^^^ Guys, I think speculating on Myles being racist or not really is not the point. Racist or not, the point he raised on the late late show about being allowed to discuss the topic without the fear of being labelled a racist (maybe some irony there) has creedance. Would you agree that there are those who stifle the debate on both sides? There are people ignorant of the facts on both sides? Just because someone reads the paper and its reported that there may be some negative consequences to immigration, should that person be blamed for believing it? Personally, I think not. What the person does with this info is another subject, but surely talking about the positives and negatives will only benefit?? Would all agree that there may be negative as well as positive consequences to immigration, if not properly planned and monitored? Maybe this is an EU issue? If our fellow man is fleeing oppression, he should be helped. No doubt about it. But if we go about it in a cack handed way, we may actually be doing him harm. Lending to a perception of negative stereotyping. I remember, around 1990, my cousin married a black girl from birmingham. I remember when she came to visit my house, I was 9 at the time, all the kids just stopped and stared. It was so uncommon. Then the floodgates opened, and the government never took into account, that there are uneducated, ignorant and people who would be likely to resist too much change rife in our country. All of a sudden, you had simple things like old people scoffing at an african person not saying please or thank you if aided on to the bus with a pram etc. Such small differences in culture, but believe me, made a big difference to peoples perceptions. Ideally, it needed to be eased on people. Also, there should have been health checks to stop malaria etc coming into the country. Maybe, a lesson on the differences in culture. Where they would have to adapt their culture etc. Now we have a scenario where, real racists are able to thrive on the ignorance of people and point to events that do genuinely concern folk. Stiffling people from being able to talk about their fears and concerns etc. Helps only one type of person IMO, the racist.

moe_sizlak

JimiTime wrote:

^^^ Guys, I think speculating on Myles being racist or not really is not the point. Racist or not, the point he raised on the late late show about being allowed to discuss the topic without the fear of being labelled a racist (maybe some irony there) has creedance. Would you agree that there are those who stifle the debate on both sides? There are people ignorant of the facts on both sides? Just because someone reads the paper and its reported that there may be some negative consequences to immigration, should that person be blamed for believing it? Personally, I think not. What the person does with this info is another subject, but surely talking about the positives and negatives will only benefit?? Would all agree that there may be negative as well as positive consequences to immigration, if not properly planned and monitored? Maybe this is an EU issue? If our fellow man is fleeing oppression, he should be helped. No doubt about it. But if we go about it in a cack handed way, we may actually be doing him harm. Lending to a perception of negative stereotyping. I remember, around 1990, my cousin married a black girl from birmingham. I remember when she came to visit my house, I was 9 at the time, all the kids just stopped and stared. It was so uncommon. Then the floodgates opened, and the government never took into account, that there are uneducated, ignorant and people who would be likely to resist too much change rife in our country. All of a sudden, you had simple things like old people scoffing at an african person not saying please or thank you if aided on to the bus with a pram etc. Such small differences in culture, but believe me, made a big difference to peoples perceptions. Ideally, it needed to be eased on people. Also, there should have been health checks to stop malaria etc coming into the country. Maybe, a lesson on the differences in culture. Where they would have to adapt their culture etc. Now we have a scenario where, real racists are able to thrive on the ignorance of people and point to events that do genuinely concern folk. Stiffling people from being able to talk about their fears and concerns etc. Helps only one type of person IMO, the racist.

well said

Delboy05

djpbarry wrote:

Anyone who tries to tell me that Myers is not in any way racist after reading this is kidding themselves:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/time-for-the-tories-to-ditch-bland-lingo-of-asylumology-1114801.html

whats racist with what he said - he quoted some very owrryign figures from a british point of view. I would hate if that ever happened here but the governement don't seem to care, as IBEC are calling the shots and they want cheap labour at all costs.
I can't see any problems with the labelling of 'white british'.Not racist using this term in my opinion.

and to reply to an earlier statement you posed saying we can do nothing about immigration from EU countries- yes we can...we can put in labour restrictions like most european countries did when the accession happened.And if we really want we could force this as a major issue at EU level, using our veto on other issues until this topic was discussed. And we coudl withdraw from the EU as the most extreme example, or just perhaps from certain agreements as some economists are now suggesting we do with regards to our membership of the EU.

axer

djpbarry wrote:

The point I was making is that he was incapable of backing up anything he has said in the past. His answer to just about everything was “I don’t know”.

