Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Immigration.
Options
Comments
-
Hang on a second.
If you think that we can't even feed our current population without fossil fuels then why do you want to increase our population via immigration.
It's almost like you have no idea what you're talking about and just want to argue for the sake of it in order to appear "right on" ......0 -
You said that Pakistan arguably topped the list of Islamic fundamentalist countries/states in the world, which is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Now you’re shifting the goalposts because you know you can’t back it up with anything.johnathan woss wrote: »It is clear what i mean from the context of what I said in relation to Britain/Pakistan/France/Algeria.
There are large fundamentalist areas in Pakistan and a large number of fundamentalists.
Pakistan as an entity could in fact collapse at any time and the west is very worried about this.
I have absolutely no idea. Do you have evidence that suggests that this is the case?johnathan woss wrote: »Do you want to argue against the point that the average pakistani immigrant into Britian (and their descendants) is more fundamentalist than the average Algerian immigrant into France ?
Actually, I’ve just had a quick look at the make-up of the Algerian National Assembly and there seems to be a far larger Islamist presence than there is in the Pakistani Parliament.
Virtually impossible at present I would have thought.johnathan woss wrote: »Feeding Ireland without fossil fuels will of course be VERY difficult...
I don’t think that Ireland can survive without fossil fuels, therefore I should be anti-immigration? Well that’s quite a novel angle, I must admit.johnathan woss wrote: »If you think that we can't even feed our current population without fossil fuels then why do you want to increase our population via immigration.0 -
You said that Pakistan arguably topped the list of Islamic fundamentalist countries/states in the world, which is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Now you’re shifting the goalposts because you know you can’t back it up with anything.
I never ever mentioned the word "state".
Large parts of Pakistan have absolutely no allegiance to the Pakistani "state".
You are simply going off on a trolling tangent.I have absolutely no idea. Do you have evidence that suggests that this is the case?
Actually, I’ve just had a quick look at the make-up of the Algerian National Assembly and there seems to be a far larger Islamist presence than there is in the Pakistani Parliament.
It would be helpful if you read entire posts.
I said that the Algerian immigrants to France were largely SUPPORTERS of the French regime that feared the backlash from the fundamentalist muslims after the civil war.Virtually impossible at present I would have thought.
I don’t think that Ireland can survive without fossil fuels, therefore I should be anti-immigration? Well that’s quite a novel angle, I must admit.
Why do you want to increase Ireland's population ?
Edit: Unless you think fossil fuels are infinite. Now that's a novel angle.0 -
Huh? Did you see the Danish cartoons fiasco?
Or the Theo Van Gogh thing? Rushdie's Fatois?
Rushdie's knighthood being stopped because of 'offence' it may cause?
7/7
Richard Reid
Abu Hamza
Imperiliast Islam
etc etc
Don't tell me islamophobia doesn't have a rational basis.
Dear o dear.......Yes, I'll tell you it has no rational basis. And unless you can relate that to here, I'd suggest starting a thread.All of the above (.....)in the Quran.
Yeah, thats great. Start a thread.....0 -
Dear o dear.......Yes, I'll tell you it has no rational basis. And unless you can relate that to here, I'd suggest starting a thread.
.....
I dn't need to start a thread, I was responding to the guy. I preume you share his absurd opinion that all the problems that have arisen with Islam in Europe are due to 'Islamophobia'.0 -
Advertisement
-
Dear o dear.......Yes, I'll tell you it has no rational basis. And unless you can relate that to here, I'd suggest starting a thread.
Yeah, thats great. Start a thread.....
There are people living here who have fought in Jihads around the world (muslims have told me this).
Some of the senior members of Al Qaeda in Europe were living here at the time of the 9/11 attacks.
If you think nothing can happen "here" you are sadly mistaken.0 -
:rolleyes: Resorting to semantics now? Country, state, nation, whatever you want to call it. Your statement was still nonsense.johnathan woss wrote: »I never ever mentioned the word "state".
Fair enough. I still don’t know where you’re going with this.johnathan woss wrote: »I said that the Algerian immigrants to France were largely SUPPORTERS of the French regime that feared the backlash from the fundamentalist muslims after the civil war.
