Attention Ostriches!

The Corinthian

I suggest you start digging upwards, Biffa :rolleyes:

Biffa Bacon

Lookit, I don't have a problem with any individual immigrant, I just think their numbers should be limited. What's so hard to understand about that?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Lookit, I don't have a problem with any individual immigrant, I just think their numbers should be limited. What's so hard to understand about that?

Biffa, I see where you’re coming from, but as I said already I don’t think you didn’t really work out your argument before posting.

You began by attacking multiculturalism, which while linked to immigration is not the same thing (Travellers are a separate culture, but are not what we would define as immigrants). You also equate immigration with invasion or forcible colonization, which also makes little sense. But separate cultures then are OK if: They’ve been here for enough time, even if they don’t fully integrate (exception #1) or if they look similar to the Irish, as they’ll integrate more easily (exception #2) and finally you argue to let other cultures in is acceptable as long as we limit the numbers (exception #3). And now in one post you believe that someone not born in Ireland should not be entitled to citizenship and with your next post a similar person apparently should.

As a result, you rubbed many people up the wrong way, contradicted yourself and just kept digging yourself into a hole when you refused to back down.

That’s the bit that’s so hard to understand.

Von

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Lookit, I don't have a problem with any individual immigrant, I just think their numbers should be limited.

Limited to zero yeah?

There is a sizeable gay community here. How do they fit in to the fantasy of Irish cultural purity? Bottom banditry doesn't feature too heavily in Irish history as far as I'm aware. Although Pearse (not exactly 100% Oirish was he?) was some boy alright.

Self-styled guardians of national culture tend to have a very retarded view of what culture is, probably because they don't have a creative bone in their bodies. Perhaps someone would like to define "Oirishness", what's allowed and what isn't. Maybe we need a department of Cultural Conformity to keep the racists, xenophobes and people like Sand (who aren't racist or xenophobic but don't want a multicultural/multiracial society) happy.

Here's a few points of interest regarding Irish "culture":
When they started, The Pogues (a London irish rather than irish band to start with) were hated by trad Irish music purists, not only because they were atrocious musicians but because they mixed musical styles. By doing what they did, they revived interest in trad Irish music and songwriting. That's how culture is kept alive. By adding to it and keeping it fresh.

James Joyce was hounded out of the country and his dirty book was banned. Then later on we stuck him on the tenner and pretended we were all experts on his work.

Brinsley MacNamara's The Valley Of The Squinting Windows was burnt.

Flann O'Brien - enemy of the "beards" - always maintained that the oul Gaeilge should be a secondary language to English because it gave Irish literature a unique style.

What we need is a great big recession and loads of unemployment so our ignorant snotty little runts have no option but to go abroad to work in a dreaded multicultural/multiracial society - New York for example. That'll put some manners on them.

koneko

Okay Biffa. I understand. Because I'm white I'm allowed. What would you say if I was Spanish? My skin would be slightly more sallow. What if I was black? Would that automatically mean I can't adjust to Ireland, so I'm not allowed?

Get your facts straight. Stop changing what you're saying, and grow up for god sake.

You're also against cloning. Maybe you should change that view. I mean, if we could clone you and fill Ireland with little Biffa's wouldn't it be a much better place? :rolleyes:

R.A.McCartney

Originally posted by johnKarma
i think we have to accept that multiculturalism is in evitable in this country, to a certain extent at least. if we are to take our commitments to the UN (the geneva convention in particular) seriously we must take in asylum seekers.

There is no connection between UN membership & the Geneva Convention as far as I'm aware. The Immigration Control Platform advocate leaving the Convention.

Originally posted by johnKarma
the reason that so many asylum seekers turn out to be in fact economic migrants is that ireland does not have anything approaching a proper immigration system. we are one of the only countries in the world that does not have an annual quota-based immigration system, and this in a time whren there was a labour SHORTAGE in the country?

I believe that very few countries have annual quotas for immigration. I'm sure you can't produce evidence to show otherwise. You're simply repeating pro-immigration propaganda (although I'm not accusing you personally of being deliberately dishonest).

If Ireland has a shortage of workers with key skills, then it might be appropriate to bring in people on contract. If the economy turns down or the shortage disappears in that particular skill area, then temporary workers can be sent home, so that Irish unemployment is kept low. There is no sense in bringing in people as permanent settlers just because there is a temporary labour shortage.

In the fifties, asians were imported to work in the mills in Burnley and Oldham because there was a Labour shortage in the UK. Now the mills are shut & there is high unemployment among asians in those towns.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by R.A.McCartney
If Ireland has a shortage of workers with key skills, then it might be appropriate to bring in people on contract. If the economy turns down or the shortage disappears in that particular skill area, then temporary workers can be sent home, so that Irish unemployment is kept low. There is no sense in bringing in people as permanent settlers just because there is a temporary labour shortage.

That unfortunately is too close to treating people as nothing more than simple resources. If you don’t want people to immigrate, then that’s one thing (right or wrong), but please don’t make use of them and dispose of them thus - it’s hypocritical and dehumanising. And frankly you can’t have your cake and eat it.

Victor

Originally posted by R.A.McCartney
In the fifties, asians were imported to work in the mills in Burnley and Oldham because there was a Labour shortage in the UK. Now the mills are shut & there is high unemployment among asians in those towns.

So these people spent a life time rebuilding Britain and it's industries after the war and now they should be thrown on the scrap heap?

Victor

I see that R.A.McCartney didn't bother responding to my question.

Originally posted by Victor
Just a question, addressed to R.A.McCartney and Biffa Bacon, my niece was born in Chester, England - should she be entitled to Irish citizenship?

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Not as of right, no.

My sister and her husband (both from Cork) were working on contract (for the same Irish company) near Chester when my niece was born prematurely. My niece has lived here for 13 of her nearly 14 years. All her direct relations (save one aunt and a cousin) are Irish.

Aren't you being just a little bit too strict? (I have to admit she's tall (5'8") and blonde, so there might be a bit of 'foreign' genes in her going back a few hundred years.)

johnKarma

There is no connection between UN membership & the Geneva Convention as far as I'm aware. The Immigration Control Platform advocate leaving the Convention.

The UNHCR has a supervisory role over the convention and the signatories have a corresponding duty to work with them.

(1)The Contracting States undertake to co-operate with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or any other agency of the United Nations which may succeed it, in the exercise of its functions, and shall in particular facilitate its duty of supervising the application of the provisions of this Convention.

Of course, as a sovereign nation, we can free ourselves from the convention. indeed the convention itself has an opt-out clause. There are calls to produce a more updated document more in tune with modern developments. That would be a positive development, if it would result in taking economic migrants out of the asylum net and into the mainstream immigration system where they belong. However, until such a document is available, there would have to be a clear and present danger to the nation to convince me that we should abdicate our responsibility towards refugees.

Biffa Bacon

You began by attacking multiculturalism, which while linked to immigration is not the same thing (Travellers are a separate culture, but are not what we would define as immigrants).

True, but the relatively small number of travellers in this country hardly makes us multicultural in any significant sense. The issue of multiculturalism in Ireland is inextricably bound up with the question of immigration.

You also equate immigration with invasion or forcible colonization, which also makes little sense.

I never equated immigration with invasion or forcible colonization, I just pointed out instances in the past where immigration as a result of colonization did have negative repercussions for the history of this island. I accept though that this has little relevance to the question of modern-day peaceful immigration.

But separate cultures then are OK if: They’ve been here for enough time, even if they don’t fully integrate (exception #1)…

My argument is that the creation of a multicultural society is not a desirable goal for Ireland, as a multicultural society is a divided society. The fact that some groups have been here for a very long time while retaining a distinct identity does not mean that their presence is necessarily a good thing or is not divisive, it simply means that I would not want to see them thrown out of the country. There is a difference between trying to avoid multiculturalism and trying to create a racially pure society. The first objective I am in favour of, the second one I am opposed to.

…or if they look similar to the Irish, as they’ll integrate more easily (exception #2)…

Again, just because one group is closer to the Irish ethnically than another, this does not mean that their presence is inconsequential. It simply means that, all else being equal, it is easier for them to integrate.

…and finally you argue to let other cultures in is acceptable as long as we limit the numbers (exception #3).

Yes absolutely. But I don’t see that this contradicts anything I have said earlier.

And now in one post you believe that someone not born in Ireland should not be entitled to citizenship and with your next post a similar person apparently should.

When I said that Victor’s niece should not be entitled to citizenship, I simply meant that she should not be automatically given citizenship as of right, simply because she is his niece. I never meant that she should be forever denied citizenship. Similarily with koneko. I would not deny citizenship to him/her simply because he/she was not born in this country.

Let me make my beliefs as clear as I possibly can:
I do not want to see a racially pure society. I do not dislike anyone on account of their ethnicity, nor do I object to having to interact with people of different races during the course of my daily life. I do not want to see anyone legally residing in this country thrown out. I do, however, want the number of immigrants allowed in to be strictly limited, as I believe that the creation of a multicultural society would create problems for this country.

Biffa Bacon

Limited to zero yeah?

No.

There is a sizeable gay community here. How do they fit in to the fantasy of Irish cultural purity?

I don’t have any fantasy of Irish cultural purity.

That's how culture is kept alive. By adding to it and keeping it fresh.

I don’t see that we need multiculturalism to keep our culture alive.

Biffa Bacon

Okay Biffa. I understand. Because I'm white I'm allowed. What would you say if I was Spanish? My skin would be slightly more sallow. What if I was black? Would that automatically mean I can't adjust to Ireland, so I'm not allowed?

koneko, all I know about you is that you are from mainland Europe. Last time I checked, Spain was in mainland Europe. In fact, blacks, Jews, Asians, Arabs and many other races are all known to reside in mainland Europe. So why do you think I would only accept you because you are white?

I mean, if we could clone you and fill Ireland with little Biffa's wouldn't it be a much better place?

Boy, would it ever!

Sand

Self-styled guardians of national culture tend to have a very retarded view of what culture is, probably because they don't have a creative bone in their bodies. Perhaps someone would like to define "Oirishness", what's allowed and what isn't. Maybe we need a department of Cultural Conformity to keep the racists, xenophobes and people like Sand (who aren't racist or xenophobic but don't want a multicultural/multiracial society) happy.

Thanks Von, Im not a nazi (cheers) but i hang out with them right?:|

Now you seem to be completely missing the point. Im not particularly concerned with "oirish" culture. I find the Jackie, Ultra Orthodox Catholicism/Republicanism "Whose taking the horse to france?" type stuff nearly as cringe inducing as the desperately hip, lefter-than-thou "Fight the man!" idiots.

Im simply recognising the trouble that multi culturalism (two cultures in the same space) brings. Northern Ireland and the Travellers are two cases of the joys of multi culturalism. We need more?

What we need is a great big recession and loads of unemployment so our ignorant snotty little runts have no option but to go abroad to work in a dreaded multicultural/multiracial society - New York for example. That'll put some manners on them.

Yeah lets go abroad and check in on the joys of multi culturalism in other cities. Ghettoisation, social tension and even violence. Brilliant stuff. BTW those ignorant snotty little runts are getting on with their lives - guess theyre not desperately hip enough:|

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
Im simply recognising the trouble that multi culturalism (two cultures in the same space) brings. Northern Ireland and the Travellers are two cases of the joys of multi culturalism.
..
Yeah lets go abroad and check in on the joys of multi culturalism in other cities. Ghettoisation, social tension and even violence. Brilliant stuff. BTW those ignorant snotty little runts are getting on with their lives - guess theyre not desperately hip enough:|

You give examples of intolerence (brought on by domination, poverty and violence), not multi-culturalism. What of Switzerland (3 dominant and number of minority cultures)? And Sweden? And Canada? In fact I would say that the problems with such a situation is with the majority, not the minority (the greater the majority, the greater the problem).

Sand

You give examples of intolerence (brought on by domination, poverty and violence), not multi-culturalism

Intolerance seems to go hand in hand with most cases of multiculturalism - esecially in Irelands case where the examples of multi culturalism I mentioned go hand in hand with intolerance and costs to society. Where people consider themselves something other than the given nationalisty, individually fine - most cultures are pretty tolerant of minorities - You hear about the "friendly irish" but I think every culture considers friendliness one of its aspects, except the french who seem to be proud of being arseholes. When a significant group develops which considers itself apart "two tribes" develop and intolerance jumps up. You talk about the Swiss and so on but Id imagine (Bonkey lives there, he can say one way or the other from his own experience) that they would consider themselves Swiss first, Swiss of German, French or Italian descent second (much like Americans and Irish-Americans perhaps). On the other hand you have British citizens who consider themselves Muslims (Or Arabs- depends on whether their motivation is religious or nationalist) before being British- to the point where they go fight with the Taliban against the British. Is this multi culturalism?

In fact I would say that the problems with such a situation is with the majority, not the minority (the greater the majority, the greater the problem).

Perhaps - intolerance can work both ways however. But given how homogenous Ireland is (Even after recent immigration) how great is the majority? Thus how great is the problem? And how much money must we spend on fixing a problem until the majority is reduced to a point where the problem is no longer significant? Is worth taking on a problem , spending money to fix it or is it better to avoid the problem and spend the money on problems we cant choose to avoid?

R.A.McCartney

Originally posted by The Corinthian

If you have a weak or not case or the plaintiff has no money (a so called 'man of straw'). Defamation, in a straightforward case, is not a major issue and most solictors would take it on a pro-bono basis.

I asked many solicotors, including a very well qualified specialist, and none of them agrred with what you are saying.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by R.A.McCartney
I asked many solicotors, including a very well qualified specialist, and none of them agrred with what you are saying.

I would imagine that they would not have considered your case strong enough to take on a pro bono basis.

A solicitor will always ensure payment before taking a case above all else.

R.A.McCartney

Originally posted by sceptre
If you think free speech is absolute, then you're a bigger idiot than this thread would indicate.

The right to free speech is not absolute, but neither should it be arbitarilly abridged. It should only be limited by the law or according to some clearly defined set of rules governing the medium concerned.

You can't come up with a single fact or argument to contradict what I've said, which is why you're resorting to personal abuse & supporting censorship.

R.A.McCartney

Originally posted by Sand
Even if your figures were correct

Don't make insinuations. The figures I quoted were from the CSO. If you think they're wrong you can check their web site and find proof. Otherwise, shut up.

Originally posted by Sand
Theyre numbers would be so small that *if* they were to remain in Ireland for life/a large portion of time they would integrate into Irish society. An example would be Germans living in Ireland. While the majority of them will be shouting for Germany come the world cup many have been here so long ( and have raised families here) they identify with Ireland more than Germany and will be shouting on the boys in green.

Complete drivel. I challenge to quote a survey from a reliable source which proves what you are saying is true.

sceptre

Originally posted by R.A.McCartney


The right to free speech is not absolute, but neither should it be arbitarilly abridged. It should only be limited by the law or according to some clearly defined set of rules governing the medium concerned.

You can't come up with a single fact or argument to contradict what I've said, which is why you're resorting to personal abuse & supporting censorship.

Quote from you:

Does JC stand for Joe mcCarthy? Because you certainly sound like Old Joe. 'Are you now or have you ever been a member of the ICP?' To paraphrase Woody Allen in 'The Front': I don't recognise your right to ask me these kind of questions, and further more, you can go **** yourself. I am reporting you to the directors of boards.ie for abusing your position as a moderator, and I urge everyone who believes in free speech to do the same.

Don't be accusing me of stating unwarranted abuse. I do find it a bit odd that you would bring up the example of Joe McCarthy, another person who was paranoid about the infiltration of his nation by foreigners and different ideas.

There are procedures on boards.ie when you've a problem with the edits of a moderator. Telling that moderator to go and fúck himself doesn't exactly give anyone the impression that you're an individual capable of rational discussion.

I didn't argue with your original statement or any other statements you made on the original topics. Not because I agree with you, but because you're someone who won't be convinced you're wrong about your initial statements. On those grounds, I don't see the point in wasting my time debating those issues with you.

I'm just amused by your ideas that teh interweb is a place where you can say anything you want without fear of reprisal or rebuttal.

R.A.McCartney

Originally posted by The Corinthian

It has long been the majority opinion that Irish-speakers have actually had an unfair advantage. I say majority, because this denotes the non-Irish speaking population who are unable to avail of these advantages. The only disadvantaged by the State that Irish-speakers suffer, is that it is a minority language. In short, few speak any Irish, beyond a few words and phrases, despite decades of promotion by the State.

However, the question of multiculturalism is relevant here, in that Gaelic language and culture, is in fact very much seen as much as a separate an ethnic group as any immigrant group, by this majority. And this was true long before these other foreign cultures began to flood in.

What you are saying is rubbish. Published research from respected sources proves it is rubbish. For attitudes of Irish people towards the Irish language, people can check http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r.a.mccartney/baile_nua/support.html

For ways in which the state discriminates against Irish-speakers who don't speak English, see http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r.a.mccartney/baile_nua/state_policies.html

R.A.McCartney

Originally posted by Victor
You are misrepresenting the facts, because you know that your assumptions are wrong (as do the most innumerate dogs in the street).

I've quoted published statistics from sources which I have named & people can check. I made one assumption, which I maintain was reasonable. I've already proved you wrong once. Its pointless trying to have a sensible debate with you, since all you do is make unsubstaciated allegations.

R.A.McCartney

If Ireland has a shortage of workers with key skills, then it might be appropriate to bring in people on contract. If the economy turns down or the shortage disappears in that particular skill area, then temporary workers can be sent home, so that Irish unemployment is kept low. There is no sense in bringing in people as permanent settlers just because there is a temporary labour shortage.

I'm reposting this bit because while I've seen a post opposed to it, I haven't seen any sensible arguments against it. The Swiss have been doing this for years.

R.A.McCartney

Originally posted by Victor

So these people spent a life time rebuilding Britain and it's industries after the war and now they should be thrown on the scrap heap?

Absolutely not. They moved to the UK on the understanding that they would have the same rights as anyone born in Britain. If you give some one citizenship & they've built their life on that, then only under the most extreme circumstances would it be justified to take that away from them. All citizens must be treated equally, regardless of their origins.

However, I think it would've been better to do what the Swiss & the Saudis do, to bring in people as temporary workers, rather than as permanent settlers. I think that's what Ireland should be doing too.

R.A.McCartney

Originally posted by sceptre
Don't be accusing me of stating unwarranted abuse.

Why not? It was abuse & you still haven't justified it.

Originally posted by sceptre
I do find it a bit odd that you would bring up the example of Joe McCarthy

Then you are blind. Bonkey was guilty of McCarthyism. He didn't like the ideas I was putting forward & he was demanding to know about my organisational affiliations.

Originally posted by sceptre
Telling that moderator to go and fúck himself doesn't exactly give anyone the impression that you're an individual capable of rational discussion.

I didn't just use the f-word as a form of abuse. As I clearly stated, I was paraphrasing the famous last lines of a film attacking McCarthyism

Originally posted by sceptre
I didn't argue with your original statement or any other statements you made on the original topics. Not because I agree with you, but because you're someone who won't be convinced you're wrong about your initial statements.

A year ago I was on your side of this argument. I changed my mind because of the facts. You're igoring them because you can't face the truth.

Originally posted by sceptre
I don't see the point in wasting my time debating those issues with you.

Exactly my feelings about you, on this subject at least, but perhaps we'll find ourselves agreeing in other threads. Personally I'm getting tired of this one, since the pro-immigration lobby seem incapable producing of any facts or rational arguments to support their position.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by R.A.McCartney
What you are saying is rubbish. Published research from respected sources proves it is rubbish. For attitudes of Irish people towards the Irish language, people can check http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r.a.mccartney/baile_nua/support.html

For ways in which the state discriminates against Irish-speakers who don't speak English, see http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r.a.mccartney/baile_nua/state_policies.html

At the time that my mother did the leaving certificate, one was deemed to have failed it completely if she failed to pass Irish. Even by the time that I did my own leaving certificate I would theoretically have been barred from entering an NUI college without a pass in Irish. I even knew one chap in school who managed to get ample grades/points to be accepted for Engineering in UCD, only to be forced to repeat his leaving certificate because he failed Irish.

One was also given bonus marks for sitting one’s exams in Irish, an advantage towards Irish speakers that was unavailable to those who were weak in the language. Grants awarded to Irish speakers, in particular in the Gaeltacht, are another example of advantage awarded to a minority group – And let’s call a spade a spade, by your own admission “the number using Irish as their main language in the mid-1990s was probably between 10,000 and 21,000.”

I would dispute your reputable source as being partisan. It is difficult to take seriously any survey, let alone one conducted by one of the numerous State sponsored bodies whose very reason d’etre raises a conflict of interests with regard to the result of the survey. I would hardly accept a similar survey from a pro-immigration showing widespread support of immigration either.

If asked in a survey, most Irish people would easily support the promotion of the Irish language, including myself I might add, but as the criticism of TG4 showed during its inception, such armchair romanticism soon evaporates when we are asked to put our hands in our pockets.

Of the three means you quote whereby the State is main force anglicising the Gaeltacht, “Providing services only in English” and “Using English as the working language for state jobs” are directly due to the fact that it is such a minority language. It is impractical or too costly.

The third, “Providing grants and infrastructure to encourage the movement of English-speakers into Irish-speaking areas” is an attempt to reverse the vicious depopulation of rural areas that has take place over the years. No doubt it would be preferable to encourage Irish speakers into such areas, but there frankly are not enough of them.

That Irish has been disadvantaged by the State is in a perverse way true. The compulsory teaching and promotion of the language has been a disaster since their conception and implementation. The Welsh language has fared far better over the same period as a result of more enlightened policies (so we can’t even blame the English any more). Even Esperanto is more widespread than Irish. In short we have nobody to blame but ourselves - our entrenched nationalistic arrogance and generations of throwing money at ineffectual policies - for the inexorable demise of the language. That and Peig Sayers.

Your passionate rebuttal of my ‘rubbish’ is actually quite laudable from a nationalistic point of view. However, this entrenched passion is the last thing Irish needs if it is to survive to see the 22nd century.

Of course, we could always grant asylum to anyone willing to adopt Irish as their primary language...

The Corinthian

Originally posted by R.A.McCartney
However, I think it would've been better to do what the Swiss & the Saudis do, to bring in people as temporary workers, rather than as permanent settlers. I think that's what Ireland should be doing too.

Just because other nations follow this practice, doesn't make it either moral or ethical.

You are also assuming, I might add, that the policies of other cultures would work as well here...

Sand

Complete drivel. I challenge to quote a survey from a reliable source which proves what you are saying is true.

Seeing as you didnt specify what you disagree with - either that being non-Irish is not a nationality or a culture in and of itself or that people who decide to live in a foreign country tend to adopt its culture to a great degree - Im going to take a wild stab and assume you reckon that if theyre are only two types of people in the world, Irish and Non-Irish, and theres too many Non-Irish here trying to impose their Non-Irish culture on us.

So I went off to the Central Statistics Office website and checked out their stats on demographics and the labour force etc.

http://www.cso.ie/publications/demog/popmig.pdf

PDF document talking about migration and has a section on the nationality of migrants. Check table 7, near the end. Im not going to reproduce it here but the migration is classified by 5 main filters, Irish nationality, U.K., U.S. Other E.U. and Rest of World. Immigration from the U.S. and the U.K. in 2001 has dropped off since 1996 whilst immigration from the E.U. (French, Spanish, German, Italian, Swedish and so on) has climbed slightly. The real winner has been the Rest of World which has jumped up - and the Rest of world sounds even more varied than the E.U. category seeing as they come from cultures and nations all across the world. Its safe to assume given this that currently migrants from any one particular nationality/culture do not exist in any number to form a sustainable minority culture inside Ireland. Hence whats the problem?

BTW have you considered running for office? Youve got that man of the people charm.

R.A.McCartney

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Just because other nations follow this practice, doesn't make it either moral or ethical.

Bringing in foreign workers on contract to solve a temporary labour shortage is moral, ethical & a great deal more sensible than bringing them in as permanent settlers, with all the attendant problems.