I don't think he was on the late late to back up everything he has said in the past. He was only making the point that the government and the citizens of Ireland are not talking about immigration for fear of being called a racist.

djpbarry wrote:

How exactly? The only way the “current form” of immigration can be changed is if we secede from the EU. Also, the largest foreign-national group we have in this country (by some distance) is Britons – about 112,000 of them. Not a statistic that is often used.

You do not need to leave the EU to control immigration. There are many factors that make a person come to Ireland. Many of those can be controlled by the government to help control immigration.

djpbarry wrote:

I was talking purely about numbers.

Yes you were talking about numbers and I was pointing out the damage such numbers can have on a country if not managed correctly.

djpbarry wrote:

What are you basing that on? Have you counted them all yourself?

Did I give you a figure? are you naive enough to think there isn't one illegal immigrant in this country?

djpbarry wrote:

No. The government knew many years ago that they would have to plan for a major population increase. They were presented with economic forecasts detailing estimates of the number of jobs that would be created as a result of economic growth. They also knew that we did not have a large enough workforce in this country to fuel said growth and that large-scale immigration would be required.

I think my point flew over your head.

djpbarry wrote:

That’s not the point. The point is these kids are Irish citizens and they are entitled to a proper education here.

An immigrant can be here 9 months and introduce a new Irish Citizen to the world. They are fully entitled to be Irish Citizens of course.

djpbarry wrote:

It is.

Maybe I didnt say it clearly enough. He has repeatedly stated that he doesn't have a problem with immigration as long as it is controlled properly and properly planned and discussed.

djpbarry wrote:

I don’t think that is true at all. I think people like Myers are looking for problems where they do not exist. He is using immigrants as scapegoats when the real culprits are the government planners.

He is not blaming the immigrants - he is blaming the Irish Government and the Irish people.

wes

Delboy05 wrote:

whats racist with what he said - he quoted some very owrryign figures from a british point of view. I would hate if that ever happened here but the governement don't seem to care, as IBEC are calling the shots and they want cheap labour at all costs.
I can't see any problems with the labelling of 'white british'.Not racist using this term in my opinion.

Again talking about immigration is a good idea, but in that article he seems to make a point of being white and British as being somehow important. Why does being white and British matter? Are people of Asian and African origin some how less British or something? People who's families have been there for 3 or 4 generations in some cases. I don't see how bringing in race into it serves any purpose really. The Non-white British are not immigrants. So any changes to immigration policy won't change that.

Zombrex

Delboy05 wrote:

whats racist with what he said

"Now these are glimpses of the adult British population in 20 years' time: so what sense of "Britishness" can possibly survive figures like these?"

He rather cleverly associated "white" with "British" throughout the entire piece without ever being blunt enough to actual say that (he probably didn't want to be labeled a racist :rolleyes:)

The figures he quoted are people who are "white" and "British". He doesn't quote the people who are "not white" and still "British". The assumption seems to be that these people don't exist. Everyone who isn't "white" is effectively "not white and therefore not British", and therefore Myers ponders over how Britishness can survive with so many non-British people living in Britain.

Nonsense manipulation of statistics to serve a particular scaremongering agenda.

djpbarry

mickoneill30 wrote:

I'm not sure how reporting numbers is racist. What races was he racist towards?

He is discriminating based on race. He is implying that true British people are white and white alone:

What sense of "Britishness" can possibly survive figures like these?

That is the sort of crap we here from the BNP.

JimiTime wrote:

being allowed to discuss the topic without the fear of being labelled a racist (maybe some irony there) has creedance

I don’t think anyone here doubts that fact.

JimiTime wrote:

Just because someone reads the paper and its reported that there may be some negative consequences to immigration, should that person be blamed for believing it?

Yes they should. People should not believe everything they read. There is a difference between taking something into consideration and taking it as gospel.

JimiTime wrote:

Stiffling people from being able to talk about their fears and concerns etc.

I’m not trying to stop people talking about immigration. What I would like is for people to stop blaming the government’s shortcomings on immigration. I have no problem with people having a rational debate on any subject, but blaming immigration for the lack of school places in, say, Lucan, is irrational.

JimiTime

djpbarry wrote:

Yes they should. People should not believe everything they read. There is a difference between taking something into consideration and taking it as gospel.

I didn't mean it like that, though I was unclear. I'm talking about people reading things and being concerned by them, not just believing them. Alot of the time, people wont bother looking up things that they read in the media, it may just stay in their head as a loose fact. In an ideal world, people would look into everything, but we must consider that they dont.

I’m not trying to stop people talking about immigration. What I would like is for people to stop blaming the government’s shortcomings on immigration. I have no problem with people having a rational debate on any subject, but blaming immigration for the lack of school places in, say, Lucan, is irrational.

But I don't think thats what most mean when they 'blame' immigration. I think there are alot of ignoramuses out there that'll just scapegoat. 'its them feckin Africans', or 'dem feckin Poles', and unfortunately there are quite a few of them. However, if someone, who is relatively well educated and a decent person says it, I think they mean, 'uncontrolled', or 'mis-managed' immigration. If such a thing occurs, immigration can become a problem, the relatively smart folk will know that its a government failing, but the knob wil just say 'feckin immigrants'. So a poor immigration policy has a negative effect on the Local population, and on the immigrant. Would you agree?

The Corinthian

djpbarry wrote:

blaming immigration for the lack of school places in, say, Lucan, is irrational.

No it's not. However assuming that it is the only reason is.

There are various reasons why there is a lack of school places, but ultimately it boils down to the number of students far outstripped the number of places. To begin with, supply has failed to keep up with demand, and in this regard it is the collective fault of successive Irish governments.

However, like it or not, demand is the other factor at fault and given that population growth has been largely fueled by immigration then one can point the finger at it as one cause.

djpbarry

JimiTime wrote:

Alot of the time, people wont bother looking up things that they read in the media, it may just stay in their head as a loose fact. In an ideal world, people would look into everything, but we must consider that they dont.

Yes, that is true.

JimiTime wrote:

I think there are alot of ignoramuses out there that'll just scapegoat. 'its them feckin Africans', or 'dem feckin Poles', and unfortunately there are quite a few of them. However, if someone, who is relatively well educated and a decent person says it, I think they mean, 'uncontrolled', or 'mis-managed' immigration. If such a thing occurs, immigration can become a problem, the relatively smart folk will know that its a government failing, but the knob wil just say 'feckin immigrants'. So a poor immigration policy has a negative effect on the Local population, and on the immigrant. Would you agree?

I think you’re mixing two different arguments together there. The ignorant individuals in question will not tolerate immigrants regardless of immigration policy.

The Corinthian wrote:

There are various reasons why there is a lack of school places, but ultimately it boils down to the number of students far outstripped the number of places. To begin with, supply has failed to keep up with demand, and in this regard it is the collective fault of successive Irish governments.

However, like it or not, demand is the other factor at fault and given that population growth has been largely fueled by immigration then one can point the finger at it as one cause.

Of course demand for school places has increased with population growth, as has demand for houses. But the government has had no problem supplying the population with homes and shopping malls, as it was in their interest to do so. They must take a large share of the blame for allowing school places to become so scarce.

JimiTime

djpbarry wrote:

I think you’re mixing two different arguments together there. The ignorant individuals in question will not tolerate immigrants regardless of immigration policy.

I would agree and disagree with this. I don't think I'm mixing two different arguements. i think that its all relevant. i do think that certain folk will just be racist. But as i mentioned previously, mis-management of immigration will allow people who wouldn't really be that bothered by it, fall into the hands of the more fervant anti-immegration guy.

Hobbes

I'm amazed this got to 12 pages and is still going on about immigration.

* FACT: The school system has sucked in Ireland for some years. Ireland is even documented in the EU on how not to create Urban Sprawls.

For example there are 4-5 housing estates created around me in the last 9 years, yet the number of schools is still the same and the classes were already overloaded before all that.

Being denied education because you don't ascribe to the diety of choice is disgraceful. But if they want to deny based on theology (or lack there of) then they should also be denied any Government funding. Let the church taxes pay for it.

karen3212

I must say that it was nice to read a discussion about schools, where immigrants were mentioned, that hasn't become a completely racist rant.

On the schools issue, I blame planning. On the immigration thing, I like how myres calls it a problem, is it to be know from this day forward as the problem. I think Myers groups people, and I don't think that is fair. As in all of one kind are alright and all of another kind are more dangerous.

Also if the churches move toward more private education, for the sake of integration, should they be forced to take a % of students that are of another religion. Otherwise kids might not realize that there are good and bad in all cultures and religions.

The Corinthian

karen3212 wrote:

Also if the churches move toward more private education, for the sake of integration, should they be forced to take a % of students that are of another religion. Otherwise kids might not realize that there are good and bad in all cultures and religions.

That's not private education though.

You can, and should, impose standards on any public or publically funded body, commensurable to the level of that funding.

But if it's private - tough - it's called freedom of association and it's in the constitution.

BTW, nice to see you've come back and stopped talking about Hitler.

djpbarry

JimiTime wrote:

i do think that certain folk will just be racist. But as i mentioned previously, mis-management of immigration will allow people who wouldn't really be that bothered by it, fall into the hands of the more fervant anti-immegration guy.

Yes, ok, fair enough.

Hobbes wrote:

* FACT: The school system has sucked in Ireland for some years. Ireland is even documented in the EU on how not to create Urban Sprawls.

For example there are 4-5 housing estates created around me in the last 9 years, yet the number of schools is still the same and the classes were already overloaded before all that.

My point exactly!

karen3212 wrote:

On the schools issue, I blame planning. On the immigration thing, I like how myres calls it a problem, is it to be know from this day forward as the problem. I think Myers groups people, and I don't think that is fair. As in all of one kind are alright and all of another kind are more dangerous.

Yes, absolutely. Immigration should not be viewed as a problem at all, but rather a great opportunity. We have some very talented young people coming to Ireland from all over the world. Rather than complaining about the numbers involved, we should be welcoming them and utilising their expertise.

The Corinthian

djpbarry wrote:

Immigration should not be viewed as a problem at all, but rather a great opportunity.

It can be a great opportunity, but only if you don't blindly accept it as such.

purple'n'gold

Immigration can become a huge problem if it is not managed properly. Unfortunately we have people in this country (not without political sympathy from some quarters) who do not live in the real world and seem to think that we should have an open door policy.

axer

djpbarry wrote:

Yes, absolutely. Immigration should not be viewed as a problem at all, but rather a great opportunity. We have some very talented young people coming to Ireland from all over the world. Rather than complaining about the numbers involved, we should be welcoming them and utilising their expertise.

But it is a problem when it is not managed correctly. At present, I don't believe it is being managed correctly thus it is a problem.

The first thing that the government is to stop funding non-secular schools to gain control over them or start building secular schools. I don't think forcing non-secular schools to accept a certain percentage of children from a different religious denomination than that of the school's is the answer as religion should NEVER come into whether a school accepts a child or not.

djpbarry

The Corinthian wrote:

It can be a great opportunity, but only if you don't blindly accept it as such.

I’m not “blindly accepting” anything. It is clear to me that we have a rather talented workforce in this country (both Irish and non-Irish), but they are not being properly utilised, although lack of English can sometimes be a factor.

purple’n&#8217 wrote: »

Immigration can become a huge problem if it is not managed properly.

What do you propose? How should it be managed?

purple’n&#8217 wrote: »

Unfortunately we have people in this country (not without political sympathy from some quarters) who do not live in the real world and seem to think that we should have an open door policy.

I very much doubt there is a single TD who holds such a view, but I stand to be corrected on that.

axer wrote:

At present, I don't believe it is being managed correctly thus it is a problem.

