What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP

RobbieTheRobber

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

And both are calling for the referendum result to be set aside, so it should be easy to find proof of that then!
I assume you have a link for this at least not just your word I'm to accept is it?

Sinn Fein tried to get an amendment through the Dail about 2/3 years ago, it was rejected. The latest amendment was submitted by Mick Barry from PBP.

Sinn Fein have been resolutely against this since day 1, they just don't campaign too loudly on it because they know it goes against their base.

Wibbs

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Now I'm not arguing it was what the Irish people were voting for when they voted to pass the 19th amendment but it would be hard to argue they had no choice in its implementation.

Well clearly it wasn't what they were voting for as when they got the chance to vote on the matter directly they rejected it by one of the largest majorities in the history of this state.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Kaiser go off there and read your link and tell me where that says anything like Labour are "are looking to set aside that 2004 referendum result"?

Labour are not suggesting circumventing the constitution of Ireland on this matter.

They are suggesting circumventing the clear wishes of the Irish people without taking it to a vote again. Well they lost their shít when the referendum result came in calling it "racist". They're as usual for Labour of late going the sleveen route and using the legalese out on that constitution. If they feel these are the wishes of the Irish electorate, why? Why don't they go to the polls if they're so sure? And why are so many of our political class happy to go along with this? Again, a very clear and democratic message was sent about birthright citizenship. Something that no other EU nation has I might add. So surely something so clear and something that has already changed the demographics of this country and not always for the better either should be put to a direct democratic vote of the people?

Cordell

I'm sure there is a legal way that can give the citizenship by birth back. But in 2004 80% of Irish people voted against anchor babies - you can be bitter about it or think that it was racism that made them do it, but you can't just ignore it and go the opposite way.

RobbieTheRobber

Deleted User wrote: »

Sinn Fein tried to get an amendment through the Dail about 2/3 years ago, it was rejected. The latest amendment was submitted by Mick Barry from PBP.

Sinn Fein have been resolutely against this since day 1, they just don't campaign too loudly on it because they know it goes against their base.

Sinn Fein tried to get an amendment to what through, the constitution, or the act of Irish nationality and citizenship?

Any links for this time 2/3 years ago sinn fein tried to circumvent the constitution?

Marcos

Cordell wrote: »

in 2004 80% of Irish people voted against anchor babies - you can be bitter about it or think that it was racism that made them do it, but you can't just ignore it and go the opposite way.

Of course he can. Oh, and by the way, anyone that thinks otherwise is a nasty wacist. /s

Cordell

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

In 2004 80% of the public gave the sitting government the power to grant citizenship by act of government.

You may be able to argue that in a debate or in court, but that's not what people wanted. And it's never good to ignore the will of the people.

_Kaiser_

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I think you need to look into that more BP. As it stands these rejected applicants can appeal indefinitely, co-opt social media to pressure the minister to intervene on their behalf, and the stats show that the vast majority of "asylum seekers" are in fact economic migrants chancing their arm.

Actual deportations are minimal.

well, it's not indefinately. They can appeal until the right of appeal runs out. So, appeal to RAT, then onwards to the courts. But that is the system in Ireland.
I would agree that a lot of asylum seekers are chancing their arm, but that is because our system allows them to.
I believe the asylum seekers system needs change, however the fact that we have rights to protect all people in our constitution,means that asylum seekers are afforded the same rights as citizens, which I guess is better than living in a state which does not respect or protect people's human rights.
I think there could be changes made though.

RobbieTheRobber

Marcos wrote: »

Of course he can. Oh, and by the way, anyone that thinks otherwise is a nasty wacist. /s

Who can, is it that wascally wabbit?

_Kaiser_

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Sure...

That does not look to set aside any referendum result.
Labour are looking to change the existing requirement from 5 years to 3 years, nothing else.

personally, I don't see the need for the reduction, but I'm guessing maybe it is to do with education and school starting at 5 years, I don't know, maybe someone else does.

Cordell

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Cordell it doesn't matter what you think deep down in your heart the people wanted. What matters with the constitution is what is written down.

It always matter what people want, this is how and why we have constitution amendments in the first place. This is why the marriage equality referendum happened, the people that voted that section that prevented same sex marriage never wanted to do that because it was not a thing back then, and the people now supported this change.
As a political leader and elected representative you must always consider what people you represent want, not only what you can legally do.

clytemnestra

I remember well the puzzled reaction in the north inner city when Nigerians started arriving there in large numbers around 1998/99. The connection with the Good Friday Agreement took a while to dawn on people. It was certainly not what anyone had foreseen while heralding the end of a thirty years long civil war. It's disingenuous to characterise the loophole that existed as somehow wanted by Irish people, because it absolutely wasn't.

ek motor

clytemnestra wrote: »

I remember well the puzzled reaction in the north inner city when Nigerians started arriving there in large numbers around 1998/99. The connection with the Good Friday Agreement took a while to dawn on people. It was certainly not what anyone had foreseen while heralding the end of a thirty years long civil war. It's disingenuous to characterise the loophole that existed as somehow wanted by Irish people, because it absolutely wasn't.

Absolutely correct. Completely disingenuous to suggest that Irish people could foresee the amendment being taken advantage of by people making bogus asylum claims and acquiesced. Immigration was virtually non existent in Ireland in the 1990s , foreign peope who were here were often doctors , academics, or otherwise of a high socioeconomic group.

Laurenf35

To be honest I think we should allow in as many as possible
Take the bus from Dublin to Galway
There are millions of empty fields

Bring in people
Buildings houses

newhouse87

Laurenf35 wrote: »

To be honest I think we should allow in as many as possible
Take the bus from Dublin to Galway
There are millions of empty fields

Bring in people
Buildings houses

ah your grand, we like our empty fields in the countryside, cheers for the offer though.

Tea drinker

Laurenf35 wrote: »

To be honest I think we should allow in as many as possible
Take the bus from Dublin to Galway
There are millions of empty fields

Bring in people
Buildings houses

Yes, destroy as much nature as possible, concrete over it, get cars to pollute and then have to import more food as we have less farmland and more people.
Then punish people as due to the pollution and consumption we can't meet our legally binding climate targets. And having imported people the world is no better so we need to import more.

Yyhhuuu

ek motor wrote: »

Absolutely correct. Completely disingenuous to suggest that Irish people could foresee the amendment being taken advantage of by people making bogus asylum claims and acquiesced. Immigration was virtually non existent in Ireland in the 1990s , foreign peope who were here were often doctors , academics, or otherwise of a high socioeconomic group.

The earlier immigrants seemed to be of a higher socioeconomic demograph relative many of today's immigrants.

Why cant a points based immigration policy be adopted similar to that adopted by Australia to only permit those prepared to contribute to society enter. Why is it that if you question this you are muzzled and shot down as a racist when you are no such thing but you are raising a legitimate point. Thee seems to be no freedom of expression.

kildare lad

ek motor wrote: »

Absolutely correct. Completely disingenuous to suggest that Irish people could foresee the amendment being taken advantage of by people making bogus asylum claims and acquiesced. Immigration was virtually non existent in Ireland in the 1990s , foreign peope who were here were often doctors , academics, or otherwise of a high socioeconomic group.

Look at the brightside , there's plenty more taxi drivers now in Dublin

Laurenf35

Laurenf35 wrote: »

To be honest I think we should allow in as many as possible
Take the bus from Dublin to Galway
There are millions of empty fields

Bring in people
Buildings houses

Ireland still has, thankfully, a significant agricultural industry, which allows us to offset the reliance of foreign produce, which considering the supply chains coming to Ireland, makes us very vulnerable to disruptions of imports.

In any case, there's a better case to be made for many of those "empty fields" (although it's likely to be crop rotation, or livestock) being converted to forestry than building houses. Considering the growing effects of climate change, and pollution from urban areas, those green spaces are necessary for a healthy nation.

There are plenty of houses already available throughout the countryside, but lack of development for the creation of industry/employment, means there's little interest in living in the countryside. It would make more sense to implement apartment tower complex style developments in the cities to increase population capacity. It's this focus on houses that generates the shortages.

Lastly, from a practical pov, where are all these people you want to bring in, going to be employed? No.. seriously. Consider both the numbers of people who have lost jobs due to covid, businesses that have closed due to covid, and you advocate bringing in more people, who will need to be employed... or are you advocating extending welfare/financial supports to everyone, and if so, where will that money come from, considering a declining economy, and the effects of covid on the overall Western markets?

I'd love to see people look beyond the immediate feel-good gestures, and appreciate all the costs associated for the decades following.

Yyhhuuu

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

The earlier immigrants seemed to be of a higher socioeconomic demograph relative many of today's immigrants.

Why cant a points based immigration policy be adopted similar to that adopted by Australia to only permit those prepared to contribute to society enter. Why is it that if you question this you are muzzled and shot down as a racist when you are no such thing but you are raising a legitimate point. Thee seems to be no freedom of expression.

Ahh, I was with you until the last line.

We still have the freedom to express ourselves. It's just that there's less interest in doing so, because that means committing yourself to a viewpoint. There's a problem with western culture when it comes to expressing opinions that aren't obviously "virtuous"... and I don't think there are many real obstacles to anyone committed to doing so, but rather, most people feel a general apathy towards doing it.

Objecting would require commitment, and actual work, because you'd have to bypass the politicians (who all appear to support immigration), and struggle with the various media groups. So, any serious commitment to voicing your objections would require real effort, and few people have the time, or resources to do that.

But the option to do so is still there.

Arthur Daley

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Objecting would require commitment, and actual work, because you'd have to bypass the politicians (who all appear to support immigration).

We shouldn't bypass politicians we should confront them which is ridiculousy easy to do.

Whenver they are ready to put in writing their leaflets and manifestos that there is no effective border and a global employment market.

The trouble is hardly one of them will present these policies to the electorate, with the exception of a few loony left groups who attract a few percent at most.

Ask youself when did FG/FF/SF stand before the electorate to propose and then justify the virtual collapse of your border and the extension of the labour market beyond the 400m that are already in the EU?

Mike Murdock

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh, I was with you until the last line.

We still have the freedom to express ourselves. It's just that there's less interest in doing so, because that means committing yourself to a viewpoint. There's a problem with western culture when it comes to expressing opinions that aren't obviously "virtuous"... and I don't think there are many real obstacles to anyone committed to doing so, but rather, most people feel a general apathy towards doing it.

Objecting would require commitment, and actual work, because you'd have to bypass the politicians (who all appear to support immigration), and struggle with the various media groups. So, any serious commitment to voicing your objections would require real effort, and few people have the time, or resources to do that.

But the option to do so is still there.

You're also opening yourself up to being branded a racist in the media and online and have your life/career wrecked if you do it.

Arthur Daley

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Do you want to confront politicians because their views are not the same as yours?

When you say confront, what do you mean. Turn up at their homes, stop them in the street?

There are many ways to confront politicians without going anywhere near their home. As you well know.

Arthur Daley

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

That is why I asked you to clarify Arthur!

I am also taking the word confront to mean

Dare we argue with public representatives.

Today with the looney left

newhouse87

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

That is why I asked you to clarify Arthur!

I am also taking the word confront to mean

Kind of like maxine waters from the democrats in the us, get in their face she said when confronting conservatives.

SMC92Ian

I don't mind people coming and living here but don't try change our country. It's Ireland. If you don't like something here, leave.

newhouse87

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I don't play American politics on the internet, what is a Maxine waters and what does bringing her into a discussion mean in this context?

You asked about confronting politicians, i gave you an example of what some politicians in places mean when they want to confront opposition. Its wrong either way to behave in an aggressive manner to get your point across.

Cordell

You can, you should and it's your civic duty to confront your elected representative when you feel they don't represent you. In a civil way of course, and if people keep doing it, keep the conversation open with their elected representatives the need for uncivil confrontation will never arise.

newhouse87

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Yes I asked that poster (Arthur Daley) what he meant by confronting politicians.


But I still don't understand your post and what the name Maxine waters is meant to imply. Or how it answers the question of what Arthur Daley means by confront politicians.

Arthur Daley is not a politician what is the link to Maxine waters (Who is she?)?

Its ok you don't understand rob, dont worry about it.

Arthur Daley

Arthur Daley wrote: »

We shouldn't bypass politicians we should confront them which is ridiculousy easy to do.

Whenver they are ready to put in writing their leaflets and manifestos that there is no effective border and a global employment market.

The trouble is hardly one of them will present these policies to the electorate, with the exception of a few loony left groups who attract a few percent at most.

Ask youself when did FG/FF/SF stand before the electorate to propose and then justify the virtual collapse of your border and the extension of the labour market beyond the 400m that are already in the EU?

TBH I've never actually heard any Irish politician seriously justify their position.. i've heard excuses for choices made, and rather lame reasons for their proposals, but rarely have I seen anyone put it to a politician, with no wriggle room for them to move on to another topic, or simply confuse the overall question with nonsense remarks.

I have extremely little faith in politicians to represent the views of the electorate, beyond the most superficial of gestures. Our political system is set up to allow them to ignore the electorate.. especially when all the parties are spouting the same overall message, and the biggest loss for them is being out of power for a few years, but back again a few years later.. no real loss to them as politicians for losing public support.

Mike Murdock

Mike Murdock wrote: »

You're also opening yourself up to being branded a racist in the media and online and have your life/career wrecked if you do it.

I dunno.. that might have been the case a few years ago, but I suspect it's another boogeyman answer to excuse the lack of resistance. Whose career has been ruined for objecting?

The thing is that the few people I have seen object to immigration or multiculturalism have done so in a rather idiotic fashion, easily allowing themselves to be painted as racists. I haven't heard anyone using the statistics and facts of the situation to support their beliefs... instead, they've made somewhat emotional vague statements.

Nope. I don't think there's any real evidence that someone would lose their jobs or be ostracized for objecting to immigration, IF, they do so in a reasonable manner. Instead, the claim that there would be blowback is enough to prevent people from committing to doing anything outside of social media.