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
Migration Megathread
Comments
-
Is Matts question about "fear" and "muslims taking over" not incredibly loaded?
No, its an accurate general summation of your position.We know from studies in the UK that n(.............)tortured and even murdered by gangs originating from mass migration.
So, it is a lot more than perceived when we say the European experience of mass migration has been negative. You can wilfully ignore the evidence, but that is your own perception.
Again, loaded 'wordy' xenophobia.What have you got that is positive for Europeans? A wider array of ethnic cuisine restaurants in your locality? For that, Pamela Mastropietro died?
And again.
What of Manuela Riedo?0 -
source ?
This is not about mass migration ... You are mixing things up .....again
And a source for the numbers would be nice
See above ... I never stated mass migration as being positive ... I am talking about Migration
Have you provided a source for any of your claims? I cant see any.No, its an accurate general summation of your position.
Accurate general? That about sums up your ability to interpret my position.Again, loaded 'wordy' xenophobia.
Again, breezy dismissal of inconvenient truth.And again.
And again.What of Manuela Riedo?
A terrible crime. But she was not a migrant and neither was her killer so I do not see the connection.0 -
-
-
I think you are mixing things up
For instance .. What is wrong with hiring Non EU nurses to fill the needs in the NHS, due to the brexit clusterfukc ?
Well, I think that it is wrong to expose any people to the hostile environment this present UK govt and its predecessor have created for everyone living in the UK who is not White and not British. Look how they harassed the Windrush people who came to the UK as British subjects decades ago. I think that potential applicants for such jobs should be told about that first and give them time to consider whether it'll be worth to have try and take on a job in the UK.
I'm sorry for those who will have to suffer in the NHS under this anti-immigrant regime but they should blame Farage, Johnson and above all Mrs May for all that when the NHS is going to run out of staff because many are rather going to leave the UK than to enter it.
Such things like the Windrush scandal and reports about how foreign nationals, even EU ones were harassed and abused by the 'native British' who voted for Brexit and demand that non-Brits should leave (they really actually do) spread in no-time across the world by the internet.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think you have me confused with someone else. You are fascinated with Muslims, focusing on them to an odd extent. Let me ask you a question, if Islam, - not the people, the art, the beliefs and practises, the culture, the philosophy, the history - was to disappear tomorrow would anything of value have been lost in your opinion?
I am concerned with mass immigration and its negative effects on Europeans, now and into the future. Mass immigration has clearly been a bad policy for Europeans and their communities. What other reason is necessary to end a bad policy? Why are you unconcerned with the interests of Europeans? Why do you continue to push for mass immigration which is clearly harmful to Europeans?
Although this sounds like the usual right-wing propaganda trick to persuade one that Islam is all just bad, and not answering for the poster you've addressed this question to, I would answer it for myself which is, I wouldn't miss Islam at all cos I see no benefit from it to human progress and a more peaceful world. In fact I would be quite happy to see religious and political radicalism vanishing into oblivion.0 -
Well when somebody from a European country is attacked it seems to open the gateway to mass blame on every male of the attackers ethnic/religous group.
You are quite right and I haven't seen any protest from the usual defenders of Europe when one of their own has committed the same crime. That makes them hypocrites in my view.0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 13683
-
Now is the time to shut the borders because someway down the line it will be all too late to do anything about it like in the UK.0
-
Advertisement
-
-
Well then expect major trouble ahead as is the situation elsewhere throughout Europe.WinnyThePoo wrote: »0 -
I think you have me confused with someone else. You are fascinated with Muslims, focusing on them to an odd extent. Let me ask you a question, if Islam, - not the people, the art, the beliefs and practises, the culture, the philosophy, the history - was to disappear tomorrow would anything of value have been lost in your opinion?
I am concerned with mass immigration and its negative effects on Europeans, now and into the future. Mass immigration has clearly been a bad policy for Europeans and their communities. What other reason is necessary to end a bad policy? Why are you unconcerned with the interests of Europeans? Why do you continue to push for mass immigration which is clearly harmful to Europeans?
'Muslim takeover' is the topic of the thread. Your very first post references Muslims, their population and you use the OP as a stepping point ongoing.
I'm a little bias in that I don't have a religion, therefore I don't see the value of any religion. I do however respect a persons right to follow their particular faith, therefore I would not give any one religion precedence over another. I would suggest removing Christianity from the world would mean a great loss to Christians and so on. All in all I think religion, faith based ideology and politics does more harm than good as the default is, 'but God said' and that's an end to the discussion.
You are putting words in my mouth. I do not push for mass immigration. Sometimes people are desperate and like the Irish before them, millions immigrate en masse out of desperation. There is a reason this is happening now and it could be argued it was sparked by the actions of the west. So the chickens are coming home to roost in many respects.
Ultimately these people are our brothers and sisters. We should not have an open door policy but we should endeavour to help those in need where we can, be they Jewish, Christian or Muslim.
As the Irish have depended on nations taking us in during bad times, we too had to deal with racism. It's par for the course sadly.
Christians took over the western world a long time ago but we are slowly getting out from under that.0 -
-
Jeff Sessions
Another fine example of a Christian extremist who uses the Bible as an excuse for child abuse0 -
Well when somebody from a European country is attacked it seems to open the gateway to mass blame on every male of the attackers ethnic/religous group.
Does it? We might point to it as a concrete example of how Europeans have not benefited from mass migration of mainly male, third world migrants with no skills to offer. But I don't think anyone claims it means all or even most people of a particular ethnic or religious group would commit the same act.
It is just an increased risk that Europeans do not need to take, as the "pay off" (low skilled labour no one needs or wants) is so low. There is not a choice to make with domestic criminals. We are unfortunately stuck with them.More then happy to do so ...what specific source are you looking for ?
You claim non-EU migration is not a cost. Lets start with that. I can help by pointing you to a study on the benefits of EU and non-EU migration to the UK.Although this sounds like the usual right-wing propaganda trick to persuade one that Islam is all just bad, and not answering for the poster you've addressed this question to, I would answer it for myself which is, I wouldn't miss Islam at all cos I see no benefit from it to human progress and a more peaceful world. In fact I would be quite happy to see religious and political radicalism vanishing into oblivion.
I would disagree. I think if Islamic art, traditions, history, culture and philosophy was to disappear, to be expunged tomorrow the world would be a much poorer place. It is over a thousand years of human thought and practise and artifacts, from the Taj Mahal to the Alhambra in what was Andalusia. I think its quite close minded to think all those accomplishments should be purged from the world.You're some boyo for wanting to ask questions but you don't like answering them yourself. What's the point of that?
Read back through the thread: I've contributed significantly to it, in detail, with evidence. There are posters who have simply have not educated themselves on the topic, nor have they read the thread.Matt Barrett wrote: »'Muslim takeover' is the topic of the thread. Your very first post references Muslims, their population and you use the OP as a stepping point ongoing.
Muslims are only a portion of the mass immigration into Europe that is occurring. Worrying only about Muslims is incredibly shortsighted. And there wont be any 'Muslim takeover' because multi-cultural societies would have long before entered the 1990s Yugoslavia phase of that particular cycle. Another reason why mass immigration is a terrible policy for Europeans.I'm a little bias in that I don't have a religion, therefore I don't see the value of any religion. I do however respect a persons right to follow their particular faith, therefore I would not give any one religion precedence over another. I would suggest removing Christianity from the world would mean a great loss to Christians and so on. All in all I think religion, faith based ideology and politics does more harm than good as the default is, 'but God said' and that's an end to the discussion.
Well, you're beating around the bush without really addressing what I asked. Can I take it you agree with me and would see the loss of Islam as a loss to the world?You are putting words in my mouth. I do not push for mass immigration.
But you attack me for proposing an end to mass immigration, being against Europe's interests? So you're not for it, but you're against being against it?Sometimes people are desperate and like the Irish before them, millions immigrate en masse out of desperation.
That is not what is happening in the current era. They are migrating to seek out economic advantages in Europe. They are not desperate, they are quite calculating and they are using well established criminal/NGO networks to make their illegal entry into Europe.There is a reason this is happening now and it could be argued it was sparked by the actions of the west. So the chickens are coming home to roost in many respects.
Firstly, you're proposing that mass migration is some sort of punishment that Europe has to endure. That is quite telling but lets park that. Even if you are right, its not in the interests of Europeans. Guilt about the past does not give Europe's politicians permission to harm present and future generations of Europeans.Ultimately these people are our brothers and sisters. We should not have an open door policy but we should endeavour to help those in need where we can, be they Jewish, Christian or Muslim.
By all means, help them in Africa and Asia. Its cheaper, reaches the people who are weakest (who cannot make the trip) and does not enrich criminal/NGO networks or support a modern day slave trade. Everyone benefits.
Again, you say you don't want an open border policy but you then continue in your post to present such an emotive, guilt ridden, sorrowful picture of mass migration that closing the door on any one of them would require a heart of stone. Is it fair to say you want someone else to make the adult decisions about controlling the border so you can criticise them, feel morally superior and avoid open borders?As the Irish have depended on nations taking us in during bad times, we too had to deal with racism. It's par for the course sadly.
Irish migration has never taken the shape or form of what is occurring on Europe's southern borders. This is not some lad overstaying his visa in the US (who would and is deported by the US when detected). Even so, its up to the those countries to control their borders in the interests of their citizens: Irish people never had a moral right or authority to enter any country they pleased without the permission of the inhabitants of that country. Mass migrants into Europe do not either.Christians took over the western world a long time ago but we are slowly getting out from under that.
Yes, and are you so sure that what comes next will be better? It is an incredible gamble Europes open border advocates are taking.0 -
Jeff Sessions
Another fine example of a Christian extremist who uses the Bible as an excuse for child abuse
It has become even better by now as the USA has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council.
https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2018/0619/971748-nikki-haley-united-nations/The United States has withdrawn from the United Nations Human Rights Council, accusing it of a "chronic bias against Israel".
IMO, this isn't just about Israel and other things in the linked article, it is quite for the reason to the Trump Administration to abandon human rights altogether to get a 'free hand' in treating refugees the way they do as with this recent example of parting children from their parents. This is utterly disgusting as it is some of the worst things one can do to a child.
The spirit of the alt-right is still running the 'Trumple Show', no matter that the despicable Steve Bannon isn't among them anymore.0 -
I would disagree. I think if Islamic art, traditions, history, culture and philosophy was to disappear, to be expunged tomorrow the world would be a much poorer place. It is over a thousand years of human thought and practise and artifacts, from the Taj Mahal to the Alhambra in what was Andalusia. I think its quite close minded to think all those accomplishments should be purged from the world.
I neither said that nor meant it. It is precisely what I wrote in my post with reference to the radicalism that comes from this Religion in our time. More so than in the past, although it has always been there. Just like the other radical political movements which were rather small and unimportant in due to political crisis they have gained more support in recent years.
In fact, I am very indifferent to Islam as I am to all the other religions as long as they stay peaceful. But I am against any sort of radicalism whether it is religious or political because they are all a threat to individualism, human rights and freedom. Again, if humanism would achieve to get rid of all the radical ideologies, I would very much welcome it. That is my stance.0 -
You claim non-EU migration is not a cost. Lets start with that. I can help by pointing you to a study on the benefits of EU and non-EU migration to the UK.
Conclusion from your link
Pre 95 arrivals ... Doing as well as natives. Immigrants from non-EEA countries,
on the other hand, contribute less than they receive; however, this outcome is similar,
albeit larger in magnitude, to natives, who also make a negative net contribution over
the same period.
Arrivals after 99, net contributorsWith respect to the recently arrived immigrant populations, those who came to theUK after 1999, our analysis suggests that – rather than being a drain on the UK’s fiscalsystem – they have made substantial net contributions to its public finances, a realitythat contrasts starkly with the view often maintained in public debate.
your welcome0 -
Heard some guy on Newstalk say earlier that 20% of people looking for emergency accommodation are non EU citizens. Not refugees, they just haven't established why they are here yet. While we are morally responsible for these people, are we legally so?0
-
Advertisement
-
No - if they are non-EU and not asylum seekers or people applying for refugee status, then there is no lawful requirement to my knowledge. However, leaving them on the streets is probably not an ideal solution either.Heard some guy on Newstalk say earlier that 20% of people looking for emergency accommodation are non EU citizens. Not refugees, they just haven't established why they are here yet. While we are morally responsible for these people, are we legally so?0 -
Heard some guy on Newstalk say earlier that 20% of people looking for emergency accommodation are non EU citizens. Not refugees, they just haven't established why they are here yet. While we are morally responsible for these people, are we legally so?
Morality is subjective. I would say we are not morally responsible to take care of every single poor person on earth. And if some person comes to Ireland (not as a refugee) and becomes homeless we should do everything to ensure they can get back to their own home country - not start spending tax payers money on housing and feeding them0 -
Heard some guy on Newstalk say earlier that 20% of people looking for emergency accommodation are non EU citizens. Not refugees, they just haven't established why they are here yet. While we are morally responsible for these people, are we legally so?
if they are non EU that means they have a visa and work permit and either are or have been legally employed here.
as such they paid into the system/are paying/will pay into the system again, so why shouldn't they be looked after.
Legally we do have obligations as they have some rights as residents, just like out of work Irish have rights in other countries0 -
It is an incredible gamble Europes open border advocates are taking.
Who are these open border advocates? the EU is called fortress Europe for a reason, and the EU policy in the Mediterranean along with the massive increase in spending on Frontex suggest that EU borders are getting even tighter.
Literally no party (beyond some micro left groups) advocate open borders0 -
In fairness to the poster - I heard the Newstalk piece this morning as well and was under the impression that they were unaware of whether these non-EU people were or were not lawfully in Ireland. Their point was that morally it doesn't matter.laoch na mona wrote: »if they are non EU that means they have a visa and work permit and either are or have been legally employed here.
as such they paid into the system/are paying/will pay into the system again, so why shouldn't they be looked after.
Legally we do have obligations as they have some rights as residents, just like out of work Irish have rights in other countries
I don't agree... but there was ambiguity as to the legality of these people. Now that being said, the numbers seemed quite low - 85 families in emergency accommodation which are EU or asylum/refugees and fewer than 20 non-EU with unknown legal status.
Other interesting thing about that piece was the relatively high rate of people refusing to go on HAP that are in emergency accommodation - that just shouldn't be allowed!0 -
Does it? We might point to it as a concrete example of how Europeans have not benefited from mass migration of mainly male, third world migrants with no skills to offer. But I don't think anyone claims it means all or even most people of a particular ethnic or religious group would commit the same act.
It is just an increased risk that Europeans do not need to take, as the "pay off" (low skilled labour no one needs or wants) is so low. There is not a choice to make with domestic criminals. We are unfortunately stuck with them.
The first thing many people, including the mass media, (which flies in the face of the OP) look for is was the alleged perpetrator Muslim. If you don't see that you are very naive. There are numerous instances of news stories starting to blow up only to disappear from the national stage once it turns out the alleged attacker is home grown and non-Muslim, with the exception of home grown from an immigrant Muslim family.
So choosing only male, non-skilled, third world migrants? I would suggest these people come for a better life. If they were skilled and set up where they were they wouldn't be coming. I'd also suggest quality of life, a driving factor for migrating, would play into no access to learning skills. So you are left in possibly a war torn region and/or a poor society with no prospects, I'd leave too.You claim non-EU migration is not a cost. Lets start with that. I can help by pointing you to a study on the benefits of EU and non-EU migration to the UK.
I would disagree. I think if Islamic art, traditions, history, culture and philosophy was to disappear, to be expunged tomorrow the world would be a much poorer place. It is over a thousand years of human thought and practise and artifacts, from the Taj Mahal to the Alhambra in what was Andalusia. I think its quite close minded to think all those accomplishments should be purged from the world.
Read back through the thread: I've contributed significantly to it, in detail, with evidence. There are posters who have simply have not educated themselves on the topic, nor have they read the thread.
Muslims are only a portion of the mass immigration into Europe that is occurring. Worrying only about Muslims is incredibly shortsighted. And there wont be any 'Muslim takeover' because multi-cultural societies would have long before entered the 1990s Yugoslavia phase of that particular cycle. Another reason why mass immigration is a terrible policy for Europeans.
You brought Muslims into the mix and now you are trying to claim it's just about all immigrants, but also Muslims.
Immigration should be metered. I've already said there should be no open door policy. I'm not aware of any.Well, you're beating around the bush without really addressing what I asked. Can I take it you agree with me and would see the loss of Islam as a loss to the world?
But it's not about them, right? I've answered this, no, I don't think the world would be worse off without religion. In fact I would like all religion kept privately to those who wish to pursue it. I am happy for others to follow their beliefs as long as they don't put them on me.But you attack me for proposing an end to mass immigration, being against Europe's interests? So you're not for it, but you're against being against it?
I disagree with your sentiments regarding Muslims and other immigrants. We should take in as many as we can. This does not mean we look down on them or vet them based only on what they can give to us. These people are our brothers and sisters. We should help any person looking for a better life, but only as many as we can take without turning into a third world country ourselves.
It's a case by case issue.That is not what is happening in the current era. They are migrating to seek out economic advantages in Europe. They are not desperate, they are quite calculating and they are using well established criminal/NGO networks to make their illegal entry into Europe.
You prefer dumb immigrants who go walking through their village and due to a series of events beyond their control end up stumbling into a country? Of course anyone immigrating has a plan, what's so wrong with that?Firstly, you're proposing that mass migration is some sort of punishment that Europe has to endure. That is quite telling but lets park that. Even if you are right, its not in the interests of Europeans. Guilt about the past does not give Europe's politicians permission to harm present and future generations of Europeans.
I'm commenting that the west is often why these people need to leave and move elsewhere, that's just a reality. So if they come here, in many cases we brought it on ourselves. If it's inconvenient, that's unfortunate.By all means, help them in Africa and Asia. Its cheaper, reaches the people who are weakest (who cannot make the trip) and does not enrich criminal/NGO networks or support a modern day slave trade. Everyone benefits.
Again, you say you don't want an open border policy but you then continue in your post to present such an emotive, guilt ridden, sorrowful picture of mass migration that closing the door on any one of them would require a heart of stone. Is it fair to say you want someone else to make the adult decisions about controlling the border so you can criticise them, feel morally superior and avoid open borders?
I've no guilt. It's plain facts. If someone comes to your border see are they a criminal, do they have skills we need, are they in danger if refused, how many can we take? Pretty straightforward IMO.Irish migration has never taken the shape or form of what is occurring on Europe's southern borders. This is not some lad overstaying his visa in the US (who would and is deported by the US when detected). Even so, its up to the those countries to control their borders in the interests of their citizens: Irish people never had a moral right or authority to enter any country they pleased without the permission of the inhabitants of that country. Mass migrants into Europe do not either.
See 'The Great Irish Famine'.Yes, and are you so sure that what comes next will be better? It is an incredible gamble Europes open border advocates are taking.
It's about decency. Some people are only precious about their border because they are concerned about self interest. We have a habit of putting people into groups so we can distance ourselves be it our own homeless, sick, unemployed or immigrants.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Immigration should be metered. I've already said there should be no open door policy. I'm not aware of any.
Some regard the policy of bringing navy-rescued migrants from doomed Mediterranean vessels into Europe - as opposed to rescuing them and bringing them back to whichever shore their vessel originated from - as an open door policy. In 2015 (or 16?) when the whole idea of each EU nation having a quota and taking its own share of migrants from the Mediterranean was first discussed, most anti-immigration folk took the stance that this amounted to tolerating illegal immigration, and that the policy response should be to send them all back rather than accepting any of them into Europe. To those people, illegal immigration is still illegal immigration regardless of the circumstances in which it occurs, and shouldn't be facilitated.
See the thread in After Hours about whether the Irish Navy should be withdrawn from the Mediterranean - it's essentially the same discussion.
The fact that a large number of people on the right don't want to make any concessions to those trying to enter Europe from North Africa or the Middle East seems to me to be a very obvious one, but it's not being acknowledged. When you say "you're not aware of any open door policy", those on the right that you're arguing with are thinking of all the sea rescues which end with migrants being allowed into Europe and not sent home - that is what they refer to when they talk about an open door policy, and it's something which, no matter whose side one is on in the immigration debate, should be up for political discussion rather than being imposed as a fait accompli of sorts. I'm pretty sure that those on the right who want an entirely closed door policy would be outnumbered by those who don't, but the point is it would be a democratic decision rather than something which is seen as not up for discussion in the mainstream - in other words, that anyone who advocates a closed door policy is so beyond the pale as to be a "threat to democracy" or any of the other epithets commonly ascribed to the populist right. It isn't helping.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »Some regard the policy of bringing navy-rescued migrants from doomed Mediterranean vessels into Europe - as opposed to rescuing them and bringing them back to whichever shore their vessel originated from - as an open door policy. In 2015 (or 16?) when the whole idea of each EU nation having a quota and taking its own share of migrants from the Mediterranean was first discussed, most anti-immigration folk took the stance that this amounted to tolerating illegal immigration, and that the policy response should be to send them all back rather than accepting any of them into Europe. To those people, illegal immigration is still illegal immigration regardless of the circumstances in which it occurs, and shouldn't be facilitated.
See the thread in After Hours about whether the Irish Navy should be withdrawn from the Mediterranean - it's essentially the same discussion.
