Female Police officer stabbed to death in France

biko

bubblypop wrote: »

What do you mean by foreign born? And why would they need to assimilate into Irish society?
What do you mean by assimilate exactly?
And why 10%, any particular reasoning behind that number?

What's your number?
Do you have one?

I know it's not open borders for you.

Timberrrrrrrr

biko wrote: »

What's your number?
Do you have one?

Or perhaps it's open borders for you?

You say your number is 10%, what's the number at the moment? 8%? 38%? Whats the breakdown of the current numbers by nationality?

I'm assuming you do know these numbers right?

biko

Never mind what it actually is.
What do you think is a reasonable ratio of Irish and immigrants?

90/10?
75/25?
50/50?

Timberrrrrrrr

biko wrote: »

Never mind what it actually is.
What do you think is a reasonable ratio of Irish and immigrants?

90/10?
75/25?
50/50?

So you don't have the information and you're just pulling random numbers out of your arse to push your agenda?

How can you say you only want 10% if you don't even know wether it's currently above or below that number?

What if its currently only 6% does that mean you would welcome more immigrants to make it up to 10%?

biko

I note you have no intention to give any answers.
I'll just put you ignore now and maybe someone else will have some answers, not just endless questions.

Overheal

biko wrote: »

I note you have no intention to give any answers.

bubblypop wrote: »

What do you mean by foreign born? And why would they need to assimilate into Irish society?
What do you mean by assimilate exactly?

just saying, kettle. /resume lurk

biko

What is your number Overheal?
Do you have one?
How many Russians in America are too much?
Can you get too many Russians in America?

Timberrrrrrrr

biko wrote: »

I note you have no intention to give any answers.
I'll just put you ignore now and maybe someone else will have some answers, not just endless questions.

You pull random numbers out of your arse and then have a little hissy fit when pulled up to explain your numbers :pac:

Overheal

biko wrote: »

What is your number Overheal?
Do you have one?
How many Russians in America are too much?
Can you get too many Russians in America?

You still have unanswered questions and enough users to converse with you don't need to drag me far into it. I just stopped by again to call out a foul in your argument.

In the meanwhile I'll wonder what the percentage should have been for the Irish diaspora? An invasion on our genepool and our heritage, surely. /sarcasm - maybe the number is less important than the substantial questions in play, which are being played around and not engaged.

biko

I have answered all the questions that needed answering and got nothing of substance back.

Are the Irish that went over to US a hundred years ago equivalent to people from Nigeria, Pakistan and Zimbabwe arriving now in Ireland?
The Irish didn't go to America for asylum. They went because Ireland was poor.

Overheal

biko wrote: »

I have answered all the questions that needed answering and got nothing of substance back.

Are the Irish that went over to US a hundred years ago equivalent to people from Nigeria, Pakistan and Zimbabwe arriving now in Ireland?

Considering that Nigeria!=Pakistan!=Zimbabwe, QED ... !=Diaspora.

If you're asking are they similar I believe so. In either case you have a host country receiving non nationals at unanticipated and broadly noteworthy levels. The most salient difference that I suspect you're highlighting in negative-space here is the threat and international efforts of ISIS, which I don't contest.

The Irish didn't go to America for asylum. They went because Ireland was poor.

They went. And their assimilation was also controversial, involved violence, gangs, ghettos, and religion.

biko

Doesn't it matter to you why people migrate?
Should anyone who wants to come should be let in?
Wouldn't US be under a lot of strain from the influx on migrants?

Overheal

biko wrote: »

What is your number Overheal?
Do you have one?
How many Russians in America are too much?
Can you get too many Russians in America?

It wouldn't be a number, it would be a function based on the criteria for a member of society and how quickly and confidently you can ensure new members brought in will comply with the order of society, also with respect to system guardrails, like homeland security. The modern influx of middle eastern people into Europe is happening at levels that test those system limits.

As far as the Middle East though if the climate doesn't chill the f out, regardless of semantics or cause, that entire region is going to collapse by most socioeconomic measures: you won't be able to cultivate food there, you're already unsafe there, there is limited political stability and that stability is enforced by third parties whom are, interested in that resource and will be indefinitely. So, the problem is not going to be avoidable long term.

I don't think 'slamming the door shut' or 'throwing them all out' etc. will work, ultimately I think history will call that inhumane. I don't think integration/assimilation on this scale can work effectively as an entirely unilateral process: Irish adopted the American culture and America adopted theirs. The culture of these countries is much more starkly separate from France, in many ways it is opposed; that process is not going to be complete in our lifetime, but it's not going to stop any more than America could have ever hoped to get a refund on all of its Irishness.

Overheal

biko wrote: »

Doesn't it matter to you why people migrate?Should anyone who wants to come should be let in?
Wouldn't US be under a lot of strain from the influx on migrants?

I don't think it matters to this narrower conversation as much; I naturally assume omissions of foreign nationals during naturalization who, it can be demonstrated have no desire to satisfy the constraints of their visas.

However, what happens if Russia no longer existed, and tens of millions of Russians showed up seeking asylum? I think that's closer to Europe's problem. There's nowhere to viably deport refugee persons to, in numbers the States can barely manage. It is indeed a crisis.

The largest reason for the size of this emigration has been that the countries they're leaving are not safe or stable and there is little of any hope of them rapidly transforming into stable inclusive democracies with viable economic prospects for the decades to come: The land is dead, there is no long term food security.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

biko wrote: »

Lol, I asked Timber if his gay-friendly Muslim friends were practising Muslims and now you have brought it to Catholics in Ireland being dangerous if they don't like gays?

There are plenty of people in Muslim countries that have no issue with gays, or may even be gay.

How about we only offer refuge to gays from MENA, and no refuge to people from MENA that aren't ok with gays?
Would that work for you?

Answer the question - were you lying when you said homobic Muslims should be banned, or are you OK kicking out homophobic practitioners of other religions?

Are you using homophobia as a smokescreen?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jmreire wrote: »

No, I dont know how we now have 17'000 unregulated and therefore illegal immigrants in Ireland.....just how did that happen exactly???

So you accept that we do NOT have unrestricted immigration and got caught backtracking.

I've never commented on regulation, so we're done here.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

biko wrote: »

What's your number?
Do you have one?

Or perhaps it's open borders for you?

YOU chose the number, YOU rationalise and defend it.

biko

I have given my number, remember?
I'm asking you for yours. You don't have to defend it.
Just pick something that makes sense to you. It really isn't that hard.
Is it 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

biko wrote: »

I have given my number, remember?
I'm asking you for yours. You don't have to defend it.
Just pick something that makes sense to you. It really isn't that hard.
Is it 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%?

I can't give you a number without doing some research and I'm not doing y that at 2am.

But the fact that you think it is possible, proves to me that you think that pulling a number out of your arse without any thought or analysis and you think this is how discussion works.

Confirmation that you have no idea what would ior world be be a good quota how to form or research said topic or even how immigration works (you can't cap UK or EU immigrants for a start).


Did you do the same with the homophobia opinion...?

jmreire

Overheal wrote: »

It wouldn't be a number, it would be a function based on the criteria for a member of society and how quickly and confidently you can ensure new members brought in will comply with the order of society, also with respect to system guardrails, like homeland security. The modern influx of middle eastern people into Europe is happening at levels that test those system limits.

As far as the Middle East though if the climate doesn't chill the f out, regardless of semantics or cause, that entire region is going to collapse by most socioeconomic measures: you won't be able to cultivate food there, you're already unsafe there, there is limited political stability and that stability is enforced by third parties whom are, interested in that resource and will be indefinitely. So, the problem is not going to be avoidable long term.

I don't think 'slamming the door shut' or 'throwing them all out' etc. will work, ultimately I think history will call that inhumane. I don't think integration/assimilation on this scale can work effectively as an entirely unilateral process: Irish adopted the American culture and America adopted theirs. The culture of these countries is much more starkly separate from France, in many ways it is opposed; that process is not going to be complete in our lifetime, but it's not going to stop any more than America could have ever hoped to get a refund on all of its Irishness.

5 years of severe draught in Syria prior to 2011, with the last two years the worst ever recorded there caused massive Nrs to move from the countryside to the Citys, This in turn overwhelmed the city resources and led to the protests which started the war. And as you point out,unless there's a reversal of climate change, there will be many more Countrys in the same situation...something thats already happening.

jmreire

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So you accept that we do NOT have unrestricted immigration and got caught backtracking.

I've never commented on regulation, so we're done here.

You are dead right..at least thats one thing we can agree on, we're done!!!

John Doe1

I almost laughed out loud at the guy at the start of the thread mentioning the troubles within minutes of the thread being opened.

Ah yeah, do you remember auld John Joe from west Tyrone who was so impassioned by the words of St Augustine and the pope that he stabbed a female RUC officer back in the 80s?

The end goal of the IRA was the removal of British power on the island of Ireland.

The end goal of these nutters is everyone becomes a member of their right wing sexist, homophobic cult and any non-belivers are to be killed.

How in the hell can someone who considers themselves a 'liberal' jump to the defence of the guy who murders as a direct result of following this medieval barabric ideology.

biko

biko wrote: »

What's your number?
Do you have one?

I know it's not open borders for you.

No, it's not open borders for me, regulated immigration, I don't think I have ever met anyone irl or online that has advocated for open borders.

seeing as you don't answer questions, not sure why you think others should answer yours.
Pretty sure most people wouldn't have a 'number'

biko

I have answered questions but at a point it becomes tiresome that I keep giving and get nothing back.

I agree most people possibly don't have a solid number but they probably don't discuss immigration on an online forum as much as you have.
You must have thought about these things more than a lot of people.

You say you want regulated immigration, but what is regulated immigration to you? Who and how many? Where will they live? Only workers or also refugees?
Don't answer this with more questions - just give it some thought and come up with an answer that makes sense to you.
You may change your mind later, that's fine.

Cordell

I really don't see the point of mentioning historical immigration in America or Australia or any other of these countries where the natives were all but exterminated.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

biko wrote: »

I have answered questions but at a point it becomes tiresome that I keep giving and get nothing back.

I'm still waiting on an asnwer as to why you think homophobia should be an issue to any pracricing applicant, irresepctive of their religion. Or why only it's only an issue in connection with one particular religion.

biko

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm still waiting on an asnwer as to why you think homophobia should be an issue to any pracricing applicant, irresepctive of their religion. Or why only it's only an issue in connection with one particular religion.

Let's say if Hindus immigrating to Ireland were religion based homophobes then I would be opposed to them immigrating.
We don't need more homophobes in Ireland, we need less.
Would you oppose them immigrating or not?

Here's another controversial opinion: if an immigrant cannot shake the hand of a woman then I don't think Ireland is the right country for them.
Do you agree with this?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

biko wrote: »

Let's say if Hindus immigrating to Ireland were religion based homophobes then I would be opposed to them immigrating.
We don't need more homophobes in Ireland, we need less.
Would you oppose them immigrating or not?

When you say, "I am baffled some people will want to bring homophobes, sexists and antisemites" it pretty much transparently means that you don't want muslims and this is as good a reason as any. Given you past history, the actual reason is irrleelvant - you'll use anything. As I said THIS is what makes you look racist. I don't think you are, but I can see why someone would.

Especially when you go on to say, "I don't see why bringing Islamists to Ireland will benefit the population" - well known 'Islamists' (using your discription) would enver get in anyway. And no one will make any excuse for them.

Again - it's like you can't say "muslims" so you have to choose an alternative taget and make it look like THAT's what everyone is saying.

Here's another controversial opinion: if an immigrant cannot shake the hand of a woman then I don't think Ireland is the right country for them.
Do you agree with this?

Now, why would such a thing come up? Is this a recurring proble, or are you just trying to tar the entire Islam rleigion as mysogonystic just so it fits your agenda? It's same again: you are avoiding using the word "Muslim" here because you think ALL muslims are mysogonistic.

Your bone of conetneiton is with the religion, you cannot accept that it's not a core tenet of the average adherent Muslim's beliefs, that there are plenty of Irish people who would refuse, and suddenly you're saying that all muslims are radicalised women-haters and homophobes and should be banned.

You can disagree all you like with this, but your post history in this thread is concistent with what I've written. In your very first post you refer to it as a "hateful idealogoy" and even since portray the attackers religion as a key factor and why we shouldn't allow said religion into Ireland.

That's my closing argument - next time, research the arguments better, don;t make stuff up and don't generalise with regard to someone's religion (espeically when it's a religion of nearly two billion people) if you don't want to look racist or biggoted.

biko

biko wrote: »

I have answered questions but at a point it becomes tiresome that I keep giving and get nothing back.

I agree most people possibly don't have a solid number but they probably don't discuss immigration on an online forum as much as you have.
You must have thought about these things more than a lot of people.

You say you want regulated immigration, but what is regulated immigration to you? Who and how many? Where will they live? Only workers or also refugees?
Don't answer this with more questions - just give it some thought and come up with an answer that makes sense to you.
You may change your mind later, that's fine.

UK and EU citizens are free to come here and work, I actually believe that they should have to register themselves as resident in the country. I have no issue with any amount living & working here.

Non EU immigrants are subject to restrictions, they come for work or family reasons, again, I have no issue with any of them entering, so long as they fit the criteria of their visa.
I also believe that if they are here long enough and are entitled to do so, then they should apply to be citizens of the country ( seeing as they actually made the decision to live here)

Refugees in crisis situations should be taken in as agreed by international agreements.
Asylum seekers are subject to investigation in order to become refugees, I believe this needs to be a much faster process, it should take months, not years.
Refugees & asylum seekers, by defination are not able to take care of themselves on arrival, therefore they do require government assistance. I believe that this assistance should have limits, a certain amount of people, and a certain amount of time. This gives people the time to either, go home if the situation improves, or to make a life for themselves here.

I also believe that all immigrants into this country should take English lessons, and basic civic lessons in society, which include things they need to know, such as workings of government etc
anything which assists everyone in living together in society.

so, no I don't have a 'number' of people I believe should be allowed into the country. I have no issue with people who want to live here, in fact I think it is a good thing that people actually choose to live here.

no how about you explain what you mean by 'foreign born' and why would they have to assimilate, what do you mean by assimilate and why the 10% ?

Overheal

Cordell wrote: »

I really don't see the point of mentioning historical immigration in America or Australia or any other of these countries where the natives were all but exterminated.

Go far back enough and Pre-France Gaul was colonized by the Romans. I fail to see how it disqualifies this conversation about events in modern history, or disqualifies historical context for mass immigration and assimilation events. Not every clash of cultures ended in an assimilation if you go far back enough, but since we aren't talking about planning a genocide that hardly seems relevant, we are discussing integration and assimilation.