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

joe40

Sand wrote: »

So, you cant.

Well what did that sentence mean in relation to immigration.

Sand

joe40 wrote: »

At least you're honest, if I have taken you up correctly.

If immigrants are white European that is fine but no other ethnicities. So Indian software engineer, or Nigerian Doctor or Chinese chef would all be unwelcome.
Or a third generation UK Muslim for that matter, although there is a common travel area between UK and Ireland.

Is that your position? that is a genuine question.

Immigration of individuals isnt a concern. The Indian, Nigerian or Chinese immigrant would either assimilate or ultimately leave. In the long run, they would leave no mark.

But multiculturalism is not a handful of individuals. It is enduring ethnic enclaves created by mass migration which are too large and too different to be assimilated by the native people. Right now, 1 in 5 inhabitants of Ireland are foreign born. So the issue is not a few hundred or even a few thousand immigrants.

joe40

jmreire wrote: »

Well, thats the way it read anyway, whether you meant it or not... But no matter. Of course when people from a different race / culture reach a certain percentage of the host Country they emigrate to, they will cause change. Currently, 17% of our population is "New Irish". This has already happened in other Country's, who have been accepting Immigrants longer than us. And the higher that % goes, the more change it will bring, and that's for sure. Read ( google ) a few articles about the effects of immigration on host Country's, and see what you think then,

The 2016 census, doesn't have it that high, plus most non nationals are UK or other EU, especially Polish.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp7md/p7md/p7anii/#:~:text=Diversity%20in%20Ireland,11.6%20per%20cent%20in%202016.

Sand

joe40 wrote: »

Well what did that sentence mean in relation to immigration.

It meant that you were talking about Ireland as if it was a football team, seeking to bring in the best players from all over the world. A pure meritocracy.

It isnt. Ireland is the homeland of the Irish people. You cant run it like a business. Look at how that sort of 'best and brightest' attitude has served the US, which is almost broken by its ethnic conflicts.

joe40

Sand wrote: »

Immigration of individuals isnt a concern. The Indian, Nigerian or Chinese immigrant would either assimilate or ultimately leave. In the long run, they would leave no mark.

But multiculturalism is not a handful of individuals. It is enduring ethnic enclaves created by mass migration which are too large and too different to be assimilated by the native people. Right now, 1 in 5 inhabitants of Ireland are foreign born. So the issue is not a few hundred or even a few thousand immigrants.

My original post wasn't in favour of mass migration, I was talking about legal immigration for skills gaps that exists.
Would you have a source for the 1 in 5 figure.

Most of the immigrants in Ireland are Polish and Uk so would in all likelihood be same ethnicity.

The CSO figures I posted earlier do not have that amount.

Sand

joe40 wrote: »

My original post wasn't in favour of mass migration, I was talking about legal immigration for skills gaps that exists.

Ireland already has access to the entire labour force of the EU which has significant unemployment in some countries. It is difficult to think of any skills gap which cant be met by EU workers, should those gaps exist.

Would you have a source for the 1 in 5 figure.

Yes, the CSO. Google 'foreign born population ireland'. Their 2017 publication on diversity should be the first result.

You may be confusing foreign born and non-nationals. Someone can be foreign born and secure an Irish passport.

Most of the immigrants in Ireland are Polish and Uk so would in all likelihood be same ethnicity.

I think neither of us expect Polish or British ethnic enclaves to endure. To the extent they exist, they'll be assimilated in a generation or two. The concern is non-EU migrant enclaves, which will endure and not be assimilated. Therefore creating multiculturalism with all the problems that brings.

Attitudes such as your own are dangerous because they pretend there is no problem when anyone with eyes can see what the UK, the US and other European countries are enduring. It's too late to prevent entirely, but we can stop making the problem worse.

2u2me

Sand wrote: »

There is three problems with that attitude:

2 - Similar attitudes (hardworking immigrants, benefits to the country etc) were pursued throughout Europe and the USA. Look where they are now with race riots and constant ethnic conflict. We have to learn from others mistakes, not repeat them.

The world wars mostly were white people killing other white people, does this mean that white people are always going to kill each other?

This analysis is far less multi-faceted than it should be.

Slowyourrole

Deleted User wrote: »

In any case, I don't really have any issue with legal immigrants who have the educational backgrounds and skills to compete in the Irish job market. Which you would know if you had been following the thread..

I could add more, but I suspect most of this will be deflected, as would anything else I provided.

If they people are in a position where they can obtain a top education in a place where you've shown it is extremely hard to get, they probably aren't as desperate to get out.

Deleted User wrote: »

Which countries aren't treating our people well because of their religion/race/nationality?

I think the point is that we're expected to treat others well because of their religion/race/nationality.... rather than expecting both ourselves and other countries to operate under the same general principle.

We're expected to treat people well because they are people who need help and are coming from a bad place. That's it. You've completely dismissed any humanitarian or long term aspect of immigration in favour of a totally cost/benefit short term analysis. That's just not an approach everyone wants to take.

joe40

Sand wrote: »

Ireland already has access to the entire labour force of the EU which has significant unemployment in some countries. It is difficult to think of any skills gap which cant be met by EU workers, should those gaps exist.



Yes, the CSO. Google 'foreign born population ireland'. Their 2017 publication on diversity should be the first result.

You may be confusing foreign born and non-nationals. Someone can be foreign born and secure an Irish passport.



I think neither of us expect Polish or British ethnic enclaves to endure. To the extent they exist, they'll be assimilated in a generation or two. The concern is non-EU migrant enclaves, which will endure and not be assimilated. Therefore creating multiculturalism with all the problems that brings.

Attitudes such as your own are dangerous because they pretend there is no problem when anyone with eyes can see what the UK, the US and other European countries are enduring. It's too late to prevent entirely, but we can stop making the problem worse.

Before the lockdown we were approaching full employment so evidently the skills gap and employment needs weren't been met by Irish and EU workers since the other groups were also in employment.

The US is different, their country was multicultural from the start as a result of mass immigration and slavery. A diverse population with all kinds of historical injustice has existed for a few hundred years.

Controlled legal immigration to fill skills gaps or employment needs is in no way similar. That is what I said in my original post.

The UK has plenty of issues but if all the non white people were to leave would the country be better off. I don't think so.
The historical pattern of immigration to the UK is also very different, than in Ireland.

Slowyourrole

Slowyourrole wrote: »

If they people are in a position where they can obtain a top education in a place where you've shown it is extremely hard to get, they probably aren't as desperate to get out.

Except I said nothing about a top education... There are reputable universities in most countries which aren't that difficult to gain entry. The links I provided simply showed how common it was for institutions to be of low quality and the reasons behind that.

But, I'm curious about your post.. are you thinking that we should allow people in, regardless of their educational background, just because it's hard for them to obtain an education?

We're expected to treat people well because they are people who need help and are coming from a bad place. That's it. You've completely dismissed any humanitarian or long term aspect of immigration in favour of a totally cost/benefit short term analysis. That's just not an approach everyone wants to take.

Ahh well, I've learned from watching increasing numbers of people seek to migrate over the last two decades, and I've paid attention to what's been happening in Africa, M.East, and S.America. Humanitarian actions are lovely when it keeps the target groups away from our borders. We are going to see pretty much a constant increase in refugee applications into Europe for the foreseeable future, all the while, western economic models are still rather shaky, unwilling to face the inherent problems of those models.

Let me put it this way. St. Francis gave away everything to the poor in his devotion to God. Fine. He was an individual. Ireland or Europe consists of nations, who have their own dependents that need to be provided for. Resources are not infinite, and the West consumes a hefty amount of resources to keep what it currently has, with little sign that those demands will decrease.

With your attitude, you would have us help everyone (since how could you choose, when you lay down the guilt for not showing a humanitarian attitude), which would mean ever greater expense to the State, with ever increasing demands on the lower/middle classes to provide in taxation. Considering the weakness of the debt system that businesses have engaged in, we're likely facing another recession (even after the covid downturn) within the next decade, so... how would we pay for all these humanitarian gestures?

After all, you seem to believe we should help them all.. and typically, refugees don't leave to return home after the trouble has passed, except for those from second generation migrant families (but who wait until they're adults), which means the expense of educating and providing for them until they're ready to join the workforce, but will there be jobs for them? And more importantly will those jobs provide enough in tax to cover the costs of the years of support they received, and will they have jobs that don't require other support from welfare?

I can certainly understand the desire to help out. I've done volunteer work in the past, both here in Ireland, and in China with the poor. But... and this is a big but. We cannot help everyone without killing our own ability to provide. We would be destroying the very thing that allows us to provide foreign aid. Never mind, destroying that which provides for the whole nation as it is.

Ever see a movie where a ship is sinking, the panic of the people onboard, and their rush to swamp the lifeboats? That's what mass migration is for Europe. [Most countries in Africa and the M,East are facing massive problems with political instability, religious conflict, ecological damage, etc] Swamping Europe's economic success, and eventually, it'll make us as poor as other countries, not to mention the social breakup/violence that will occur when people can no longer support themselves.

I had to laugh at your claim that my analysis was short term... and maybe it is. That's even more scary, wouldn't you say?

People want to believe that Europe will always be rich/successful. They just don't want to face reality. I remember when Ireland was one of the poorest countries in Europe... we could return to that state of existence within the same amount of time it took to get out of it... but many people don't want to face that reality. A very possible reality.

Wibbs

Sand wrote: »

Ireland already has access to the entire labour force of the EU which has significant unemployment in some countries. It is difficult to think of any skills gap which cant be met by EU workers, should those gaps exist.

Indeed, but that doesn't seem to be even on the table. We hear all about this need and drive for "diversity" and this apparent need for more people(which doesn't apply to Ireland with the highest birthrate in the EU, but hey let's ignore that..), but where are the EU wide drives to encourage Europeans from nations with an excess of workers to move to work in nations with a shortage of workers? They seem to be damned well hidden.

Europeans already do this off their own bat. There are well over 100,000 such people from the EU living here, but they almost never figure in the "diversity" narratives of the government or NGO's pushing this politic. Google those NGO's and others, try and find a pale faced example of this "diversity" they preach. About the only examples of White Europeans are those who run these organisations. Again it seems their concept of "diversity" is obsessed with skin colour and the darker the better.

You may be confusing foreign born and non-nationals. Someone can be foreign born and secure an Irish passport.

At one point going into labour here sufficed, but the Irish people overwhelmingly rejected that by democratic vote. Apparently to Leo and the like this means nada as we're not "diverse" enough.

I think neither of us expect Polish or British ethnic enclaves to endure. To the extent they exist, they'll be assimilated in a generation or two. The concern is non-EU migrant enclaves, which will endure and not be assimilated. Therefore creating multiculturalism with all the problems that brings.

Attitudes such as your own are dangerous because they pretend there is no problem when anyone with eyes can see what the UK, the US and other European countries are enduring. It's too late to prevent entirely, but we can stop making the problem worse.

Very much so. The unwillingness to see the bloody obvious problems with this ideology beggars belief. It's not as if these problems are hidden. They're in plain sight in every single nation that has tried to run this ideology or because of history had to deal with it. There are no outliers. No exceptions. Some are worse than others but there are no examples of functioning "melting pots" of multiracial "diversity" where there aren't minor and major societal problems that come from it. And yet this ideology keeps being pushed and believed in the face of clear evidence from other nations and history that it doesn't work out too well. Not least for the demographics that are most different to the host population.

But ask for examples of this ideology working or why it should be attempted, again, and you get nada, or at best vague references to this "diversity" being its own reward.

Slowyourrole

Deleted User wrote: »

Except I said nothing about a top education... There are reputable universities in most countries which aren't that difficult to gain entry. The links I provided simply showed how common it was for institutions to be of low quality and the reasons behind that.

But, I'm curious about your post.. are you thinking that we should allow people in, regardless of their educational background, just because it's hard for them to obtain an education?

No, I'm saying there's no point pretending it's a fair immigration system when it's only open to those from other countries that are already advantaged.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh well, I've learned from watching increasing numbers of people seek to migrate over the last two decades, and I've paid attention to what's been happening in Africa, M.East, and S.America. Humanitarian actions are lovely when it keeps the target groups away from our borders. We are going to see pretty much a constant increase in refugee applications into Europe for the foreseeable future, all the while, western economic models are still rather shaky, unwilling to face the inherent problems of those models.

Let me put it this way. St. Francis gave away everything to the poor in his devotion to God. Fine. He was an individual. Ireland or Europe consists of nations, who have their own dependents that need to be provided for. Resources are not infinite, and the West consumes a hefty amount of resources to keep what it currently has, with little sign that those demands will decrease.

With your attitude, you would have us help everyone (since how could you choose, when you lay down the guilt for not showing a humanitarian attitude), which would mean ever greater expense to the State, with ever increasing demands on the lower/middle classes to provide in taxation. Considering the weakness of the debt system that businesses have engaged in, we're likely facing another recession (even after the covid downturn) within the next decade, so... how would we pay for all these humanitarian gestures?

After all, you seem to believe we should help them all.. and typically, refugees don't leave to return home after the trouble has passed, except for those from second generation migrant families (but who wait until they're adults), which means the expense of educating and providing for them until they're ready to join the workforce, but will there be jobs for them? And more importantly will those jobs provide enough in tax to cover the costs of the years of support they received, and will they have jobs that don't require other support from welfare?

I can certainly understand the desire to help out. I've done volunteer work in the past, both here in Ireland, and in China with the poor. But... and this is a big but. We cannot help everyone without killing our own ability to provide. We would be destroying the very thing that allows us to provide foreign aid. Never mind, destroying that which provides for the whole nation as it is.

Ever see a movie where a ship is sinking, the panic of the people onboard, and their rush to swamp the lifeboats? That's what mass migration is for Europe. [Most countries in Africa and the M,East are facing massive problems with political instability, religious conflict, ecological damage, etc] Swamping Europe's economic success, and eventually, it'll make us as poor as other countries, not to mention the social breakup/violence that will occur when people can no longer support themselves.

I had to laugh at your claim that my analysis was short term... and maybe it is. That's even more scary, wouldn't you say?

People want to believe that Europe will always be rich/successful. They just don't want to face reality. I remember when Ireland was one of the poorest countries in Europe... we could return to that state of existence within the same amount of time it took to get out of it... but many people don't want to face that reality. A very possible reality.

And you've highlighted the issue that most anti immigrant people seem to have. It's all or nothing. But it's not a choice between severely restricted immigration and open borders. You can have humanitarian policies and still limit overall numbers. You don't have to help absolutely everyone if you don't have the capacity.

Slowyourrole

Slowyourrole wrote: »

No, I'm saying there's no point pretending it's a fair immigration system when it's only open to those from other countries that are already advantaged.

Fairness only seems to be an issue when it comes to western immigration policies. Have you ever gone through the immigration processes for other nations and the hoops you often have to jump through? Most nations have requirements about those who are to be allowed in. In fact, I can't think of any nation with an open door policy, and very few nations who are completely against immigration.

It's open to anyone who fulfills the requirements. The vast majority of nationalities have equal chance at entry should they meet the individuals requirements.

And you've highlighted the issue that most anti immigrant people seem to have. It's all or nothing. But it's not a choice between severely restricted immigration and open borders. You can have humanitarian policies and still limit overall numbers. You don't have to help absolutely everyone if you don't have the capacity.

It's not and never has been all or nothing. Care to prove otherwise? Even when Ireland was a poor assed country, there was still many options for immigration.

Who decides capacity? because that seems to be the problem with the anti-immigration crowd. Capacity is never reached as long as there's some people experiencing a crisis.... at what point do you decide that capacity has been reached? Before or after an economy buckles?

Slowyourrole

Deleted User wrote: »

Fairness only seems to be an issue when it comes to western immigration policies. Have you ever gone through the immigration processes for other nations and the hoops you often have to jump through? Most nations have requirements about those who are to be allowed in. In fact, I can't think of any nation with an open door policy, and very few nations who are completely against immigration.

It's open to anyone who fulfills the requirements. The vast majority of nationalities have equal chance at entry should they meet the individuals requirements.

I already said before. I don't care how fair another country's system is. I'm only concerned about our own. We can certainly learn from them but we shouldn't base policy on how another country is doing things.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not and never has been all or nothing. Care to prove otherwise? Even when Ireland was a poor assed country, there was still many options for immigration.

That was my point.

Deleted User wrote: »

Who decides capacity? because that seems to be the problem with the anti-immigration crowd. Capacity is never reached as long as there's some people experiencing a crisis.... at what point do you decide that capacity has been reached? Before or after an economy buckles?

Government generally decides capacity based on allocated funding. Of course, many would argue with the amount of allocated funding being too high or too low and whether it is being used to the best effect but that's politics.

KilOit

Difference in hospital lists with foreign names is huge over past 10 years, we have to request a lot more interpreters these days at over €100 a pop and then they DNA :pac: tax payer picks up the tab of course

Slowyourrole

Slowyourrole wrote: »

I already said before. I don't care how fair another country's system is. I'm only concerned about our own. We can certainly learn from them but we shouldn't base policy on how another country is doing things.

You've no interest in how other countries behave, but expect Ireland to be "better". Which is why we're going to make the same mistakes as other countries who have embraced multiculturalism and your 'charitable' views on immigration....

That was my point.

No, you stated that it was either all or nothing... I've reread your post three times now and each time I understand it the same way.

Government generally decides capacity based on allocated funding. Of course, many would argue with the amount of allocated funding being too high or too low and whether it is being used to the best effect but that's politics.

It doesn't matter. I understand where you're coming from, and I find it to be extremely short sighted considering the state of the world and where it's heading in terms of instability. But then, that's hardly new with the pro-immigration crowd.

Kivaro

Slowyourrole wrote: »

Government generally decides capacity based on allocated funding. Of course, many would argue with the amount of allocated funding being too high or too low and whether it is being used to the best effect but that's politics.

That is not necessarily true.
When our last Children's minister decided to bring hundreds of "children" from the migrant camps in Calais, the then Finance minister announced that she would have to find the estimated €110 million to fund this ludicrous action from her own department.
This would mean cutting other programs in the Department of Children and Youth Affairs in order to do this.
She originally stated that she wanted to bring them all back to Ireland from Calais, so there is uncertainty on the actual number who arrived here.

weldoninhio

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Original post. My original post to you. Duh. Good lord.

You’re wasting your time with that lad. He believes that cleaners should be paid the exact same wage as solicitors.

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

You’re wasting your time with that lad. He believes that cleaners should be paid the exact same wage as solicitors.

Really?

A true communist then. That explains certain things then.

jim-mcdee

Folks are very confused as why an islamic priest is singing in the way they do, and a british jew, in the sunday service on rte for irish war commemoration. Actually so am i.

ArchXStanton

Sand wrote: »

It meant that you were talking about Ireland as if it was a football team, seeking to bring in the best players from all over the world. A pure meritocracy.

It isnt. Ireland is the homeland of the Irish people. You cant run it like a business. Look at how that sort of 'best and brightest' attitude has served the US, which is almost broken by its ethnic conflicts.

You're right Ireland is our home, not some social experiment for the EU

smurgen

Loyalists not a fan of multiculturalism it seems..
..

https://twitter.com/christineomg5/status/1282030584743813122?s=19

joe40

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed, but that doesn't seem to be even on the table. We hear all about this need and drive for "diversity" and this apparent need for more people(which doesn't apply to Ireland with the highest birthrate in the EU, but hey let's ignore that..), but where are the EU wide drives to encourage Europeans from nations with an excess of workers to move to work in nations with a shortage of workers? They seem to be damned well hidden.

Europeans already do this off their own bat. There are well over 100,000 such people from the EU living here, but they almost never figure in the "diversity" narratives of the government or NGO's pushing this politic. Google those NGO's and others, try and find a pale faced example of this "diversity" they preach. About the only examples of White Europeans are those who run these organisations. Again it seems their concept of "diversity" is obsessed with skin colour and the darker the better.

At one point going into labour here sufficed, but the Irish people overwhelmingly rejected that by democratic vote. Apparently to Leo and the like this means nada as we're not "diverse" enough.

Very much so. The unwillingness to see the bloody obvious problems with this ideology beggars belief. It's not as if these problems are hidden. They're in plain sight in every single nation that has tried to run this ideology or because of history had to deal with it. There are no outliers. No exceptions. Some are worse than others but there are no examples of functioning "melting pots" of multiracial "diversity" where there aren't minor and major societal problems that come from it. And yet this ideology keeps being pushed and believed in the face of clear evidence from other nations and history that it doesn't work out too well. Not least for the demographics that are most different to the host population.

But ask for examples of this ideology working or why it should be attempted, again, and you get nada, or at best vague references to this "diversity" being its own reward.

People were posting figures of 1 in 5 non nationals, but ignoring the fact that the vast majority were indeed EU or UK born.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp7md/p7md/p7anii/

I was simply making the point that I support legal immigration if it matches a skills need or an employment need. I don't favour unrestricted immigration.

I'm less concerned with ethnicity when immigration is required to meet a need. If diversity occurs, that's fine.

