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

TheCitizen

TheCitizen wrote: »

Amazing, your comments re the recently released EU proposals are completely disparaging, yet along you come with a 180 degrees volte face claiming to be pro EU. They’ve announced solutions that will certainly help matters but you’re still complaining. When you’re pulled up on it you backtrack and sidestep and prevaricate. You’re not interested in solutions, you just want to wibble on incessantly.

I think any poster that drops in to this thread can figure out what’s happening and can see through the agenda of those that continue to hog it.

There's nothing "disparaging" in my post about the EU to suggest that I am anti-EU. I suspect you don't know what disparaging actually means.

In any case, you've shown a repeated inability to read what's actually written, and the desire to pontificate without any tolerance for opposition..

And so.. I will be leaving it to others to deal with your attitude. The last few pages have shown that you simply don't get it, or rather, don't want to get it.

TheCitizen

Deleted User wrote: »

There's nothing "disparaging" in my post about the EU to suggest that I am anti-EU. I suspect you don't know what disparaging actually means.

In any case, you've shown a repeated inability to read what's actually written, and the desire to pontificate without any tolerance for opposition..

And so.. I will be leaving it to others to deal with your attitude. The last few pages have shown that you simply don't get it, or rather, don't want to get it.

Disparaging is exactly your attitude to the recent EU proposals re this issue. You’re not interested in solutions, you just want to complain and grind your axe. These are real people you’re bumping your gums about and difficult complex issues for those in authority to deal with. Your attitude is disgusting.

Wibbs

TheCitizen wrote: »

Amazing, your comments re the recently released EU proposals are completely disparaging, yet along you come with a 180 degrees volte face claiming to be pro EU.

You do seem to be lacking in understanding the very basic concept that one can be pro something overall, yet can also find issues within that something. Indeed I would contend only a moron would be 100% pro(or anti) most concepts, philosophies and especially organisations, which by the very nature of being designed and operated by people will always have some issues here and there.

I think any poster that drops in to this thread can figure out what’s happening and can see through the agenda of those that continue to hog it.

This is yet another "tactic" of many con posters in this thread; an empty hail mary appeal to some nebulous and heretofore invisible viewership that can see "what's happening" and agree with them. Of course and yet again a "tactic" that illustrates a near complete dearth of cogency in their side of the argument.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

You do seem to be lacking in understanding the very basic concept that one can be pro something overall, yet can also find issues within that something. Indeed I would contend only a moron would be 100% pro(or anti) most concepts, philosophies and especially organisations, which by the very nature of being designed and operated by people will always have some issues here and there.
This is yet another "tactic" of many con posters in this thread; an empty hail mary appeal to some nebulous and heretofore invisible viewership that can see "what's happening" and agree with them. Of course and yet again a "tactic" that illustrates a near complete dearth of cogency in their side of the argument.

Nobody seems to agree with him, regardless of what he thinks. These silent people who "look in" and see "what's really happening" are only in his head. It's similar to someone who's religious beliefs are so ingrained, they become conviction. Nothing you say or show them to the contrary can change their views. Data and statistics don't really matter. They'll drum up imaginary support of their own beliefs if needs be. I'm not trying to put the guy down, but you're wasting your time going around in circles with him.

Slowyourrole

Deleted User wrote: »

Yup.. I get the idea. However, imagine if all the money that has been spent on bringing in, supporting, educating, etc migrants had instead been spent on low income communities, providing specialised education and support schemes, along with more employment initiatives to give these people better opportunities in life. Hell, even initiatives to teach parents how to raise their children in a better way.

Now, wouldn't that be an interesting idea? fix the problems within our own society before bringing in others, who will almost definitely join the lowest economic groups.

The money is being spent on them. Have you ever been to a low income area? Have you seen the facilities, clubs and programs available to youths in Clondalkin, Blanchardstown or Ballyfermot? Lack of public spending is not the issue.

DangerScouse wrote: »

Absolute scummers

No reason to take in more though is it.

We aren't, we are creating them.

