Why does Ireland have no right wing nationalist party?

Húrin

berliner wrote: »

Ireland must be one of the few countries who don't have a party similar to the BNP in Britain.Why?

History. Most countries with such parties are or were superpowers. Their nationalism is about superiority; ours is about freeing the underdog.

"The cause of Ireland is the cause of labour"

In the early 20th century nationalism was married to class politics and so it has remained since.

daithicarr

if your worried about our culture being diluted, id worry more about the influence of foergin media if i were you. through television we are very heavily influenced by the cultures of England and America.
i work in a large company and often i here people going on about how england or America is a better and more exciting place to live. and a large number of irish people i work with would like to emigrate to america because its better. Despite having never been there.

If anything the arrival of more migrants from different cultures makes people look at and appreciate their own culture more.

I wouldnt worry too much about it, in a generation or two all those poles and lithuanians , will be just like us, a bunch of wannabie americans, speaking with a mid atlantic twang .

djpbarry

dsmythy wrote: »

Many of these migrations were invasions.

And many were not - people have always moved from place to place and they will continue to do so.

dsmythy wrote: »

Will this new embraced migration be a good thing for this country's future? Nobody can say for sure. I think it could end badly.

Define "badly" and please explain why you think this will happen.

dsmythy wrote: »

Again nobody knows as fact the general implications of large scale immigration to Ireland. Again as above i think the implications may be bad.

And again you have not said why; nobody knows what will happen but it'll probably be bad?

dsmythy wrote: »

20% at the very, very maximum is all i would be comfortable with.

Again, why? Why is 20% ok but 20.01% is not?

dsmythy wrote: »

Well the politicians keep telling us we need them.

Which politicians and what exactly did they say?

dsmythy wrote: »

The more we say we need them the more that will come.

If you read a report in the newspaper that the President of Thailand has thrown open the borders of his country to immigrants from Ireland, are you automatically going to up and leave? Of course not; you'll do a little research and determine whether there are decent jobs available, etc.

dsmythy wrote: »

If that figure points to over 20% being non-Irish by the time that population figure is reached i'd like to see the 20% being the upper most figure. I could go even lower depending on various situations.

What sort of situations?

dsmythy wrote: »

The difference is the dilution of cultures I believe would be caused by modern permanent migration to and within Europe if left to continue a current levels non-stop into the future.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that this will happen (ignoring for a second the fact that cultures evolve and change all the time)?

dsmythy wrote: »

In 50 years time the various cultures today that make up Ireland would be shadows of themselves. Then travel to France, Spain, Italy etc. They might be all too similar to Ireland. All of them very similar cultures derived from the multiculture of today.

They MIGHT be, but is highly unlikely that they will.

dsmythy wrote: »

If we need a certain number of workers that i might consider a large proportion or is one that breaks the theoretical 20% figure then temporary 5 year visas can be issued to them and strictly be abided by and enforced.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that this is a violation of EU law, what would happen when these 5-year visas expire? And do you not think that this would discourage foreign nationals from coming to Ireland (or is that the idea)?

fly_agaric wrote: »

I have to say that is hardly very likely ...

Sorry, that should have just said "emigrate" rather than "emigrate en masse".

fly_agaric wrote: »

What's so great about "Economic Growth" caused solely by immigration? It's good for the immigrants if they get a fair share but that is it.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here? My point was that if jobs are filled, then this is a good thing, irrespective of where the person who fills the job comes from.

fly_agaric wrote: »

Why would you believe some kind of "invisible hand" bolllox when it comes to movement of people when you probably do not believe in it when it come to distribution of capital, resourses, wealth etc?

I'm sorry, WHAT?

Lots of available jobs paying good money will likely lead to immigration. Lack of jobs paying good money will likely not (and will most likely lead to emigration). Simple.

The Corinthian

To begin with the whole left-wing versus right-wing thing never really took off in Ireland. Political devisions here have historically tended to be based upon the question of partition and later upon the issue of secularism.

Secondly, any nationalist party in Ireland (which was a former possession of another power) could just as easily be left-wing as right. This is because ethnic and class divisions fell along the same lines. In countries where class and ethnicity are not aligned, you can't really pull this off. Similar left-wing nationalism like this can be seen in other former possessions - especially in sub-Saharan Africa.

Other factors come into play, such as a poorly defined class system (following the Anglo-Irish exodus), lack of industrialization and low population.

All of this has contributed to the far left and right only really being represented by tiny fringe groups with Sinn Fein being the only one that comes close to being mainstream (and this it has managed only by dropping much of its more extreme positions).

berliner

Sinn fein are a sorry excuse for a party.Sold everything they believed in for power in ulster.They took the Queens shilling for sure.

dsmythy

djpbarry wrote: »

Define "badly" and please explain why you think this will happen.

The fall of the Irish state at the extreme end. Now we could say this is the way of the world and whatever will be will be. But i'd rather not think that.

The possibility of the further partition of Ireland along ethnic lines. This is not an impossibility if enough people came and settled together. I don't think a 20% movement is enough to cause this. I find it a good figure. Why not 20.01%? Because you have to settle on some sort of figure. i could give you a better figure if i was paid to look at such things for the government, but i am not. I'm just an ordinary citizen.

Actual future violence within Ireland along said ethnic lines. I always said nobody knows for sure. I don't either but i think it could end badly as stated above. That's could not will. I don't claim to be 100% correct about the future. I could be horribly wrong. I'm not a psychic after all. If i have said will, instead of could, earlier then excuse the verbal mistake on my part.

Which politicians and what exactly did they say?

I'm not chasing after their quotes with regards to our need of immigration. I'm certain i've heard them say this time and time again along with people i end up talking to about the subject.

If you read a report in the newspaper that the President of Thailand has thrown open the borders of his country to immigrants from Ireland, are you automatically going to up and leave? Of course not; you'll do a little research and determine whether there are decent jobs available, etc.

Most economic migrants would do so. All you have to do is look at the Africans dying, literally, for the chance to gain access to Europe. If any country in the EU said all Africans can go there if they will i bet you they would such is their dire poverty at home. The numbers would be immense for said country.

What sort of situations?

Well there could be numerous. The general economic climate although like you have said before they lilely wouldn't come here if we went belly up, economic migrants at least anyway.

The general social and political climate here and in other European countries with regard to immigration levels.

A viable threat to the Irish state from within or beyond.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that this will happen (ignoring for a second the fact that cultures evolve and change all the time)?

It's one thing for cultures to change from within or be forced to change from invasion, and to actively cause a culture to change from a cultures own actions.

Currently Tibetans are talking about culture genocide caused by Han Chinese populating their territory. I agree with them. The Tibetan culture would be diluted by non-Tibetans. Eventually the Han Chinese culture in the region may also become diluted.

Native Americans managed to hold onto their culture despite being forced out of most of their continent. Of course their culture is confined to a small area of what it could of held today. Irish culture could lose ground completely in pocketed areas and so start take up less of the state it is supposed to exist in. Serbian culture in Kosovo is another example of this effect.

We could just put this down to "things change all the time" but in this day and age surely we can avoid this change happening if we so wished. it brings up something of a philosophical point of whether to halt history repeating by actively resisting change. Does this resistance itself amount to history repeating itself as many peoples have resisted change down the ages with variable results.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that this is a violation of EU law, what would happen when these 5-year visas expire? And do you not think that this would discourage foreign nationals from coming to Ireland (or is that the idea)?

The law is an ass then as they say. It can be changed though.

When the visa expires presumably the person who holds it will have applied for another 5 years or not interested in staying. If they fail to get another 5 years but want to stay and do so, the they would be found and deported as illegal immigrants. No doubt there is some law out there that forbids it but if any ideas i say here were to happen it would be as part of a general change in how we and Europe do things as a nations and as a continent.

On a side note the thread is supposed to be about Ireland not having a right wing nationalist party. Not neccesarily what that party would entail. These debates always say the same points until some event or adds to one point of view or the other. I think people literally need a continuous debate on immigration where old points are made and then depending on what is happening in the world further points be brought up arguing that the said event leads us to one side or the other.

djpbarry

dsmythy,

Please do not falsely attribute quotes; you have me quoted as saying a whole host of things I never said in your last post.

Liam Byrne

In real-life, if you go far enough right, you'll end up on the left......I wonder does the same apply to politics ?

fly_agaric

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're getting at here?

If the economy expands in line with an increase in our population we are not really getting any richer. That is all I was getting at.

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm sorry, WHAT?
Lots of available jobs paying good money will likely lead to immigration. Lack of jobs paying good money will likely not (and will most likely lead to emigration). Simple.

The situation has changed somewhat since the 1980s.
I think that even if the economy is in the toilet enough for many Irish people to want to try and find somewhere better, Ireland will still be an attractive country for immigrants. I don't believe there will ever be net emigration in this state, if the govt. want people to come to the country in future because of a new exodus of the Irish, they will have no problem getting them...

djpbarry

fly_agaric wrote: »

If the economy expands in line with an increase in our population we are not really getting any richer.

Fair point, but it seems this is currently not the case. In 2006, the average industrial wage in Ireland was approximately 50% higher than it was in 1998. Over the same period of time, the cost of living increased by about 30%, according to the consumer price index. I know this is just a rough estimate, but it would seem that we have quite a bit more money to spend now than we did ten years ago. Of course, it remains to be seen whether this trend will continue.

fly_agaric wrote: »

I think that even if the economy is in the toilet enough for many Irish people to want to try and find somewhere better, Ireland will still be an attractive country for immigrants.

I would say it would depend very much on where said immigrants originate from. For example, if our economy reverts back to the state it was in during the 80's, then I can't see too many British or American people making their way here to start a new life. I would imagine people in Poland, Czech Rep., Lithuania, Slovakia, etc. will also think twice about making the trip west, depending on conditions in their own countries of course.

fly_agaric wrote: »

I don't believe there will ever be net emigration in this state...

Probably not, no, but I think it is fair to say that net immigration will decline significantly if economic growth declines.

fly_agaric wrote: »

...if the govt. want people to come to the country in future because of a new exodus of the Irish, they will have no problem getting them...

If there are jobs available, then yes, that would probably be the case. But then, why would there be a mass exodus if there are jobs available?

dsmythy

djpbarry wrote: »

dsmythy,

Please do not falsely attribute quotes; you have me quoted as saying a whole host of things I never said in your last post.

Sorry it looks a bit messed. Anything with a boxed quote in normal script attached to it is taken from your previous post.

The rest in italics is me as well as the side note at the end. If there's anything i attributed to you that wasn't from you then my mistake.

djpbarry

dsmythy wrote: »

Sorry it looks a bit messed. Anything with a boxed quote in normal script attached to it is taken from your previous post.

Fair enough.

dsmythy wrote: »

The possibility of the further partition of Ireland along ethnic lines.

Highly unlikely in our lifetimes. It might happen in a couple of hundred years, but so might a lot of other things. Besides, no nation lasts forever.

dsmythy wrote: »

I don't think a 20% movement is enough to cause this. I find it a good figure. Why not 20.01%? Because you have to settle on some sort of figure.

So basically you're saying you've just plucked this figure out of thin air; you're happy enough if 200 out of every thousand people in Ireland is non-Irish, but 201, that's pushing it and that's when the **** hits the fan.

dsmythy wrote: »

Actual future violence within Ireland along said ethnic lines.

Racially-motivated violence happens all over the world. I do not believe we should prevent people of different races/ethnicities from entering Ireland just because some sub-human little scumbag has a problem with people who are different to him.

dsmythy wrote: »

I'm not chasing after their quotes with regards to our need of immigration. I'm certain i've heard them say this time and time again along with people i end up talking to about the subject.

If these remarks are so commonplace then surely you can find just one example?

dsmythy wrote: »

Most economic migrants would do so.

Really? Most of the foreign-nationals currently living in Ireland came here on the off-chance that they could get a job, without first checking the economic conditions here at the time, the cost of living, the likelihood of obtaining accommodation, etc. ? You really think they're that stupid?

dsmythy wrote: »

All you have to do is look at the Africans dying, literally, for the chance to gain access to Europe.

Now you're talking about something very different indeed. You can't really compare a refugee fleeing say, Darfur, with a Polish lad looking to make a few quid to buy a house for himself.

People who die in transit from Africa (or anywhere else for that matter) are obviously as desperate as one can be and are obviously fleeing some pretty horrific conditions. The current economic conditions in the EU does not really change their situation, in the sense that the EU economy is unlikely to slow to such a degree that the EU is reduced to the status of a third world region. Whether economic growth in the EU is currently 2% or 10%, or whether unemployment is currently 2% or 10%, is largely irrelevant to someone fleeing Darfur - they're still going to take their chances regardless.

dsmythy wrote: »

The general social and political climate here and in other European countries with regard to immigration levels.

Right, well, that's all very general and vague, isn't it? Why does the "climate" in other EU countries influence your "comfort-level" with regard to foreign nationals? What changes in this climate would be necessary for you to revise your 20% figure and why would this change be required?

dsmythy wrote: »

A viable threat to the Irish state from within or beyond.

What sort of threat and how would reducing immigration help to combat this threat?

dsmythy wrote: »

Currently Tibetans are talking about culture genocide caused by Han Chinese populating their territory.
...
Native Americans managed to hold onto their culture despite being forced out of most of their continent.
...
Irish culture could lose ground completely in pocketed areas and so start take up less of the state it is supposed to exist in.

:rolleyes: Are you actually comparing the "plight" of the native Irish with that of Native Americans and Tibetans?

Irish people may well become a minority in some small areas - I believe they already are in some parts of inner-city Dublin, mainly because they don't want to live there. Does this mean that Irish culture is in some way being "threatened"? I don't think so.

dsmythy wrote: »

We could just put this down to "things change all the time"...

Things do change all the time and British tabloids and Sky Sports have a far greater cultural influence on this island than immigrants do.

dsmythy wrote: »

...but in this day and age surely we can avoid this change happening if we so wished

I don't know what change you are referring to - cultural changes in Ireland perhaps? How do you propose we prevent it from changing? Keep immigrants out? Better ban all British and American media while you're at it.

dsmythy wrote: »

When the visa expires presumably the person who holds it will have applied for another 5 years or not interested in staying.

Suppose at some point in the not-too-distant-future we have a massive shortage of doctors in this country; not an entirely unimaginable scenario. Do you not think it might make sense to grant permanent residence to foreign doctors who want to work here? It doesn’t really make sense to issue five-year visas when you could be faced with exactly the same problem (i.e. shortage of doctors) in five years' time.

dsmythy

djpbarry wrote: »

Highly unlikely in our lifetimes. It might happen in a couple of hundred years, but so might a lot of other things. Besides, no nation lasts forever.

We could try prolong it.

djpbarry wrote: »

So basically you're saying you've just plucked this figure out of thin air; you're happy enough if 200 out of every thousand people in Ireland is non-Irish, but 201, that's pushing it and that's when the **** hits the fan.

Like i said we would have to pick a figure somewhere. We can't keep living without some sort of limits. I'd give you a detailed report on why i chose the figure but i'm not an academic and i don't get paid to work these things out. You get the idea of some sort of limiting figure anyway as a general idea.

djpbarry wrote: »

Racially-motivated violence happens all over the world. I do not believe we should prevent people of different races/ethnicities from entering Ireland just because some sub-human little scumbag has a problem with people who are different to him.

I'm talking about further in the future (20-30 years perhaps) where ethnic or racial violence isn't near exclusive to white Irish being the group responsible.

djpbarry wrote: »

If these remarks are so commonplace then surely you can find just one example?

Mary McAleese

That is one. Simple google searches will bring you a few more. I have to say there seems to be less comments along the "we need them" line than i thought. There would be a lot more talking about their contribution to the economy rather than we must have them. It's probably people on fora such as this telling me it all the time that has implanted it in my head that it is being said in government circles. Then again that says more about that argument than it does mine. Why aren't they reminding us that we need them, or else. Nevertheless my position isn't that we boot all immigrants out It's that we put a limit on it wherever possible and be in control at all times.

djpbarry wrote: »

Really? Most of the foreign-nationals currently living in Ireland came here on the off-chance that they could get a job, without first checking the economic conditions here at the time, the cost of living, the likelihood of obtaining accommodation, etc. ? You really think they're that stupid?

Now you're talking about something very different indeed. You can't really compare a refugee fleeing say, Darfur, with a Polish lad looking to make a few quid to buy a house for himself.

People who die in transit from Africa (or anywhere else for that matter) are obviously as desperate as one can be and are obviously fleeing some pretty horrific conditions. The current economic conditions in the EU does not really change their situation, in the sense that the EU economy is unlikely to slow to such a degree that the EU is reduced to the status of a third world region. Whether economic growth in the EU is currently 2% or 10%, or whether unemployment is currently 2% or 10%, is largely irrelevant to someone fleeing Darfur - they're still going to take their chances regardless.

That's all fair enough.

Mind you if you were wide open on your borders policy other EU states will send many of them on their way to you pretty quick i suspect. That wide open policy will never exist thankfully.

djpbarry wrote: »

Right, well, that's all very general and vague, isn't it? Why does the "climate" in other EU countries influence your "comfort-level" with regard to foreign nationals? What changes in this climate would be necessary for you to revise your 20% figure and why would this change be required?

What sort of threat and how would reducing immigration help to combat this threat?

Migration related violence levels. Any slowdown possibly caused by migrants. A number of countries becoming polarised along ethnic lines. In a globalised world these things can spread very quickly. You could look at these and decide what to do with your policies. We should be safe for the near future with regards to all these possibilities.

Threats against Ireland and the Irish people. Any threat of violence from future Europe wide groups of disenfranchised immigrant descendants. Threats affecting other countries from certain migrant descendant groups that can be targetted and be brought to a halt. This would more likely be a problem for our children and grandchildren.

djpbarry wrote: »

Are you actually comparing the "plight" of the native Irish with that of Native Americans and Tibetans?

They were pretty secure in their own futures until unrestricted newcomers came calling i'd say.

djpbarry wrote: »

Irish people may well become a minority in some small areas - I believe they already are in some parts of inner-city Dublin, mainly because they don't want to live there. Does this mean that Irish culture is in some way being "threatened"? I don't think so.

Indeed already small areas are affected. These will have the capacity to grow. How big would you allow this chunks of the state to disappear from Irish people? The Irish culture will survive but how much of this island will it survive on? It's already missing in some parts of Northern Ireland. Has been for a long time in those areas where to call someone Irish as if they are the same as you is almost an insult to them. Gort and Ballyhaunis are two towns outside Dublin where over a third are non-Irish at present and to think we are only beginning our journey.

djpbarry wrote: »

I don't know what change you are referring to - cultural changes in Ireland perhaps? How do you propose we prevent it from changing? Keep immigrants out? Better ban all British and American media while you're at it.

Not keep them out, just limit them in the future. We could do with reducing the media you mention alright. Replace it with our own. Just another part of the goal.

djpbarry wrote: »

Suppose at some point in the not-too-distant-future we have a massive shortage of doctors in this country; not an entirely unimaginable scenario. Do you not think it might make sense to grant permanent residence to foreign doctors who want to work here? It doesn’t really make sense to issue five-year visas when you could be faced with exactly the same problem (i.e. shortage of doctors) in five years' time.

They can reapply again after five years if they so wish. If we still need them we can accept their application. After a second five years perhaps then those who remain could become citizens or at least start themselves along that road.

Liam Byrne

Tell ya what, let's go along with dsmythy's argument for a sec; let's export all the foreigners back home, and in return let's accept back all of the Irish that emigrated so that other countries don't have to go through the same problem.

Something tells me that we'd end up with a bigger population, and therefore a bigger problem when the "**** hits the fan".....

Am I wrong ?

oscarBravo

But at least they'd be Irish.

So that's alright then.

dsmythy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Tell ya what, let's go along with dsmythy's argument for a sec; let's export all the foreigners back home, and in return let's accept back all of the Irish that emigrated so that other countries don't have to go through the same problem.

Something tells me that we'd end up with a bigger population, and therefore a bigger problem when the "**** hits the fan".....

Am I wrong ?

Ah here, i never said that now.

What Irish are you talking about? 20th century emigrants i presume?

The stuff hitting the fan refers to an ethnic violence scenario.

djpbarry

dsmythy wrote: »

We could try prolong it.