It is nothing like immigration or diverse populations in the states or UK. Their history is different, and how the diverse populations arose in the first place is different

Indian computer programmer want to come here, Germans less so. Personally I don't care where they're from if they're supplying a need that we have and obey our laws.

jmreire

joe40 wrote: »

The 2016 census, doesn't have it that high, plus most non nationals are UK or other EU, especially Polish.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp7md/p7md/p7anii/#:~:text=Diversity%20in%20Ireland,11.6%20per%20cent%20in%202016.

Those figures are based on the 2016 census but since then:
April 2017-April 2018 = 90'300
April 2018-April 2019 = 86'000
Feb 2020=5000
May 2020=5000
July 2020=5000
So the % has gone up.

2u2me

Wibbs wrote: »

They're in plain sight in every single nation that has tried to run this ideology or because of history had to deal with it. There are no outliers. No exceptions. Some are worse than others but there are no examples of functioning "melting pots" of multiracial "diversity" where there aren't minor and major societal problems that come from it. And yet this ideology keeps being pushed and believed in the face of clear evidence from other nations and history that it doesn't work out too well. Not least for the demographics that are most different to the host population.

Well it seems an impossible standard that you have set here. You could just as easy argue for the major societal problems coming out of racially homogenous societies and say "aha it doesn't work".

For clarity I'm against this 'multiculturalism' too but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Wibbs

2u2me wrote: »

Well it seems an impossible standard that you have set here. You could just as easy argue for the major societal problems coming out of racially homogenous societies and say "aha it doesn't work".

There are a fair number of existing societal problems in this country. One we didn't have was along racial lines, unless you count Travellers which are the same "race" and that's not going too great, getting more divisive if anything. So again why risk importing more and different ones that remain intractable in every EU nation that's running this nonsense?

A Sand noted earlier some groups have it harder and have more widespread effects on society than others, chiefly because they're most different either in skin colour or culture from the host demographic. This has many causes, not least yes racism, but leads to ghettoisation, both geographically and socially and stress points that are generational and worse rather than better they're getting. Which again can be tracked in every EU nation that has any level of "multiculturalism" and "diversity".

The "baby" in this case is legal migration that is beneficial to a nation, the "bathwater" is non legal migration and opening doors ever wider to non European migrants. Thankfully the Irish departments involved seem to have taken this to task and rejects nearly 100% of these so called "refugees" and "asylum seekers" including Whites from places like Romania and Georgia. Old Leo V noted this a while back and seemed supportive of this policy, though of course to stay "politically correct" he completely avoided mentioning the sub Saharan African migrant demographic which is more than either of the above.

Clarence Boddiker

Galway experiences the joys of multiculturalism. Gang of Black youths involved in muggings and racially motivated attacks.

https://connachttribune.ie/gang-leader-jailed-for-racially-motivated-assault/

Brian Hartman

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Galway experiences the joys of multiculturalism. Gang of Black youths involved in muggings and racially motivated attacks.

https://connachttribune.ie/gang-leader-jailed-for-racially-motivated-assault/

All we need now are a few taharrush attacks.

2u2me

2u2me wrote: »

Well it seems an impossible standard that you have set here. You could just as easy argue for the major societal problems coming out of racially homogenous societies and say "aha it doesn't work".

For clarity I'm against this 'multiculturalism' too but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm against the current type of multiculturalism, not the whole idea of it. I couldn't. I'm an expat who loves living in other nations other than my own. I adore living in a culture that is so different than mine, which is why I've spent so much time in Asia. (It's not just the women, although that's a big part too)

The thing is that multiculturalism is never planned. I mean it. There are never clear plans regarding: the numbers to be allowed in, the cultural groups accepted, where to house them, how they're to be employed, etc.

And more importantly whether they need different a type of education to encourage them to appreciate the host country more. I'm not talking about propaganda, or conditioning. I'm talking about a definite plan to give them the best possible life in the country. Equipping them properly to be able to compete with other people in that country, and provide a proper standard of living for themselves and their children.

Instead, they come in, enter education the same as everyone else, regardless of their English ability or past schooling. There's little effort to establish the needs of both children and adults to see how we can best help them to integrate. I've taught English to non-native speakers... it's a bloody hard language to learn to the level where you could enter a professional working environment. Migrants need far more attention than they're currently receiving, but it't not about allocating more resources. It's about recognising their weaknesses and working to mitigate them.

I realise that many people confuse integration with assimilation, but it doesn't have to be that way. European can mingle freely in the US with few problems, and yet, there are remarkable differences in the laws, and culture. The same with Australia. Western sure, but it's their own style of being western with some changes. I've lived a decade in China, and I've had very few problems. Why? because I worked on understanding the culture, the system in place, and I respect what they have. Those who live in China with a western superiority complex never last long...

When it comes to multiculturalism, governments and agencies, assume that it's always the failings of our side. And in part it is... because we're unwilling to recognise that people have different needs, but also that people need boundaries. When migrants are brought in, they're simply let loose in our world, once they've met the basic requirements. Support is thrown at them, and they should feel grateful, but TBF that's a retarded notion. There's little attempt to encourage them to accept western values, or to understand our way of living.

For example. Research shows that first generation migrants tend to settle reasonably well within western societies, because they're focused on providing for themselves. However, second generation migrants tend to feel lost, caught between the culture of the host country and the culture left behind. They're stuck in the middle, which leads them to belonging to neither, which in turn, encourages them to leave, become disorderly, etc. There is plenty of blame thrown at western culture for this happening, but very little done to prevent it.

The modern approach to multiculturalism is flawed, because nobody wants to accept that the whole system from top to bottom needs to be redesigned. Few people want to accept that they need to judge migrants more harshly, not from a charitable perspective, but a realistic one where needs are settled, and a plan is made for each of them. Frankly every migrant should be assigned a case officer, to ensure that they're settling in well, and to deal with their problems... but also to monitor their behavior while they're here.

We have a responsibility to ensure that our descendents have an Ireland of their own to be born into. An Irish Ireland. A place where people come to and recognise that it's different from the last place they were in. And there's also the responsibility to husband our resources, which also includes seeking to bring in people who will benefit the country.

There's no need to block all the needy. It's not an all or nothing scenario... because we can do better IF we take it seriously. Research. Analyse. Understand the various factors involved. Use projections. Track and monitor migration patterns of behavior. Understand how things change over time. And adapt. and so much more. It could be done. It won't be though.

The only reason I'm against multiculturalism is because nobody takes it seriously enough to implement long-term plans which take into account all the variables. They're paralysed by the fear of offending someone, or some organisation such as the EU, human rights watch, or whatever. Or they're forced to accept the views of those who see the world in absolutes. There have been more than a few posters on this thread who see things that way... remove DP. Reduce the restrictions. Sure, it'll be grand. A recipe for disaster, and the signs are everywhere, but few want to pay attention. I really hate the need people have to virtue signal, and I wish we had some mechanism to remove that behavior from the government, policy makers, etc. They're simply making things worse for everyone..

irishproduce

Kivaro wrote: »

That is not necessarily true.
When our last Children's minister decided to bring hundreds of "children" from the migrant camps in Calais, the then Finance minister announced that she would have to find the estimated €110 million to fund this ludicrous action from her own department.
This would mean cutting other programs in the Department of Children and Youth Affairs in order to do this.
She originally stated that she wanted to bring them all back to Ireland from Calais, so there is uncertainty on the actual number who arrived here.

Something that this situation almost hoisted on us, but for the quick actions of the more balanced finance minister. This is the problem with these virtuous people getting into positions of authority while having one eye on what is cause du jour or in vogue at the time. It just shows you how vulnerable we are but for the adults in the room professionally halting the nonsense from going any further.

More of it in today's Sunday Independent. Roderic discussing his plans for asylum seeker process.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fees-for-creche-must-be-less-than-mortgage-roderic-ogorman-39360557.html

The kind of stuff that worries me is this:

"O'Gorman said he wanted to introduce a number of reforms by the end of this year, including reducing the time asylum seekers must wait to apply for work and making it easier for an asylum seeker to get a driver's licence"

If he is going to spoof about what he sees as a stab at improving the situation, he should at least be balanced about it and include efforts to clamp down on the fraud and make it easier to deport.

A more confidence inspiring statement might have been

"O'Gorman said he wanted to introduce a number of reforms by the end of this year, including reducing the time asylum seekers must wait to apply for work if they have been granted proper legal asylum status. Improving measures to deter fraud
while making the deportation process quicker for failed asylum seekers. Other reforms include makingg it easier for an asylum seeker to get a driver's licence"

The fact that his statement is one way traffic says a lot and for this we need to be concerned.
It took the finance minister in the previous admin to block the silly notions of the previous do gooder.