Visa amnesty for immigrants

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

We weren't mistreating the Northern Protestants but look what happened.

Did we welcome them with open arms?

And while you were typing that little soundbite you were avoiding three questions:

1. Do you agree that by your own reasoning to date, illegal Irish immigrants to the US post-Independance should be deported as they are economic migrants, not refugees?


2. The argument that you're making regarding geography is a conveniant cop out. By your reasoning there should be no asylum applications in this country due to our position on the periphary of Europe. Would you say the same if we were in Italy? Spain?


3. What might create a "new unionism" arcade?

Maybe native Irish seeking to confer 2nd class status on immigrants so that they can only work for the minimum wage (or less, I'm sure that would suit your agenda) in the 21st century equivalent of indentured servitude?

Or embracing immigrants as fellow humans appreciating the efforts made by ithem to integrate and become active members of their community?

Which do you think is more likely to lead to a "new unionism" arcade?

arcadegame2004

Do you agree that by your own reasoning to date, illegal Irish immigrants to the US post-Independance should be deported as they are economic migrants, not refugees?

Well according to the 2002 Census, 150,000 or so did return to Ireland from around the world. I think there is less of an economic incentive for Irish people to emigrate nowadays. In fact, there is almost no economic incentive to leave Ireland any more.

I have already told you why the US and the New World countries are a special case.

The argument that you're making regarding geography is a conveniant cop out. By your reasoning there should be no asylum applications in this country due to our position on the periphary of Europe. Would you say the same if we were in Italy? Spain?

Correct, there should be virtually none. Spain and Italy signed the Dublin II Convention so I'll let them speak for themselves I'm not a mind-reader.

billy the squid

arcadegame2004 wrote:

They are an example of a group of immigrant origin which did not assimilate into a common sense of "Irishness" with the rest of the Irish population. They said "We are not Irish. We feel British instead.

That is because they conquered the country hundreds of years ago. which they were successful in doing so (conquering the country that is) it was the leadership of England which decided to take over Ireland. not a rag-tag bunch of imagrants fleeing britain. slight difference to the situation we are in today

Therefore we wan't to remain in the UK,

They want the north to remain part of the UK the south can do what it likes as far as they are concerned. again irrelevent to this thread

We have endured one partition (what happened in other words) and there is NO way we can accept another.

The only partition that can come about through immigrants in ireland will be brought about by people like YOU

By the way, Billy, if you are saying that NI is not part of Ireland, then most Irish people will disagree with that.

I SAID NORTHERN IRELAND IS PART OF THE UK

you dont believe me

heres a little geography lesson for you

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html

80% in Irish polls support a United Ireland. We have voted in the 1998 GFA referendum to insert our national aspiration for the end of the partition-spawned statelet. It is part of Ireland ,just not jurisdictionally. But it serves as a reminder of where the mass-migration road leads to in the end.

irrelevent as it does not refer to anything i said. read my posts before replying to them,

arcadegame2004

I SAID NORTHERN IRELAND IS PART OF THE UK

you dont believe me

heres a little geography lesson for you

But it is part of the island/country of Ireland. Hungary was at one time partitioned between Austria and Turkey. But it was still "Hungary". Same principle with East and West Germany.

billy the squid

arcadegame2004 wrote:

But it is part of the island/country of Ireland. Hungary was at one time partitioned between Austria and Turkey. But it was still "Hungary". Same principle with East and West Germany.

it can be part of the african continent for all i care. the fact of the matter is that IT IS GOVERNED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM i couldnt give a toss about hungry.

oh and i thought the united kingdom was on your list of countries who were allowed to send their imigrants to ireland.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I have already told you why the US and the New World countries are a special case.

Correct, there should be virtually none. Spain and Italy signed the Dublin II Convention so I'll let them speak for themselves I'm not a mind-reader.

So in both cases your not prepared to answer my questions?

1. I've already told you that ethnicity has no bearing on the direct question I posed. They are not a special case by your own reasoning, i.e. economic immigrants living illegally in another state have no right to be there. They are in fact committing a crime.

The economic argument you put forward in opposition to large scale immigration to this state is based on a misplaced desire to safeguard wage levels by restricting access to our labour market for non-nationals. In addition, you have in the past mentioned housing as a concern in relation to immigration. Finally you expressed a concern that our health care system will not cope with a large influx of immigrants.

I put it to you that Irish illegals living in other states have an impact on wages and employment (through their involvement in the black economy, they put pressure on wage levels for natives and legal residents, whilst paying no tax/social insurance), contribute to increased demand on accomodation, and create a burden on health care systems.

Whether they reside in states which have been built on immigration or not is irrelevant. That they reside illegally, and have an adverse effect on employment, wages, housing, and health care is relevant. So answer the question, should they be deported?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Spain and Italy signed the Dublin II Convention so I'll let them speak for themselves I'm not a mind-reader

I didn't ask you to speak for them, I asked you:

arcadegame2004 wrote:

By your reasoning there should be no asylum applications in this country due to our position on the periphary of Europe. Would you say the same if we were in Italy? Spain?

It takes a little lateral thinking on your part (up to the task?), but can you answer the question? If you were living in Spain or Italy, would you say the same?

Finally, question 3 remains unanswered. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

arcadegame2004 wrote:

What if their country of origin has a good human rights record? How is sending them back sending them "to be raped and killed"? Get real please!

Excuse me Arcade but you don't have a fecking clue what you are talking about. You cannot assess the validity of an asylum seeker with out assessing the actual asylum application. Anyone has the right to claim asylum in Ireland, and it is the responsibility of the Irish government to assess the validity of that application to see it the person is in physical, mental danger. You cannot ignore an application because you believe that the person is coming from a "safe" country (what ever the feck that is). Britian has a good human rights record. Would you have turned down an asylum application from the Brimingham 6 and sent them back to torture and wrongful imprisionment?

Zombrex

arcadegame2004 wrote:

whereas in Ireland there is a concern about the potential impact of mass-migration of non-Irish people into Ireland on the re-unification of Ireland. They don't know the history and therefore would see no reason to support unity.

Only in your head Arcade :rolleyes: ... again with the racist assumptions that you know that all foreigners in Ireland are thinking ... they are foriegn so they must vote against what I want ... united Ireland, turning Ireland into a muslim state blah blah blah

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Also, in the US, racial-tensions have not always been good. We don't want to import that into here.

Again blaming the minority race for bad "racial-tension" ... we don't want no foreigners in our country because they force us to be racist :rolleyes:

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Homogenity is not so bad if it means we don't have NI-style strife. Multiculturalism is okay provided its kept a minority, but excessive multiculturalism might lead to "new Unionists" coming demanding a second partition. Remember that the Unionists sense of a separate national identity to the rest of us led to partition. So we ignore the lessons of history if we do not take into account these issues when framing na immigration policy.

No, actually it was our sense of seperate national identity that lead to partition ... we left Britian remember. The Unionist never left Britian.

But seriously Arcade, if you don't want to be called a racist you got to stop going on and on about how foriegn people are unable to intergrate into Irish cutlure and that they will eventually out number us and vote in "non-Irish" ways. You have absolutly no evidence for this other than your own bigiot stereotypes of non european cultures. Are you really surprised people call you a racist?

pickarooney

Do people truly believe that most if not all immigrants are determinted to integrate?
As an immigrant, I feel absolutely no sense of empathy with the natives, have no desire to be like them, look like them, talk like them, eat like them. The only kindred spirits I've found have been fellow immigrants, who in general have a similar lack of desire to become like the locals.
I can only speak for the people I know, but I do think the notion of immigrants just wanting to integrate and discard their traditions, mores and customs to be a bit disingenuous.

Zombrex

pickarooney wrote:

As an immigrant, I feel absolutely no sense of empathy with the natives, have no desire to be like them, look like them, talk like them, eat like them ... but I do think the notion of immigrants just wanting to integrate and discard their traditions

Er ... thats not what "intergrate" means ... well that is what the Stormfront version of integrate means (discard all native traditions and make immigrants eat/dress/talk/walk like Catholic White native Irish). And I don't think anyone on this thread is calling or wants that (I hope).

pickarooney

What does integration involve to you then?
As with so many words and terms, the interpretation can differ widely from person to person, and can be the root of much confusion.

What does integration mean to anyone else? (examples rather than links to dictionary definitions, if possible).

dathi1

Do people truly believe that most if not all immigrants are determinted to integrate?

Tipton, Bolton, Cardiff, Marseille, Nantes, Copenhagen, Eindhoven, etc....
NO.

sovtek

arcadegame2004 wrote:

There is no law of nature that says letting in huge numbers of immigrants improves the lot of society.

Actually the paradigm of states is relatively new to the world. In fact....naturally mammals, including humans, migrate to where "the grass is greener".
What is actually unnatural is to place a border and tell people that can't cross it if they weren't born there.

simu

pickarooney wrote:

Do people truly believe that most if not all immigrants are determinted to integrate?
As an immigrant, I feel absolutely no sense of empathy with the natives, have no desire to be like them, look like them, talk like them, eat like them. The only kindred spirits I've found have been fellow immigrants, who in general have a similar lack of desire to become like the locals.
I can only speak for the people I know, but I do think the notion of immigrants just wanting to integrate and discard their traditions, mores and customs to be a bit disingenuous.

I would have thought that respecting the laws of the new country would be enough.

pickarooney

simu wrote:

I would have thought that respecting the laws of the new country would be enough.

So if you move from one country to another and the laws are pretty much the same as back home, you're automatically integrated as long as you don't commit a crime, though you make not speak the language or have anything to do with the natives?

How about if you obey the law but you're still ostracised or excluded by large segments of society - are you still integrated?

Seems a very watery definition to me.

Zombrex

pickarooney wrote:

What does integration involve to you then?
As with so many words and terms, the interpretation can differ widely from person to person, and can be the root of much confusion.

What does integration mean to anyone else? (examples rather than links to dictionary definitions, if possible).

Living within and being apart of the general society, instead of what you get in parts of America and France where immigrants, through their own fault (they aren't blameless) and through introlerence from natives, establish their own close knit, cut off, communities often in inner cities, that have very little interaction with native communities. This is bad for all concerned.

What intergration does not mean is that you have to give up your own identity and culture. It means your identity and culture becomes apart of the whole and interacts with other cultures and identities.

simu

pickarooney wrote:

So if you move from one country to another and the laws are pretty much the same as back home, you're automatically integrated as long as you don't commit a crime, though you make not speak the language or have anything to do with the natives?

How about if you obey the law but you're still ostracised or excluded by large segments of society - are you still integrated?

Seems a very watery definition to me.

Well, anything beyond obeying the laws of the new country and having those laws applied fairly to you (so no discrimination by empolyers etc) is too fuzzy to define. I'm Irish as far back as I know but I don't feel I have much in common with large sectors of the population. What does it matter as long as we're all civil to one another?

ArthurDent

My kids go to a multi-denominational school
The pupils/parents come from 26 countries and speak 23 languages. All the kids learn english, irish and all the other subjects prescribed by the Dept of Education and yesterday we celebrated the Chinese new year, Tuesday - pancake tuesday as well as Eid, Diwali, Christmas and the winter solstice over the past couple of months. All cultures represented in the school are explored and celebrated - to me that's integration.

pickarooney

Wicknight wrote:

Living within and being apart of the general society, instead of what you get in parts of America and France where immigrants, through their own fault (they aren't blameless) and through introlerence from natives, establish their own close knit, cut off, communities often in inner cities, that have very little interaction with native communities. This is bad for all concerned.

What intergration does not mean is that you have to give up your own identity and culture. It means your identity and culture becomes apart of the whole and interacts with other cultures and identities.

Still a bit fuzzy (and not all that important, as Simu pointed out).
Take my street for example. At a rough guess it's about 65% Turkish, 10% Moroccan and the rest are almost all Dutch/Flemish. Now, all the Turks speak Turkish amongst themselves, naturally enough, and the kids speak Turkish as a first language and Dutch as a second (most speak pretty good English by the age of 10). Theoretically, at least for the youngest generation, they're integrated, as they can almost all speak at least some Dutch. At the same time, you never see Turkish and Dutch people talking together (the kids in the school nearby form ethnic cliques from Junior Infants on), shopping in the same places, drinking in the same pubs etc. etc.
The reasons are manifold - people just have a tendency to stick with their own kind, I suppose, no matter what age, but also there appears to be a reluctance on behalf of the Dutch to accept them as equals. Hmm, not unequal as such, but they might as well not exist for all the interaction they have.
There are no Irish people living anywhere near me, so I don't hang around with Irish people, the Dutch neighbours are just wholly uninteresting and uninterested, I get on better with the Turkish, but as they speak Turkish amongst themselves mostly, I'd just make things awkward.

In some cases, people just don't have anything in common, and thus don't interact at all. Is this really bad for all concerned?

Thing is, I'm white-skinned, so nobody's ever going to pick me out as an example of an immigrant not integrating, whereas it's easy to point to a group of Mediterraneans and say they're ghettoising themselves.

Is it actually possible for someone to integrate, or does one have to be integrated?

pickarooney

ArthurDent wrote:

My kids go to a multi-denominational school
The pupils/parents come from 26 countries and speak 23 languages. All the kids learn english, irish and all the other subjects prescribed by the Dept of Education and yesterday we celebrated the Chinese new year, Tuesday - pancake tuesday as well as Eid, Diwali, Christmas and the winter solstice over the past couple of months. All cultures represented in the school are explored and celebrated - to me that's integration.

Now that I'd like - 117 religious holidays a year, who could argue with it

ArthurDent

pickarooney wrote:

Now that I'd like - 117 religious holidays a year, who could argue with it

Nah I wish!! Just the stadardised year layed down by the Dept - conveniently centred around Christian holidays.

GuanYin

pickarooney wrote:

Is it actually possible for someone to integrate, or does one have to be integrated?

Yes but it doesn't happen in one generation and it varies in success over a second generation, after three generations or so it tends to happen.

Look at asian populations in america for an example of this.

arcadegame2004

ArthurDent wrote:

My kids go to a multi-denominational school
The pupils/parents come from 26 countries and speak 23 languages. All the kids learn english, irish and all the other subjects prescribed by the Dept of Education and yesterday we celebrated the Chinese new year, Tuesday - pancake tuesday as well as Eid, Diwali, Christmas and the winter solstice over the past couple of months. All cultures represented in the school are explored and celebrated - to me that's integration.

Fine.

Doesn't have any bearing on the question of whether we should let everyone in though!

I have never said I 100% oppose ALL immigration here. I just oppose too much of it.

GuanYin

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Fine.

Doesn't have any bearing on the question of whether we should let everyone in though!

I have never said I 100% oppose ALL immigration here. I just oppose too much of it.

Yeah, you're happy to let the white europeans in, right?

F Fiesta

Yeah, you're happy to let the white europeans in, right?

He never said that, so why are you making that statement? What are you achieving by doing that?

Comments like that bring the whole thread down...

GuanYin

F Fiesta wrote:

He never said that, so why are you making that statement? What are you achieving by doing that?

Comments like that bring the whole thread down...

Thats what brings the thread down, lol sure.


OK Arcade, exactly how much and who should be let in and why?

Zombrex

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Fine.

Doesn't have any bearing on the question of whether we should let everyone in though!

I have never said I 100% oppose ALL immigration here. I just oppose too much of it.

But your definition of "too much of it" is to allow in anyone who is not from an original 12 EU-state country. Or as someone else said, rich white europeans.

You are calling for a much much more restrictive immigration policy, that limits immigration to only western european (christian? you go on about Islam all the time) countries. You also are calling for what appears to be a complete abolision of the asylum system, the logic being no true asylum seeker can get to Ireland so any asylum applications in Ireland are by nature false and criminal.

If you believe the only alternative to your position is a complete open door immigration policy, then you are very very miss-informed. I don't remember anyone on this thread ever calling for open door immigration, but I would also point you that you have never given any real evidence that open door immigration would even be harmful. You can't even must that argument into a backed up statement.

You have also never given any evidence that the current systems allow in "too much" immigration or asylum seekers, or even evidence that if left as they are, they will allow for floods of immigrantion and false asylum application. You keep mentioning your scaremongering doomsday prophcy that we will have a country that contains more non-nationals that nationals and that they will not integrate and vote against the wishes of the current populous. I asked you for simply the figure of immigrants that would have to enter the country per year for this prophcy to come true in the next 10 years and you weren't able to give me even that.

Arcade there is nothing behind your points and arguments appart from ignorence and intollerance.

Zombrex

F Fiesta wrote:

He never said that, so why are you making that statement? What are you achieving by doing that?

Comments like that bring the whole thread down...

He, and others, have said that before. Read his threads on not allowing in EU citizens from the newly joined EU states. Then read his posts on muslims and Islam. Then read his posts about Ireland becoming a provence of Nigera.

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

He, and others, have said that before. Read his threads on not allowing in EU citizens from the newly joined EU states. Then read his posts on muslims and Islam. Then read his posts about Ireland becoming a provence of Nigera.

Ah thanks, its nice to see someone who has actually read these threads before making a comment

F Fiesta

I haven't been here long, only saw this thread.