I don’t recall saying that I did. I don’t have much of an opinion on the subject either way.johnathan woss wrote: »Why do you want to increase Ireland's population ?0 -
As if to further emphasize the fact that immigration is not the big issue for most people that some would like to think it is, the Immigration Control Platform has once again polled abysmally in Dublin Central (an area with a relatively high non-Irish contingent), receiving just 2.2% of the vote.0
-
:rolleyes: Resorting to semantics now? Country, state, nation, whatever you want to call it. Your statement was still nonsense.
You are the one resorting to semantics, not I.
Pakistan has a population of about 167 million. I would say there are more Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan than in any other country on Earth.
Saudi Arabia, in comparison, has a population of about 25 million.Fair enough. I still don’t know where you’re going with this.
I'm not going anywhere with this.
All I said was that I wouldn't blame Islam for all the racial tension in France.
YOU are the one constantly going somewhere with this with your sniping.I don’t recall saying that I did. I don’t have much of an opinion on the subject either way.
Immigration increases the population.
That's not difficult to understand, is it ?0 -
I dn't need to start a thread, I was responding to the guy. I preume you share his absurd opinion that all the problems that have arisen with Islam in Europe are due to 'Islamophobia'.
9/10ths of it, yep.johnathon woss wrote:Some of the senior members of Al Qaeda in Europe were living here at the time of the 9/11 attacks..
Source?djpbarry wrote:As if to further emphasize the fact that immigration is not the big issue for most people that some would like to think it is, the Immigration Control Platform has once again polled abysmally in Dublin Central (an area with a relatively high non-Irish contingent), receiving just 2.2% of the vote. ..
Excellent.0 -
Advertisement
-
And I’d say the moon is made of cheese.johnathan woss wrote: »Pakistan has a population of about 167 million. I would say there are more Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan than in any other country on Earth.
Ok. And?johnathan woss wrote: »Immigration increases the population.0 -
You are referring to muslim extremists. Not "muslims". Its akin to lumping all Irish during the 70s and 80s as terrorists. If you were about in those days, how did it feel to be baselessly mistrusted and lumped into this extremist pigeon-hole?Huh? Did you see the Danish cartoons fiasco?
Or the Theo Van Gogh thing? Rushdie's Fatois?
Rushdie's knighthood being stopped because of 'offence' it may cause?
7/7
Richard Reid
Abu Hamza
Imperiliast Islam
etc etc
Don't tell me islamophobia doesn't have a rational basis.
"Imperialist Islam"??? lol :rolleyes:0 -
Source?
LOL. ROFL. Stop!!!!
I notice the leftwing on this site are continually arguing for source. YOu know. In case we are making it up cos of "Islamophobia".
Yet there are 7 years olds who know that Mohamad Atta ( who I feel I have to point out - piloted AA11 into the world Trade centre) worked and lived and got a degree in Germany.
Ever a chance you would google your own sources, or it is just a typing spasm to say "source" every time you get a fact you disagree with.
My feeling on Islam in Europe is that it will lead to the destruction of a European city. This is not so much Islamophobia, as listening to Al Queda ( including Osama) and what they say, and looking at the problem in the Pakistan.
Now we have two options
1) CLose the borders to Pakistan - which is the legitimate right of every sovereign nation
2) Take the inevitable destruction of a city.
I think 2) will happen. If it happens we should hold responsible all the agents for the genocide, the people involved, and their enablers - the politically correct left.0 -
-
3) Stop listening to Geert Wilders.
Stop listening to Naom Chomsky.
( I never have listened to Wilders.)
In leftwing fundamentalism you keep having anti-heroes who, when defined as heretic , are seen in a parnoid fashion as the influencers of everybody else. Despite the fact they would have a good deal less access to media than the liberal establishment.
Your ideas ( clearly the ideas of the elite) are your own. Non political correct ideas must be informed by evil ( or some ophobia or other), or by a nasty heretic with little access to any media source. I have never read anything by Wilders. Or much about him. Unfortunately I know everything that Vincent Browne opines on.
