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
What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP
Options
Comments
-
Yep, that's correct. Just because your ancestors lived somewhere, it doesn't give you automatic rights over something.
I'm not sure why anyone would think they have rights to any area, except for any property they own themselves.
What? My parents are my ancestors, so I get my rights as an Irish citizen from them as a product of ancestry, the same way they did with their parents. This is how the world has worked since the creation of nation states and rights. Are you disputing that, or am I missing something?“The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”-― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59087
Sounds great in theory, but that's all it is, a post war fear of European nationalism theory. I hate to break it you, but throughout the whole of human history that's precisely what people across the world and across cultures, colours and creeds thought about their "area", even hunter gatherer peoples do and outside of the West that's what the vast majority of people still think. Indeed the existence of ethnic areas across the "multicultural" west shows that same need and feeling and why they grow organically in every such nation. Your position is very much the outlier and very much a recent philosophy and almost only ever applied to White people's feelings on the matter.Yep, that's correct. Just because your ancestors lived somewhere, it doesn't give you automatic rights over something.
I'm not sure why anyone would think they have rights to any area, except for any property they own themselves.
People do. All the time. Unless someone is in social housing(and even there a choice exists), people choose the neighbourhoods they want to rent or buy homes in and the bigger their budget the more choice they apply.No one can chose their neighbours.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
Well apparently the non Irish people are "traumatised". What do you say of their mental health?
Still avoiding...
I ask you a question you hide behind accusations of avoidance. OkIt should be pretty clear. The multicultural politic holds that diversity works, that it's an overwhelming positive and because of that demographic changes are largely ignored and any questions avoided around such changes. This leads to complacency in government until they're forced to react when things get a little too obvious to ignore. The pace of change was so rapid in Ireland that this complacency was even more in play. The first obvious reaction to it, a few years too late was the 2004 referendum.
Who is multicultural politic. Two political parties have held power between them since the founding of the state which one or maybe its both you are accusing of being multicultural politic?
That is indeed the suggested amendment put to the people. Where in that amendment is your question about anchor babies. I don't see it. Can you point it out?No problem. This was the change put to the Irish voter.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, a person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, who does not have, at the time of the birth of that person, at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law.Being simply born here does not automatically make one Irish. Because of the GFA it did for a time and we got "anchor babies". That was the question put to the voters. It was entirely about that trend and it was all over the media at the time and the answer from the Irish electorate was resoundingly clear. Or maybe it was something else in your mind. Please feel free to add lots of smileys and accusations of "racism" at your leisure.
The suggested amendment you quoted was put the to the people, the anchor babies and suggestions the entire Irish nation voted because they don't like immigrants is your interpretation. Further more the 27th amendment was voted on nearly 17 years ago. That is a long time ago in politics so for you to suggest the entire population thought as a hive mind when voting in 2004 and that, that hive mind thought is still the same 17 years later is just a joke.
I voted in 2004 and supported this amendment. I did not do it because I do not want immigrants in Ireland in 2021No it does not. You have freely stated your family background and that your Irish children have a mum who is not Irish. I simply asked why their other heritage appears to be left out of the equation. For clarity I am not looking for you to expand any more on your private life. You were the one brought it up. You could have easily run with a hypothetical to get the points across.
Yes Wibbs i provided limited information about my family and you tried to use that limited information to get an angry response from me by denying my legally Irish children's right to call themselves Irish. As I said really low brow stuff.I consider it a waste of keystrokes tbh. You will avoid it and then when the blood's up come back with an excess of smileys, accusations of racism and accusations of some personal attack. Whatever question I pose in good faith will almost certainly not be returned in that fashion. I'm sorry, but that my opinion of how this will go.
Taking your ball and going home. When next and despite you posting that you have positive personal experiences, will your next post be proclaiming there is no positives to multiculurism?0 -
People do. All the time. Unless someone is in social housing(and even there a choice exists), people choose the neighbourhoods they want to rent or buy homes in and the bigger their budget the more choice they apply.
Choose their neighbourhood not their neighbours.
You have no say as to who moved in next door.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
What? My parents are my ancestors, so I get my rights as an Irish citizen from them as a product of ancestry, the same way they did with their parents. This is how the world has worked since the creation of nation states and rights. Are you disputing that, or am I missing something?
I'm not talking about rights. We all know our rights.
I was replying to a poster who claimed that people have a claim to an area because their ancestors lived there. You have no say over who lives beside you, in your neighbourhood.0 -
Yep, that's correct. Just because your ancestors lived somewhere, it doesn't give you automatic rights over something.
I'm not sure why anyone would think they have rights to any area, except for any property they own themselves.
No one can chose their neighbours.
So Africans have no rights to Africa, Chinese no rights to China, Palestinians no rights to Palestine, Nepalese no rights to Nepal, and no deciding if foreigners colonise them or not. Irish people no rights to Ireland. Got it.0 -
RobbieTheRobber wrote: »So your support Zionism right?
I mean the Jewish peoples ancestors were in Israel so your support their right to that land then, yeah?
That's a very convoluted mental gymnastics.
So no.0 -
I don't know why anyone even cares. Ireland will be unrecognisable in 50 years much like it was 50 years ago, and it will be a lot more multicultural than it is now. You could try starting a political party to stop this but I doubt you're going to do that, and you probably wouldn't get much votes going up against the status quo parties.
Life is short, you'll be dead in a few decades, just count yourself lucky you were born in a rich country like Ireland in a time of peace.
We ain't seen nothing yet anyway, the recent events in Ceuta are pretty scary, 1000s scrambling into the Spanish enclave. With bursting populations and people being displaced by climate change, this is going to get worse and worse. The world as we know it probably doesn't have long left, just enjoy your life if you can.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yep, that's correct. Just because your ancestors lived somewhere, it doesn't give you automatic rights over something.
I'm not sure why anyone would think they have rights to any area, except for any property they own themselves.
No one can chose their neighbours.Oh but it does, that's just how the world works and how it came to be as it is today.That's a very convoluted mental gymnastics.
So no.
Bubblypop posted that "Just because your ancestors lived somewhere, it doesn't give you automatic rights over something."
You Cordel replied: Oh but it does, that's just how the world works and how it came to be as it is today
I asked you if you supported Zionism. Because it is the Zionist belief that Israel is their home because of their ancestry. Something you seem to be suggesting is the way the world works in your reply to Bubblypop.
An I misinterpreting what you meant Cordell, please explain?0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
No accusations required. The multicultural politic and philosophy gained wider ground in European thought from the 70's on. It came later to Ireland on the back of a rapid influx of people in the late 90's. Both parties bought into it. Parties like SF and Labour bought into it hook line and sinker. Ireland's politics were very much against it pre the 70's. We took in vanishingly few actual refugees and the UN had to strong arm us as late as the 1970's to accept the Vietnamese "Boat people" and we only took in 200.RobbieTheRobber wrote: »Who is multicultural politic. Two political parties have held power between them since the founding of the state which one or maybe its both you are accusing of being multicultural politic?
Now you're just being obtuse. The referendum was run on the back of wider concerns that our jus soli citizenship law brought in on the back of the GFA was being abused. IE "anchor babies". And that was put to the electorate. A court case involving a Chinese woman brought it to more public notice, as did the media reports of a jump in non EU women showing up in Irish maternity wards. The Justice Minister publicly stated(to some kickback) that 50% of non EU nationals were giving birth in Ireland to gain passports. The Greens, Labour and SF opposed the referendum on grounds of racism. The Irish council for civil liberties and other NGO's also opposed it, as did the government's own Irish Human Rights Commission. Maybe you had your own reasons for voting for the change, but lord knows what they were. Unless you were reading another referendum you voted to remove the automatic right of a child being born her becoming an Irish citizen by default, thereby reducing the number of immigrants and their children who could claim that.That is indeed the suggested amendment put to the people. Where in that amendment is your question about anchor babies. I don't see it. Can you point it out?
That's entirely your perception and responsibility in your response. I did no such thing. I simply asked a question based on information you freely gave. At no point did I ask you for more personal information, nor would I. As I said you could have quite easily made it a hypothetical and avoided any such potential insult on your part.Yes Wibbs i provided limited information about my family and you tried to use that limited information to get an angry response from me by denying my legally Irish children's right to call themselves Irish. As I said really low brow stuff.
You really can't seem to tease out the differences between the personal micro scale experiences and the macro scale of societies.Taking your ball and going home. When next and despite you posting that you have positive personal experiences, will your next post be proclaiming there is no positives to multiculurism?Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
RobbieTheRobber wrote: »An I misinterpreting what you meant Cordell, please explain?
Yes, you're missing the context and the exact meaning of his post. It's about land continuously inhabited by generations, where the current living generation have rights due to their birth place and ancestry.0 -
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
Oh there's much truth in that and I agree it's likely going to get worse here, if other European nations are anything to go by. Tactics to avoid the worst of it are move out of urban areas.Thelonious Monk wrote: »I don't know why anyone even cares. Ireland will be unrecognisable in 50 years much like it was 50 years ago, and it will be a lot more multicultural than it is now. You could try starting a political party to stop this but I doubt you're going to do that, and you probably wouldn't get much votes going up against the status quo parties.
Life is short, you'll be dead in a few decades, just count yourself lucky you were born in a rich country like Ireland in a time of peace.
We ain't seen nothing yet anyway, the recent events in Ceuta are pretty scary, 1000s scrambling into the Spanish enclave. With bursting populations and people being displaced by climate change, this is going to get worse and worse. The world as we know it probably doesn't have long left, just enjoy your life if you can.
Why does "White Flight" occur? People say "nope, don't want these neighbours" and leave when they can. Why do ethnic enclaves form? People say "I want to live in an area with more of my own" and choose to move into those areas. It works along economic lines too. The middle classes/upwardly mobile move into areas with similar. In some cases they will run the gentrification angle and more and more move into previously working class areas pricing the original inhabitants out of the market. People have little enough say on the individual neighbours they live beside alright, but it seems they do and exercise plenty of say on the general makeup of their neighbours and neighbourhood.Choose their neighbourhood not their neighbours.
You have no say as to who moved in next door.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Why does "White Flight" occur? People say "nope, don't want these neighbours" and leave when they can. Why do ethnic enclaves form? People say "I want to live in an area with more of my own" and choose to move into those areas. It works along economic lines too. The middle classes/upwardly mobile move into areas with similar. In some cases they will run the gentrification angle and more and more move into previously working class areas pricing the original inhabitants out of the market. People have little enough say on the individual neighbours they live beside alright, but it seems they do and exercise plenty of say on the general makeup of their neighbours and neighbourhood.
Just backing me up there!
No choice in your neighbours, don't like it? Move.
Simple.0 -
Oh there's much truth in that and I agree it's likely going to get worse here, if other European nations are anything to go by. Tactics to avoid the worst of it are move out of urban areas.
What are you trying to avoid exactly? There are 2 African families in my cul de sac, they're grand. There's even a traveller family on the corner and I never hear a peep from them.0 -
So when you say multiculural politic you mean all political parties in Ireland, except parties like the national party.No accusations required. The multicultural politic and philosophy gained wider ground in European thought from the 70's on. It came later to Ireland on the back of a rapid influx of people in the late 90's. Both parties bought into it. Parties like SF and Labour bought into it hook line and sinker. Ireland's politics were very much against it pre the 70's. We took in vanishingly few actual refugees and the UN had to strong arm us as late as the 1970's to accept the Vietnamese "Boat people" and we only took in 200.
And the overwhelming majority of the nation votes for the parties you say bought into the "politic". Doesn't that seem to give tacit approval by the people for this policy?
Ireland was a basket case economy in the 1970's. Life then in Ireland to now is not the same at all. But you probably don't believe that though right because humans can never change always them same generation after generation. There is no progression!
Now you're just being obtuse. The referendum was run on the back of wider concerns that our jus soli citizenship law brought in on the back of the GFA was being abused. IE "anchor babies". And that was put to the electorate. A court case involving a Chinese woman brought it to more public notice, as did the media reports of a jump in non EU women showing up in Irish maternity wards. The Justice Minister publicly stated(to some kickback) that 50% of non EU nationals were giving birth in Ireland to gain passports. The Greens, Labour and SF opposed the referendum on grounds of racism. The Irish council for civil liberties and other NGO's also opposed it, as did the government's own Irish Human Rights Commission. Maybe you had your own reasons for voting for the change, but lord knows what they were. Unless you were reading another referendum you voted to remove the automatic right of a child being born her becoming an Irish citizen by default, thereby reducing the number of immigrants and their children who could claim that.
Oh no NGO's were opposed. So what!
Yes I voted to remove the automatic right as enshrined in the constitution by the GFA amendment. It was a terrible place for it to be placed. It is much better if the Government of the day can legislate should it need to and not be bound by the constitution.That's entirely your perception and responsibility in your response. I did no such thing. I simply asked a question based on information you freely gave. At no point did I ask you for more personal information, nor would I. As I said you could have quite easily made it a hypothetical and avoided any such potential insult on your part.
You really can't seem to tease out the differences between the personal micro scale experiences and the macro scale of societies.
I don't need to you to admit what you did. I know what you intended and have stated it here so you know I know.0 -
Yes, you're missing the context and the exact meaning of his post. It's about land continuously inhabited by generations, where the current living generation have rights due to their birth place and ancestry.
The only due property rights in Ireland are granted by way of property laws in Ireland. Nothing to do with ancestry. :rolleyes:0 -
RobbieTheRobber wrote: »The only due property rights in Ireland are granted by way of property laws in Ireland. Nothing to do with ancestry. :rolleyes:
Nothing to do with property rights either.0 -
Advertisement
-
Salvation Tambourine wrote: »Controlled immigration that has allowed, according to the Department of Justice, at least 17,000 people become undocumented.
Controlled immigration that when asked cannot give figures on how many people have been deported after being given a deportation notice.
Does that sound controlled?
I see you're back on the thread Bubblypop. You said we had controlled immigration. The above suggests it's not as controlled as we would probably want. Do you agree?0 -
Thelonious Monk wrote: »I don't know why anyone even cares. Ireland will be unrecognisable in 50 years much like it was 50 years ago, and it will be a lot more multicultural than it is now. You could try starting a political party to stop this but I doubt you're going to do that, and you probably wouldn't get much votes going up against the status quo parties.
Life is short, you'll be dead in a few decades, just count yourself lucky you were born in a rich country like Ireland in a time of peace.
We ain't seen nothing yet anyway, the recent events in Ceuta are pretty scary, 1000s scrambling into the Spanish enclave. With bursting populations and people being displaced by climate change, this is going to get worse and worse. The world as we know it probably doesn't have long left, just enjoy your life if you can.
Exactly.
If climate change is going to hit like some people say it will, Europe better get ready for much, MUCH, more immigration.
There'll be areas of the world that will become simply uninhabitable and people will migrate.0 -
Salvation Tambourine wrote: »I see you're back on the thread Bubblypop. You said we had controlled immigration. The above suggests it's not as controlled as we would probably want. Do you agree?
It is controlled. As best it can be. You are allowed entry to the state by various systems.
We cannot control people's behaviour however, people can and do break rules and laws all the time.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
Another avoiding the points raised. People are attached to their patch and often over generations and even new people into an area will seek to create their own patch. If that includes moving away from those less like them towards those more like them then that's what they'll do. IE People can have a deep connection to their area, their land, their nation and will go out of their way to follow that.Just backing me up there!
No choice in your neighbours, don't like it? Move.
Simple.
I was merely saying that if someone wants to avoid the worst aspects of multiculturalism and the issues they can bring that we've seen in other nations running this social experiment then move away from urban areas.Thelonious Monk wrote: »What are you trying to avoid exactly?
Not necessarily. It also means there is little choice in our political system. We have two main parties that are almost identical and a flip of the coin has them in power turnabout, with occasional oft ill fitting minority parties in coalition. Sinn Fein are seen as an alternative but I guarantee if they ever get into power it'll be FG/FF business as usual with some local SF colour. Well they're a party that always cut their cloth to the measure of the times. To take another example there are no parties who question the Traveller problems in our society, yet when one presidential candidate brought it up and in a decidedly hamfisted way, in a matter of a few weeks he went from "who dat" last to coming second in that race. On the back of an otherwise near throwaway negative comment towards Travellers.RobbieTheRobber wrote: »So when you say multiculural politic you mean all political parties in Ireland, except parties like the national party.
And the overwhelming majority of the nation votes for the parties you say bought into the "politic". Doesn't that seem to give tacit approval by the people for this policy?
Oh there can be progression, but it's almost always around a basic mean and examples of such changes can be found in other cultures and throughout history and it almost never butts up too hard against human nature.Ireland was a basket case economy in the 1970's. Life then in Ireland to now is not the same at all. But you probably don't believe that though right because humans can never change always them same generation after generation. There is no progression!
I dunno why the NGO remark in particular got you revved up, though we have far too many of them sucking on the public teat in this country.Oh no NGO's were opposed. So what!
Why? At least with the constitution any changes must be sought with the direct democratic will of the people, not at the whim of civil servants or incumbent politicians. Would you choose to bring it back in now? Do you support the Labour party's drive to do so? Again I ask; did you vote for the change knowing it would reduce the number of immigrants and non EU residents getting automatic citizenship? Yes or no.Yes I voted to remove the automatic right as enshrined in the constitution by the GFA amendment. It was a terrible place for it to be placed. It is much better if the Government of the day can legislate should it need to and not be bound by the constitution.
Come down from the cross. It's a tad too obvious a ploy. You brought your personal life up when nobody asked you to. You brought it up to make a point in your argument. When that point was expanded upon and questioned you run to crying foul. More misdirection and avoidance. But then again why change the script that has served so well for almost all of the pro multiculturalism posters.I don't need to you to admit what you did. I know what you intended and have stated it here so you know I know.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Yep, that's correct. Just because your ancestors lived somewhere, it doesn't give you automatic rights over something.
I'm not sure why anyone would think they have rights to any area, except for any property they own themselves.
No one can chose their neighbours.
Go and tell that to the native Americans, then. Or the Palestinians.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
Indeed, but in the usual run of things we don't as a society reward them for doing so. Our Justice Minister is going to reward nearly 20,000 people for breaking a number of our laws and over many years.It is controlled. As best it can be. You are allowed entry to the state by various systems.
We cannot control people's behaviour however, people can and do break rules and laws all the time.
I can see that happening alright. It already did with the mass influx into the EU of a few years ago and the EU sent the wrong message by appearing to accommodate that too often. They should have nipped it in the bud like Australia, but Germany wanted more young workers. Turks Part Deux. I can also see attitudes really hardening, even among people from previous migrations who will pull up the ladder behind them. I can also see the risk of serious conflict on the back of it. It could well be seen as the invasion it actually is and hostilities could break out. Ireland is the odd man out in many ways , mainly I suspect because it's so new to us, as attitudes in Europe are already hardening, another such influx won't go nearly so well.Exactly.
If climate change is going to hit like some people say it will, Europe better get ready for much, MUCH, more immigration.
There'll be areas of the world that will become simply uninhabitable and people will migrate.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Why? At least with the constitution any changes must be sought with the direct democratic will of the people, not at the whim of civil servants or incumbent politicians. Would you choose to bring it back in now? Do you support the Labour party's drive to do so? Again I ask; did you vote for the change knowing it would reduce the number of immigrants and non EU residents getting automatic citizenship? Yes or no.
Well, let's say a government of the day, or group of senior civil servants decided to roll back say the right to choose, or same sex marriage and influenced the government to over ride either of those constitutional amendments, would the reaction from certain quarters be so blase?
I think we all know exactly what the reaction would be.0 -
LostinBlanch wrote: »Well, let's say a government of the day, or group of senior civil servants decided to roll back say the right to choose, or same sex marriage and influenced the government to over ride either of those constitutional amendments, would the reaction from certain quarters be so blase?
I think we all know exactly what the reaction would be.
Prior to GFA amendment that caused the need for the 27th Amendment. Nationality was a legislative matter. It was the GFA amendment which was the problem and it was compounded by being enacted in the constitution.
Had the GFA amendment not enshrined nationality in the constitution in the way it did but rather contained it in legislation then the government of the day could have acted much quicker to resolve the unforeseen issues that came about through normal emergency legislation.
The government and People of Ireland by way of the 27th amendment restored that legislative control over nationality and citizenship to the Dail.
Oh Wibbs no Civil Servant has the power to override enacted legislation on a whim. That would be stupid!0 -
Indeed, but in the usual run of things we don't as a society reward them for doing so. Our Justice Minister is going to reward nearly 20,000 people for breaking a number of our laws and over many years.
That's right Wibbs the elected government of Ireland is going to make decisions on how to run the state. Is that not the mandate of a Government?0 -
Advertisement
-
clytemnestra wrote: »Go and tell that to the native Americans, then. Or the Palestinians.
What about the Israelis??0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement