What do you think of Kevin Myers/Immigration?

The Raven.

2-D Man wrote: »

An English immigrant (and columnist) lecturing Irish people on immigration......

Well if he's an example of the influx we can expect we should close the borders now

Would you call Éamon de Valera an immigrant? He only had one Irish parent. His mother was Irish and his father was Cuban (according to him), and he was born in New York.

He 'lectured' to Irish people rather a lot also. Maybe we should have closed the borders before he arrived.
!!

wes

ionix5891 wrote: »

fair enough you are right it would be hard for the public sector to get anything right on time or budget, was just an interesting idea i taught up of since the lack of interest in politics has got this country into a wee mess

anyways not to detract from the subject at hand of Mr Myers

Well, yes the idea is interesting, but also rather horrifying as well, but your right, best to move on.

2-D Man

The Raven. wrote: »

Would you call Éamon de Valera an immigrant? He only had one Irish parent. His mother was Irish and his father was Cuban (according to him), and he was born in New York.

He 'lectured' to Irish people rather a lot also. Maybe we should have closed the borders before he arrived.
!!

I have my opinions of De Valera and he certainly wouldn't be a favourite of mine either.

The difference however was that De Valera embraced his Irishness and considered himeself Irish. Unlike Myers who is only Irish when it suits him (Yes I'm aware Dev said he was American to avoid being executed) Myers is almost ashamed to be considered Irish. His moronic ramblings in his column are testament to this.

InFront

The Raven. wrote: »

He 'lectured' to Irish people rather a lot also. Maybe we should have closed the borders before he arrived.
!!

Well the guy was partially responsible for a civil war that pitted brother against brother and sullied the early days of the Republic in blood for no ultimate benefit, he wasn't exactly the Pops in slippers type...I don't think that's as outrageous a suggestion as you think!

Bottle_of_Smoke

2-D Man wrote: »

I have my opinions of De Valera and he certainly wouldn't be a favourite of mine either.

The difference however was that De Valera embraced his Irishness and considered himeself Irish. Unlike Myers who is only Irish when it suits him (Yes I'm aware Dev said he was American to avoid being executed) Myers is almost ashamed to be considered Irish. His moronic ramblings in his column are testament to this.

Can you point to any in particular?

Not being a 32-county republican doesn't mean you're not Irish.

I agree with his message in that interview.

What he didn't mention is that if we aren't going to allow discussion of immigration without branding people racists Irish versions of the BNP are going to start gaining support like the BNP are in the UK. I think all those who attacked Myers in this thread will agree that's a much scarier prospect than anything Myers has ever suggested.

O'Morris

Kevin Myers is a national institution and if we didn't have him our democracy would be greatly impoverished.

I'm fully in agreement with what he has to say on the subject of immigration and I'm just glad that I have someone as articulate and as literate as him on my side of the debate.

I think its worth quoting some of the things he has written on the subject. Taken from here

Kevin Myers wrote:

Immigration is now not merely the dominant feature of Irish life, it is the greatest threat to the existence of the Irish nation as a coherent, and cohesive whole.

In the next few paragraphs he goes on to point out the main problem with immigration into Ireland - the scale of the influx when compared with other countries.

Kevin Myers wrote:

No country has ever accepted, never mind assimilated, the volumes of foreigners now present in this state. We have some 400,000 legal immigrants; but everyone knows that the army of illegals, especially Africans and Chinese, is vast, and probably tops 200,000. In all, Ireland has received at least 600,000 immigrants, most of them within the past five years. It could be many more. No one has the least idea.

In the US, such immigration would translate into an inward population movement of 45 million. In the UK, the figure would be nine million. Needless to say, neither state would be so idiotic or feckless as allow such vast numbers to enter.

Only Ireland would be so idiotic and so morally lethargic as to allow such massive inward population movements.

But by far the most important point he makes is the cowardice of our politicians in refusing to debate the issue honestly and openly.

Kevin Myers wrote:

And of course, we haven't got the resources to cope with the consequences of such an influx. But worse than our lack of resources, is our lack of courage in confronting the issue.

We do not have policies, but inept evasiveness: and perhaps worst of all, we have a posturing gallery of home-grown jackanapes ready to shriek "racism" wherever and whenever they see that things are not going quite the way that immigrants want.

O'Morris

O'Morris wrote: »

But by far the most important point he makes is the cowardice of our politicians in refusing to debate the issue honestly and openly.

Someone should direct them to stormfront...
Mind you the good thing is Irish people unlike myers and the stormfronter klu klux clan wanabe's are not xenophobic.

Nodin

O'Morris wrote: »

Kevin Myers is a national institution and if we didn't have him our democracy would be greatly impoverished. .

Indeed - imagine how barren our intellectual landscape would be without such gems as this

Myers wrote:

How many girls - and we’re largely talking about teenagers here - consciously embark upon a career of mothering bastards because it seems a good way of getting money and accommodation from the State?

O'Morris wrote: »

I'm fully in agreement with what he has to say on the subject of immigration and I'm just glad that I have someone as articulate and as literate as him on my side of the debate. .

Yes....

Myers wrote:

What most struck me while watching BBC television news reports of the Christmas sales in the West End of London, was firstly obvious, and secondly, it was something that no-one with the BBC would ever have remarked on. It was this. The shoppers—and there were thousands of them—were overwhelmingly of Asian or African origin. In the vast throngs of faces, there was barely a Caucasian face to be seen; and when there was, of course, that was no guarantee that it was British.

...probably one of the most 'articulate' and 'literate' exclamations of 'I don't like Darkiez' we will see in our lifetime.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Nodin wrote: »

Myers: What most struck me while watching BBC television news reports of the Christmas sales in the West End of London, was firstly obvious, and secondly, it was something that no-one with the BBC would ever have remarked on. It was this. The shoppers—and there were thousands of them—were overwhelmingly of Asian or African origin. In the vast throngs of faces, there was barely a Caucasian face to be seen; and when there was, of course, that was no guarantee that it was British.

...probably one of the most 'articulate' and 'literate' exclamations of 'I don't like Darkiez' we will see in our lifetime.

That's bollocks Nodin, and its exactly what he's talking about in the interview. He was explaining what struck him. Didn't say anything about not liking anyone.

When I first went to London it struck me how many people were of Asian background, if I were to say that out loud am I suddenly a racist? Why can't people comment about what they're thinking?

P. Breathnach

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

... Why can't people comment about what they're thinking?

They can. It might reveal that they are racist.

Nodin

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That's bollocks Nodin, and its exactly what he's talking about in the interview. He was explaining what struck him. Didn't say anything about not liking anyone.

Bollocks eh?

And this, from the same rather notorious rant, doesn't strike you as a little bit 'Wake Up Whiteman!!'?

Huge areas of Britain have become foreign colonies, which demographically and culturally dominate the native populations. This is not the much-cherished melting-pot of liberal ideologists: it is more like the race movements into Australia and the Americas from Europe, with the Aboriginals nearly as helpless as the wretched natives of those former colonies.

Were I you, I'd look up the whole piece before defending the bould Kev. I'm somewhat loath to link it from the ring wing source I lifted it from.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

When I first went to London it struck me how many people were of Asian background, if I were to say that out loud am I suddenly a racist? Why can't people comment about what they're thinking?

Well, when I went to London, it was the first time I'd ever seen anyone in a Turban, a Sari or a burkha. Fair enough I was a lad of about 16 at the time, but even if it was now some 24/25 years later I don't think it would give me the urge to write a 'them today/us tommorrow' bit of scare journalism about it.

Bottle_of_Smoke

P. Breathnach wrote: »

They can. It might reveal that they are racist.

I meant that in the context of the sentence before the one you quoted. If it strikes you that a lot of people in a western city are of Asian/African background the first time you're there are you automatically a massive racist who doesn't like darkies?

That's political correctness g*ne m*d!

P. Breathnach

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I meant that in the context of the sentence before the one you quoted. If it strikes you that a lot of people in a western city are of Asian/African background the first time you're there are you automatically a massive racist who doesn't like darkies?

That's political correctness g*ne m*d!

If the only thing you notice or comment on is the colour of people's skin, chance are that you are reacting in a racist way.

Nodin

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I meant that in the context of the sentence before the one you quoted. If it strikes you that a lot of people in a western city are of Asian/African background the first time you're there are you automatically a massive racist who doesn't like darkies?

That's political correctness g*ne m*d!

Well, that would be, but thats not quite what Kev was at.

ionix5891

Nodin wrote: »

Well, that would be, but thats not quite what Kev was at.

one can easily say walking down a street in dublin about the amounts of "chavs" around, but one does not

Nodin

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If the only thing you notice or comment on is the colour of people's skin, chance are that you are reacting in a racist way.

In fairness, I don't think that what hes getting at. First time in a truly 'big smoke' can be quite striking. Its kev myarse thats the guilty party here, as his rant shows.

Bottle_of_Smoke

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If the only thing you notice or comment on is the colour of people's skin, chance are that you are reacting in a racist way.

Ok that's just semantics and you know exactly what I meant by a "massive racist"

Saying people of oriental background are more likely to be lactose intolerant or that whites are more prone to skin cancer are racist comments but its not biggotry

When I was in London for the first time it did strike me how many people were Asian/Black but I didn't have a problem with it. If I thought "there's a lot of Pakis and **** around, that's terrible" it would be racist/bigotted and thats what people mean by the term racist. Don't know why I'm explaining, you're clearly well aware of that.

Sesshoumaru

ionix5891 wrote: »

why the governemnt?

why not have a Driving License type of institution?

get your voting card if you can:
* show commitment to the state (above other concerns)
* know the differences between left and right in politics
* show basic knowledge of how the political system works at local/national/eu levels
* tell difference between representative and direct democracy


driving licenses are issued as not knowing the rules of the road and how to drive can kill people

well electing the wrong people can kill even more people (Nazi Germany), start wars (USA in Iraq) and force misery on nation (N. Korea), or bankrupt a country (Ireland)

so here we have a Political Driving/Voting License test




do we get giant space faring bugs



yes I agree it is a slippery slope, and no im not singling out religious people (just the extreme nuts), but i think history has shown as to what can happen if extremists like Church in Middle Ages, Nazis or Communists last century, come to power

.

Good idea in principle. Too many people in this country think the state is there to provide for all their needs. Having a requirement to show some commitment to your country and our shared ideals before being allowed to vote would be excellent!

oscarBravo

Let's keep this on-topic, please. Discussion of a "voting licence" is distinctly off-topic.

Kai

af_thefragile wrote: »

Atheism is a belief that there is no god. More fundamentally atheism (from the definition of "religion") "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" and so it is a religion, just like all other religions.

So under your criteria science is a religion? Your posts seem to written to attract attention. Perhaps yourself and Kevin have some similarities. "Does it matter what i say as long as someone reads and reacts." Ive yet to see something worth reading from either apart from inflammatory nonsense based on twisted logic.

But sure carry on its obviously working for you, which is a bit disheartening.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Nodin wrote: »

Bollocks eh?

And this, from the same rather notorious rant, doesn't strike you as a little bit 'Wake Up Whiteman!!'?



Were I you, I'd look up the whole piece before defending the bould Kev. I'm somewhat loath to link it from the ring wing source I lifted it from.

Perhaps it does, but why is that such a threat? Why do we have to insist on reading between the lines on race topics rather than listen to exactly what the person is saying and respond to that?

When I said it was bollocks I meant it solely about what you quoted in that post. I don't think there was anything offensive there and I thought you were implying that in itself made Myers a massive bigot.

Look at how the UK has gone, the BNP is going to start gaining ground and they would have a lot less members if mainstream politicical parties were free to discuss future immigration.

I fully believe the only reason the BNP don't have significant membership here is the first word in their name. Were they to be called the "British and Irish National Party" they'd already have some native Irish members. They won't do that as its a contradiction in terms as it implies nationality over two juristictions.

When we have a larger amount of second generation Blacks/Asians in a few years there will be a BNP type group here radicalizing people with middle of the road attitudes to immigration, and it will be the fault of the knee-jerkers screaming racism at people like Kevin Myers and Leo Varadkar

Well, when I went to London, it was the first time I'd ever seen anyone in a Turban, a Sari or a burkha. Fair enough I was a lad of about 16 at the time, but even if it was now some 24/25 years later I don't think it would give me the urge to write a 'them today/us tommorrow' bit of scare journalism about it.

Fair enough, but as above, in the context of that quote I don't think it should be considered an offensive thing to say.

Did you watch the interview? It comes across a lot differently to his articles as you don't read between the lines you just listen to him

dvpower

I think we should let him stay.

P. Breathnach

dvpower wrote: »

I think we should let him stay.

Stay where?

Nodin

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Perhaps it does, but why is that such a threat? Why do we have to insist on reading between the lines on race topics rather than listen to exactly what the person is saying and respond to that?

Well with Kev, that article didn't require any reading between the lines at all. Its a stereotypical racist rant put in 'middle class' language, even with the classic 'don't say you weren't warned' at the end. I heard from ss soldier-tatooed skins at the end of the 80's, I've read it from yanks whinging about muslims taking over Europe, and its all the same fearful nasty gack.

Affable

Nodin wrote: »

First time in a truly 'big smoke' can be quite striking.

How do you mean?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Nodin wrote: »

Well with Kev, that article didn't require any reading between the lines at all. Its a stereotypical racist rant put in 'middle class' language, even with the classic 'don't say you weren't warned' at the end. I heard from ss soldier-tatooed skins at the end of the 80's, I've read it from yanks whinging about muslims taking over Europe, and its all the same fearful nasty gack.

I'm just wondering is it possible to talk rationally about restricting future immigration without being labelled a bigot?

I don't think its a racist rant. I think its a logical observation described in over-hyped metaphors to get a reaction. I don't think that's a crime, and wouldn't be frowned upon for any other issue expcept for religion.

As I keep saying, if you treat people like myers with the same attitude as ss soldier-tattooed skins from the 80s the people who would follow Myers will end up in BNP type organisations in the future.

Nodin

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'm just wondering is it possible to talk rationally about restricting future immigration without being labelled a bigot?

Absolutely, provided you don't talk like one. He, however, wasn't. Nor do I accept that it was an accidental similarity.

dlofnep

He is a complete and utter shítehawk. Nothing more to say really.

The Raven.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'm just wondering is it possible to talk rationally about restricting future immigration without being labelled a bigot?

In some circles, that would indeed appear to be the case.

This discussion is imbued with elements of hypocrisy, as it is tainted with an underlying, unhealthy dislike of a person because he is considered English. Ironically, the prevalence of Anglophobia seems to be arrogantly deemed acceptable, while rational, intelligent debate on the dangers of unrestricted immigration is vociferously denied, with tedious accusations of bigoted racism. As children, we were force-fed by nuns with xenophobic mantras such as ‘Burn everything English, except their coal’.

If Kevin Myers had changed his name to Caoimhín O'Meagher (or whatever Gaelic translation), and developed an inner city or rural Irish accent, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion. But since he hasn’t, he may be regarded by some as a ‘blow-in’ for the next thousand years, with the misguided, relentless politically correct, yet anti-British, brigade refusing to take an objective view of anything he says.

Joey the lips

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'm just wondering is it possible to talk rationally about restricting future immigration without being labelled a bigot?

I don't think its a racist rant. I think its a logical observation described in over-hyped metaphors to get a reaction. I don't think that's a crime, and wouldn't be frowned upon for any other issue expcept for religion.

As I keep saying, if you treat people like myers with the same attitude as ss soldier-tattooed skins from the 80s the people who would follow Myers will end up in BNP type organisations in the future.

2 things spring to mind!

1. Most decent people who follow the thread can spot the gobsh1tes so dont worry just because your called a biggot or look like a biggot we can read between the lines

2. Considering Conor Lenahen is the minister for Intergration I think we Irish look like complete and utter feckin idiots in europe so dont worry about being a bigot!

But I agree with nodin as well!