Slowyourrole

Slowyourrole wrote: »

The money is being spent on them. Have you ever been to a low income area? Have you seen the facilities, clubs and programs available to youths in Clondalkin, Blanchardstown or Ballyfermot? Lack of public spending is not the issue.

It is in many areas. Yes, some low income communities receive investment/facilities, but others are severely lacking.

In any case, I didn't mean throwing money at the problem. Education is the key here. From the parents right through to the children. Providing them with the skills, education, and motivation, to believe that they can have a better life... and that requires funding beyond what is currently allocated.. the realisation and acceptance that mainstream education is not enough. They do need extra attention.. there's nothing wrong with recognising that.

I have been in low income residential areas. More importantly, I know quite a few volunteers who work in such areas to help the communities. The most common comment is not just the lack of funding, but the lack of a definite plan with realistic outcomes for those involved, and worse yet, those who aren't involved (for all manner of reasons).

We aren't, we are creating them.

In part, but it's really down to a changing society. The removal of corporal punishment by parents and teachers removed the blocks to a lot of anti-social behavior, because nothing was put in place to replace it. There was the assumption that with it's removal, then everything would be wonderful, simply because corporal punishment was so awful. There's also the aspect of employment/unemployment, along with a growing dependence on Welfare to supplement incomes, due to the rising costs of living in Ireland.

I've seen little to suggest that there's any focus on these kind of issues, and any aim to resolve them... except for vague statements littered with feel good messages.

Strumms

What could make sense is to allow each EU country define its own immigration policies.

Say Italy said, ok 9,000 per year... but Ireland says 3,000... that’s fair....

Next year we want to increase, decrease, it should be left to us. It’s unfair and unrealistic to have the EU view every country to be of the capacity to have the same rules.

The EU policy on immigration is letting down its member states and the people of those countries...

It’s all been nice and wokey this ‘open door come on in’ schtick that the looniest of the far left advocate....

those people don’t have the intelligence or will to understand the negative impact that having no cap on immigration has on each and every one of us.... tax payers, who will sometime realize that spending OUR money to aid and assist those on different continents to arrive here, set up home, be treated in hospitals, gp surgeries ALL for free.... handed free spending money, means funding for rehabilitative medicine here for taxpaying Irish is for those who need it, A PIPE DREAM. try getting funding to get a spot in the NRH, take it from me, not possible.

Try though arriving off a plane from another country, having never had spent a brass cent of tax here, you’ll have a roof over your head, access to a doctor, free food, all within an evening.

I’d have loved to have said, “ ok, I’m a tax payer for 20 plus years, I’m guaranteed to get help when I needed it but.... “

There needs to be the ability to ‘limit’ or ‘increase’ the numbers...

TheCitizen

Wibbs wrote: »

You do seem to be lacking in understanding the very basic concept that one can be pro something overall, yet can also find issues within that something. Indeed I would contend only a moron would be 100% pro(or anti) most concepts, philosophies and especially organisations, which by the very nature of being designed and operated by people will always have some issues here and there.
This is yet another "tactic" of many con posters in this thread; an empty hail mary appeal to some nebulous and heretofore invisible viewership that can see "what's happening" and agree with them. Of course and yet again a "tactic" that illustrates a near complete dearth of cogency in their side of the argument.

Wibble Wibble. Where did I say anyone had to be pro everything from an organisation to be deemed pro it overall? I was talking about the specific proposals released recently by the EU to deal with this issue which your little pal/multi whatever disparaged and found fault with.

Your tactic is to take what those who disagree with you say and twist it into something else entirely.

TheCitizen

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody seems to agree with him, regardless of what he thinks. These silent people who "look in" and see "what's really happening" are only in his head. It's similar to someone who's religious beliefs are so ingrained, they become conviction. Nothing you say or show them to the contrary can change their views. Data and statistics don't really matter. They'll drum up imaginary support of their own beliefs if needs be. I'm not trying to put the guy down, but you're wasting your time going around in circles with him.

:pac: That's the echo chamber that this place has fast become.

I brought in a report from the EU with proposals they have to deal effectively with this issue or to make a start on improving matters at any rate. It's not being discussed. Instead the wagons are circled and the echo chamber on here resumes. In the real world, you won't hold sway.

TheCitizen

Strumms wrote: »

What could make sense is to allow each EU country define its own immigration policies.

Say Italy said, ok 9,000 per year... but Ireland says 3,000... that’s fair....

Next year we want to increase, decrease, it should be left to us. It’s unfair and unrealistic to have the EU view every country to be of the capacity to have the same rules.

The EU policy on immigration is letting down its member states and the people of those countries...

It’s all been nice and wokey this ‘open door come on in’ schtick that the looniest of the far left advocate....

those people don’t have the intelligence or will to understand the negative impact that having no cap on immigration has on each and every one of us.... tax payers, who will sometime realize that spending OUR money to aid and assist those on different continents to arrive here, set up home, be treated in hospitals, gp surgeries ALL for free.... handed free spending money, means funding for rehabilitative medicine here for taxpaying Irish is for those who need it, A PIPE DREAM. try getting funding to get a spot in the NRH, take it from me, not possible.

Try though arriving off a plane from another country, having never had spent a brass cent of tax here, you’ll have a roof over your head, access to a doctor, free food, all within an evening.

I’d have loved to have said, “ ok, I’m a tax payer for 20 plus years, I’m guaranteed to get help when I needed it but.... “

There needs to be the ability to ‘limit’ or ‘increase’ the numbers...

Who is advocating no cap on immigration? There is no "open door come on in" policy in action. "Woke" another term turned into a term of abuse by the echo chamber mob on this thread. Another clown used the word "progressive" as a term of abuse earlier on the thread. :pac: Ridiculous.

Strumms

TheCitizen wrote: »

Who is advocating no cap on immigration? There is no "open door come on in" policy in action. "Woke" another term turned into a term of abuse by the echo chamber mob on this thread. Another clown used the word "progressive" as a term of abuse earlier on the thread. :pac: Ridiculous.

There are plenty of people advocating no cap, plenty of people too who may believe in a cap but don’t believe or want to believe we may have reached or are reaching a threshold where that could or should be implemented.

A cap is a number that can be increased / decreased depending on how the country is doing.

We are in a position to facilitate more ? We do, gladly !

Things are tight ? In light of covid etc they are and will be. It’s no.

Therefore it is prudent and responsible that the government halt any further cost that can negatively impact the pot of money the country can and is spending, investing it instead on supporting people who are here.

The government of this country is elected to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities to and for the people of this country. Not to and for those in existence outside it’s borders.

Inviting people from outside our shores at the moment, in the middle of the greatest crisis arguably seen since the war of independence to benefit from the tax payer is wrong.

The number of people who have DIED as a result of covid is just shy of and likely to surpass the TOTAL number of dead on both sides in the war of independence. That’s a pretty shocking stat.

So for the moment we need to focus on those within this country.

Wibbs

TheCitizen wrote: »

Wibble Wibble. Where did I say anyone had to be pro everything from an organisation to be deemed pro it overall? I was talking about the specific proposals released recently by the EU to deal with this issue which your little pal/multi whatever disparaged and found fault with.

Your tactic is to take what those who disagree with you say and twist it into something else entirely.

You. In plain keystrokes. Previously wrote:

Amazing, your comments re the recently released EU proposals are completely disparaging, yet along you come with a 180 degrees volte face claiming to be pro EU.

Pretty clear really. Because someone disparages an EU proposal, you appear confused at the idea the person could also be pro EU. No "twisting" required I'm afraid, merely you trying to dismiss another poster/not understanding the notion of questioning an organisation you otherwise completely support/or both.

And yet again more of your usual "echo chamber" smileys and dismissal. You're only missing the usual passive aggressive "LOL" dropped in. Your only worthwhile and considered contribution to debate has been the mention and link to the above EU proposal. And that's how apparently tenuous your argument comes across. You appear to have nothing more than dismissal, accusation and insult to back up your second hand unconsidered politic.

Now that may well work in actual echo chambers like Twitter and Facebook groups where questions can be removed and blocked by the Correct(tm) side(even Reddit where dissent is downvoted into the ether), but it doesn't work nearly so well in old style forums where anyone reading is free to read, consider and tap in a cogent response to blow any idea out of the water. And you have to read it. It's one big reason why the forum format has died off. More's the pity. These days there are more platforms for echo chambers of every stripe; right, left, whatever you're having yourself and that's what people seem to want; easy and simple received answers to difficult and complex questions and no dissent from the local Truth(c).

Put it another way: If I engaged you on Twitter, how long would I last in your feed? I'd bet the farm about as long as a snowman in the Sahara. At noon.

TheCitizen

Wibbs wrote: »

Pretty clear really. Because someone disparages an EU proposal, you appear confused at the idea the person could also be pro EU. No "twisting" required I'm afraid, merely you trying to dismiss another poster/not understanding the notion of questioning an organisation you otherwise completely support/or both.

And yet again more of your usual "echo chamber" smileys and dismissal. You're only missing the usual passive aggressive "LOL" dropped in. Your only worthwhile and considered contribution to debate has been the mention and link to the above EU proposal. And that's how apparently tenuous your argument comes across. You appear to have nothing more than dismissal, accusation and insult to back up your second hand unconsidered politic.

Now that may well work in actual echo chambers like Twitter and Facebook groups where questions can be removed and blocked by the Correct(tm) side(even Reddit where dissent is downvoted into the ether), but it doesn't work nearly so well in old style forums where anyone reading is free to read, consider and tap in a cogent response to blow any idea out of the water. And you have to read it. It's one big reason why the forum format has died off. More's the pity. These days there are more platforms for echo chambers of every stripe; right, left, whatever you're having yourself and that's what people seem to want; easy and simple received answers to difficult and complex questions and no dissent from the local Truth(c).

Put it another way: If I engaged you on Twitter, how long would I last in your feed? I'd bet the farm about as long as a snowman in the Sahara. At noon.

The irony detector has gone off the scale with this one. Accusing me of dismissal accusation and insult etc etc. That’s all your rambling above literally amounts to.

TheCitizen

Strumms wrote: »

There are plenty of people advocating no cap, plenty of people too who may believe in a cap but don’t believe or want to believe we may have reached or are reaching a threshold where that could or should be implemented.

A cap is a number that can be increased / decreased depending on how the country is doing.

We are in a position to facilitate more ? We do, gladly !

Things are tight ? In light of covid etc they are and will be. It’s no.

Therefore it is prudent and responsible that the government halt any further cost that can negatively impact the pot of money the country can and is spending, investing it instead on supporting people who are here.

The government of this country is elected to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities to and for the people of this country. Not to and for those in existence outside it’s borders.

Inviting people from outside our shores at the moment, in the middle of the greatest crisis arguably seen since the war of independence to benefit from the tax payer is wrong.

The number of people who have DIED as a result of covid is just shy of and likely to surpass the TOTAL number of dead on both sides in the war of independence. That’s a pretty shocking stat.

So for the moment we need to focus on those within this country.

That doesn’t address the migrant/refugee crisis. I don’t know anyone who is advocating throwing open our borders to non EU citizens and inviting them all in and nor is that or has that happened. A bogeyman constructed on here that drives the general narrative of this thread.

Eric Cartman

TheCitizen wrote: »

That doesn’t address the migrant/refugee crisis. I don’t know anyone who is advocating throwing open our borders to non EU citizens and inviting them all in and nor is that or has that happened. A bogeyman constructed on here that drives the general narrative of this thread.

There are multiple left aligned politicians calling for overthrowing the 2004 anchor baby amendment, multiple politicians calling for an end to direct provision with an amnesty to just allow current residents in. This is being obtuse to suggest that there arent people advocating for it.

They might not scream ‘open the borders’ but they oppose anybattempt to even slightly close them

Patrick2010

TheCitizen wrote: »

That doesn’t address the migrant/refugee crisis. I don’t know anyone who is advocating throwing open our borders to non EU citizens and inviting them all in and nor is that or has that happened. A bogeyman constructed on here that drives the general narrative of this thread.

Paul Murphy and his missus promotes open borders

ExMachina1000

Eric Cartman wrote: »

There are multiple left aligned politicians calling for overthrowing the 2004 anchor baby amendment, multiple politicians calling for an end to direct provision with an amnesty to just allow current residents in. This is being obtuse to suggest that there arent people advocating for it.

They might not scream ‘open the borders’ but they oppose anybattempt to even slightly close them

Luckily nobody really listens to them. Background noise.

Wibbs

TheCitizen wrote: »

The irony detector has gone off the scale with this one. Accusing me of dismissal accusation and insult etc etc. That’s all your rambling above literally amounts to.

No, I'm afraid it doesn't. God forbid you'd actually address points and rebut them. And pigs might fly.

Yurt2

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Luckily nobody really listens to them. Background noise.

I'd keep my eye on this one if I were you. The constitutional amendment in 2004 provides that birthright citizenship can be reinstated by an act of the Oireachtas.

Aodhan O'Riordan for instance has been tooting his horn about reinstating it. If it comes to it and a larger party needed the support of Labour, it wouldn't be the maddest thing in the world that a government would try to push something like that through under the noses of the public.

I think a move like that would really light the touch paper with immigration issues in Ireland. The population as a whole doesn't want birthright citizenship.

The 'hard-case' used to push it was the Chinese kid in Bray. What we weren't told was that his mother (illegal immigrant) got a deportation order as she got caught red-handed committing passport fraud, and for some reason baby-daddy pulled a Harry Houdini (though I've no doubt he's in Bray somewhere or other).

ExMachina1000

Yurt! wrote: »

I'd keep my eye on this one if I were you. The constitutional amendment in 2004 provides that birthright citizenship can be reinstated by an act of the Oireachtas.

Aodhan O'Riordan for instance has been tooting his horn about reinstating it. If it comes to it and a larger party needed the support of Labour, it wouldn't be the maddest thing in the world that a government would try to push something like that through under the noses of the public.

I think a move like that would really light the touch paper with immigration issues in Ireland. The population as a whole doesn't want birthright citizenship.

The 'hard-case' used to push it was the Chinese kid in Bray. What we weren't told was that his mother (illegal immigrant) got a deportation order as she got caught red-handed committing passport fraud, and for some reason baby-daddy pulled a Harry Houdini (though I've no doubt he's in Bray somewhere or other).

I did a a Google search "birthright citizenship Ireland " and found this.

https://www.theirishworld.com/parties-out-of-step-with-ireland-on-birthright-citizenship/

In the article it states that over 70% of people are now in favour of birth right citizenship and that just like you said it can be changed via government vote. No referendum required.

If a left wing alliance Sf/labour etc ever did come to power it could actually be overturned. You are correct sir

Yurt2

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I did a a Google search "birthright citizenship Ireland " and found this.

https://www.theirishworld.com/parties-out-of-step-with-ireland-on-birthright-citizenship/

In the article it states that over 70% of people are now in favour of birth right citizenship and that just like you said it can be changed via government vote. No referendum required.

If a left wing alliance Sf/labour etc ever did come to power it could actually be overturned. You are correct sir

I'd like to see the breakdown of the demographics polled by the Sunday Times and how the question was posed. I don't believe for a second you'd get 71% of people assenting to birthright citizenship if you put it to the people.

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

I'd like to see the breakdown of the demographics polled by the Sunday Times and how the question was posed. I don't believe for a second you'd get 71% of people assenting to birthright citizenship if you put it to the people.