The fact that a large number of people on the right don't want to make any concessions to those trying to enter Europe from North Africa or the Middle East seems to me to be a very obvious one, but it's not being acknowledged. When you say "you're not aware of any open door policy", those on the right that you're arguing with are thinking of all the sea rescues which end with migrants being allowed into Europe and not sent home - that is what they refer to when they talk about an open door policy, and it's something which, no matter whose side one is on in the immigration debate, should be up for political discussion rather than being imposed as a fait accompli of sorts. I'm pretty sure that those on the right who want an entirely closed door policy would be outnumbered by those who don't, but the point is it would be a democratic decision rather than something which is seen as not up for discussion in the mainstream - in other words, that anyone who advocates a closed door policy is so beyond the pale as to be a "threat to democracy" or any of the other epithets commonly ascribed to the populist right. It isn't helping.
I think if someone is willing to risk their life to get to your country, you should certainly give them a listen.
I think the broader problem is a kind of protectionism, 'I don't want anyone who doesn't think like me or have anything in common with me coming over here'. I'd cite Israel as an extreme example. Arguably a democracy, but unwilling to broker a peace process that might mean another view seeping into their 'democratic' process. In Ireland we can see it borne out in family allegiances to political parties or religions. People claiming to be first world democratic, but only for the right kind of people. Basically, if we let too many foreigners in the majority view, which suits me, might change. Ironically, such things don't really effect the top tier. Poor is poor, unskilled is unskilled, cheap labour is cheap labour.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »I think if someone is willing to risk their life to get to your country, you should certainly give them a listen.
That's your view and my own view, but we have to accept that not everyone agrees - and in a Democratic society, those people also deserve to be listened to.I think the broader problem is a kind of protectionism, 'I don't want anyone who doesn't think like me or have anything in common with me coming over here'.
That's exactly how I'd describe it, but I personally wouldn't describe it as a "problem" - it's a legitimate political belief, just one I happen to disagree with to an extent. It doesn't make a person racist, it makes them protective of their culture and the dominant lifestyle of their country - there's nothing inherently wrong with that, indeed it's an extremely basic human trait which goes all the way back to our very emergence as a social / community based species of primates. It's certainly not going to be gotten rid of by silencing or ignoring those who subscribe to it.I'd cite Israel as an extreme example. Arguably a democracy, but unwilling to broker a peace process that might mean another view seeping into their 'democratic' process.
The big difference there is that Israel has illegally displaced the people who it's trying to keep out. In other words, they were there, Israel took their land and forced them from it, and now those people want their land returned to them.
It's not comparable to a situation in which people who never held ownership of a geographical area wanting to newly arrive in it. The people already living there have far more right to object in that case.
Indeed, the very basis of the Israel/Palestine conflict is that the British decided to flood Mandatory Palestine with a bunch of immigrants who had a totally different way of life to the people living there, just like when they did the same in Ireland. So if anything, the situation in Israel today is actually a defence of cultural and national protectionism, not an indictment of it.In Ireland we can see it borne out in family allegiances to political parties or religions. People claiming to be first world democratic, but only for the right kind of people. Basically, if we let too many foreigners in the majority view, which suits me, might change. Ironically, such things don't really effect the top tier. Poor is poor, unskilled is unskilled, cheap labour is cheap labour.
Is this not reasonable though? For instance, in all honesty, if the majority of the Irish population swung towards those from somewhere like Saudi Arabia where women are domestic servants more or less and have almost no freedom, would you not regard the indigenous Irish population as having a legitimate reason to object to the kind of political change which would result?
This is what I don't really understand - you've actually conceded in your post that a lot of what anti-immigration folks fear is a genuine possibility, the only difference is that you seem to think that people don't have a legitimate claim to protecting their own culture, way of life, etc. That seems very odd to me.
As much as I'm pro-immigration, I'm 100% pro assimilation as well. I wouldn't be happy for an ultraconservative middle eastern family to move here and bring their daughter up to believe that every man has the right to boss her around, for example - I'd call that a form of child abuse or neglect, to raise children with that kind of mindset about their own identity. I'd imagine that everyone would have some culturally protectionist beliefs, but for some reason it's something we're not "supposed" to discuss. Everyone focuses on peripheral issues and not on these central ones - in a democratic society, does the population which essentially collectively owns the land their nation resides on as a piece of "collective private property" if you will, not have the right to collectively decide that their property isn't open to newcomers for one reason or another?
Disagreeing with closing the border is absolutely fine, but in my view the line is drawn where people try to make it a socially unacceptable belief. The Overton Window has to be open to discussing these issues frankly and without sugar coating, or else it gives rise to the kind of resentment and frustration which fuels extremist alt-right sentiment.0 -
Advertisement
-
hatrickpatrick wrote: »..
Is this not reasonable though? ...
It is natural, but not always reasonable nor decent.0
Advertisement