Migration Megathread

splashuum

Odhinn wrote: »

splashuum wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/CouncillorJoleneBunting/videos/2207955396160444/

Islamic demonstration in Dublin on Saturday. What are peoples thoughts on this?

It's a video made some time ago, posted inexplicably recently by a notrorious right wing loyalist councillor with a history of sectarian anti-catholic remarks and links with "Britain first".

Whoever posted the video or recorded it has nothing to do with my question, and why should it matter considering they had zero involvement in the event.
I have asked people what there opinion is on the actual protest and the manner it was condoned in? I have yet to receive any feedback on this.

Odhinn

splashuum wrote: »

Whoever posted the video or recorded it has nothing to do with my question, and why should it matter considering they had zero involvement in the event.
I have asked people what there opinion is on the actual protest and the manner it was condoned in? I have yet to receive any feedback on this.

The person involved seems to think muslims marching is something to be scared of.



People are allowed protest, it being a democracy we live in. Is it meant to be somehow "wrong" because muslims are involved?

Timberrrrrrrr

splashuum wrote: »

Whoever posted the video or recorded it has nothing to do with my question, and why should it matter considering they had zero involvement in the event.
I have asked people what there opinion is on the actual protest and the manner it was condoned in? I have yet to receive any feedback on this.

It was a protest agaunst America's bombing of civilians in syria as far as i can remember. What's your issue with it?

ancapailldorcha

Below standard posts deleted.

splashuum

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

splashuum wrote: »

Whoever posted the video or recorded it has nothing to do with my question, and why should it matter considering they had zero involvement in the event.
I have asked people what there opinion is on the actual protest and the manner it was condoned in? I have yet to receive any feedback on this.

It was a protest agaunst America's bombing of civilians in syria as far as i can remember. What's your issue with it?

You are wrong there as they were protestesting against a artist who created cartoons involving Mohammed.
By looking at the video, it is clear that the protest was not particularly “peaceful”. I would also have to poise question why Gardai were escorting the protesters?
I am personally of the opinion that a cartoonist from another country, who happened to include a fairytale like character in his comics is not solid grounds for a “peaceful” protest in Ireland. Many high figure Muslims in Ireland have also shared my viewpoint on this.

Timberrrrrrrr

splashuum wrote: »

You are wrong there as they were protestesting against a artist who created cartoons involving Mohammed.

Can you post a link to where it is shiwn to be against a cartoon and not the march to the US embassy RE: bombings of Syrian civilians?

By looking at the video, it is clear that the protest was not particularly “peaceful”. I would also have to poise question why Gardai were escorting the protesters?

Why in your opinion is it not peaceful? Also you will see guards escorting the majority of protests so why wouldn't they escort this one?

I am personally of the opinion that a cartoonist from another country, who happened to include a fairytale like character in his comics is not solid grounds for a “peaceful” protest in Ireland. Many high figure Muslims in Ireland have also shared my viewpoint on this.

Again you will have to show proof that this march was about the cartoon and nit the bombing of Syria.

splashuum

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Can you post a link to where it is shiwn to be against a cartoon and not the march to the US embassy RE: bombings of Syrian civilians?



Why in your opinion is it not peaceful? Also you will see guards escorting the majority of protests so why wouldn't they escort this one?



Again you will have to show proof that this march was about the cartoon and nit the bombing of Syria.

If you watch the video you will hear the onlookers talk about the cartoon/video.
Here is a link from the Irish Times describing this cartoon protest.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/dublin-muslims-protest-over-video-1.738856

If you believe that this is solid grounds for a protest that is your decision.
However I would rather taxpayers money, resources and valuable Gardai time didn't go on escorting the protest of an foreign cartoonist, who created an animation of a man who lived approx 2000 years ago.

Timberrrrrrrr

splashuum wrote: »

If you watch the video you will hear the onlookers talk about the cartoon/video.
Here is a link from the Irish Times describing this cartoon protest.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/dublin-muslims-protest-over-video-1.738856

If you believe that this is solid grounds for a protest that is your decision.
However I would rather taxpayers money, resources and valuable Gardai time didn't go on escorting the protest of an foreign cartoonist, who created an animation of a man who lived approx 2000 years ago.

Yet they spent a fortune on a foreign mans visit a couple of weeks ago who preaches about a book/man from 2000 years ago. Double standards imo

splashuum

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yet they spent a fortune on a foreign mans visit a couple of weeks ago who preaches about a book/man from 2000 years ago. Double standards imo

So two wrongs make a right?

Odhinn

splashuum wrote: »

You are wrong there as they were protestesting against a artist who created cartoons involving Mohammed.
By looking at the video, it is clear that the protest was not particularly “peaceful”.

Would you please give a time reference with regards to the video, indicating where the marchers were 'not particularily peaceful.

splashuum wrote: »

I would also have to poise question why Gardai were escorting the protesters?

Gardai usually escort protest marches.

splashuum wrote: »

I am personally of the opinion that a cartoonist from another country, who happened to include a fairytale like character in his comics is not solid grounds for a “peaceful” protest in Ireland. Many high figure Muslims in Ireland have also shared my viewpoint on this.

Others differ. As mentioned earlier, we live in a democracy.

Timberrrrrrrr

splashuum wrote: »

So two wrongs make a right?

Nope


I think all religion is sh1te.

Care to tell us why in your opinion the protest was not a peaceful one?

splashuum

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

splashuum wrote: »

So two wrongs make a right?

Nope


I think all religion is sh1te.

Care to tell us why in your opinion the protest was not a peaceful one?

So you have no comment to make on the matter now that I have made you aware this was not a protest about the Syrian bombings but infact over a cartoon?

I mentioned the protest was not particularly peaceful. If you define 300+ people shouting religious cry’s at the top of their voice as peaceful then that is your call.

I am very curious to see why you are so eager to defend this protest. This time would you care to explain with logic and reason why you are defending the protest along with why public resources and taxpayers money should be used to aid it?,rather than responding with an irrelevant comment about the pope.

(I am not one bit religious and believe religion overall is destructive)

Timberrrrrrrr

splashuum wrote: »

So you have no comment to make on the matter now that I have made you aware this was not a protest about the Syrian bombings but infact over a cartoon?

You originally claimed the march was last saturday so please dont try take the high road:rolleyes:

I mentioned the protest was not particularly peaceful. If you define 300+ people shouting religious cry’s at the top of their voice as peaceful then that is your call.

Erm....protests ALWAYS have people shouting, are you saying the water protests were in fact not peaceful when thousands of people marched through the centre of Dublin?

I am very curious to see why you are so eager to defend this protest. This time would you care to explain with logic and reason why you are defending the protest along with why public resources and taxpayers money should be used to aid it?,rather than responding with an irrelevant comment about the pope.

I respect everyones right to peaceful protest and from the link that you provided it was described as a peaceful protest. You're the only one i have seen who claims it wasn't a peaceful protest.

(I am not one bit religious and believe religion overall is destructive)

On this we can both agree

Odhinn

splashuum wrote: »

So you have no comment to make on the matter now that I have made you aware this was not a protest about the Syrian bombings but infact over a cartoon?

I mentioned the protest was not particularly peaceful. If you define 300+ people shouting religious cry’s at the top of their voice as peaceful then that is your call.

I am very curious to see why you are so eager to defend this protest. This time would you care to explain with logic and reason why you are defending the protest along with why public resources and taxpayers money should be used to aid it?,rather than responding with an irrelevant comment about the pope.

(I am not one bit religious and believe religion overall is destructive)

Again, your stance seems to be based on a bias against the religion of the participants rather than any behaviour on their part.

piplip87

The EU and National governments are fuelling the growth of the right wing parties.

Instead of aanswering and dealing with simple questions about immigration and the consequences of it, they brand anybody asking such questions as far right. This then pushes thise asking questions further to the right.

There is genuine concern in the UK about Muslim immigrants, multiple cases of child grooming gangs, extremist preachers, Sharia courts, and a community segregating itself from society yet they would rather put Tommy Robinson in prison for reporting on rape trial than deal with the issues.

The issue is are the UK government giving Muslim immigrants special treatment to avoid accusations of racism ?

Remember the UK had no problems allowing reporting of the Belfast trail.

People should be allowed to speak about the wrongs of religious belief, as religion is just an idea, why are governments protecting ideas ?

wakka12

I don't see the big deal. And I don't like the tone 'muslim takeover' it sounds as if muslims are deliberately coming here with the sole purpose of replacing europeans, europeans are the ones who grant them permission to move here, and europeans are the ones with low birth rates that don't want to have anymore babies

If it matters that much to you, have a clatter of bible loving babies and try to reclaim your european homeland from the invaders

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, how views are expressed is important. If someone spends a lot of time talking very harshly about a certain demographic then it becomes hard to take their opinion seriously.

Let me make my point in a different way. Can you name any European politician who is strongly and publicly against mass migration who is not prejudiced in your opinion?

You're moving the goalposts. Domestic industry does not equal corporations. You critcise Brexit fairly regularly here but if domestic farmers find themselves decimated by cheaper imports from abroad then they'll likely vote to leave. Ditto fishermen etc. The whole EU project becomes a whole lot less viable.

Corporations are domestic industry and they wield extensive influence over policymakers to advance their interests. I cant see why you are arguing this point. Why wouldn't the EU protect European corporations from non-European competition? We fully agree in that the single market protects farmers from competition. We fully agree that if Europes farmers were fully exposed to the 'benefits' of competition with third world farmers the EU project would lose a lot of support.

But you seem to miss that if Europe's workers are fully exposed to the benefits of competition from third world workers arriving en masse, the EU project will lose a lot of support. The EU (but primarily its member states) should protect Europeans as zealously as it protects European corporations and farmers. The EU (and again, primarily its member-states) needs to demonstrate it is a safe harbour against the forces of globalisation, not a facilitator of them. The UK failed to do so: it communicated powerlessness in the face of globalisation, and it got Brexit as a result.

I keep having to return to this point. Mass migration is clearly against the interests of Europeans. All the evidence we have indicates its not a positive outcome for Europeans and that Europeans do not want it. Why is it so controversial to state that European politicians should make policies in the interests of Europeans?

Sand

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Would you consider Obama (Nobel peace prize winner) to be "far right"?

I don't consider the term to be useful at all given its primarily used as a pejorative.

Sand

wakka12 wrote: »

I don't see the big deal. And I don't like the tone 'muslim takeover' it sounds as if muslims are deliberately coming here with the sole purpose of replacing europeans, europeans are the ones who grant them permission to move here, and europeans are the ones with low birth rates that don't want to have anymore babies

If it matters that much to you, have a clatter of bible loving babies and try to reclaim your european homeland from the invaders

Systematic problems require systematic solutions. A people or nation which is failing to reproduce itself is a systematic problem, with far reaching effects as society ages and more and more elderly depend on less and less young people. If we look at climate change for a comparison, nobody believes the solution is for environmentalists to stop driving diesel cars.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

Let me make my point in a different way. Can you name any European politician who is strongly and publicly against mass migration who is not prejudiced in your opinion?

Theresa May. Not European but I recall that Bernie Sanders opposes the large scale immigration of people who could be called "low skilled".

Sand wrote: »

Corporations are domestic industry and they wield extensive influence over policymakers to advance their interests. I cant see why you are arguing this point. Why wouldn't the EU protect European corporations from non-European competition? We fully agree in that the single market protects farmers from competition. We fully agree that if Europes farmers were fully exposed to the 'benefits' of competition with third world farmers the EU project would lose a lot of support.

But you seem to miss that if Europe's workers are fully exposed to the benefits of competition from third world workers arriving en masse, the EU project will lose a lot of support. The EU (but primarily its member states) should protect Europeans as zealously as it protects European corporations and farmers. The EU (and again, primarily its member-states) needs to demonstrate it is a safe harbour against the forces of globalisation, not a facilitator of them. The UK failed to do so: it communicated powerlessness in the face of globalisation, and it got Brexit as a result.

I keep having to return to this point. Mass migration is clearly against the interests of Europeans. All the evidence we have indicates its not a positive outcome for Europeans and that Europeans do not want it. Why is it so controversial to state that European politicians should make policies in the interests of Europeans?

I never denied that lobbying exists or that it exerts influence. I was disputing that the EU is being run in the interests of corporations. Proving that lobbying exists doesn't disprove my point.

Regarding immigration from outside the EU, isn't this the job of individual nation states? Why should the EU be doing anything about it when its members have full control over their borders when it comes to non-EU migrants?

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Theresa May.

There's little evidence Theresa May has any deeply held views on any topic that do not extend to her current task or function. Sure, back in 2015 she was calling asylum seekers "foreign criminals" and driving a "hostile environment" for undocumented migrants, but that was her job then. And its her job now to implement Brexit despite voting Remain.

Its revealing you cant think of any European politician with a genuine view of their own that can pass your litmus test.

I never denied that lobbying exists or that it exerts influence. I was disputing that the EU is being run in the interests of corporations. Proving that lobbying exists doesn't disprove my point.

You disagreed with me stating that EU corporations 'thrive behind EU trade barriers' as opposed to the plight of European workers. I never stated EU corporations run the EU as a whole. I presume having reminded you of my original point we can move past this tangent?

Regarding immigration from outside the EU, isn't this the job of individual nation states? Why should the EU be doing anything about it when its members have full control over their borders when it comes to non-EU migrants?

Yes, that's why I stated 'primarily its member states' twice, and stated the EU *should* protect Europeans as zealously as it protects the corporations. After all, you're clearly in favour of the EU intervening into domestic Hungarian politics and legislation which ought to be the remit of the individual member states. So you clearly understand the ability to leverage 'European values' to impose EU power against member-states.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

There's little evidence Theresa May has any deeply held views on any topic that do not extend to her current task or function. Sure, back in 2015 she was calling asylum seekers "foreign criminals" and driving a "hostile environment" for undocumented migrants, but that was her job then. And its her job now to implement Brexit despite voting Remain.

This is someone who gave one pro-Remain speech during which she insisted on bringing up her obsession with limiting immigration to tens of thousands per year and was the sidelined.

Sand wrote: »

Its revealing you cant think of any European politician with a genuine view of their own that can pass your litmus test.

In what way?

Sand wrote: »

Yes, that's why I stated 'primarily its member states' twice, and stated the EU *should* protect Europeans as zealously as it protects the corporations. After all, you're clearly in favour of the EU intervening into domestic Hungarian politics and legislation which ought to be the remit of the individual member states. So you clearly understand the ability to leverage 'European values' to impose EU power against member-states.

Not what I said at all. I'm in favor of the EU imposing whatever sanctions it legally can. Hungary is of course free to leave. Anyway, the case is moot given that Poland will not vote for such sanctions.

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In what way?

May is your version of acceptable anti-migration politics because shes clearly not a conviction politician. In your eyes she can call asylum seekers "foreign criminals" because we both know she's just a jobsworth. You don't even believe she was genuinely pro-Remain.

Not what I said at all. I'm in favor of the EU imposing whatever sanctions it legally can. Hungary is of course free to leave. Anyway, the case is moot given that Poland will not vote for such sanctions.

So I'm not misrepresenting you then? Member-state policies on media or university funding is not the remit of the EU anymore than non-EU migration is. However, you accept the EU *should* intervene to protect vague European values in those cases. So you accept EU intervention in areas that is not is specific areas of responsibility.

Why is it so incomprehensible to you that the EU *should* intervene into an area not directly allocated to it to protect European interests when it comes to mass migration?

I fully accept its not the EU's fault that the UK opened its borders to mass migration. But the EU could be a positive force in protecting European interests in a real sense, rather than merely arguing with Orban about university funding.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

May is your version of acceptable anti-migration politics because shes clearly not a conviction politician. In your eyes she can call asylum seekers "foreign criminals" because we both know she's just a jobsworth. You don't even believe she was genuinely pro-Remain.

Saying that May isn't prejudiced doesn't mean that I approve of everything she's said, something I thought was obvious. She's been consistently anti-mass migration for a long time.

Sand wrote: »

So I'm not misrepresenting you then? Member-state policies on media or university funding is not the remit of the EU anymore than non-EU migration is. However, you accept the EU *should* intervene to protect vague European values in those cases. So you accept EU intervention in areas that is not is specific areas of responsibility.

Why is it so incomprehensible to you that the EU *should* intervene into an area not directly allocated to it to protect European interests when it comes to mass migration?

I fully accept its not the EU's fault that the UK opened its borders to mass migration. But the EU could be a positive force in protecting European interests in a real sense, rather than merely arguing with Orban about university funding.

Article 7 is supposed to prevent member states from enacting policies which threaten democratic institutions. Hungary and Poland ratified the treaty meaning that they acceded to its terms so I would argue that it is relevant.

Do you want the EU to be setting policy regarding immigration from outside? That's an idea that would end badly given the current climate.

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Saying that May isn't prejudiced doesn't mean that I approve of everything she's said. I didn't think that this needed to be pointed out but it evidently it does.

Oh, I'm not basing this on Theresa May. She has no convictions, and therefore no prejudice. I'm pointing out that shes you're example of a European politician strongly and publicly against mass migration who is not doing so because of prejudice. I'm pointing out your bias, not TM's.

Article 7 is supposed to prevent member states from enacting policies which threaten democratic institutions. Hungary and Poland ratified the treaty meaning that they acceded to its terms so I would argue that it is relevant.

Do you want the EU to be setting policy regarding immigration from outside? That's an idea that would end badly given the current climate.

Really, Hungary and Poland's democratic institutions are seriously under threat because certain university programs are de-funded and politicians have a role in appointing judges? You're aware that in Ireland, like most democracies, the government approves the appointment of judges? Are we a non-democracy?

Hungarian and Polish reforms of their judiciary are not the remit of the EU and there is zero evidence that there is any loss of democratic accountability in either country. You even acknowledge the whole endevour is pointless as Poland will veto any actions against Hungary and vice versa.

Again, I'm highlighting your bias in that you consider it entirely acceptable, indeed admirable, that the EU extend its technical remit in this imagined crisis to no practical end or benefit. But you play the rulebook and pretend the EU has no tools or role in protecting Europeans from reckless mass migration. The EU's hands are tied unfortunately, right?

Entirely the wrong set of priorities.

splashuum

Sinead O'Connor now flying the Islamic flag

4068ac1elhodqr

splashuum wrote: »

Sinead O'Connor now flying the Islamic flag

She says: “This is the natural conclusion of any intelligent theologian’s journey". :pac:

Would question whether she is indeed an intelligent theologian in the first place, and capable of logical, and well thought out, considered life decisions.

It's more likely that she is a very troubled soul, that maybe needs professional mental services of some sort. Her new name henceforth is 'Shuhada' Davitt, catchy...

BabyCheeses

wakka12 wrote: »

I don't see the big deal. And I don't like the tone 'muslim takeover' it sounds as if muslims are deliberately coming here with the sole purpose of replacing europeans, europeans are the ones who grant them permission to move here, and europeans are the ones with low birth rates that don't want to have anymore babies

If it matters that much to you, have a clatter of bible loving babies and try to reclaim your european homeland from the invaders

But that requires doing something. Cultural marxism has made it so that if I have 4-5 children my wife will want me to help out. How am I supposed to go on about my doomsday cult online if I'm expected to help raise children?

Eric Cartman

splashuum wrote: »

Sinead O'Connor now flying the Islamic flag

its Grenade O'Connor now.

Funny how one of her most infamous stunts was tearing up a picture of the pope in protest against sexual abuse, and now she's joined a religion that believes its a womans fault for being sexually abused.

Sand

The Irish Times has drawn attention to the economic performance of non-EU migration in Ireland, specifically African migrants. As we have seen in the UK, non-EU migrants are an economic cost, not a benefit. That same story appears to be playing out in Ireland too.

The ESRI reports that:

- EU migration is positive. Western EU migrants are only 4% unemployed, compared to 7% of Irish people.
- Non-EU migration is not economically positive. The employment rate for African nationals in particular is just 45%, and the unemployment rate is over twice the Irish rate. Their economic performance is not catching up with the Irish average. It actually worsened between 2016 and 2017.
- Non-EU nationals as a whole were much more likely to live in consistent poverty, affecting 29% of the group as opposed to 8% of Irish people.

While there is not yet detailed figures to the level identified in the UK, the indications are non-EU migrants contribute less economically, and demand more in social spending than the average Irish person. Statistically, migrants will be younger so wont yet reflect the pension and health costs of older Irish people. Yet. They will grow old too though.

Despite all the claims that mass migration is an absolute economic benefit, the reality is non-EU migrants will not pay the pensions of Irish people. Irish people (and indeed EU migrants) will work longer and harder to pay the pensions of the non EU migrants. At some point policies on mass migration has to take account of the evidence, not the feel good myths.