You just have to invoke the heretical name and no argument needs otherwise ensue, like a Protestant naming some infamous Jesuit.
( But then PC has religious elements)0 -
djpbarry wrote:As if to further emphasize the fact that immigration is not the big issue for most people that some would like to think it is, the Immigration Control Platform has once again polled abysmally in Dublin Central (an area with a relatively high non-Irish contingent), receiving just 2.2% of the vote.
Patrick Talbot has more than doubled his vote compared with the previous election. According to wikipedia, he got 0.69% of the vote in 2007. This time he got 2.2% of the first preference votes. I don't know if the same could be said for any of the other candidates in that constituency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Control_Platform
The problem for the ICP is that they're not a registered political party and so their candidates have to stand as independents. Because of that many voters would not be aware that an anti-mass-immigration candidate is standing for election.
As for your claim that immigration is not a big issue for most people, I think we both know that's not true. Just wait and see how well Libertas does in the European elections.0 -
I’m not a fan of Chomsky myself.Stop listening to Naom Chomsky.
Fair enough, but “the inevitable destruction of a European city” is straight out of the (rather ironically named) Party for Freedom’s handbook.I never have listened to Wilders.
Do you honestly believe that the average Pakistani poses a threat to Ireland? That closing our borders to Pakistan will somehow make this country a better place?0 -
Clutching at the proverbial plant fibre.Patrick Talbot has more than doubled his vote compared with the previous election.
Every address in the constituency received a litir um thoghchán from the ICP.The problem for the ICP is that they're not a registered political party and so their candidates have to stand as independents. Because of that many voters would not be aware that an anti-mass-immigration candidate is standing for election.
Eh, they’re performing abysmally too – 4% nationally according to an RTE exit poll. Ganley is the only one in with an outside chance of a seat. The other two candidates in Ireland, both of whom played the immigration card extensively, received virtually no support.As for your claim that immigration is not a big issue for most people, I think we both know that's not true. Just wait and see how well Libertas does in the European elections.0 -
Do you honestly believe that the average Pakistani poses a threat to Ireland? That closing our borders to Pakistan will somehow make this country a better place?
No I believe that some Pakistanis pose a threat which could well be genocidal. A very small minority. Nevertheless, an established pakistani population sympatheic to Al Queda ( as some 30% of British Pakistanis are) is not necessarily a good idea given the nuclear situation in Pakistan.
There is a French philosopher who has coined the term Immigrationist to define people who always, and everywhere, defend immigration from everywhere, and with no regard to economic or cultural consequences. This is a radicalism posing as normalcy. The opposition radical approach is the BNP nonsense, the closing of all borders, and deportation of people.
The BNP should lose its deposit everywhere. Like radical parties of the left. The fact it doesn't is testament to the cost of it's two opposing radicalism - Open Borders fanaticism breeds closed border fanaticism.
The middle ground is not allowed. A middle ground would be to open borders to skilled or unskilled immigrants during boom times, subject to the economic costs on the poor already in the host country, or the infrastructure; and to take culture and the potential of terrorism into account. And to close borders a bit during times of recession. Libertas claimed that ground and immediately was denounced as racist, or xenophobic.
That middle ground is also called racist by the Immigrationists. So the situation inevitably becomes more radicalized. Look to the European elections. The far right is increasing, the loss is from the soft left.
And this is despite a liberal hegemony which makes it impossible for the far right to get easy funding, or TV access. Im fine with that, except the opposing radicalism is dominant, and seen as "normal". Which it isn't.0 -
Eh, they’re performing abysmally too – 4% nationally according to an RTE exit poll. Ganley is the only one in with an outside chance of a seat. The other two candidates in Ireland, both of whom played the immigration card extensively, received virtually no support.
This tells you nothing. They are not established parties. I mean why is anyone voting for FF? Are you saying that all FF voters are immigrationist?
Hardly. Opinion polls tell the story. And we know that Europe wide immigration is a big issue.0 -
Advertisement
-
30% ? I find that quite hard to believe.Nevertheless, an established pakistani population sympatheic to Al Queda ( as some 30% of British Pakistanis are)...