I think you probably could get into the 60s, if it was phrased along the lines of guilt, virtue and positive benefits. There's a lot of misinformation out there about migration, which has been accumulating over years of effort, and that sits in the back of public consciousness. It really depends on how Irish people face the next recession.. but ultimately I've found that Irish people are much quicker to help those who are not Irish, than focusing on Irish issues... There's also a younger generation who don't remember the past birthright issues... that's important.

ExMachina1000

Yurt! wrote: »

I'd like to see the breakdown of the demographics polled by the Sunday Times and how the question was posed. I don't believe for a second you'd get 71% of people assenting to birthright citizenship if you put it to the people.

That's the bit they keep to themselves. I'd also find it hard to believe.

How many EU countries have birthright citizenship?

nigeldaniel

Multiculturalism has one major flaw, people who come from a distant culture will think other cultures are just weird and vice versa. If people, for an example, in the middle est think its all fair game what they do, they will just look as us oddly when we say that's not on. Education from a young age is the only way to get to the cause problem and at the moment education is far too concentrated on not offending. That's never going to work at all.

Yurt2

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

That's the bit they keep to themselves. I'd also find it hard to believe.

How many EU countries have birthright citizenship?

None.

Wibbs

Yurt! wrote: »

None.

Exactly. Ireland was alone in this loophole born of IIRC the Good Friday Agreement. If the political class do push for this and a slew of Irish Times "polls" like the one above start appearing you can be sure the push is on to win hearts and minds then it will be pushed and reinstated and the polls will be pointed to as support.

I would take with a large pinch of salt any such poll. For a population to go from 80% against the law(one of the highest majorities in any referendum/vote) to 70% in favour after one recession and a likely harder one to come and a rise in the public conspicuousness of Black crime and gangs is deeply suspicious. People tend to be much more easygoing and charitable when they're on the pig's back like we thought we were in 04, than when because of a global crisis they're on extended leave from work, on emergency payments, with large bills that are on the long finger. I would bet all I possess that if it was put to the Irish people in a ballot it would be rejected just as clearly as it was before, if not more vigorously. Of course that they won't put this to a vote speaks volumes. Those pushing for this already know the outcome.

olestoepoke

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/father-son-injured-after-attack-13965454
https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/cowardly-vicious-racist-attack-adult-19001109

Our media only call racial attacks a "racial attack" if it is a white person racially attacking a black person. why? I am in no way condoning any sort of racism or violence, however, over the last several years I have read about gangs of youths attacking people in my home town balbriggan and beyond. The father and son that were attacked in the above article were were racially abused, spat on, kicked and punched for no other reason than they were white. The papers report that a gang of youths attacked a father and son, leaving out that it was a gang of African youths and a racially motivated attack, why? A racial attack is a the same regardless of what colour the persons skin is. My guess is that, they don't want to rock the boat or let anything get in the way of their agenda of forced multiculturalism. Conversely, the wording of the other article is completely the opposite. why?

Gervais08

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

That's the bit they keep to themselves. I'd also find it hard to believe.

How many EU countries have birthright citizenship?

I used to work with a lovely woman - German to the core, very proud of her country as well she should be.

Had an Italian passport but had lived in Germany since she was three days old until around 30 when she moved here.

Couldn’t be German officially due to their laws but would die for the country if needed.

We’ve the opposite - we make enemies of the country into citizens and pay good money for them to hate us.

Galwayguy35

Yurt! wrote: »

I'd like to see the breakdown of the demographics polled by the Sunday Times and how the question was posed. I don't believe for a second you'd get 71% of people assenting to birthright citizenship if you put it to the people.

They probably polled upper middle class folks in the wealthy parts of Dublin, in other words the places where none of these immigrants would be living in.

Strumms

TheCitizen wrote: »

The irony detector has gone off the scale with this one. Accusing me of dismissal accusation and insult etc etc. That’s all your rambling above literally amounts to.

You’ve referred to people in this thread directly as clowns, or don’t you remember what you post ? So it appears when you accuse others of rambling and insults , you need to take a closer look at your own ‘contributions’.