What, in your opinion, should change in the management of immigration?

axer wrote:

The first thing that the government is to stop funding non-secular schools to gain control over them or start building secular schools. I don't think forcing non-secular schools to accept a certain percentage of children from a different religious denomination than that of the school's is the answer as religion should NEVER come into whether a school accepts a child or not.

I don’t see this as a “solution” to any “problems” pertaining to immigration policy. There are plenty of non-Catholic Irish people and there are plenty of Catholic immigrants. I would therefore see the two issues (immigration and provision of schools) as two separate issues, from a religious perspective at least.

bonkey

purplengold wrote:

Unfortunately we have people in this country (not without political sympathy from some quarters) who do not live in the real world and seem to think that we should have an open door policy.

We don't have an open door policy, and I'd be impressed if you could point out a single person - either a public figure, or a poster on boards - who is arguing for a more lax policy than we have at the moment.

The Corinthian

djpbarry wrote:

I’m not “blindly accepting” anything.

Sure you are. You've to date argued that immigration is nothing but good and if it's not it's simply the fault of the host nation for not "properly utilizing" those resources. Rate of population change, immigrant demographics (education and skill sets, anti-social propensities, etc), social integration or elasticity of infrastructure in the host nation - to name a few factors - don't seem to even factor in your consideration.

JimiTime

djpbarry wrote:

What do you propose? How should it be managed?

This raises the point. At present, what are the negatives to our current immigration policy?

Personally, I think that poor infastructure is a huge issue. But thats not an immigration problem as such. However, if, for example, towns are being so badly planned that schools are being overcrowded etc. Then this needs to be tackled, before more people, or houses for that matter, are let in or built. Also, I do like the skilled migration scenario, like Australia have. Whereby, migrants are assesed on their skillset. Also, any area with exposure to infectious disease such as Malaria or TB etc, their migrants should be screened at source if such a service is available. If they are not screened at source then their should be a buffer zone at immigration whereby, they must be given a medical before allowed past our borders. This will help fight disease such as the ones mentioned being brought to the country, thus protecting the irish citizen, and also preventing a perception that these people bring disease into the country. Thats just a start.

djpbarry

The Corinthian wrote:

You've to date argued that immigration is nothing but good and if it's not it's simply the fault of the host nation for not "properly utilizing" those resources.

That is simply not true. I have argued that immigration is not the “threat” that certain people (such as Myers) perceive it to be. I would argue that there are far more positives than negatives and as such, on balance, immigration is a good thing. The “controlled” aspect that people constantly refer to is, for the most part, inherent in any form of migration. People will not move en masse to an area where accommodation or work is not available.

JimiTime wrote:

if, for example, towns are being so badly planned that schools are being overcrowded etc. Then this needs to be tackled, before more people, or houses for that matter, are let in or built.

You cannot stop people coming into the country because schools are over-crowded, no more than you can stop an Irish family moving to an area in the country with no schools. If there is a house available they are entitled to take it – it’s an open market. It is up to the immigrant to decide whether this will affect them. Also, it cannot be assumed that every immigrant is going to have a child, or, even if they do, it cannot be assumed that the child will be raised in this country (admittedly they probably will). Besides, if I were young, single and considering a move to Ireland, I’d be far more concerned about the state of the health system.

JimiTime wrote:

Also, I do like the skilled migration scenario, like Australia have. Whereby, migrants are assesed on their skillset.

Non-skilled workers are also required. For example, there is a shortage of bus drivers in Dublin because Irish people don’t want to drive buses. No disrespect is intended towards any bus drivers – different people have different interpretations of “skilled”.

The Corinthian

djpbarry wrote:

That is simply not true. I have argued that immigration is not the “threat” that certain people (such as Myers) perceive it to be. I would argue that there are far more positives than negatives and as such, on balance, immigration is a good thing.

You've not suggested any negatives (outside of it being our own fault that we cannot accommodate them) though. There has been nothing even vaguely balanced about your argument - any more than an argument one would expect from a member of the "send them back where they came from brigade".

People will not move en masse to an area where accommodation or work is not available.

Sure they will. All their destination has to be is marginally better than the one where they start from.

aidan24326

Hobbes wrote:

Being denied education because you don't ascribe to the diety of choice is disgraceful. But if they want to deny based on theology (or lack there of) then they should also be denied any Government funding. Let the church taxes pay for it.

It is disgraceful. If the catholic church want private catholic-only schools and the right to discriminate based on religion then fine, but let them fund it themselves. Otherwise we have a religious organisation receiving state sponsorship, which makes a bit of a mockery of us being a secular country. And the church don't pay any tax btw, they're exempt from taxes despite being one of the wealthiest organisations in the country.

fly_agaric

djpbarry wrote:

Also, it cannot be assumed that every immigrant is going to have a child

Well it'd be a good starting assumption. The govt wants young immigrants to drive our wonderful economy on. They don't cost the state much. Unfortunately for our dear leaders young also means liable to have kids...

aidan24326 wrote:

It is disgraceful. If the catholic church want private catholic-only schools and the right to discriminate based on religion then fine, but let them fund it themselves.

It should be fun to see what happens to the system here once the always-efficient Irish state takes full control of it. I'm sure an "Education Authority" will do a bang-up job! No doubt it'll be a guiding light for all the rest of Europe just like our HSE and dept. of health and children!

djpbarry

The Corinthian wrote:

You've not suggested any negatives (outside of it being our own fault that we cannot accommodate them) though. There has been nothing even vaguely balanced about your argument - any more than an argument one would expect from a member of the "send them back where they came from brigade".

If my argument is so ridiculously unbalanced then you should be able to find plenty of holes in it. The question has been asked, several times on this thread, “in what way should our immigration policy be altered?” JimiTime is the only person who has proposed any changes – health screening; a good idea, in theory. With respect to JimiTime, I see two main problems with this proposal:

1. Our health system is a shambles
2. If immigrants (depending on their country of origin) were to receive (free), compulsory medicals on entering the country (some may do already, I don’t know), I can see this being further ammunition for the “f*ckin’ immigrants spongin’ off de sta’e” brigade.

My main arguments throughout this thread (to repeat myself yet again) have been the following:

1. Immigration is not a “threat” to this country’s “Irishness”.
2. There are several major problems with public services in this country. Although these problems have been exacerbated by the recent increase in population, the fact is that the problems themselves have been there for years and successive governments have failed to address them. However, seeing as how the current regime, which is now in its third term, is taking all the credit for our recent economic growth, it seems only fair that they should take most of the blame for our pathetic public services.

fly agaric wrote:

The govt wants young immigrants to drive our wonderful economy on. They don't cost the state much. Unfortunately for our dear leaders young also means liable to have kids...

I’m not going to argue with that.

Kev_85

My main arguments throughout this thread (to repeat myself yet again) have been the following:
Immigration is not a “threat” to this country’s “Irishness”.

I would disagree.

djpbarry

Kev_85 wrote:

I would disagree.

Based on?

axer

djpbarry wrote:

If my argument is so ridiculously unbalanced then you should be able to find plenty of holes in it. The question has been asked, several times on this thread, “in what way should our immigration policy be altered?” JimiTime is the only person who has proposed any changes – health screening; a good idea, in theory. With respect to JimiTime, I see two main problems with this proposal:

1. Our health system is a shambles
2. If immigrants (depending on their country of origin) were to receive (free), compulsory medicals on entering the country (some may do already, I don’t know), I can see this being further ammunition for the “f*ckin’ immigrants spongin’ off de sta’e” brigade.

My main arguments throughout this thread (to repeat myself yet again) have been the following:

1. Immigration is not a “threat” to this country’s “Irishness”.
2. There are several major problems with public services in this country. Although these problems have been exacerbated by the recent increase in population, the fact is that the problems themselves have been there for years and successive governments have failed to address them. However, seeing as how the current regime, which is now in its third term, is taking all the credit for our recent economic growth, it seems only fair that they should take most of the blame for our pathetic public services.

I’m not going to argue with that.

From what I have read from you - you seem to be saying that immigration is not a problem in this country. Immigration *is* a problem in a badly managed country with badly managed services and immigration policies & controls i.e. Ireland. Of course, idealistically immigration is a great thing for a country.