You can’t really equate as equal and opposite an open-borders mindset with the closed-borders mindset. A completely closed-borders approach (i.e. keep everyone from moving either in or out, e.g. Cuba, North Korea) makes absolutely no sense under any economic circumstances. An open-borders approach on the other hand makes quite a lot of sense and has been, by-and-large, one of the major successes of the EU. Granted, there are cultural factors to be taken into consideration, but this comes back to the subjective concept of “integration”, which means different things to different people.There is a French philosopher who has coined the term Immigrationist to define people who always, and everywhere, defend immigration from everywhere, and with no regard to economic or cultural consequences. This is a radicalism posing as normalcy. The opposition radical approach is the BNP nonsense, the closing of all borders, and deportation of people.
Closing borders (a bit) during a recession doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Why? Because if we close our borders to other nations, they will most likely reciprocate. The whole point of having free movement of people within the EU is to allow them to move from areas of high unemployment to areas of (relatively) low unemployment. Granted, EU-wide unemployment is relatively high at present, but in Ireland it is off the charts (and still rising). Closing off the release valve (even if it is presently a small valve) would not be wise, particularly when we take into account that it is expected that the global economy will begin to recover before Ireland’s does.A middle ground would be to open borders to skilled or unskilled immigrants during boom times, subject to the economic costs on the poor already in the host country, or the infrastructure; and to take culture and the potential of terrorism into account. And to close borders a bit during times of recession.
No, I’m not. I’m saying that any party that focuses on immigration at the expense of all other issues is not going to fare well. O’Morris and others have in the past maintained that any party that plays up the significance of immigration would enjoy large support in this country (e.g. a BNP-style party). Based on these election results, that does not appear to be the case.This tells you nothing. They are not established parties. I mean why is anyone voting for FF? Are you saying that all FF voters are immigrationist?
Edit: One other thing; not in this reality, or any other, do Libertas occupy the "Middle Ground".0 -
LOL. ROFL. Stop!!!!
I notice the leftwing on this site are continually arguing for source. YOu know. In case we are making it up cos of "Islamophobia".
Yet there are 7 years olds who know that Mohamad Atta ( who I feel I have to point out - piloted AA11 into the world Trade centre) worked and lived and got a degree in Germany. .
Hmmmmm. What was I responding to? O yes......
Some of the senior members of Al Qaeda in Europe were living here at the time of the 9/11 attacks..
This is boards.ie not boards.de last I looked....My feeling on Islam in (....)correct left.
Ahh yes, 'the coming apocalypse'....Simplistic, xenophobic hysteria.
I never knew I was 'politically correct'.O'Morris wrote:Patrick Talbot has more than doubled his vote compared with the previous election. .
...and is still irrelevant, even in times when that kind of party might be expected to do well. Deadly.0 -
Some of the senior members of Al Qaeda in Europe were living here at the time of the 9/11 attacks..
This is boards.ie not boards.de last I looked....
The In Europe bit escaped you then.Ahh yes, 'the coming apocalypse'....Simplistic, xenophobic hysteria.
I never knew I was 'politically correct'.
OH NO!!! You called me a xenophobe!!! I hope there isnt a HATE CRIMES TRIBUNAL.
But that is typical. No actual logical response at all. Just the ophobia nonsense.
Nonsense. The chances of an nuclear attack on a European city are increased by Islamic immigration.
Logically this is because
a) Islamic groups have specifically threatened it ( although more likely they have mentioned dirty bombs).
b) Islamic groups have had fairly spectacular attacks on the West already. the largest being an attack in New York which killed more than 3,000 people. However had the buldings fallen on impact the killings would have 20,000 or more.
c) There are links between Pakistani security forces, nuclear scientists and Islamic radicals.
d) There have been attacks in Europe in the last decade, not just America.
Now explain why these fears are ungrounded.
Try not to XENOPHOBIA in your answer as difficult as it is for the Pee Cee mind to argue without ad hominen, try it.I never knew I was 'politically correct'.
Stop. You are. cracking. me. up.0 -
djpbarry wrote:An open-borders approach on the other hand makes quite a lot of sense
No, it does not make sense. A more-the-merrier attitude to immigration is a bit like the traditional catholic attitude to family-planning. The economic argument used to justify mass immigration is not that much different from the argument that a poor farmer in 1930s Ireland would have used to justify having a large family. The more-hands-to-help-out-on-the-farm/sure won't-we-all-fit-in-the-one-bed school of economics might have made some sense in the uneducated mind of a small farmer but people in advanced and educated societies realise that there is a balance between quality of life and economic and population growth.djpbarry wrote:and has been, by-and-large, one of the major successes of the EU.
I disagree, I think it will eventually prove to be a major source of tension in the EU.djpbarry wrote:Closing borders (a bit) during a recession doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Why?
We are closing our borders (a bit) to every country in the world outside of the EU. We don't allow free movement to the Canadians or the Norwegians or the Australians or the Indians or the Chinese. And yet people from those countries can come and work in our country just as we can go and work in their countries, provided that there are the jobs available and that we and they fill out the necessary paperwork. What people in favour of immigration control are arguing for is not closing borders, it's about adopting the same controlled and regulated system of immigration that every sovereign country in the world once had and that most still do have. I want to see us having the same control over our immigration policy as a country like New Zealand or Canada or Australia has over their immigration. What's wrong with that?djpbarry wrote:Because if we close our borders to other nations, they will most likely reciprocate.
So if we replace the automatic right to work here with a work-permit or Visa system, the Poles will reciprocate by imposing the same system on us? Would that really be much of a problem? All it would mean is that Irish people would have to suffer the same inconvenience they have to suffer when applying for Visas to work in America or Australia.
And what if we do the opposite and we open our borders to other nations, will they reciprocate by opening their borders to us? Maybe it would have been better for us if we had open our borders to the Australians than it would have been for us to have opened them to the Poles.djpbarry wrote:The whole point of having free movement of people within the EU is to allow them to move from areas of high unemployment to areas of (relatively) low unemployment.
But then we found out that people also move from low-wage areas to high-wage areas, with negative consequences for people in those high-wage areas.djpbarry wrote:Granted, EU-wide unemployment is relatively high at present, but in Ireland it is off the charts (and still rising). Closing off the release valve (even if it is presently a small valve) would not be wise, particularly when we take into account that it is expected that the global economy will begin to recover before Ireland’s does.
The main release-valve for Irish people has always been other English-speaking countries, most of whom are outside of the EU. Poland is not a release-valve for us, and with the average wage in Poland being only a fraction of ours, I can't see it becoming a release valve any time soon.
It's about time that people like you faced up to the reality that immigration is not the self-regulating system that you've been claiming it is. Large numbers of immigrants from eastern Europe are continuing to move here despite the fact that we have so few jobs and we have so many people out of work. If we don't control immigration we won't be able to deal effectively with unemployment and if we don't deal effectively with unemployment then the economic downturn will be much serious than it would otherwise need to be.djpbarry wrote:O’Morris and others have in the past maintained that any party that plays up the significance of immigration would enjoy large support in this country
That's correct and I still hold that view. Even though one small single issue party didn't do well in one bye-election in Dublin I still think there is huge potential for an anti-mass-immigration party to do well in this country.0 -
Where did I mention a “more-the-merrier” attitude? I said open-borders, referring to the free movement of people within the EU. You seem to have taken that to mean “the free movement of everyone in the EU to Ireland.”No, it does not make sense. A more-the-merrier attitude to immigration is a bit like the traditional catholic attitude to family-planning.
So you think the free movement of people within the EU has, to date, been a bad thing?I disagree, I think it will eventually prove to be a major source of tension in the EU.
Norway is in the EEA and as such, Norwegian citizens do not require a permit to work in Ireland.We don't allow free movement to the Canadians or the Norwegians or the Australians or the Indians or the Chinese.
I think you should probably check the immigration rates of those countries before making a statement such as this – I’m guessing if Ireland was to take in immigrants at a similar rate, we’d be taking in too many for your liking.I want to see us having the same control over our immigration policy as a country like New Zealand or Canada or Australia has over their immigration.
Maybe not Poland. Might be a problem if Britain decides to impose restrictions.So if we replace the automatic right to work here with a work-permit or Visa system, the Poles will reciprocate by imposing the same system on us? Would that really be much of a problem?
Why is that I wonder?Maybe it would have been better for us if we had open our borders to the Australians than it would have been for us to have opened them to the Poles.
Immigration has been bad for Ireland? Do go on.But then we found out that people also move from low-wage areas to high-wage areas, with negative consequences for people in those high-wage areas.
There are no Irish people living in EU states other than the UK and Ireland?The main release-valve for Irish people has always been other English-speaking countries, most of whom are outside of the EU.
Prove it.Large numbers of immigrants from eastern Europe are continuing to move here...
Forever the optimist.Even though one small single issue party didn't do well in one bye-election in Dublin I still think there is huge potential for an anti-mass-immigration party to do well in this country.0 -
The In Europe bit escaped you then..
The phrase used was "Some of the senior members of Al Qaeda in Europe were living here "
Unless thats a spectacularily badly constructed sentence, I'd say I'm right.Nonsense. The chances of an nuclear attack on a European city are increased by Islamic immigration. ..
That 24 series has a lot to answer for.Logically this is because
..
You're talking about "islamic immigration" which presumes a unity of faith, politics and purpose amongst a wide myriad of peoples which doesn't exist in fact. That sounds fairly xenophobic to me.a) Islamic groups have specifically threatened it ( although more likely they have mentioned dirty bombs)...
And what have some small number of extremists got to do with the vast majority who aren't? Why are you linking them?0 -
LOL. ROFL. Stop!!!!
I notice the leftwing on this site are continually arguing for source. YOu know. In case we are making it up cos of "Islamophobia".
Yet there are 7 years olds who know that Mohamad Atta ( who I feel I have to point out - piloted AA11 into the world Trade centre) worked and lived and got a degree in Germany.
Ever a chance you would google your own sources, or it is just a typing spasm to say "source" every time you get a fact you disagree with.
My feeling on Islam in Europe is that it will lead to the destruction of a European city. This is not so much Islamophobia, as listening to Al Queda ( including Osama) and what they say, and looking at the problem in the Pakistan.
Now we have two options
1) CLose the borders to Pakistan - which is the legitimate right of every sovereign nation
2) Take the inevitable destruction of a city.
I think 2) will happen. If it happens we should hold responsible all the agents for the genocide, the people involved, and their enablers - the politically correct left.
It has nothing to do with f**king political correctness or left-wing politics/thinking :rolleyes:
You're pigeon-holing millions of people (of which a considerable number is born in European countries) across an entire continent because of a minority group of disconnected extremists within them.
Classy stuff.0 -
Serenity Now! wrote: »You are referring to muslim extremists. Not "muslims". Its akin to lumping all Irish during the 70s and 80s as terrorists. If you were about in those days, how did it feel to be baselessly mistrusted and lumped into this extremist pigeon-hole?
"Imperialist Islam"??? lol :rolleyes:
That was a political struggle, which happened to have a correlation with religious identity. It's not akin in any way shape or form to the thread of a religion whose scriptures promote the destruction of the non-believer.
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/islam_infidels.html
Imperialist intentions? It's not just simpletons like me that believe this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism
But anyway, maybe that was the wrong term. I'm not going to change your mind.
But take a look at the likes of Hitchens, he is very enlightening on the topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD86PO6bRvU (all parts are interesting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q2JEHloY9Q
He makes some fascinating points about the justification for violence.0 -
That was a political struggle, which happened to have a correlation with religious identity. It's not akin in any way shape or form to the thread of a religion whose scriptures promote the destruction of the non-believer.
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/islam_infidels.html
.
Every sect of Islam and every muslim believe that eh?
Whats that got do with the OP btw?Imperialist intentions? It's not just simpletons like me that believe this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism
.
Yes, right wing cranks and demagogues, and those who sought to justify US policy through the Bush years....He makes some fascinating points about the justification for violence.
Which is a good one, from a man who backed the Iraq war...0 -
Advertisement
-
http://www.myspace.com/192237213
Just as an aside on the islam thing, he's worth taking a look at to get perspective.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement