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

Overheal

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

odd how you dont see chinese gangs involved in street crime
or indian gangs for that matter

despite asians making up more of the population than blacks

Any waves of Chinese or Indian refugees?

AllForIt

Hhhhh wrote: »

Because some of these people have been here 7 years, 8 years. Imagine spending your whole teenage years in Denmark, a first world nation, only to hit adulthood and find yourself being sent back to a country you don't even really know. A better policy would've been to take a smaller number of people to permanently settle.

That's funny, some seem more than happy to move to the West, a place they don't even really know, after living all their youth in their native land.

kildare lad

bubblypop wrote: »

There are plenty of Chinese gangs operating in Ireland, and yes they have been involved in street violence.
Eastern European gangs are affiliated with organised crime gangs and dissident republican gangs in Ireland.
Just because you just read articles about black teenagers engaging in crime, doesn't mean there isn't plenty more.

Crime is everywhere, committed by all backgrounds and races.

I'm not talking about organised crime , btw triads keep everything in their own community so do most eastern European gangsters . But you don't get gangs of Chinese teens and Eastern European teens hanging around acting like thugs in Ireland . Maybe you could enlighten us were it's going on ??

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Any waves of Chinese or Indian refugees?

I may be reading you wrong, but are you suggesting that crime gangs are related to an influx of refugees?

Again, I may have read you wrong.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Crime is everywhere, committed by all backgrounds and races.

Do you agree that certain demographics are massively overrepresented in crime figures?

kildare lad

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The crime stats for London and who carries them out are a real eye opener. Stabbings, muggings, knife crime, assaults etc. massively over reprensented by one demographic.

I'm sure that won't happen here ....

Ten of Swords

kildare lad, if you're going to drop in a random video at least add some context or your own thoughts on it, and make sure it's relevant to the topic of the thread

Justin Credible Darts

bubblypop wrote: »

There are plenty of Chinese gangs operating in Ireland, and yes they have been involved in street violence.
Eastern European gangs are affiliated with organised crime gangs and dissident republican gangs in Ireland.
Just because you just read articles about black teenagers engaging in crime, doesn't mean there isn't plenty more.

Crime is everywhere, committed by all backgrounds and races.

I see you completely chose to ignore the term street gang...no surprise,.
I have yet to see a chinese or indian gang, loitering on street corners causing trouble, or mugging people over here.



This notion every race commits crime is a blanket statement.


Muslims have committed more rapes in the UK despite being the minority....



Blacks for example who only take up 13% of american population commit more than half of all crimes in the us.....


all the mass shooters in the us in schools tend to be all white


The travelling community make up something like .6% of the population here...6 in a thousand, yet take up 11% of the male prison population and 22% of the female prison population....that is almost 37 times that of a settled person...how do you explain stats like these ?



The point being it is not a simple statement that everyone commits crimes as some races are committing more certain type of crimes than others., and a simple blanket statement wont cover it.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So what? They're refugees. Any acceptance of refugees should be temporary.. unless the country wishes to selectively invite them to stay permanently later.

I know foreign nationals who have studied in Ireland for 8-9 years.. should they be given the right to stay indefinitely? No. They shouldn't.. except if they follow the standard procedure for immigration later.

The same should be the policy for Asylum Seekers. When the situation that brings their lives under threat is considered to be ended, they should be told to leave, or apply as a normal immigrant, fully aware that their application may be denied if they don't meet the needs required for immigration.

Are those foreign nationals refugees? If not I don't see the relevance. I agree with you re Asylum seekers. But an asylum seeker isn't necessarily a refugee. So again, I don't see the relevance of your point.
These were people given refugee status. Denmark is perfectly entitled to now tell these people to leave 6, 7, 8 years later. However, the initial policy should've been to take a smaller number of people and give them permanent residence.

Cordell

Cordell wrote: »

Let me try, see if I'm doing it right:
Yes, it's quite bad. You can blame your parents for having you with no clear residency status, and you can blame Denmark for not deporting you sooner, and you can do both from Syria.

I'm happy we're both in agreement that it's a bad policy.

TomTomTim

TomTomTim wrote: »

They are criminals, they are scumbags, but at least they are a diverse group of scumbags. This is all the proof that you need that we can all get along :pac:

You've missed the point. It could be worse, if the gangs were race based, such as in America. At least it hasn't gotten to that stage (yet, anyway).

AllForIt

AllForIt wrote: »

That's funny, some seem more than happy to move to the West, a place they don't even really know, after living all their youth in their native land.

Yes, likely because their homeland is mostly a complete dive, at least in comparison to the West. Not really sure of the point you are trying to make.

Hhhhh

Hhhhh wrote: »

Are those foreign nationals refugees? If not I don't see the relevance. I agree with you re Asylum seekers. But an asylum seeker isn't necessarily a refugee. So again, I don't see the relevance of your point.
These were people given refugee status. Denmark is perfectly entitled to now tell these people to leave 6, 7, 8 years later. However, the initial policy should've been to take a smaller number of people and give them permanent residence.

Terminology. Refugees. Migrants. Asylum seekers. All have a different meaning, and reference in terms of this discussion. Others tend to blur between them which simply clouds the overall topic.

The relevance is your second last sentence. Why should they be given permanent residence at all? They were given a safe environment and benefits to live for a time... which is, naturally, what we should do to help others. However, why should that be extended to permanent residency for any numbers (based on their current status)? Recognized refugees, and Asylum seekers retain that special status throughout their time in a country.

And.. back to my original question, which you didn't answer. Why is it a terrible policy?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Terminology. Refugees. Migrants. Asylum seekers. All have a different meaning, and reference in terms of this discussion. Others tend to blur between them which simply clouds the overall topic.

Fair enough. But correct usage is important in this scenario. They are (or where anyway) refugees.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The relevance is your second last sentence. Why should they be given permanent residence at all? They were given a safe environment and benefits to live for a time... which is, naturally, what we should do to help others. However, why should that be extended to permanent residency for any numbers (based on their current status)? Recognized refugees, and Asylum seekers retain that special status throughout their time in a country.

And.. back to my original question, which you didn't answer. Why is it a terrible policy?

These people should've been given permanent residency from the get go, and a smaller number taken in.
I believe it to be terrible policy as you have people, who were here legally, set up lives for themselves in a first World country now being forced to leave and essentially start from scratch again. I think it's particularly awful for those who came at quite a young age who won't know or just barely remember Syria, essentially Denmark will be all they know. There is the added aspect that men at the age of conscription are being given leave to remain, which has the potential to split families and put those men in quite a difficult situation ie stay and potentially be conscripted to an army you despise or be far apart from your family.

It is not as if these people were merely across the border in Lebanon which has quite a similar culture and way of life. Denmark is very different.

Justin Credible Darts

8, 584 replies to this thread.....thats 215 pages by my settings

and still not a single pro immigration poster has answered the most basic simple question that has been asked by multiple others.
so I will ask it again



What are the benefits of Multiculturalism ?

I am genuinely curious to know why some people still think this is a good idea when it clearly has been an absolute failure in the UK , Germany, France, and almost all of western europe, and make no mistake will be an absolute failure here.

So could one of the pro immigration posters who seem so convinced of their argument explain to us others what are the benefits.

Hhhhh

Hhhhh wrote: »

Fair enough. But correct usage is important in this scenario. They are (or where anyway) refugees.

Yes, they were refugees.

These people should've been given permanent residency from the get go, and a smaller number taken in.
I believe it to be terrible policy as you have people, who were here legally, set up lives for themselves in a first World country now being forced to leave and essentially start from scratch again. I think it's particularly awful for those who came at quite a young age who won't know or just barely remember Syria, essentially Denmark will be all they know. There is the added aspect that men at the age of conscription are being given leave to remain, which has the potential to split families and put those men in quite a difficult situation ie stay and potentially be conscripted to an army you despise or be far apart from your family.

It is not as if these people were merely across the border in Lebanon which has quite a similar culture and way of life. Denmark is very different.

I find your logic to be quite strange. You suggest that Denmark should have allowed in a smaller number of refugees but have given them permanent residency.. what about the remainder of the refugees that applied for entry, or those who were directed to Denmark through EU policy? They should have been given help by another country instead of Denmark?

The belief that those who grew up or spent a significant amount of time in Denmark should be given some kind of preference in being allowed to stay, but at the same time, also saying that Denmark should be allowed to decide who should stay...

It just seems, to me at least, that you keep contradicting yourself in your views.

In any case, we can probably leave this at that, because we're at opposite ends in the discussion. I believe that all refugees should be told to leave after a reasonable period of time.. and if they want to stay, then they should reapply as normal migrants, with no preference given to them, that other migrants don't receive. You believe that a selection should be given permanent residency. Grand. All cleared up.

Justin Credible Darts

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

and still not a single pro immigration poster has answered the most basic simple question that has been asked by multiple others.
so I will ask it again
.

Actually, it has been answered quite a few times. Mostly it boils down to pretty superficial benefits that can be experienced without multiculturalism. There have also been a few serious attempts to answer the question.. although, again, they didn't stand up to any serious discussion.

The point is that nobody has been able to adequately defend their benefits of multiculturalism.. which should be easy considering how often we're told that it's wonderful.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, they were refugees.



I find your logic to be quite strange. You suggest that Denmark should have allowed in a smaller number of refugees but have given them permanent residency.. what about the remainder of the refugees that applied for entry, or those who were directed to Denmark through EU policy? They should have been given help by another country instead of Denmark?

The belief that those who grew up or spent a significant amount of time in Denmark should be given some kind of preference in being allowed to stay, but at the same time, also saying that Denmark should be allowed to decide who should stay...

It just seems, to me at least, that you keep contradicting yourself in your views.

In any case, we can probably leave this at that, because we're at opposite ends in the discussion. I believe that all refugees should be told to leave after a reasonable period of time.. and if they want to stay, then they should reapply as normal migrants, with no preference given to them, that other migrants don't receive. You believe that a selection should be given permanent residency. Grand. All cleared up.

I believe that refugees should be given permanent residency from the outset, yes.

As to your other questions, the numbers directed by the EU should be lower, so scenarios such as this don't occur.

Hhhhh

Hhhhh wrote: »

I believe that refugees should be given permanent residency from the outset, yes.

As to your other questions, the numbers directed by the EU should be lower, so scenarios such as this don't occur.

What criteria should they meet to be given permanent residency?

Justin Credible Darts

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, it has been answered quite a few times. Mostly it boils down to pretty superficial benefits that can be experienced without multiculturalism. There have also been a few serious attempts to answer the question.. although, again, they didn't stand up to any serious discussion.

The point is that nobody has been able to adequately defend their benefits of multiculturalism.. which should be easy considering how often we're told that it's wonderful.

except it hasnt been answered, or at least in a way that would back up their argument.



If as you say, the benefits are superficial and could be experienced without multiculturalism, then its not a benefit from multiculturalism then is it ?


I agree with you that all arguments made, hinting that it could have benefits have been ripped to shreds on here by multiple users, and has not deterred the people who still foolishly think somehow it will be a benefit.


I guess the point being not a single member has posted a reason that can stand up to scrutiny.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What criteria should they meet to be given permanent residency?

That they be refugees!

Justin Credible Darts

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I guess the point being not a single member has posted a reason that can stand up to scrutiny.

I can remember one or two posters who came quite close though (I didn't agree with them, but the logic was reasonably good), although, let's face it, it's pretty hard to stand against Wibbs...

Perhaps Wibbs (or others) can remember their nicknames so that you can search for them. It's a long way back in the thread.

Kermit.de.frog

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

So could one of the pro immigration posters who seem so convinced of their argument explain to us others what are the benefits.

The negatives far outweigh the benefits of an inevitably more fractured and splintered society.

It won't change until the middle class experience the same level of demographic change that working class areas are experiencing.

They talk a good game only because it is not at their doorstep....yet, but it will be. They are the biggest racists in Ireland and you won't be long seeing real action when diversity arrives in Ballsbridge, Dun Laoghaire, Dalkey or Foxrock...

The same diversity they preach from upon high for everyone else.

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The negatives far outweigh the benefits of an inevitably more fractured and splintered society.

Pushing the idea that Ireland has any kind of significant working class leads to a more fractured and splintered society. In terms of a traditional working class, few Irish people would meet the standards, because of the availability of education, pensions, welfare and government related supports.. in addition to the way industries have changed due to technology, and salaries/wages increases over time.

It won't change until the middle class experience the same level of demographic change that working class areas are experiencing.

This old chestnut. Bringing up class like it has any real bearing to who is affected the most. The vast majority of the Irish population are middle class. They're the ones who pay the majority of tax the government receives from people, receive the least support from the government, etc

Middle class people are expected, for the most part, to pay for themselves. That would suggest that they'll experience the costs of diversity first hand... and in terms of residential, there are few residential areas that are completely cut off from lower income groups.. Irish society is very mixed. Any exclusive area is going to be beyond the means of most middle class people.. simple logic regarding the rising costs of property, and similar expenses.

They talk a good game only because it is not at their doorstep....yet, but it will be. They are the biggest racists in Ireland and you won't be long seeing real action when diversity arrives in Ballsbridge, Dun Laoghaire, Dalkey or Foxrock...

The error is thinking that the belief in diversity is class based. It's not. I know people who are on welfare who are fully welcoming of immigration, and multiculturalism.

Conditioning. Media exposure. Education. Government initiatives. etc. All these things are what's driving the diversity gig, and it affects people of all backgrounds. Anyone who is on social media, and has tapped into particular agenda driven bubbles, will be encouraged to believe a certain way, and since access to the internet/social media is so common, the spread of these ideas is greater than ever.

The same diversity they preach from upon high for everyone else.

Seriously? You see the Middle class as being high above the majority? You're joking, right?

Unless you're lumping everyone in with the "Upper" middle class? We really need to move away from this class mentality.. for all your talk about a fragmented society, your focus on class seeks to reinforce divisions in society.

Kermit.de.frog

You must be pretty sheltered if you don't see the difference between Tyrellstown and Foxrock.

There is real division in Ireland on all sorts of levels.

"Multiculturalism" is another layer un-needed and is a death sentence for societal cohesiveness. You can not have a cohesive society and national identity and be "multicultural". It's an oxymoron that will lead to disorder, segregation and ultimately societal breakdown along ethnic and racial lines. Then you'll get the violence.

Don't ask me. Ask Macron and Merkel. Both have condemned it as a feasible idea because of the experience in their own countries.

Strumms

I’d view multiculturalism with an open mind...

Look to other well established multicultural countries... the positives and there would be ‘some’, they come at too high a price....

Financially, socially and security ? They’ve all been challenged or seen challenges as a result of multiculturalism..

What is the driver of multiculturalism ? Immigration.

In 2014 the cost to the Irish taxpayers was around 150 million per year.


From 2014 to now, that is well over a billion approximately 1.05 billion of taxpayers money in just over half a decade.

Imagine if half that cash was spent on improving health services for our taxpayers...

Justin Credible Darts

Strumms wrote: »

I’d view multiculturalism with an open mind...

Look to other well established multicultural countries... the positives and there would be ‘some’, they come at too high a price....

Financially, socially and security ? They’ve all been challenged or seen challenges as a result of multiculturalism..

What is the driver of multiculturalism ? Immigration.

In 2014 the cost to the Irish taxpayers was around 150 million per year.


From 2014 to now, that is well over a billion approximately 1.05 billion of taxpayers money in just over half a decade.

Imagine if half that cash was spent on improving health services for our taxpayers...

imagine if the government that was voted in by the Irish people actually represented the Irish people and put the very same Irish people first,


Imagine if we sorted out our own social problems first

Hhhhh

Hhhhh wrote: »

I believe that refugees should be given permanent residency from the outset, yes.

Why?

Patrick2010

Strumms wrote: »

I’d view multiculturalism with an open mind...

Look to other well established multicultural countries... the positives and there would be ‘some’, they come at too high a price....

Financially, socially and security ? They’ve all been challenged or seen challenges as a result of multiculturalism..

What is the driver of multiculturalism ? Immigration.

In 2014 the cost to the Irish taxpayers was around 150 million per year.


From 2014 to now, that is well over a billion approximately 1.05 billion of taxpayers money in just over half a decade.

Imagine if half that cash was spent on improving health services for our taxpayers...

Roderick O Gorman estimates that the cost of supplying own door accommodation to asylum seekers after DP ends will be 1 to 2 billion a year, funded by the taxpayer. Imagine what that could do if it was invested in improving our health,education services etc

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You must be pretty sheltered if you don't see the difference between Tyrellstown and Foxrock.

Or just not from Dublin... Which I'm not. Wouldn't Foxrock be considered upper, or the rich? I seem to remember Foxrock as being the place where Surgeons and other extremely well paid people lived. Hardly middle class, no?

If so, then Dublins middle class is far wealthier than everywhere else in Ireland.

There is real division in Ireland on all sorts of levels.

Of course there is... but class isn't one of them.. except for the poor and the rich who aren't a significant portion compared to the whole.

"Multiculturalism" is another layer un-needed and is a death sentence for societal cohesiveness. You can not have a cohesive society and national identity and be "multicultural". It's an oxymoron that will lead to disorder, segregation and ultimately societal breakdown along ethnic and racial lines. Then you'll get the violence.

No disagreement there.

Don't ask me. Ask Macron and Merkel. Both have condemned it as a feasible idea because of the experience in their own countries.

Both countries also lauded multiculturalism, for well over a decade. Merkel, is worse, since she was the architect, and main driver for European multiculturalism, all so that Germany could get a cheap industrial labor force.