There’s little point in trying to predict what political changes will occur over the next few centuries, so let’s deal with the present (or the near future at least). Considering that the dissolution/partition of the Irish state is highly unlikely to occur any time soon, I really don’t think it’s an issue.

dsmythy wrote: »

Like i said we would have to pick a figure somewhere. We can't keep living without some sort of limits.

You have just picked a figure out of thin air – it means nothing. Having such a limit in place would only serve to allay your irrational fear of immigrants taking over the country in a violent and bloody conflict.

dsmythy wrote: »

I'm talking about further in the future (20-30 years perhaps) where ethnic or racial violence isn't near exclusive to white Irish being the group responsible.

What difference does it make WHEN it happens; it is still racists who are responsible. You are basically saying that:

1. If the number of non-Irish people in Ireland increases, then the probability of racially-motivated violence increases
2. In order to prevent this from happening, we should limit the number of non-Irish people in the country, rather than tackling the root of the problem, i.e. racism.

By the way, what about non-white Irish people? Should we limit their numbers as well? After all, they are just as likely to be the victims of racist attacks as foreigners, are they not? In fact, they are possibly at an even greater risk than white foreigners.

dsmythy wrote: »

I have to say there seems to be less comments along the "we need them" line than i thought. There would be a lot more talking about their contribution to the economy rather than we must have them.

Which is essentially what I have been saying; the free movement of people has, by-and-large, a positive impact on economic development.

dsmythy wrote: »

Mind you if you were wide open on your borders policy other EU states will send many of them on their way to you pretty quick i suspect.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here; if Ireland had completely open borders (which it can’t because it’s part of the EU), then other EU member states would deport all their unwanted migrants to Ireland? I don’t think so, mainly because it would be a violation of international law.

dsmythy wrote: »

Migration related violence levels.
...
A number of countries becoming polarised along ethnic lines.

This theme keeps on popping up in your posts; people of different races should be kept apart so we don’t offend the racists. By your logic, the rights of women should be restricted so we don’t offend the chauvinists.

dsmythy wrote: »

Any slowdown possibly caused by migrants.

I presume you mean an economic slowdown? How would this be directly attributed to immigrants? It could not be possibly attributed to ALL immigrants.

dsmythy wrote: »

Threats against Ireland and the Irish people. Any threat of violence from future Europe wide groups of disenfranchised immigrant descendants. Threats affecting other countries from certain migrant descendant groups that can be targetted and be brought to a halt.

Again with the violence.

Xenophobia: an irrational fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.

dsmythy wrote: »

They were pretty secure in their own futures until unrestricted newcomers came calling i'd say.

I think genocide probably had a lot to do with it.

dsmythy wrote: »

Indeed already small areas are affected. These will have the capacity to grow.

As I already mentioned, the “affected areas” are those that Irish people don’t want to live in (for the most part).

dsmythy wrote: »

How big would you allow this chunks of the state to disappear from Irish people?

They haven’t “disappeared”. If you’re so concerned, why don’t you and a bunch of your mates go and buy some flats on Parnell Street and rent them to Irish people.

dsmythy wrote: »

We could do with reducing the media you mention alright. Replace it with our own.

I was being sarcastic.

dsmythy wrote: »

They can reapply again after five years if they so wish. If we still need them we can accept their application.

And what if they decide they’d rather go somewhere where they don’t have to constantly re-new their visa? What if this system discourages immigrants from coming to Ireland in the first place (which is quite likely)? What then?

Liam Byrne

dsmythy wrote: »

Ah here, i never said that now.

True, you didn't QUITE say that, but you weren't a million miles away from it either - I did, admittedly, take the argument one step further.

dsmythy wrote: »

What Irish are you talking about? 20th century emigrants i presume?

Kinda (those would be the ones that emigrated anything up to 8 years ago, so it's not as far back as you're trying to imply) but it'd also include the ones that have emigrated during the last 8 years, AND the illegal ones in the U.S. that the Taoiseach & Co are kinda trying to get special treatment for.....strange how well we want to treat them when people here won't do the same for others....

dsmythy wrote: »

The stuff hitting the fan refers to an ethnic violence scenario.

Stuff hitting fan can include a lot of our own psychos and thugs too.....as said before, leave out the words racial and ethnic and you could get a LOT of agreement, but by singling out immigrants you're not convincing anyone or helping your argument.....

daithicarr

djpbarry wrote: »

As I already mentioned, the “affected areas” are those that Irish people don’t want to live in (for the most part).

Maybe "infected" Areas would be a more accurate description of some peoples views of these areas.

these places were immigrants make a majority in citys are normally very poor quality, so much so that most irish wont inhabit them, thats why the poorer recently arrived migrants move there. but like the Irish they want to move to nicer parts as soon as they can afford to, i dont think they are intresetd in making ethniclaly exclusive Foergin enclaves.

dsmythy

djpbarry wrote: »

There’s little point in trying to predict what political changes will occur over the next few centuries, so let’s deal with the present (or the near future at least). Considering that the dissolution/partition of the Irish state is highly unlikely to occur any time soon, I really don’t think it’s an issue.

I like to consider the future in such situations. I admit the Irish state isn't going anywhere in the next 20-30 years.

djpbarry wrote: »

You have just picked a figure out of thin air – it means nothing. Having such a limit in place would only serve to allay your irrational fear of immigrants taking over the country in a violent and bloody conflict.

Immigrant descendants more than the first generation. There's the fundamental difference between us. To you culture change will be a natural evolution of a still Irish culture as seen with migration in the past whereas to me it is culture replacement. We'll just have to consider all ideas until time proves things one way or the other.

djpbarry wrote: »

What difference does it make WHEN it happens; it is still racists who are responsible. You are basically saying that:

1. If the number of non-Irish people in Ireland increases, then the probability of racially-motivated violence increases
2. In order to prevent this from happening, we should limit the number of non-Irish people in the country, rather than tackling the root of the problem, i.e. racism.

By the way, what about non-white Irish people? Should we limit their numbers as well? After all, they are just as likely to be the victims of racist attacks as foreigners, are they not? In fact, they are possibly at an even greater risk than white foreigners.

It's a noble cause, the tackling of racism, but i don't think it will go away for a long time. Sad but true. We can continue to condemn it and not let people get away with it though. I despise it.

Non-white Irish people are mostly immigrant descendant. It depends on their integration with Irish people whether they retain that identity. Total integration is something i wish for. We can't limit Irish people regardless of their race.

Those with combined Irish and non-Irish descendancy will be quicker to identify themselves as Irish and so i see little trouble with their integraton into Ireland. They've already one foot in the door and the other will follow quickly.

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here; if Ireland had completely open borders (which it can’t because it’s part of the EU), then other EU member states would deport all their unwanted migrants to Ireland? I don’t think so, mainly because it would be a violation of international law.

Fair points. But anybody really interested in asylum in Europe will be aware of Ireland in such a situation. If they are caught on their way by other EU countries they won't arrive obviously. Not on that run anyway.

djpbarry wrote: »

This theme keeps on popping up in your posts; people of different races should be kept apart so we don’t offend the racists. By your logic, the rights of women should be restricted so we don’t offend the chauvinists.

No that theme does not pop up at all. I don't care what race they are. Your making implications here i don't like.

djpbarry wrote: »

I presume you mean an economic slowdown? How would this be directly attributed to immigrants? It could not be possibly attributed to ALL immigrants.

I'm not an economist. I'm sure there is situations possible where immigrants and their descendants or presumed descendants actually harm a region more than help it. Right now I'm not aware of any total immigrant examples.

Although i did see on a bbc documentary where they found for example Indian immigrants and descendants being helpful to the British economy compared to Portuguese who are doing the opposite.

djpbarry wrote: »

Xenophobia: an irrational fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.

Meh. The 20% would be more 1% if that were true of me. I don't make presumptions on your character anywhere.

djpbarry wrote: »

And what if they decide they’d rather go somewhere where they don’t have to constantly re-new their visa? What if this system discourages immigrants from coming to Ireland in the first place (which is quite likely)? What then?

Then the 20% rule would be irrelevent. Like you said, they will still come if the jobs and money are here. A simple five yearly event isn't going to really hamper them that much.

dsmythy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

True, you didn't QUITE say that, but you weren't a million miles away from it either - I did, admittedly, take the argument one step further.

I was a million miles away from it. Nowhere did i say we deport most immigrants.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Kinda (those would be the ones that emigrated anything up to 8 years ago, so it's not as far back as you're trying to imply) but it'd also include the ones that have emigrated during the last 8 years, AND the illegal ones in the U.S. that the Taoiseach & Co are kinda trying to get special treatment for.....strange how well we want to treat them when people here won't do the same for others....

What about them anyway? Whatever country they go to have the right to allow or disallow them entry accordingly.

I don't like what the Taoiseach and the illegal Irish immigrant lobby are doing. They are illegal immigrants. The U.S. should do whatever is necessary. They should be returned to Ireland if U.S. law says so.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Stuff hitting fan can include a lot of our own psychos and thugs too.....as said before, leave out the words racial and ethnic and you could get a LOT of agreement, but by singling out immigrants you're not convincing anyone or helping your argument.....

Eh yeah you can't get ethnic or racial violence unless there's two sides to it. That's a presumption i am making when i mention it. Where did i say immigrant descendants would be going on solo reigns of violence? Where do i state it as fact that it will happen at all?

I'm keeping an open mind on things.

djpbarry

dsmythy wrote: »

Immigrant descendants more than the first generation.

So when you say we should limit the number of foreign-nationals to 20% of the total population, you are including the Irish-born descendents of immigrants in that figure?

dsmythy wrote: »

To you culture change will be a natural evolution of a still Irish culture as seen with migration in the past...

How much of what you consider to be Irish culture (I'm not entirely sure what that is) do you think originated on this island? To take just one example, our patron saint was Welsh.

dsmythy wrote: »

It's a noble cause, the tackling of racism, but i don't think it will go away for a long time. Sad but true. We can continue to condemn it and not let people get away with it though.

I don't think racism is going to go away either, but that doesn't mean we should shy away from it and attempt to appease the racists.

dsmythy wrote: »

Non-white Irish people are mostly immigrant descendant. It depends on their integration with Irish people whether they retain that identity. Total integration is something i wish for.

Why? If someone is born in Ireland of say, French parents, what difference does it make (to the general populace) whether the child considers themselves French or Irish; that's their decision. I would be very surprised if the child does not identify in any way with France.

dsmythy wrote: »

Those with combined Irish and non-Irish descendancy will be quicker to identify themselves as Irish and so i see little trouble with their integraton into Ireland.

This is not always going to be the case, but again, what difference does it make? We can't go around telling people that they're Irish and they can only do Irish things that Irish people do. Besides, there are plenty of Irish people who take an interest in foreign cultures. Cultures are going to change and merge whether you like it or not; there is very little that can be done to stop it. Why the need to force everyone to conform?

dsmythy wrote: »

But anybody really interested in asylum in Europe will be aware of Ireland in such a situation.

A situation that cannot exist within the EU.

dsmythy wrote: »

I'm sure there is situations possible where immigrants and their descendants or presumed descendants actually harm a region more than help it.

I'm sure there are cases of individuals becoming an economic burden, yes.

dsmythy wrote: »

Right now I'm not aware of any total immigrant examples.

Probably because there are no examples; one cannot say with any degree of certainty that if we admit a person from country X, they will remain unemployed during their stay in this country and will cost us Y euros. Sure, you can apply the laws of probability based on statistical evidence, but this would constitute discrimination based on race/nationality.

dsmythy wrote: »

Although i did see on a bbc documentary where they found for example Indian immigrants and descendants being helpful to the British economy compared to Portuguese who are doing the opposite.

I believe this is the documentary you are referring to.

dsmythy wrote: »

Then the 20% rule would be irrelevent.

Suppose we have passed the 20% mark but we're still way short of doctors, but none want to come to Ireland because of our restrictive immigration system?

dsmythy wrote: »

A simple five yearly event isn't going to really hamper them that much.

Won't it? Would you relocate to a country with your partner/family to settle down if there was a chance you would all be deported in 5 years time? I doubt it.

gerthewanker

Would the BNP be the model for such a party?

Meath999

Oh leave us alone pls, will ya ??????????

Meath999

Liam Byrne wrote: »

We don't have snakes, tarantulas, George Bush or a myriad of other unwelcome things that other countries have, either; why question it ?

Thank St. Patrick for that.